Appearing as an expert witness on Nazi
Germany at the 1988 trial of Ernst
Zündel, David Irving said he once wrote
that six million were killed at
Auschwitz
From Barbara Kulaszka's
book on the trial: (page
766)
"In a book he published many years before on the Vietnam War, he had referred "to the 6 million who were killed at Auschwitz and if I was to be asked now why did I write that, then I would have to quote the words of William Casey and I - 'I believe[d]', but since then, since having spent ten years writing the Hitler biography and since having worked in the world's archives, I've come to question that belief which was an oversimple belief.""
David Irving's only book on Vietnam,
was Von Guernica bis
Vietnam (From
Guernica to Vietnam)
which was published in
1982, and only in German. He offers
it as a free download on his website
With the magic power of word
search, I can't even
find "Auschwitz" anywhere in the
book, but I don't speak or read German,
and David Irving has posted the chapter
from Barbara Kulaszka's
book on his website.
So he clearly can't dispute it.
Here's an item that has troubled me deeply over the past few days: http://www.mailstar.net/holocaust-debate04.html
ReplyIrving, is a special one. He stated that c.4,000,000 Jews were killed in WW2, an estimate very similar Gearld Reitlinger's, who wrote that 1/3rd of them were not deliberately killed:
Replyhttp://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.com/2011/05/13rd-of-holocaust-victims-not-murdered.html
Irving maintains Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, just in Bunkers I & II, not the Kremas, and believes in the Reinhard death camps, but just queries the method of execution.
Top Revisionist Jurgen Graf, wrote a very good piece on the enigma which is David Irving:
http://juergen-graf.vho.org/articles/david-irving-and-the-aktion-reinhardt-camps.html
what do you think of the excerpts from "Table Talk"?
ReplyThere's a lot of controversy over Hitler's TT, much of it was covered at Irving's Trial against Lipstadt.
ReplyThe translation used on your link, is the 1953 Hugh Trevor Roper translation, which he translated from French. It's seriously flawed. This is covered on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_Table_Talk#Controversy_about_Hitler.27s_comments_on_religion
Irving got pillared at his trial for using the HTR translation in the original edition of Hitler's War, but later when he obtained copies of the original German. He continued using the faulty HTR translation in later editions of Hitler's War and his Goebbels book.
It's a variation of the old argument, did vernichtung (annihilation) mean "kill" when Hitler used it. As in his famous "prophecy speech" 30 Jan 1939:
"Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"
Hitler didn't mean "kill" when he said "annihilate"
"Thus arose a movement (Marxism) which was composed exclusively of manual workers under the
leadership of Jews. To all external appearances, this movement strives to ameliorate the conditions under which the workers live; but in reality its aim is to enslave and thereby
annihilate the non-Jewish races."
- Mein Kampf
Are we expected to believe Hitler thought the aim of Marxism was to kill all non-Jews in the world? Of course not.
The excerpts that article quotes from TT seem genuine ie:
"I can't do anything about it. But if they refuse to go voluntarily, I see no other solution but extermination."
But allowing them to go voluntary, hardly fits with his supposed plan to "kill all Jews" and as Paul Grubach makes clear on the following link. After Hitler utter that throw-away phrase, he said:
"A good three or four hundred years will go by before the Jews set foot again in Europe. They'll return first of all as commercial travelers, then gradually they'll become emboldened to settle here -- the better to exploit us…"
How would they do that if they had all been exterminated?
And four days later he said:
"The Jews must pack up and disappear from Europe. Let them go to Russia. Where the Jews are concerned, I'm devoid of all sense of pity."
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/books/Evans/Grubach.html
What that article has done is selectively quote TT to support the "extermination policy" lie. Other quotes clearly prove, that there was no "extermination policy"
Some of the stuff on Myers' website is very good. He has very good critiques of Communism and Zionism and recognizes that they are unified movements. He is a non-Marxist leftist. I think he just searched for the word "exterminate" in the book and posted his findings.
ReplyMyers has actually made an in depth defense of the Protocols. He detailed serious flaws in the "forgery" arguments of people like Norman Cohn. See the following: http://mailstar.net/cohn.html, http://www.mailstar.net/hiding.html, http://www.mailstar.net/toolkit.html,
http://www.mailstar.net/leftprot.html, http://www.mailstar.net/protocol.html
I highly recommend reading all of those links.
Myers noted the most common criticism, that the protocols are a blanket plagiarism, is incorrect: "Cohn's arithmetic is incorrect. The word-count of the parallel-passages from the Protocols, as listed by Bernstein (at bernstein.zip), is 4,361, while the word-count of the Protocols is 26, 496. That is, the parallel passages comprise 16.45% of the Protocols; this is substantial, but still less than one sixth of the total. What Cohn especially omits to mention, is the Protocols' extensive coverage of the world finance system."
When we take Myers' analysis together with Leslie Fry's book "Waters Flowing Eastward": http://www.archive.org/details/WatersFlowingEastward_307
We can clearly see that the protocols are authentic.
Douglas Reed's book "The Controversy of Zion" could be described as footnotes to the protocols, showing how they have been implemented. It is probably the most important book I have ever read. Along with Freedman's speech, it showed me what Zionism actually was: http://controversyofzion.info/
Myers also has a text called "Red Symphony" on his website, which is more evidence of Jewish financing of bolsheviks (and Nazis). It is extremely interesting. I would read it after the analyses of the protocols, but before "The Controversy of Zion": http://mailstar.net/red-symphony.html
I highly recommend reading Reed's book, Leslie Fry's book, and "Red Symphony" in combination. Together, they give a very important viewpoint.
Thanks for the Myers links, and Fry heads-up, I will read them, once I've done my present online book.
ReplyI started "Waters Flowing Eastward" after reading one of your posts on outlawjournalism - thanks for the reminder that I didn't finish it.
I see similarities with the Protocols and LeVay's Satanic Bible. ("The Might is Right" in LeVay's plagiarising case).
http://www.dpjs.co.uk/criticism/smith.html
Either:
1. The Protocols is the only ever piece of government sanctioned propaganda worthy, literally worthy, of the Pulitzer Prize for Literature. (Consider the competition: crucifying Canadians, killing Jews in steam chambers, human soap, Viagra powered Libyan government rapists.)
2. It's 100% kosher, but a Jewish Freemason thought Joly's phraseology worth plagiarising in the translation of the Protocols from Hebrew to French.
"Red Symphony" is even more important: http://mailstar.net/red-symphony.html
ReplyBlissentia. This Peter Myers guy has a whole section on his site dedicated to defending and upholding the Holohoax myth.
Replyhttp://mailstar.net/holocaust-debate.html
He is doing the bidding of the Jews and should be considered an agent of controlled opposition like Henry Makow and other liars who pretend to be on our side.
Blissentia et al— It seems that Douglas Reed is not mentioned at all in Irving's Hitler's War. Neither is Reed mentioned at all on Irving's website — isn't this a trifle odd, for someone with such significance as Reed? One presumes part of the reason for this is Reed's idea (controversial in some circles) that Hitler was basically a stooge, brought from obscurity to persecute the Jews and therefore provide the excuse for a re-assessment of the Zionist project, which, Reed claims, was dead in the water after World War One, with no anti-semitic threat to speak of.
ReplyNow I've not read Controversy of Zion (yet), but from a quick perusal it would seem that Reed endorses the general idea of "death chambers" and "death camps" — although he stresses that there was much collusion between the Nazis and the Communists, and that many death camps were, in fact, run by Jews. As you've read the book, can you sum up what Reed's views on the "Holocaust" were? In a wrestling match between Douglas Reed and Arthur Butz, I have no idea who would win on points.
Reed actually doubts this - see "Far and Wide" pt. II, "Behind the Scene". He was one of the first people to point out that much of this was propaganda. He goes further than this in a chapter of "The Controversy of Zion" entitled "The Talmudic Vengeance".
Reply