Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
steve248
Member
Posts: 4324
Joined: 10 Aug 2003 20:53
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by steve248 » 27 Jan 2024 10:55

Re point 2:
"UK libraries do carry Irving's works. The London Library carries about 20 of his books. So does the National Library of Scotland in Edinburgh. To say that UK libraries do NOT carry his books is very misleading."
No, it is not misleading. The London Library is not a public library, users pay an annual fee.
The National Library of Scotland and the The British Library in London both receive books published in the UK. I think this is a legal requirement. Certainly my publisher gives them copies of my books (for free).

RFVD11
Member
Posts: 137
Joined: 16 Feb 2012 13:41

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by RFVD11 » 27 Jan 2024 12:01

I have read 100s of books concerning WW2, Irving is cited many times.
AHK

sekudlyda
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 04 Nov 2019 15:11
Location: Virginia

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by sekudlyda » 27 Jan 2024 18:06

This is in response to the comments of JamesL in his post yesterday about David Irving. In his list of comments, I respectfully take exception to comment #4: "Some of his opponents have treated him with extreme cruelty." I have no idea what JamesL is talking about unless he's referring to the criticism leveled against Irving after he lost his libel case to Deborah Lipstadt. In any event, Mr. Irving has consciously decided over the decades to play fast and loose with historical facts regarding Hitler and the Third Reich. I don't have the slightest idea what's behind Mr. Irving's agenda nor do I care. I do care about the truth, though; something Mr. Irving is happy to manipulate and distort to meet his own ends. I would respectfully encourage JamesL in his apparent attempt to normalize the misinformation put out by Mr. Irving to think twice before coming to Irving's aid in his next post.

Seventy-nine years ago today, the Red Army liberated Auschwitz. The Holocaust happened contrary to what Mr. Irving wants us to believe.

User avatar
Ponury
Member
Posts: 408
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 20:38
Location: Gdansk/Danzig in Poland!

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by Ponury » 28 Jan 2024 13:46

Has Irving ever been to places where there were extermination camps such as Chełmno nad Nerem, Treblinka, Sobibór, Bełżec? How did he feel about these places? Transit camps? So where did the Jews who ended up there go? That's hundreds of thousands of people. So what, did they leave there? Treblinka station master - Is Ząbecki lying? And the trials after the war? There are court records, judged cases, evidence - they all lie?

steve248
Member
Posts: 4324
Joined: 10 Aug 2003 20:53
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by steve248 » 29 Jan 2024 21:12

They all lie according to Irving and he is the only one who tells the truth.
That would be his truth, not necessarily the truth everyone else knows.
Just by googling Irving I see the "Haaretz" newspaper (Israel) says he charges $3600 for his personally accompanied tour of Auschwitz.
google also came with this story by a guy who went on such a tour:
https://www.panmacmillan.com/blogs/lite ... vid-irving

He very probably does not go to Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka became there is nothing there for him to comment on. Auschwitz has everything.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 2628
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by gebhk » 30 Jan 2024 13:33

Hi Shelldrake
The problem historians have with Irving is like some history enthusiasts untrained in, or unconcerned about, historic method, he seems to have gone out looking for sources that agreed with his ideas and ignored those that didn't.
Ho hum. Alas one can't help observing pot, kettle, black. The funadamental issue is bias which we all have inbuilt because there are obvious evolutionary advantages to it being that way (if it seems there is a tiger lurking behind the nearest bush, it makes a lot more sense to pick out signs confirming that it is a tiger so that appropriate action can be taken rather than to undertake a leisurely assessment of the totality of the evidence. The penalties for incorrectly assessing the situation and/or delaying conclusion when there really is a tiger present - being given the Darwin award, as they say in Poland - far outweigh those of incorrectly deciding there is a tiger when there isn't one).

Bias. therefore, affects all spheres of learning/investigation - whether it is a police enquiry into a crime or scientific research - there is a reason why the double blind trial (ie in which neither the subject nor the researcher know which experimental/placebo group a given subject is in) is the gold standard in medical research. Because historians rarely, if ever, use the scientific approach, pretty-much all historical work is heavily biased. Alas, after a lifetime in research of one kind or another, whenever people say 'I am only interested in the truth', I hear 'I am only interested in hearing what I want to hear'. There is no such thing as an objective truth, because ultimately everything is possible. The best we can manage in this vale of tears is a well-structured preponderance of evidence indicating the probablity or improbability of something. Beyond that, all that can be done is to make a leap of faith. Sherlock Holmes' rather fatuous ''if you have eliminated the impossible all that remains, however improbable, is th truth' relies on the arrogant and faulty assumptions that it is in your power to eliminate evidence entirely and that you know all the evidence there is.

The conclusion of this rant is that I doubt very much that it is his poor command of the, lets face it not all that valid or reliable, 'historical method' that is the reason for the approbrium that is piled on David Irving's head. In some ways a researcher who wears his prejudices and biases on his sleave is far less damaging than one who clothes himself in the mantle of spurious objectivity. I suspect it is the nature of the sacred cow that he approaches with a sharpened knife that is at issue and, therefore, the question whether his intention is to slaughter it or remove some excess fat is somewhat academic in this respect.

JamesL
Member
Posts: 1649
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 00:03
Location: NJ USA

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by JamesL » 18 Mar 2024 20:00

Yes, David Irving did visit Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec and Majdanek.

And his critics cruelly treated him in a very personal way, which I decline to discuss further.

As an aside, I WILL be having drinks at the Adlon in Berlin and visiting Poland in June. Probably my last visit to Europe. Age is catching up to me.

sekudlyda
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 04 Nov 2019 15:11
Location: Virginia

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by sekudlyda » 19 Mar 2024 19:26

Since JamesL continues to beat the drum for David Irving, here are a few thoughts concerning his last post on January 27, 2024. In comment #3 of his last post, James referred to "the holocaust, whatever that definition is." Talk about disingenuous! If James knows anything about Mr. Irving, then he obviously knows that the holocaust refers to the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis.

My favorite, though, is James' reference to William Shirer's bestseller, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in comment #5. James envisions Mr. Shirer amiably enjoying a drink with Hermann Goering at the bar in Berlin's Adlon Hotel. Perhaps James may want to reread the chapter, The New Order, in Mr. Shirer's excellent book. I can assure James that Mr. Shirer was no friend nor admirer of Goering.

Finally, James refers, once again, to the cruel treatment Mr. Irving allegedly received from his critics. Why keep bringing up this alleged cruel treatment by then declining to discuss it further? James, tomorrow in Hitler's 135th birthday. Why not call Mr. Irving in the UK and reminisce over the good old days?

VanillaNuns
Member
Posts: 500
Joined: 30 Aug 2020 18:56
Location: UK

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by VanillaNuns » 20 Mar 2024 03:58

Irving's testimony (referenced in previous posts) is bizarre.

He admits knowing about Chelmno and can describe what happened there in good detail.

Belzec. Maybe. Not sure. 🤔

Treblinka. I don't think so. 😕

Sobibor. Never heard of it. 😧


When I was 12 or 13, I could tell you about the above in reasonable detail (reverse order)

Who hasn't seen the movie "Escape From Sobibor" in 1987 and Treblinka was always mentioned in books and newspapers when I was growing up in the mid to late 1980s. It was clearly the No 2 death camp during the Third Reich era.

Belzec was a Nazi extermination camp in Poland but I didn't know much more. Gas chambers. Slave labour.

Chelmno was completely unknown to me until I became older and accessed books at the library which were hitherto unavailable to me because of my young age.

David Irving pretends the exact opposite. What a lying loser... 🤥 😡

sekudlyda
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 04 Nov 2019 15:11
Location: Virginia

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by sekudlyda » 20 Mar 2024 16:35

Thank you, VanillaNuns! I couldn't have said it better myself and I'm in total agreement with you. However, I must apologize to JamesL and everyone else on this website for a mistake I made in my post yesterday. Today is NOT Hitler's 135th birthday. That date comes next month on April 20th. JamesL made reference in his last post that age is catching up with him. That is obviously true of me, too. At my age, I need to reread my posts more than once before I press the SUBMIT button.

steve248
Member
Posts: 4324
Joined: 10 Aug 2003 20:53
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by steve248 » 21 Mar 2024 15:23

I am sure I have posted this on the forum but if not...
I have met David Irving a couple of times at UK National Archives as far back as the 1990s. These were accidental rather than by design.
After I published a paper about my findings in the German Police Decodes - the Hoefle Telegram in 2001 that mentions indirectly Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka though there can be little doubt these camps were being mentioned - Irving decided to go through all the German Police Decodes. He and I are probably the only researchers to have turned every page of them. They are unbelievably mind-numbing.
Irving took exception to the Hoefle Telegram (not being discovered by Irving) and wanted it forensically tested. These pages are bound and stitched into volumes with soft covers. The paper itself is the old "fullscap" (slight longer and narrower than A4) and what might be termed onion-skin. I doubt you can buy this kind of paper. Irving had to make do with GCHQ saying it was genuine and also mentioned in another file as I told them.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by michael mills » 24 Mar 2024 03:37

The most controversial claim made by Irving in his book "Hitler's War" was that the mass murder of Jews was not set off by a specific order by Hitler, but rather began as a number of separate localised initiatives by individual German administrators in occupied territories, in what Irving called a "Verlegenheitsloesung", ie a reaction to the problem of having to guard and feed huge numbers of Jews. He also claimed that Hitler initially had no knowledge of those local exterminatory initiatives, but gave them ex post facto endorsement once he was informed of them.

As it happens, one of the historians employed by Penguin Books to give an expert opinion in support of its defence against the libel action brought by Irving, Peter Longerich, says something similar in his book "Politik der Vernichtung : eine Gesamtdarstellung der nationalsozialistischen Judenverfolgung", which was published in 1998, before the Irving court action and before he was employed by Penguin Books.

In that book, Longerich concludes that the mass murder of the Jews of the General Government at the extermination camps Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka II began as a local action which had as its aim the culling of the Jewish population of the Lublin and Lemberg Districts rather than their total extermination. He based that conclusion on Goebbels' well-known diary entry of 27 March 1942, stating that the elimination of the Jews of the Lublin District had begun, and that only 40% of them could be used for labour while the remainder would have to be "liquidated". Longerich also concluded that this limited action was subsequently broadened in scope to include all the Jews of the General Government, then the Jews from other countries, and that was the reason why the gas chambers in the three camps were rebuilt on a larger scale in the middle of 1942. His view was that that broadening of the scope of the extermination action came in May 1942, which was when the German Jews who had been deported to the Lodz Ghetto in October 1941 began to be sent to Chelmno for extermination.

Another claim made by Longerich in his book was that as of the end of 1941, no authorisation had been given for the killing of the Jews deported from Germany to destinations in the East earlier in that year, even though the massacre of Soviet Jews was already well under way. That claim was based on the fact that Himmler severely reprimanded Jeckeln for including the first convoy of German Jews to arrive at Riga in the massacre of Latvian Jews at Rumbula on 30 November 1941. In that reprimand Himmler had accused Jeckaln of "Zuwiderhandlungen" (acting contrary to orders) and "Eigenmaechtigkeiten"( acting on his own initiative), which would not have been the case if an order or authorisation from Hitler for the killing of all Jews was then in existence.

It is noteworthy that in in his Expert Opinion written for Penguin Books, Longerich omits the claim made in his book that as of the end of 1941 no authorisation from Hitler for the killing of all Jews yet existed. It is blindingly obvious why he did that; it could be seen as supporting Irving's contention that the mass killing of Jews began in the absence of a specific order by Hitler.

Subsequent to his involvement in the Irving court action, Longerich changed his interpretation of the beginning of the mass murder of Jews, to conform to the general thesis that it was initiated by an order from Hitler. For example, in the English translation of his book "Politik der Vernichtung", published in 2010 with the title "Holocaust : The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews", there is no mention of his claim that as of the end of 1941 Hitler had not yet ordered the killing of all Jews. That English translation specifically states that "the whole of the original text was revised to take account of the latest scholarship in the field of Holocaust studies: the book has been significantly reworked".

steve248
Member
Posts: 4324
Joined: 10 Aug 2003 20:53
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by steve248 » 25 Mar 2024 17:33

Michael,
Longerich has also published "The Unwritten Order. Hitler's Role in the Final Solution" - in hardback in 2001 by Tempus Publishing; a paperback version was published in 2016 by The History Press. There appears to be no revision between the two publishing dates.
Longerich writes about the central role of Hitler in first persecuting the Jews then ordering their extermination. Longerich takes the view (as do I) that there were two decisions regarding Jewish extermination. The first decision was to extend the scope of the Einsatzgruppen in occupied Soviet territories to now include all male Jews not working for the German war effort, and Jewish women and children. I do not believe there was a step by step approach from north to south. Longerich states this decision was made in mid August 1941.
He rather obfuscates the date of the second decision and gives a wide period of November 1941 through to summer 1942. It could be said the decision was made before March 1942 when Belzec camp opened and began wholescale killing of deported Jews from Lemberg and Lublin. Belzec was not designed to select some Jews for industry, all Jews who arrived were killed. The question is when did Globocnik get his order to start Operation Reinhard and establish Sobibor and Treblinka. Such an order must have come from Himmler acting on Hitler's verbal orders.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by michael mills » 26 Mar 2024 01:22

Irving lost his case against Penguin Books in April 2000.

Longerich published his book "The Unwritten order" in 2001, ie after his involvement in the case as an expert witness for Penguin Books. I have not read that book, but I presume it is based on the expert opinion he prepared for Penguin Books for its defence against the action brought by Irving. Possibly it was designed to defend his partial abandonment of his earlier thesis presented in his 1998 book "Politik der Vernichtung". Have you read that book by the way? I can recommend it.

The essential point is that anything written by Longerich after his involvement in the Irving court action does not represent his original view that the mass murder of the Jews of Europe, over an above those of the Soviet Union (who were killed because they were believed to be the main "bearers of Bolshevism"), was not triggered by an order from Hitler, but rather began as a series of local initiatives by German occupation authorities on the ground. That view could be seen as supporting Irving's view about the beginning of the Final Solution presented in his 1977 book "Hitler's War".

It is obvious that Longerich abandoned his original view because he did not want to be accused of supporting Irving's thesis, even if only partially, which could have ended his academic career.

With regard to Himmler's presumed order to Globocnik to establish extermination centres at Sobibor and Treblinka II, Himmler had the authority to issue such an order on his own initiative. In October 1939, he had been given blanket authority by Hitler to take any action action he deemed necessary against any population group he considered to pose a danger to the German people. That is why when the Reichsstatthalter Wartheland, Artur Greiser, wanted to apply "Sonderbehandlung" (summary execution without a prior court decision) to part of the Jewish population of the Wartheland, he applied for permission, not to Hitler, but to Heydrich, who had reserved for himself the sole authority to authorise the Sonderbehandlung of any person or group of people, and to Himmler, who had the authority to designate a particular population group as a danger to the German people. That application was presumably made in October 1941. If an order from Hitler to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe was already in existence at that time, there would have been no need for Greiser to apply to Himmler and Heydrich for permission to kill part of the Jews of the Reichsgau Wartheland.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8759
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

Post by wm » 07 Apr 2024 13:32

michael mills wrote:
26 Mar 2024 01:22
the mass murder of the Jews of Europe, over an above those of the Soviet Union (who were killed because they were believed to be the main "bearers of Bolshevism"), was not triggered by an order from Hitler, but rather began as a series of local initiatives by German occupation authorities on the ground.
Isn't that the story from "The Origins of the Final Solution"? That Hitler gave a free hand (as he frequently did) to solve the Jewish problem to his lieutenants?
They, thanks to the experiences gained in Poland and during Barbarossa, after all other solutions had failed, arrived at the "ingenious" solution called today the Holocaust.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”