Just when you think you'd heard the worst of it ...

[Big J]

+2, is there really serious debate anymore about Irving? "Hitler's War" was bad enough before he joined the denier circuit.

Thank you for your kind comment!
TBH, even though I disagree with Stanley, I think I should give him credit for being able to discuss it in a sensible way. These days, so many people become rude and offensive when you disagree with them in the Internet, but Stanley has remained quite mature about it so far. This is really important, I think.
I'll be the first one to take up arms against revisionism, but that also means I have to keep my patriotism under control and remain objective when people criticize the Indian Wars or Vietnam, and that's difficult because they're emotive issues.
I disagree with Stanley about Irving, but I'd still happily have Stanley over for a BBQ and a beer.

 

[Otter]

Well put points all. Nice to see some debate!

 

[Otter]

Playing Devil's Advocate here; I wouldn't put it past their having existed two sets of books. One "Official" record of what happened and a second set of books detailing what really happened. In the scramble to destroy evidence the "Official" set may have been overlooked or deliberately left to provide a false evidence trail should the you know what hit the fan.

 

[Big J]

Playing Devil's Advocate here; I wouldn't put it past their having existed two sets of books. One "Official" record of what happened and a second set of books detailing what really happened. In the scramble to destroy evidence the "Official" set may have been overlooked or deliberately left to provide a false evidence trail should the you know what hit the fan.

Books, shmooks.
We got enough evidence to support history as it is, and disprove Irving;
1. Holocaust survivors.
2. Testimony of camp guards.
3. Testimony of those that organized the genocide.
4. Eye-witness testimony from German civilians.
5. Eye-witness testimony from Allied liberators.

Irving, IMHO is a fraud, making money from people who want to believe (just like all those 'ancient aliens' writers- like Von Daniken), they're just seeking an 'authority' to legitimize the opinions they already have.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
I don't have to agree with them.
That's a freedom we wouldn't have had if the Axis had won the war.
That's why historical revisionism is a huge disrespect to those who fought the war for us (and by 'us', I mean former Allied and Axis nationals, since a world in which the Axis won would have been pretty miserable fascist totalitarianism even for the victors).

 

[pawineguy]

Thank you for your kind comment!
TBH, even though I disagree with Stanley, I think I should give him credit for being able to discuss it in a sensible way. These days, so many people become rude and offensive when you disagree with them in the Internet, but Stanley has remained quite mature about it so far. This is really important, I think.
I'll be the first one to take up arms against revisionism, but that also means I have to keep my patriotism under control and remain objective when people criticize the Indian Wars or Vietnam, and that's difficult because they're emotive issues.
I disagree with Stanley about Irving, but I'd still happily have Stanley over for a BBQ and a beer.

Well said.

 

[pawineguy]

Books, shmooks.
We got enough evidence to support history as it is, and disprove Irving;
1. Holocaust survivors.
2. Testimony of camp guards.
3. Testimony of those that organized the genocide.
4. Eye-witness testimony from German civilians.
5. Eye-witness testimony from Allied liberators.

Irving, IMHO is a fraud, making money from people who want to believe (just like all those 'ancient aliens' writers- like Von Daniken), they're just seeking an 'authority' to legitimize the opinions they already have.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
I don't have to agree with them.
That's a freedom we wouldn't have had if the Axis had won the war.
That's why historical revisionism is a huge disrespect to those who fought the war for us (and by 'us', I mean former Allied and Axis nationals, since a world in which the Axis won would have been pretty miserable fascist totalitarianism even for the victors).

Yes, all of the above. The reason I bring up "Hitler's War" is that as his first major work, it really puts in context the rest of his "career." Placing the blame on the British for the outbreak of the war, arguing that the Jews declared war on Germany first, and finally arguing that both Poland and the Soviet Union were about to invade Germany making both of Hitler's invasions "preventative."

There is no doubt that Irving was and perhaps still is a tireless researcher. As one historian pointed out about him, he serves more as a defense attorney for Hitler than anything else. Everyone has to work with the same facts, Irving just argues the opposite conclusions.

 

[Big J]

Yes, all of the above. The reason I bring up "Hitler's War" is that as his first major work, it really puts in context the rest of his "career." Placing the blame on the British for the outbreak of the war, arguing that the Jews declared war on Germany first, and finally arguing that both Poland and the Soviet Union were about to invade Germany making both of Hitler's invasions "preventative."

There is no doubt that Irving was and perhaps still is a tireless researcher. As one historian pointed out about him, he serves more as a defense attorney for Hitler than anything else. Everyone has to work with the same facts, Irving just argues the opposite conclusions.

Sorry, when I read my comment again, I realized that it sounds a little aggressive, which wasn't the intention.
I agree with your post I've quoted here.
Irving has worked very hard, but I think that he set out to prove his personal opinion (which I personally find offensive), and cherry picked, and deliberately misrepresented information for that end.

 

[pawineguy]

Sorry, when I read my comment again, I realized that it sounds a little aggressive, which wasn't the intention.
I agree with your post I've quoted here.
Irving has worked very hard, but I think that he set out to prove his personal opinion (which I personally find offensive), and cherry picked, and deliberately misrepresented information for that end.

I think there was some confusion between us as to what I meant in reference to "serious debate about Irving", I was just noting that I don't believe any serious historians are left supporting him at this point. I am in total agreement with you about his conclusions, which are, as you note, offensive. The bigger problem, IMO, is that revisionist historians like Irving, who actually put in the time to publish "scholarly" works, leave behind reference books for the next generation of Neo-Nazis, deniers and anti-semites to use in spreading their lies.

 

[Otter]

^ Starting with a conclusion then working your research to prove it! Never a good methodology.

 

[AmateisGal]

Books, shmooks.
We got enough evidence to support history as it is, and disprove Irving;
1. Holocaust survivors.
2. Testimony of camp guards.
3. Testimony of those that organized the genocide.
4. Eye-witness testimony from German civilians.
5. Eye-witness testimony from Allied liberators.

Irving, IMHO is a fraud, making money from people who want to believe (just like all those 'ancient aliens' writers- like Von Daniken), they're just seeking an 'authority' to legitimize the opinions they already have.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion.
I don't have to agree with them.
That's a freedom we wouldn't have had if the Axis had won the war.
That's why historical revisionism is a huge disrespect to those who fought the war for us (and by 'us', I mean former Allied and Axis nationals, since a world in which the Axis won would have been pretty miserable fascist totalitarianism even for the victors).

Agree with you completely.

 

[Stand By]

I agree too. So it boggles my brain that countries like Iran can actually host a conference on holocaust denial and invite other countries to participate! I mean, with evidence-based practice being standard format, as conferences go, you'd have to think it's a rather short program but long on tours and activities!

 

[AmateisGal]

I agree too. So it boggles my brain that countries like Iran can actually host a conference on holocaust denial and invite other countries to participate! I mean, with evidence-based practice being standard format, as conferences go, you'd have to think it's a rather short program but long on tours and activities!

I know, right???

Holocaust denial absolutely baffles me. All that evidence...

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

And one of the speakers at that holocaust denial conference in Iran was David Duke. No surprise there.

 

[AmateisGal]

And one of the speakers at that holocaust denial conference in Iran was David Duke. No surprise there.

His PhD should be revoked...except its not really a "real" PhD.

 

[AmateisGal]

A former Auschwtiz guard is on trial in the German town of Lueneburg for his role in that camp.

From the BBC story:

"Survivors have said their arrival at Auschwitz was chaotic and deeply traumatic, with Nazi guards shouting orders, dogs barking and families being separated.

Mr Groening described the scene as "very orderly" and "not strenuous" for him.

"They all walked, some in one direction, some in another direction... to where the crematoria and gas chambers were," he said."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-32419412

 

[Stand By]

Yes, that guy was on a documentary about Auschwitz that my girlfriend I watched on DVD last year. He regaled his time there in the SS as a clerical officer - and chuckled his way through his tales. He took the stolen possessions of the prisoners and was utterly unrepentant and without remorse, shrugging at the notion at what he did and what was going on at the camp was wrong. He wasn't sorry at all - you could tell he was just sorry that his side lost and they didn't finish the job they were assigned to do.
I hope he gets found guilty and is locked up and dies in prison. Maybe that'll finally wipe the smirk off his face.

 

[jamespowers]

Yes, that guy was on a documentary about Auschwitz that my girlfriend I watched on DVD last year. He regaled his time there in the SS as a clerical officer - and chuckled his way through his tales. He took the stolen possessions of the prisoners and was utterly unrepentant and without remorse, shrugging at the notion at what he did and what was going on at the camp was wrong. He wasn't sorry at all - you could tell he was just sorry that his side lost and they didn't finish the job they were assigned to do.
I hope he gets found guilty and is locked up and dies in prison. Maybe that'll finally wipe the smirk off his face.

Nothing fazes people like that they just richly deserve killing is all.

 

[Big J]

Nothing fazes people like that they just richly deserve killing is all.

+1

 

[Stearmen]

I just tell deniers, if it didn't happen, then why didn't any of the men tried at Nuremberg bring that up as their defense?

 

[Stand By]

I saw the story about that guard a couple of days ago in the Daily Mail.
But what was shocking for me was the readers' comments section at the foot of the article - and the great consensus of opinion was that it was "ridiculous and a waste of money to put him on trial - it won't bring anyone back/ he's an old man, leave him alone/ if there's a trial for him, what about trying those soldiers fighting in the British Army in the "illegal" wars of Iraq and Afghanistan/ he was "only" a clerical officer/ he was "only" following orders, what choice did he have?/ it's more trouble than it's worth, it was so long ago/ etc …
And the consensus of comments that I see here and a few people posted there - that justice needs to be done, no matter what or when - to anything remotely that the guy deserves to be locked up to him deserving to swing - got red-arrowed to heck or got replies that were unpleasant. It wasn't even close! I simply don't get people these days.
Now, you could say, "Well, that's the Daily Mail for you" - and there are always low-life who'll post troll-like comments, but it was a very strong majority! How people have changed in a generation - no memory capacity and no moral compass at all.
Now that's troubling!