Most people are given the respect of having Mr. or Ms. as the title in front of their name. David Irving will always be known as “Holocaust Denier David Irving,” in spite of the fact that he has gone over to the other side and is now a “Holocaust Believer.”
Last year, I attended one of Irving’s talks on his speaking tour of the United States. In some cities, he was attacked by people who tried to prevent him from speaking, but the talk that I attended was without incident. The speech that I witnessed was entirely about World War II and did not include any Holocaust denial. After his talk, Irving answered questions from the audience about Treblinka, and he revealed that he now believes that Treblinka was a death camp.
You can read about the outrage over David Irving leading a tour to Poland here.
I visited Treblinka on a trip to Poland in 1998 and the most remarkable thing about Treblinka is how small the camp was. There is nothing left of the camp now, and the only thing to see is the memorial stones.
Symbolic cemetery at Treblina has 17,000 stones
Treblinka was second only to Auschwitz in the number of Jews who were killed by the Nazis: between 700,000 and 900,000, compared to an estimated 1.1 million to 1.5 million at Auschwitz.
The Treblinka death camp was located 100 km (62 miles) northeast of Warsaw, near the railroad junction at the village of Malkinia Górna, which is 2.5 km (1.5 miles) from the train station in the tiny village of Treblinka.
Entrance to the Treblinka camp, which was located in the middle of a forest
Raul Hilberg wrote in his three-volume book, The Destruction of the European Jews, that there were six Nazi extermination centers, including Treblinka. The other extermination camps were at Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, Majdanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau, all of which are located in what is now Poland. The last two also functioned as forced labor camps (Zwangsarbeitslager).
The camps at Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor and Chelmno had already been liquidated by the Germans before the Soviet soldiers entered Poland, and there was no remaining evidence of the extermination of millions of Jews at these four camps. The combined total of the deaths at Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor was 1.5 million, according to Raul Hilberg’s book.
Tourists enter the camp by following the stone markers
Stone markers show where the trains came into the camp
Stone platform denotes the location of the former fake train station
Large stone memorial marks the location of the gas chambers
Stone memorial at the pit where the bodies were burned
Map of former Treblinka death camp
The Treblinka camp was literally in the middle of nowhere, and it was surrounded by trees. There were barracks for the German staff members and for the Jews who did all the work. After the Jews were gassed, their bodies were buried in mass graves, dug by a crane, which were 30 feet deep. The bodies were dug up later and the remains were burned on pyres of wood, cut from the surrounding trees.
There was a time, not too long ago, when David Irving was not allowed to enter Poland, but after he served time in a prison in Austria for Holocaust denial, this ban was lifted and he finally got to see Auschwitz. Now, it’s on to Treblinka, and who knows what other camps he will visit.
When I attended the talk on his speaking tour in 2009, I arrived early and noticed that there were a lot of young men loitering in front of the restaurant where he was scheduled to speak. They were dressed casually, but didn’t look like hoodlums, so I didn’t worry about it. I entered the restaurant and asked which room David Irving would be speaking in. The restaurant had no one by that name scheduled to speak, so I assumed that the room had to be reserved under a different name because of his reputation as a Holocaust denier.
Finally, I followed other guests who were arriving right on time, and I saw that the young men who had been outside were now guarding the door and checking names off a list. I had already been approved by Irving himself, who had called me at the last minute to give me the location of his speech, which was not the location that had been advertised. All this for a simple lecture about World War II. You can’t be too careful in America, a country that is famous for allowing free speech.
After the lecture, which included a nice dinner, one of the young men asked me if I wanted an escort to my car, but I declined the offer. Later, as I read the news of attacks in other cities, I realized why David Irving needed an army of protectors in order to give a harmless speech about World War II. Once your reputation is ruined by accusations of Holocaust denial, it stays with you forever.
Scrapbookpages Blog 
“I said repeatedly I am not a Holocaust expert. I did not want to become a Holocaust expert.” – David Irving, Irving-Lipstadt trial, Day 8, 2000.
Comment by hermie — February 26, 2016 @ 9:23 am
[…] I wrote about Irving’s visit to Treblinka on this blog post: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/holocaust-denier-david-irving-will-visit-treblinka-deat… […]
Pingback by Deborah Lipstadt, who defeated hard-core Holocaust denial, now worries about soft-core denial | Scrapbookpages Blog — August 30, 2014 @ 3:01 pm
[…] Correct me if I am wrong but it is my impression that David Irving now believes some of the Holocaust claims, specifically that the Treblinka camp was a “death camp.” I previously blogged about Treblinka and David Irving’s proposed visit to the camp here. […]
Pingback by Germany is making a big mistake in trying to ban David Irving from all hotels in Berlin | Scrapbookpages Blog — July 22, 2013 @ 7:39 am
You’ve got great insights about The death camps Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec, keep up the good work!
Comment by The death camps Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec — July 7, 2011 @ 12:52 am
Thank you, Sceptic for posting this.
David Irving is a sensationalist. He is in a great command of German, he knows that official history is 100% false and he underestimated the danger of what the consequences of his books could be. Too bad, that a professional historian decided to tell us half of the truth. He presented himself as a great researcher and was able to access all archives and still did not figure out the real story? I have always some sort of second thoughts about his writings. You could be a sensationalist and make good money, or you can be honest and share all the facts you learn and risk your freedom. Irving could do a better job with his resources, but if he owns a mansion, the mortgage payments must be paid on time.
My point is, we don’t need the professional historians any more. That is what have posted on this page already. ”
Why read Mattogno or Graf, when you can read Grossman with a small grain of criticism, when you can see the pictures and the map of the camp and make your own judgement. All evidence is right in front of you.” And we don’t need David Irving either. Everyone can have the access of the documents which Mattogno, Graf and Irving are using. Research it and make your own judgement. The only difference is that Mattogno and Graf’s writings will only support your research, while Irving might open the window for a doubt of what you have found
Comment by Gasan — September 12, 2010 @ 8:59 pm
David Irving is not a holocaust historian, revisionist or non-revisionist. He jumped into it, got himself burnt, and ever since flip-flops around making a fool of himself. Rejecting an attorney in two important trials shows what an overblown opinion he has of himself. His thesis that Himmler and Goebbels carried out the “holocaust” without Hitler’s knowledge is absurd. He is absurd and I wish he’d just shut his mouth.
He’s going to Treblinka with a tour group that he is leading, isn’t he? It’s just another money-making venture for him … he has that big mansion he lives in to keep up.
Comment by Sceptic — September 12, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
The claim that there were witnesses who described what the camp looked like has credibility only if it is corroborated by documentary or forensic evidence. Otherwise it’s nothing but anecdotal hearsay with no credibility what so ever.
Comment by john mortl — September 11, 2010 @ 3:53 am
Just a comment on the claim that David Irving knowingly used fraudulent documents vis-a-vis Dresden.
All WW2 historians knowingly use fraudulent documents, politically they have no choice.
The Dresden document, provided to Mr Irving by the East Communist authorities during a stay in Dresden is no sillier than many of the Auschwitz documents that historians happily use.
Comment by lgr — September 10, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
There seem to be a contradiction in the Treblinka story. If there was no remaining evidence of extermination as stated what is the evidence for the claimed burning pit shown in one of the picture. It seems to me that this situation allows them to imply that there is evidence when in fact there is none. A kind of slight of hand.
Comment by john mortl — September 10, 2010 @ 2:22 am
There was an uprising by the Jewish workers just before the Treblinka camp was ready to be closed and some of the prisoners escaped. A few prisoners survived and were able to describe what the camp looked like before all the buildings were torn down and the camp was leveled. The survivors explained that the bodies were first buried and then dug up and burned. There were actually two burning pits, but only one is shown now with some rocks to indicate where it was located.
Comment by furtherglory — September 10, 2010 @ 5:13 am
I have seen these pictures before and it appears to me that Germans not only removed railroad tracks, but also, flattened the embankments. Those are absolutely necessary, considering the swampy soil of Eastern Poland. Disassembling the railroad requires as much work of hundreds of skilled workers, as building it in the first place. I have never heard or read about such a great work effort in Treblinka area.
The design of the museum was made to match the description of the camp made by a Soviet writer/provocateur Vasily Grossman. In September of 1944 he had released his book “The Hell of Treblinka”, which was even presented at Nuremberg tribunals as undeniable proof. Grossman claimed that not less than 3 million had been killed in Treblinka alone. For some reason, nobody supports Grossman’s claim nowadays. This book is not easy to find, especially in Russian, for the reason that it an embarrassment to the entire cause. One cannot say that Grossman has exaggerated and it was not 3 million, but only 900.000. How do you know? Grossman was there first! Did he lie? Was it a war propaganda? Do you think that 900,000 is more believable, considering the size of the camp. Why read Mattogno or Graf, when you can read Grossman with a small grain of criticism, when you can see the pictures and the map of the camp and make your own judgement. All evidence is right in front of you.
Comment by Gasan — September 9, 2010 @ 6:22 pm
Irving made a visit to Treblinka, just months after he got out of jail, and his blog about that trip brings up doubts about the validity of Treblinka as a death camp. For instance mentions that there’s not even a concrete slab of any old building.
Anyone who reads Mattogno and Graf’s free online book on Treblinka, or who watches the video “One Third Of The Holocaust” is not going to believe Treblinka was a death camp.
Irving probably doesn’t believe it was either. He just can’t go that far in that direction without too much of a stigma on him.
Comment by Budham — September 9, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
I didn’t know that David Irving went to Treblinka when he got out of prison, but I know that he went to Auschwitz for the first time ever. He didn’t mention a trip to Treblinka in his talk, but he didn’t talk about his Auschwitz trip either. I don’t see how the lack of concrete slabs proves anything.
In his talk, which I attended, Irving said that he now believes in the euphemisms used by the Nazis, so he believes that Jews were gassed at Treblinka. The encoded messages said how many Jews arrived at Treblinka, and he now thinks that nothing else could have happened to them, except being gassed. The Nazi euphemism for the Treblinka death camp was “transit camp.”
Comment by furtherglory — September 9, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
The 2000 David Irving v. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt trial determined that Irving deliberately misrepresented evidence in his writings about World War II in general and the Holocaust in particular. Note that it was Irving who brought the suit against Penguin and Lipstadt to prevent publication of Professor Lipstadt’s book Denying the Holocaust in which she described him as a Holocaust denier.
As to what revisions he has made to his thinking over the ten years since his works were exposed as fraudulent research. and lacking in intellectual integrity, that’s quite another matter.
Comment by Ian Thal — September 9, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
I think you’ve got the story of the lawsuit that Irving brought against Lipstadt mixed up. Irving was suing her for what she wrote about him in her book “Denying the Holocaust” which had already been published. He was also suing her because she tried to get his books removed from book stores. He made the mistake of including the publisher in both charges, even though her publishing company had nothing to do with Lipstadt getting his books out of book stores and causing him to lose his contract to publish another book that he had just written.
Comment by furtherglory — September 9, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
Irving sued Lipstadt for libel. He included Penguin in on the suit as an accessory to libel and in an effort to have Lipstadt’s book removed from the market, such as preventing the publication of further printings.
He lost the case since the defense demonstrated that Lipstadt was on firm grounds both legally and scholarly to call Irving a Holocaust denier and a fraudulent historian.
Now, clearly he had financial motivation to sue for libel (as you rightly point out, furtherglory) but the crux of the matter was whether or not Irving was intellectually honest in his citation and interpretation of historical evidence. He claimed that he did, the defense team demonstrated that he hadn’t.
Comment by Ian Thal — September 9, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
You are correct that Irving sued Lipstadt for libel and he included Penguin in the lawsuit. He was suing for money damages because Lipstadt called him a dangerous Holocaust denier, which hurt his reputation and his income from his books, but I don’t think he sued to have her book removed from the market. Her book was published in America in 1993 and it was not published in the UK until 1996.
It has been many years since the trial. I followed the trial on the Internet at the time, and as I recall, he also sued Lipstadt because she went to book stores, along with some other Jews, and demanded that Irving’s books be taken off the shelves. Irving was also suing because he had a firm contract with a publisher to publish his next book, but Lipstadt went to Irving’s publisher and persuaded him to break the contract to publish the book.
It is very clear that Lipstadt was guilty of wrongdoing with regard to preventing Irving from publishing and selling his books. Irving included Penguin in the second part of his lawsuit even though the publishing firm was not involved in preventing Irving from earning his livelihood.
Irving and Lipstadt disagreed on the Holocaust, and the judge sided with Lipstadt. The Holocaust was not proved during the trial, but Irving claimed a victory when he got Robert van Pelt to admit that there were no holes found in the roof of the two underground gas chambers that are now in ruins. This was the famous “No holes, no Holocaust” slogan that Irving claimed as a victory.
The judge was not a Holocaust expert; he ruled in favor of the defense because he did not want his life and his career to be ruined. Irving made a mistake in defending himself. He should have had a lawyer present at his table, so the lawyer could stand up and say, every five minutes: “Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence.” Lipstadt had all of the Holocaust experts on her side, but Irving did not ask any of the revisionists to testify for his side. It was mistakes like this that caused him to lose.
Comment by furtherglory — September 9, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
I have read up on trial in the last few years.
What lost the case for Irving was that it was demonstrated that Irving knowingly and deliberately used forged documents, as well as knowingly and deliberately misrepresented legitimate documents in order to make arguments for Holocaust denial (which was Lipstadt’s initial claim) but that more broadly, he had done so in all his writings about World War II– including deliberately exaggerating the death-toll in Dresden.
Richard J. Evans, in his role as expert witness, pretty decisively exposed Irving’s misuse of documentary evidence by following all of Irving’s footnotes.
Comment by Ian Thal — September 9, 2010 @ 6:48 pm
I did some searching today on the libel trial and found nothing on Irving’s charge about Lipstadt conspiring with others to go to book stores and persuade them to remove his books and the charge that Lipstadt persuaded Irving’s publisher to break his contract to publish Irving’s new book. The judge wrote a 333 page judgment. I downloaded the judgment from the Internet at the time of the trial and read it. The judge ruled in Irving’s favor on some points, although his overall judgment was against Irving. On the subject of Lipstadt going to bookstores and on Lipstadt preventing Irving’s book from being published, the judge ruled that Irving was correct in his claims, but that Penguin was not guilty of these charges, so because of that, he had to rule against Irving.
In searching the Internet about the case today, that part is not mentioned. Everything on the Internet now is against Irving and in favor of Lipstadt. During the trial, it appeared that Irving was winning, as far as the daily transcripts were concerned. The judge even mentioned that Irving did a good job representing himself. The burden of proof was on Lipstadt, and in following the case from day to day, it did not seem like her side was proving their case. In spite of that, I didn’t expect the judge to rule in Irving’s favor because if he did that, the judge would now be reviled by the whole world, just as Irving is now. Lipstadt’s side of the story is the official history and Irving’s side of the story is a crime, punishable by prison time. So which side is the judge going to believe? The judge could have been thrown into prison in any one of 17 counrties if he had ruled in Irving’s favor.
Comment by furtherglory — September 9, 2010 @ 9:40 pm
You apparently misunderstand how the British legal system works. Nothing that either Irving or Lipstadt published is illegal in the U.K.. Irving sued in the U.K. where the burden of proof in libel cases is placed on on the defendant’s to demonstrate the truth of their statements while in the U.S. (where Lipstadt resides) the burden of proof is on the Plaintiff to prove that the defendant committed a malicious lie.
Irving chose a court where the odds were in his favor and still lost (though he was probably counting on an out-of-court settlement.) Also note that he was at no point, so long as he stayed in Britain at risk of a prison sentence. He’s also not at risk of prison should he visit the United States.
In the end, Irving failed to demonstrate that Lipstadt had committed libel, and failed to defend his affectation as a scholar.
I suggest you spend some time with Richard J. Evans’ account of his time as an expert witness in the trial. He goes into great detail about what happened when he started checking Irving’s footnotes.
Comment by Ian Thal — September 9, 2010 @ 10:01 pm
Reply to Ian Thal: I know that Irving sued Lipstadt in the UK, even though she lives in America, because the burden of proof would be on her. I did not say or write that it was illegal for either of them to publish their books in the UK or in America. I agree that Irving probably hoped to settle out of court. It is true that Irving was not at risk of a prison sentence as long as he stayed in Britain, or in the U.S., but he foolishly accepted an invitation to speak in Austria without realizing that he was being set up. When he got there, it finally dawned on him, but it was too late. He tried to get out of Austria, but the police stopped him on the highway and arrested him. It was not a routine traffic stop, as claimed; the police were tipped off by the people who set Irving up to be arrested on a Holocaust denial charge in Austria. Irving tells the whole story in his book about the arrest and prison term, which is very amusing.
I have read several books written about the trial but not Evans’ “account” of his footnotes checking. Irving published the transcripts of the trial at his own expense while the trial was in progress. I read the transcripts every day.
Here is a quote from the transcripts, regarding Treblinka:
[Mr Rampton] Those, Mr Irving, were little villages in the middle of nowhere, and from the 22nd July 1942, if these figures you have given in your book are right, which they are not quite, but the volume, if you multiply, must be hundreds of thousands of Jews transported from Lublin and Warsaw and as I shall show you after the adjournment also from the East; what were those Jews going to do in these three villages on the Russian border?
[Mr Irving] The documents before me did not tell me.
[Mr Rampton] No, but try and construct in your own mind, as an historian, a convincing explanation.
[Mr Irving] There would be any number of convincing explanations, from the most sinister to the most innocent. What is the object of that exercise? It is irrelevant to the issues pleaded here, I shall strongly argue that, it would have been —
MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you want to take that point, can you
[Mr Irving] — it would have been irresponsible of me to have speculated in this book (Hitler’s War), which is already overweight, and start adding in my own totally amateurish speculation.
MR RAMPTON: No, you mistake me, Mr Irving, it is probably not your fault I, as his Lordship spotted what I have done, I have taken what you have wrote (sic) in the book as a stepping stone to my next exercise, which is to show the scale of the operation, and in due course, and I give you fair warning, to demonstrate that anybody who supposes that those hundreds of thousands of Jews were sent to these tiny little villages, what shall we say, in order to restore their health, is either mad or a liar.
[….]
MR RAMPTON: No. I suggest, Mr Irving, that anybody — any sane, sensible person would deduce from all the evidence, including, if you like, the shootings in the East which you have accepted, would conclude that these hundreds of thousands of Jews were not being shipped to these tiny little places on the Russian border in Eastern Poland for a benign purpose?
[End quote]
From this exchange, it seems that Mr. Rampton was of the opinion that Irving should have written in his book in 1977 that the Jews were killed at Treblinka, but he didn’t, so Irving was a Holocaust denier, as Lipstadt called him. This is a good example of how the trial was conducted.
Comment by furtherglory — September 10, 2010 @ 5:53 am
Irving published the transcripts of the trial at his own expense while the trial was in progress. I read the transcripts every day.
I think that this is why you were of the impression that Irving was winning his case, you were reading Irving’s talking points daily.
It would benefit you to read Evans’ account since he goes in depth into Irving’s deliberate misuse of documentary evidence. Evans’ conclusion is that Irving is not a legitimate historian– not because he holds an unpopular view– but because Irving deliberately misrepresents evidence and even knowingly relies on forged documents to argue his case. These points were not the whole of the decision against Irving, but they did conform to Lipstadt’s contention that Irving was a fraudulent historian, and therefore that she committed no libel.
As far as monetary interest: Irving also had a financial stake in the case, so Lipstadt’s employment as a university professor is only relevant on a single point: her work has gone through a peer-review process and Irving’s work has not.
Comment by Ian Thal — September 10, 2010 @ 7:31 am
I copied this from Wikipedia:
The judge summarizes his findings as follows:
“ Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.[4] … therefore the defence of justification succeeds.[5] … It follows that there must be judgment for the Defendants.[64]
Note that the judge did not mention that Irving “relies on forged documents.” Irving’s “misuse of documentary evidence” is an OPINION by the judge and by Evans. Many Holocaust historians could be accused of misusing documents for “ideological reasons” and using forged documents. There were forged documents used by the prosecution at the Nuremberg IMT, which are quoted by Holocaust historians. This whole discussion is beginning to remind me of a Seinfeld show in which there was an argument about whether soup is a meal. Lipstadt deliberately set out to destroy Irving because he was a respected historian; he had to be destroyed because he was a threat to the Holocaust story. All of the Holocaust deniers have now been destroyed (Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel, Fredrick Töben, Fred Leuchter) and Irving has joined the ranks of Holocaust believers. So leave him in peace.
Comment by furtherglory — September 10, 2010 @ 8:32 am
“ Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”
Use of forged documents falls under the category of “deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence”. Remember that this was the summary, so not every detail was mentioned in the excerpt you quoted.
This may be an opinion of the judge and the expert witness, but their opinions are essentially the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence presented in court under cross-examination, because it simply wasn’t plausible that Irving was making a good-faith investigation of the historical evidence. that’s how a court of law operates.
The point is that he was a Holocaust denier at least up until his legal waterloo in 2000.
Otherwise, thank you for conceding to all of my main points.
Comment by Ian Thal — September 10, 2010 @ 9:25 am
Unfortunately, Irving repeated his judicial mistakes, when he refused an attorney during his trial in Austria. He also refused an interpreter and was defending himself in German, which he might be in a great command, but not great enough to guide him through the legal process. That caused him a prison time.
Comment by Gasan — September 9, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
Irving was set up to be arrested. He was lured to Austria, so that he could be arrested for something he said in 1989. While he was in prison, he went to the prison library and found his own books there. As soon as he pointed this out, the books were removed. Irving’s life has been completely ruined and he lost all of his money. Meanwhile, Lipstadt is making money on new books about the trial. That’s the world we live in today.
Comment by furtherglory — September 9, 2010 @ 9:46 pm
Irving offered to drop his suit against Penguin if the publishing company would withdraw the book in the UK, but the publishing company refused. That’s not the same as what Lipstadt did to Irving when she went with others to book stores and succeeded in getting Irving’s books removed and when she prevented the publication of Irving’s new book. If Irving had not included Penguin in that charge, the judge would have ruled in his favor on that part of the trial. You don’t hear anything about that now, since everything is told from Lipstadt’s point of view now.
Comment by furtherglory — September 9, 2010 @ 9:56 pm
“Irving offered to drop his suit against Penguin if the publishing company would withdraw the book in the UK, but the publishing company refused. ”
And why should Penguin agree to be censored by a writer with dubious credentials?
“everything is told from Lipstadt’s point of view now.”
Evidently not. You appear to be very happy to tell things from Irving’s current set of talking points.
Comment by Ian Thal — September 9, 2010 @ 10:10 pm
I am still trying to understand the points made by reader Ian Thal. Who was lying, Irving or Lipstadt? Irving was trying to find the truth in that narrative story, while Lipstadt tried to defend the lies created by Grossman, et al. (Read my post). Irving made several mistakes (errare humanum est). but at least he is being honest. Lipstadt is being engaged in pro-profit business venue and she was defending her story at any cost and she was lying on the subject. Defending the holocaust story is Lipstadt’s bread with the butter spread. She lives off holocaust, pays her mortgage off holocaust, and there are also car payments, utilities, etc. We are dealing with a person who cannot be regarded as independent witness, since her living standards depend on the accuracy of the story. This is not the matter who won the trial and who did not. The matter is who was trying to discover the truth and who was deliberately lying.
Comment by Gasan — September 9, 2010 @ 10:46 pm
“You appear to be very happy to tell things from Irving’s current set of talking points.”
Irving’s current set of talking points includes Irving’s belief that the Jews who were sent to Treblinka, as proved by the encoded messages that were intercepted by the British, were killed at Treblinka. During the trial, when Irving was on the witness stand, he said that he didn’t know what had happened to the Jews sent to Treblinka when he wrote his book “Hitler’s War.” In his lectures last year, he claimed to know, based on the encoded messages, what happened to the Jews at Treblinka. The messages did not say that the Jews were killed, but Irving now accepts that they were killed, based on the evidence that they arrived at Treblinka.
“And why should Penguin agree to be censored by a writer with dubious credentials?”
Irving’s dubious credentials were based on the opinions of Lipstadt and her supporters. The Penguin publishing company had lawyers to explain the workings of the court to them and they knew that Irving did not have a case against them. Irving did not have a lawyer to tell him that he would lose in his case against Penguin, but not in his case against Lipstadt if he dropped his case against Penguin. The judge explained in his 333 page judgment that he was forced to rule against Irving in the combined case because Penguin was not guilty of Irving’s accusations against Lipstadt, although Lipstadt was guilty. In the libel part of the trial, Penguin was also not guilty, so the judge was forced to rule against Irving. The defense spent millions on their case and wisely kept Lipstadt off the witness stand, while Irving foolishly handled his case by himself.
Comment by furtherglory — September 10, 2010 @ 5:32 am
I heared than David Irving recanted his statement about gas chambers because his study in soviet´s archives. It´s true? And if it is, what is it in this archives and Who other study this archives? thank you.
Comment by Midilird — September 9, 2010 @ 9:41 am
When I heard Irving speak, it was all about the Enigma machine used by the Nazis to encode their messages during World War II. Irving is primarily a World War II historian and he had recently done more research on the Enigma codes.
When I heard Irving speak, it seemed to me that he was trying to prove the Holocaust, using information from the encoded messages about the number of Jews who were sent to Treblinka. Irving believes that the Nazis used euphemisms in their encoded messages, so that if the messages were intercepted and the code was broken, no one would know what they were talking about.
Irving said that Heinrich Himmler ordered the encoded messages to be rewritten for the report that was submitted to Hitler. Irving believes that Himmler didn’t want Hitler to know that the Jews were being killed in the three Action Reinhard camps: Treblinka, Bekzec and Sobibor. The encoded messages about Treblinka had the words “special treatment” which is believed by Holocaust historians to be a euphemism for “gassing.” In his report to Hitler, Himmler cut out the words “sondern behandlung” which is German for “special treatment.”
Irving first got into trouble when he wrote in his book “Hitler’s War” in 1977 that Hitler did not know about the Holocaust until 1943. This amounted to Holocaust denial because Hitler ORDERED the Holocaust, so of course, he knew about it before 1943.
Irving believes that the changing of the wording in the report to Hitler proves that Hitler did not know about the gassing of the Jews at Treblinka, but Irving also believes that the encoded messages prove that Jews were gassed at Treblinka.
Comment by furtherglory — September 9, 2010 @ 10:02 am