Scrapbookpages Blog

August 30, 2014

Deborah Lipstadt, who defeated hard-core Holocaust denial, now worries about soft-core denial

Filed under: Holocaust — furtherglory @ 8:52 am
Deborah Lipstadt gives a victory salute after defeating David Irving in his libel lawsuit against her

Deborah Lipstadt gives a victory salute after defeating David Irving in his lawsuit against her

Deborah Lipstadt is a professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta; she is back in the news, speaking about soft-core Holocaust denial, which is a new threat to the Shoah (Holocaust).

You can read an article about her in The JC.com here.

This quote is from the article in The JC.com:

[Deborah Lipstadt] The woman who fought one of the most high-profile Holocaust denial legal cases [against David Irving] claims it [Holocaust denial] is on the rise and taking on a new and disturbing form.

Prof Deborah Lipstadt identified the trend of equating the Shoah with modern-day events as a “soft-core” form of denegrating the Nazi genocide.

“It’s used politically, glibly, and I don’t like it. It’s a grim, cheap way of getting to your point.

“It’s much more frequent than in the past. I don’t think there’s much we can do about it,” she said

Topics as wide-ranging as abortion, animal rights and sporting defeats have been likened to the Shoah [Holocaust] over the recent months.

I am writing about this because the subject of the lawsuit, brought by David Irving, against Deborah Lipstadt, has come up recently in the comments on my blog.

This comment was made on my blog on a previous post:

You’re not forced to use the term “Holocaust denial” […] That term [Holocaust denial] was invented by Deborah Lipstadt to demonize, belittle and ridicule Holocaust revisionists and their works. The Mainstream Mass Media then turned Lipstadt’s insult into an official term by using it systematically when they talked about Holocaust revisionists.

Isn’t it very ironic that a Jewess [Deborah Lipstadt] who has never produced anything about the “Holocaust” (her only ‘research’ topic is Holocaust revisionists, not the “Holocaust” itself) could decide that Holocaust revisionists are not researchers but only deniers? Men and women who worked very hard for decades and were persecuted very harshly for that are suddenly mere deniers because Missis Zero Contribution Talmudic Hatred Lipstadt decided so…

When Lipstadt defeated David Irving in his libel lawsuit, this was acclaimed by the media as proof that the Holocaust happened, just as the Jews claim that it did, and that “Holocaust denial” has been defeated.

Irving was suing Lipstadt for libel, and he could have won the case, but he made the mistake of including Penguin Publishing 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 but 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, Irving 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. This was the big mistake that caused him to lose the case.

Irving and Lipstadt disagreed on the details of 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 True Believer experts on her side, but Irving made the mistake of not asking any of the Holocaust revisionists to testify for his side.

In doing some searching on the libel trial, I found nothing about Irving’s charge against Lipstadt for conspiring with others to go to book stores and persuade them to remove his books.

Nor did I find anything about Irving’s charge that Lipstadt persuaded Irving’s publisher to break his contract to publish Irving’s new book.

The judge in the case 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, that part of the judgement was 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 that her side was proving it’s case. In spite of that, I didn’t expect the judge to rule in Irving’s favor because if he had done that, the judge would now be reviled by the whole world, just as Irving was.

David Irving has now redeemed himself, to the point where he can now go on making a living because he now says that he believes that Treblinka was a death camp. I wrote about this on this blog post: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/holocaust-denier-david-irving-will-be-allowed-back-into-germany/

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-death-camp/

Lipstadt’s side of the story is official history and Irving’s side of the story is a crime, punishable by prison time in 19 countries today. So which side is the judge going to believe? The judge could have been thrown into prison in any one of 19 counrties if he had ruled in Irving’s favor.

As I mentioned before, I followed the libel trial very closely. I put this quote from the trial testimony on my website. I have quoted from my scrapbookpages website below:

The following quote, regarding the purpose of the Treblinka camp is from the trial transcript of David Irving’s libel case against Deborah Lipstadt which is on this web site:

http://www.hdot.org/trial/transcripts/day05/pages91-95

(Richard Rampton, the lawyer for the defense, shows David Irving a map of the railroad lines to the Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec camps, as he questions him about the purpose of these camps.)

[Mr Rampton] Then there is that another marking, which we do not have to bother about, which is the actual, I think, German railway as opposed to the Russian one or the Polish one. A different gauge, I think. The line runs north/east or east/north/east out of Warsaw to a place called Malkinia; do you see that?
[Mr Irving] Yes.
[Mr Rampton] Just on the border with White Russia?
[Mr Irving] Yes.
[Mr Rampton] And there is a sharp right turn and the first dot down that single line is Treblinka.
[Mr Irving] Yes.
[Mr Rampton] Then if you go to Lublin and you go east/south/east towards the Russian border you come to a place Kelm or Khelm.
[Mr Irving] First of all Treblinka and then Kelm, yes.
[Mr Rampton] And you go sharp left northwards to Sobibor?
[Mr Irving] Yes.
[Mr Rampton] Which is just again next to the border. If on the other hand you turn right before you get to Kelm or Khelm and go to Savadar, again, travelling right down to the border on single line you get to Belsec?
[Mr Irving] Yes.
[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 of quote

Neither Rampton nor Irving seemed to know the reason why “hundreds of thousands of Jews” were shipped to “these tiny little places.”

I explained the reason that the Jews were shipped to “these tiny little places” in this blog post: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/malkinia-junction-where-the-trains-to-treblinka-stopped/

and also in this blog post: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/the-trains-that-traveled-west-to-treblinka/

65 Comments »

  1. TO FURTHERGLORY: Your comment on the subject of “unclean blood” as need to prevent genetic deseases is not correct at all. Then the statement of marrying relatives – cousins – in order to keep the money in family is, at least, malicious The statement of marriage of brothers with sisters is onòy offensive. You simply do not consider that marriage between cousins and certain genetic deseases are due to the way Jews had to live for centuries in closed quarters of towns whith difficulties to be allowed to travel from one town to an other. You need clearly to learn more about Jewish history, Good bye

    Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — September 5, 2014 @ 12:50 pm

  2. As to the question of USA bombing concerns remember that it had been the Nazi Germany – ally of Japan – to declare the war against USA.

    Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — September 4, 2014 @ 10:42 am

    • Roosevelt had been sinking and capturing German ships for months when Hitler formally declared war on America. And America had massively armed Germany’s enemies (Britain and the Soviet Union) through the Lend-Lease policy. America declared war on other countries for much less than that (often with False Flags). It’s ridiculous to claim that Germany declared war on America. Hitler only made the actual American-German war official. He turned Roosevelt’s unilateral war into a bilateral war.

      http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html

      Comment by hermie — September 4, 2014 @ 8:10 pm

      • Wow, something you’ve written that I actually understand and agree with.
        It is true that there was an undeclared war in the Atlantic for months. The truth is that the U.S. dropped depth charges on a German submarine first (Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich). Hitler actually showed remarkable restraint, resisting Raeder’s attempts to broaden the fighting.
        The insanity was declaring war on the United States while his troops were hip deep in snow before Moscow. There was no need to declare war, the Japanese attacked first at Pearl Harbor and the Japanese-German Treaty only covered an attack by the U.S. against Japan. Everything I’ve read indicates that Roosevelt did not have the support needed to declare war on Germany and would need to withdraw naval forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific to fight the Japanese. By declaring war on the U.S. Hitler allowed Roosevelt to openly join the war in Europe and bring considerable resources to bear against the Nazis.

        Comment by P. O. Truth — July 22, 2015 @ 11:07 am

  3. you fellas would love this…visited Majdanek today with DI and a contingent of the curious. As we arrived, we saw 6 busloads of Israeli school children (rough age 16) , all dressed identically in white sweatshirts emblazoned with large 6 pointed stars. I’d say every third student carried a large Israeli flag on a stick. reminded me of a Nurnberg rally. they were also “protected” by a about a dozen armed guards looking like Secret Service agents. an unreal spectacle as other visitors were told to move aside form their small groups and were also told “no pictures”. Several in the party promptly told the guards to “fuck off” and no further trouble happened. But what a spectacle…the arrogance was palpable.

    Comment by schlageter — September 3, 2014 @ 10:25 am

    • What is the current number of deaths at Majdanek? I wrote about the death statistics at Majdanek on my website, seven years ago: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Majdanek/DeathStatistics.html

      What is the current number of deaths told to the 16-year-olds?

      Years ago, when I toured Auschwitz, my non-Jewish tour guide told me to avoid visiting the camps when Israeli teenagers were there.

      Comment by furtherglory — September 3, 2014 @ 11:46 am

      • So friggin obnoxious and arrogant…78k was what I saw (59k being Jews). But their behavor…oy vey

        Comment by Schlageter — September 3, 2014 @ 2:39 pm

        • As I recall, David Irving visited Majdanek in April 2014, and he explained the purpose of the cylinders inside one of the gas chambers. These cylinders are in a little room, which is inside one of the gas chambers. When I visited Majdanek, I did not know what these cylinders were, so I am glad that David Irving explained it. I blogged about this at https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/

          Comment by furtherglory — September 4, 2014 @ 12:29 pm

  4. The main error of David Irving had been the start of the legal action at all as in that way Ms Lipstadt became famous. Indeed, beside the book about Holocaust denying which studies that Lady had pubblished? Thanks for information about this matter.
    Furthermore, just today there are 75 years of the beginning of WWII which had been the start of the Shoa worsening. First the Ghettoes than the Deportantios and the Gas Chambers according the Nazi doctrine resulting from centuries of hatefull clerical sermons against Jews. The fact that the great Jewish Comunities of Central and East Europe disappeared cannot be denied at all; see the statistics pubblished by Hilberg. Part, not all, of the survivors emigrated to Israel. At Wannsee Heydrich and comrades spoke about “Special Treatment” – Sonderbehandlung – meaning mass murder and did not need a written order from Hitler or Himmler. An experienced criminal is able to avoid leaving any evidence and this applies also to Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich and Eichmann. Remwmbwr that Al Capone had been sentenced only for tax fraud not for all his other deeds. Clear, dear Hermie?

    Comment by Wolf MURMELSTEIN — September 1, 2014 @ 12:58 pm

    • I can’t believe that you dare play the Wannsee card, Wolfie! Yehuda Bauer, former head of the Yad Vashem, can’t believe it either. In 1992, Bauer said: “The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at.” And as far as I remember there was no mention of any “special treatment” in the Wannsee protocol.

      Wolf M. wrote: “An experienced criminal is able to avoid leaving any evidence and this applies also to Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich and Eichmann.”

      So you admit that there exists no real evidence of the “Holocaust”, don’t you?

      Wolf M. wrote: “The fact that the great Jewish Comunities of Central and East Europe disappeared cannot be denied at all; see the statistics pubblished by Hilberg”

      Wanderers wander. Try to get used to that. And don’t make me laugh with Hilberg’s ‘statistics’, wolfie.

      Comment by hermie — September 1, 2014 @ 3:40 pm

      • Dear Hermie! The fact is that I have relatives and friends who did not return from deportation and can only guess their fate. Futhermore, I could not care less about Jehuda Bauer and his statements. As to the Hilberg statistics: the main difficulty is the question “who is a Jew?” as the statisitcs of 1931 consider persons of Jewish Faith while the nazist considered jewis, on racial basis, also persons who did not belong to Jewish Faith and not affilaited to a Jewish Comunity. So the figure of victims is at least six milion but can be more. Futhermore, before end of WWII the nazis destructed as many archives they could burn. I myself remmeber how at Terezin at end of April a lot of files had been collected from offices, trown on truck and then brought to a place and burned. And finally: For You I am WOLF MURMELSTEIN and never “Wolfie”; clear? Good bye.

        Comment by Wolf MURMELSTEIN — September 2, 2014 @ 8:43 am

        • Wolf M. wrote: “The fact is that I have relatives and friends who did not return from deportation and can only guess their fate.”

          Almost everybody lost relatives and friends during WW2. You can guess that your friends and relatives who died of typhus, typhoid tuberculosis, bombs or any other non-genocidal causes were in fact gassed to death in terrible Nazi gas chambers if you like believing that. But the truth is you don’t know how they died.

          Wolf M. wrote: “So the figure of victims is at least six milion but can be more.”

          Many academic historians have been forced to concede after decades that the 6 million figure was only symbolic. If they’ve had hard times trying to save the 6-million figure, don’t even hope that anybody will buy a figure even bigger.

          Wolf M. wrote: ” I myself remmeber how at Terezin at end of April a lot of files had been collected from offices, trown on truck and then brought to a place and burned.”

          Do you realize that you couldn’t have seen the Nazis collect document and throw them on trucks AND also the Nazis bring those documents to another place and burn them? Or maybe you will tell me that the Nazis allowed Jews to follow them by cars and motorcycles, so that those Jews could see what they were doing. And I suppose that they brought those documents outside the ghetto, i.e. to a place where you’re not allowed to go.

          Wolf M. wrote: “And finally: For You I am WOLF MURMELSTEIN and never “Wolfie”; clear?”

          Only Chosenites are allowed to call you “Wolfie”?

          From now, maybe I’ll rather call you “Herr Wolf” like Germany’s greatest leader ever…😉

          Comment by hermie — September 2, 2014 @ 1:48 pm

          • Herr Hermie! 1. My relatives and friends had been deported by the Nazis and had disappeared. 2. Diffusion of mortal diseases had been one of the mass murder. 3. In another part on this Page, I explain what I have personally seen about burning of the Terezin files. 4. The idea of a mass slaughter of Jews by forced labor had been developed about a century before Hitler. 5. The racist call for a “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” had been one of the core “ideas” of Nazi doctrine so Himmler, Goering, Heydrich, etc. had no need for written orders in order to go on with their “tasks”. 6. The Nazi-fascist racial laws concerned so believing Jews as person with only jewish ancestors. 7. Differing from the many “historians”, academic, etc. who never had to stay in front of an SS I am a survivor and remember well what it was to stay in front of an SS. Good bye for today. Wolf.

            Comment by Wolf MURMELSTEIN — September 2, 2014 @ 11:18 pm

            • The term “racist” was not in use in Hitler’s day, as least not in the way that it is used today. Back then, it was normal for people to be proud of their race and to be proud of their ethnicity. Back then, it was not normal for people to want to mix with other races. It was not normal to want “diversity” in one’s country.

              The idea of “mass slaughter” by working people to death was unknown back then. The Germans were the ones who were known for being hard workers. The Jews were known for engaging in banking, money-lending and other forms of working that did not involve physical labor.

              Otto Frank is a good example of a typical German Jew. He was in the banking business and was cheating his customers. No one in his family had ever worked a day in their lives, for centuries. The hard-working Germans were resentful of the Jews because of this.

              Comment by furtherglory — September 3, 2014 @ 8:07 am

              • Herr Hermie! In order to reply to Your statements I need a bit of time. Already about 1825 the idea of mass slaughtering of Jews had been launched in German Romanticism. See also some writngs of Marthin Lutherl. The racism had been developped by the French author De Gobinau in a book pubblished in 1854 and found followers in Germany.
                At the end of XIX century the big banks in Germany had been owned by “pure Aruans”. I guess that You are an Antisemite who regrets the survival of myself and few other Jews. Good bye for todat. Wolf Murmelstein

                Comment by Wolf MURMELSTEIN — September 3, 2014 @ 9:34 am

              • Furtherglory wrote: “The term “racist” was not in use in Hitler’s day, as least not in the way that it is used today. Back then, it was normal for people to be proud of their race and to be proud of their ethnicity.”

                True and false, FG. Depends on where you lived at that time. The term “racist” was invented by the French writer Gaston Méry in the late 19th century. But Méry was a racist writer and he didn’t, of course, use the term “racist” as a pejorative word. Then the Jewish mass murderer Leon (Bronstein) Trotsky used the word “racist” in the 1920s as an excuse to fill mass graves with “racist” Slavs (i.e. Slavs proud of their culture who opposed Bolshevism). Later, in the 1930s, the Jewish degenerate sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld used the word “racism” in the title of one his books blaming Christian morality for every evil thing in the world and promoting deviant forms of sexuality as a remedy. If memory serves me right, the term “racism/racist” first appeared in English dictionaries in the 1930s, but it was not in use among populations at that time. It became in use and a crime only after the Holohoax…

                Comment by hermie — September 3, 2014 @ 1:48 pm

                • Herr Hermie! The racial theories are based on the work of Arthur de Gobineau published in 1854. A form of German racism rose at the end of XIX century in Austria and Hitler knew those theories. In Germany, in 1875, the scholar Paul de La Garde – Paul Boettinger wrote an essay JUDEN UND INDOGERMANEN about the struggle beween Jews and Arians – the Iranians are considered Arians – while the Lutheran Pastor Stoecker, in 1882, banned Christians with jewish ancestery from a lutheran organisation. The idea of “sanguis impurus” – unclean blood – had been developed in XVI century by Spanish Inquisitio to tell apart the descendants of converted Jews. You see a serious research work is urgently needed. Bye, bye. Wolf.

                  Comment by Wolf Murmelstein — September 4, 2014 @ 11:17 pm

                • The theory of “unclean blood” is not racism. It is an attempt, by non-Jews, to avoid genetic diseases carried by Jewish blood. One of these diseases is explained in this article: http://www.gaucherdisease.org/?gclid=COu5neqxysACFRVufgodwzUA5w

                  The origin of these Jewish genetic diseases is the act of Jews marrying close relatives. Even brothers and sisters married — in order to keep the family money in the family.

                  Comment by furtherglory — September 5, 2014 @ 8:33 am

                • Wolf Murmelstein wrote: “The racial theories are based on the work of Arthur de Gobineau published in 1854. […] You see a serious research work is urgently needed.”

                  I was talking about the word “racist” (a verbal missile invented and used by Jews for political purposes, mainly to prevent Gentiles from resisting the growth of their hegemonic power), not about racial sciences (what you call “racial theories”). Two distinct things, Got it now, stupid kike?

                  Comment by hermie — September 12, 2014 @ 7:02 pm

            • Woofie wrote: ” 1. My relatives and friends had been deported by the Nazis and had disappeared.”

              As I’ve already told you, many people disappeared during the titanic WW2. What is that supposed to prove? That people die during wars? Amazing…

              “2. Diffusion of mortal diseases had been one of the mass murder.”

              Old Soviet allegation.

              Why would the Nazis have built numerous expensive delousing anti-typhus facilities in their camps if they wanted to kill their inmates with diseases? That’s ridiculous and makes no sense.

              During WW1 and the following years, typhus killed 10 million people in Russia, over 3 million in Poland and Romania, and several hundreds of thousands (out of only 3 millions inhabitants) in Serbia. No Nazis allegedly diffusing diseases were needed for that. War was enough.

              “3. In another part on this Page, I explain what I have personally seen about burning of the Terezin files.”

              You can explain whatever you want to. Your words prove nothing. And what’s the problem with the Nazis burning the files about a ghetto in the first place?

              “4. The idea of a mass slaughter of Jews by forced labor had been developed about a century before Hitler.”

              Can you bring evidence of a pre-Nazi extermination plan of Jews though labor?

              “5. The racist call for a “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” had been one of the core “ideas” of Nazi doctrine so Himmler, Goering, Heydrich, etc. had no need for written orders in order to go on with their “tasks”.’

              The racist call for a “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” was also one of the core ideas of Zionist doctrine.

              “I owe my permission to submit the Zionist plan for the final solution of the Jewish Question.” – Theodore Herzl, letter to Czar Nicolas II, November 22, 1899

              “The progress of modern civilization has come to be regarded as a sort of modern Messiah for the final solution of the Jewish problem.” – Zionist Nahum Sokolow, book “History of Zionism”, 1919.

              “Experience has shown that civic emancipation has fallen short of securing the social and cultural future of the Jewish people. The Final Solution of the Jewish Question lies therefore in the establishment of the Jewish State.” – National Jewish Association – Cologne, programme “Theses”, 1897.

              “Manchester: United Synagogue adopts resolution that the final solution of the Jewish Question will be facilitated by the formation of a Jewish political and spiritual center, preferably in Palestine, under the protection of the British flag.” – The Jewish Year Book of 5676 (1915/6), 1916.

              ( Other examples here: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t847182/ )

              “6. The Nazi-fascist racial laws concerned so believing Jews as person with only jewish ancestors.”

              As Israël’s naturalization laws…

              “7. Differing from the many “historians”, academic, etc. who never had to stay in front of an SS I am a survivor and remember well what it was to stay in front of an SS.”

              Did you get any “reparations” for staying in front of an SS?

              You’re not a survivor. You’re a hero…😉

              Comment by hermie — September 3, 2014 @ 2:33 pm

              • Herr Hermie! I am only one of the few survivors and in no way a hero. I got the reparation from Austrian State according to the law of 1947 for all the victims of nazi persecution that is in the same way also Austrian nationalists, Socialists, Communists, etc. had been aided to start again. What Your further statements concerns I will answer later as just now I am leaving to go for a neurological visit. Good bye. Wolf.

                Comment by Wolf MURMELSTEIN — September 4, 2014 @ 3:42 am

          • Greatest leader ever…..you mean, the same guy whose actions began the largest war in the history of the world? And by those actions caused the defeat and division of Germany? Not only that, but by proxy caused the subjugation of Eastern Europe by Communist regimes due to his idiotic invasion of the Soviet Union?
            Sounds like a great leader to me.

            Comment by P. O. Truth — July 22, 2015 @ 9:15 am

  5. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28992601

    David Irving’s trial was front page news back in 2000 although most readers assumed that it was a given with their constant repeated images of Belsen bulldozers and Dachau showerheads. There was no way Irving would have won ; the stakes were too high.
    I enclose a link to the news report assault on George Galloway by a Jew for ” Holocaust Denial “. Mr Galloway is a left wing MP who comes from a Irish/Scottish background and he is
    sympathetic to the sufferings of the Palestinians. He is an old fashioned populist socialist rabble rouser and would never be a ” Holocaust Denier ” .

    Comment by peter — August 31, 2014 @ 7:14 am

    • “I support a law, that denying the Holocaust should be a crime. The Holocaust is the greatest crime of the 20th Century, one of the greatest crimes, if not the greatest crime of all human history. And it ought to be a crime to deny it.”

      – George Galloway, 19th September 2012, on WBAI Radio in New York

      Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — August 31, 2014 @ 12:32 pm

      • yes I agree George Galloway is a rabble rousing populist who first used his innate class prejudice to launch his political career. He has the gift of the gab and would make a good slimy second hand car salesman. However he has had laid some good punches on the neo cons. His views on the Holocaust are fairly close to the establishment viewpoint and it is rather ironic that he should be attacked as a ” denier ” !

        Comment by peter — August 31, 2014 @ 4:09 pm

        • Galloway is MP for Bradford West. Here is a link that gives the demographic makeup of Bradford West. At least as of the 2001 Census. It says that 38% of the population is Muslim (ie it’s not really ‘English’ around there anymore; and given the virtual certainty of even more ‘white flight’, it’s probably higher, and even less English, today). So maybe that also accounts, at least in part, for some of Galloway’s rhetoric.

          Comment by eah — August 31, 2014 @ 11:57 pm

  6. “In her account of the trial Lipstadt can barely conceal the lawyers’ contempt for her, yet she is too thick-headed to notice the absurdity of her smug two thumbs-up after the jury announced its verdict. She had as much to do with the victory as I did with last night’s performance of the Bolshoi.”

    – Norman Finkelstein – http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/08/22/remembering-raul-hilberg/

    Comment by The Black Rabbit of Inlé — August 31, 2014 @ 5:04 am

  7. I’m sitting next to david Irving as we speak, enjoying this post over lunch in Riga. We’ve just come from the site of the “Rumbula massacre”.

    He was indeed accused of being mcveighs trigger man. Preposterous .

    As far as “redeeming himself”, he said he writes what he knows to be true, regardless of whom it pleases, and that any thought at “redemption” is perhaps a misinterpretation on your part.

    Comment by Schlageter — August 31, 2014 @ 3:17 am

    • Thank you for confirming the McVeigh accusation. I checked with several people before writing that this was not true. It turns out that I was wrong. You are correct that this accusation is “Preposterous.”

      I’m sorry that I wrote that David Irving is “arrogant.” I should have added that he has a right to be arrogant after all that he has accomplished. I have written several blog posts about Irving, including this one: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/poles-should-be-grateful-that-david-irving-is-in-poland/

      Comment by furtherglory — August 31, 2014 @ 7:59 am

      • I believe it was mcveighs attorney rusty jones (?) who made the accusation. And he IS arrogant. But still a most valuable asset for uncovering real history. I’ll ask him here in a minute about the basis of the okc accusation.

        Ps no truth that he shot down twa 800 or started the great Chicago fire either

        Comment by Schlageter — August 31, 2014 @ 8:16 am

        • Sorry, Stephen Jones, McVieghs attorney, picked up on OKC from an article in the Jewish telegraph agency which was in turn fed this rumor by Anthony Lehmann of the institute of Jewish affairs in London. He concocted it out of thin air…

          Comment by Schlageter — August 31, 2014 @ 8:32 am

    • What does Mr Irving now think about what is said in furtherglory’s article on his mistake of not being helped by Holocaust revisionists and a lawyer during his trial? Does he retrospectively regard that as a mistake in the first place? Does he regret his choice?

      Comment by hermie — August 31, 2014 @ 6:27 pm

      • I asked him that just now. He replied that he feels that hiring a lawyer would not have helped much, as the other side employed 42 lawyers and researchers at a cost of $13 million and it only would have upped his costs. As far as expert witnesses, he felt Germar Rudolf would have not presented himself well and would have possibly damaged his credibility (more than it already was )

        Comment by Schlageter — August 31, 2014 @ 11:58 pm

        • Thank you for your answer, Schlageter and Mr Irving.

          Wouldn’t a lawyer have been better than none at all? Wouldn’t technical advice have been needed? Gas chambers are part of the field of science after all. Couldn’t another Holocaust revisionists have done a job similar to the one of Germar Rudolf as a technical expert? Why not Vincent Reynouard, William B. Lindsey, Walter Lüftl or Fred Leuchter?

          And what about other Holocaust revisionists such as Jurgen Graf, Thomas Kues, Carlo Mattogno, Robert Faurisson, Carlos Whitlock Porter and others? Couldn’t they have been of any help?

          All the best to both of you…

          Comment by hermie — September 1, 2014 @ 7:09 am

          • If you’re asking me, the answer would be an emphatic yes. But he is who he is, and he doesn’t want to believe that others could have helped his cause.

            Comment by Schlageter — September 1, 2014 @ 7:59 am

            • Schlageter wrote: “But he is who he is, and he doesn’t want to believe that others could have helped his cause.”

              That’s unfortunate. No doubt David Irving is brilliant. But nobody knows everything on all topics and there is no shame in asking for some help sometimes. As far as I know, the “Holocaust” is not David Irving’s chosen field. At least, it was not in 2000. So advice from Holocaust revisionist experts would have helped Mr Irving a lot during the Irving-Lipstadt trial, IMHO. It was predictable that Lipstadt was going to focus on the “Holocaust” and an avalanche of cash from the Holocaust industry was going to help her to win the game.

              Comment by hermie — September 1, 2014 @ 3:15 pm

              • spot on. He is brilliant, but his brilliance is confined to a narrow range of WW2 History, namely Hitler, Himmler, Hess, Goebbels, Goring, Churchill. The “Holocaust” is certainly not a topic that interests him in or of itself. What’s funny is there are times previously and even now where I find myself providing him and his audience information he knew nothing of when it comes to filling out the topics he speaks on.

                Comment by schlageter — September 1, 2014 @ 11:57 pm

                • Your comment has just confirmed my understanding of Mr Irving, schlageter. When I refer to David Irving in talkings, I usually call him a WW2 historian or a Third Reich historian, and a very good one, but never a Holocaust historian or even a ” Holocaust denier”.

                  Comment by hermie — September 2, 2014 @ 4:56 am

                • You wrote: “He [David Irving] is brilliant, but his brilliance is confined to a narrow range of WW2 History.” WW2 is a HUGE subject, and AFAIK, Irving is the only person to write about it in great detail. There is a wealth of knowledge in his books, too much for most people to read and absorb.

                  Comment by furtherglory — September 2, 2014 @ 4:44 pm

                • “You wrote: “He [David Irving] is brilliant, but his brilliance is confined to a narrow range of WW2 History.” WW2 is a HUGE subject, and AFAIK, Irving is the only person to write about it in great detail. There is a wealth of knowledge in his books, too much for most people to read and absorb.” Oh absolutely concur! I don’t think anyone objective could argue that anyone knows more information on the topics he has written about. I certainly don’t expect him to be an authority on the entire war, etc. But he is very narrow and very deep. I find myself as a source for him at times when discussing subjects like, say, Jochen Peiper, or Otto Skorzeny, or even some major German officers that are main topics of interest to many. For example, DI is great source on Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, their roles in the Rumbula massacre, but would know next to nothing on say, the units that participated, or the battles in and around Riga, or Hyacinth von Strachwitz, etc. Not a good thing, not a bad thing…Jedem das Seine.

                  Comment by schlageter — September 3, 2014 @ 10:12 am

        • I suspected that David Irving might have had a good reason for not asking Germar Rudolf to help him in his lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt. I also suspected that Germar Rudolf might have been asked to help, but he refused. Germar Rudolf and David Irving are complete opposites in their personality and methods. However, you are correct that he could have asked some other revisionist to help him.

          Lipstadt made the trial all about proving the Holocaust, instead of letting it be about the real issue, which was her actions against Irving, in which she clearly broke the law. Preventing someone from publishing a book is a serious crime; Lipstadt should have been ordered to pay Irving for what he lost, because of her actions.

          Comment by furtherglory — September 1, 2014 @ 10:18 am

          • You are exactly correct. It was character and presentation issues that forced Irving’s hand with rudolf. He did bow to pressure and attempt to use him in his appeal, but found that rudolf had fabricated sources and he couldn’t have that …

            Comment by Schlageter — September 1, 2014 @ 11:26 am

  8. The full story of the disingenuous Mel Mermelstein’s two law suits against the Institute for Historical Review can be found here: http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/pipermel.pdf It’s not so much a story about whether anyone proved, or disproved the Holocaust happened as it is a mindnumbing account of Jewish lawyers and Jewish judges battling it out like frenzied ferrets in two Los Angeles courtrooms.

    Comment by who dares wings — August 30, 2014 @ 11:20 am

  9. Didn’t David Irving originally bring his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt because she wrote in her book Denying the Holocaust that he was suspected of having supplied the trigger mechanism of the bomb Timothy McViegh purportedly used to blow up the Murrah Bldg. in Oklahoma City? Also, this curious document was presented to the court by Irving. He hasn’t mentioned it again and now believes (or lets people think that he believes), along with Mark Weber and David Cole, that 2.2 million Jews were mass murdered in the “Aktion Reinhardt” camps. They base their conclusions on the Hoefle telegram and The Korherr Report. http://www.whatreallyhappened.info/decrypts/Cavendish_Bentinck.pdf

    Comment by who dares wings — August 30, 2014 @ 11:00 am

    • I have the paperback edition of the 1993 book “Denying The Holocaust” by Deborah Lipstadt. I looked through the index and there is nothing listed about Timothy McViegh, nor the Murrah Building. I followed the Murrah Building case and I don’t recall anything in the case about David Irving. I don’t believe that he would have been involved in something like that. I have met David Irving; he is very arrogant and he considers himself to be above something like that. He is a historian and he has no equal when it comes to the history of World War II.

      Comment by furtherglory — August 30, 2014 @ 3:28 pm

      • the 1993 book

        The Murrah Bldg was destroyed by a bomb in April, 1995.

        Comment by eah — August 31, 2014 @ 7:23 am

        • Thank you for pointing this out. I should have looked up the date of the Murrah building bombing before I got out Deborah’s book. Who was it that accused David Irving of being involved in the Murrah building bombing?

          Comment by furtherglory — August 31, 2014 @ 7:39 am

    • The Hoefl telegram, the Korherr report, and the British intercepts of SS communications mentioning exactly numbers of Jews being “processed” in locations ” T, S, B, and L” which meant nothing to the British in 1943 but are said to match the numbers in the Korherr report

      Comment by Schlageter — August 31, 2014 @ 8:02 am

      • How do numbers of Jews going through T,S, B and L prove they were killed there and invalidate the “transit camps” theory? Doesn’t the dramatic collapse of Lublin-Majdanek’s official death toll invalidate the exterminationist interpretation of those numbers?

        Comment by hermie — September 1, 2014 @ 7:34 am

        • I wrote about the gas chambers at Majdanek in several blog posts which you can read here: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/tag/majdanek-gas-chamber/

          In the first of the posts in this series, I wrote about David Irving’s visit to Majdanek and his explanation of the “little room” inside one of the so-called gas chambers.

          Comment by furtherglory — September 1, 2014 @ 7:59 am

        • He states that the devil is in the details…ie the language and wording used…ex “processed in” as opposed to “processed through” likely denote liquidating the inhabitants.

          on your 2nd point, I’ll have to ask him. Of course, I don’t disagree with your logic here…

          Comment by schlageter — September 2, 2014 @ 12:00 am

          • Schlageter wrote: “the language and wording used…ex “processed in” as opposed to “processed through” likely denote liquidating the inhabitants”

            Would a native German say something like “processed through” in the first place? I wonder this because my first language is French and I would be in trouble if I had to translate “processed through” into correct French.

            In German, “through” is “durch” and “processed/processing” is “verarbeitet/verarbeitung”. But it seems that “verarbeitung through” is usually translated “processing by/processing by means of” into English (http://www.linguee.de/deutsch-englisch/uebersetzung/verarbeitung+durch.html).

            And aren’t the words “durchgeschleust durch die Lager im Generalgouvernement” (“channeled through the camps in the General Governorate”) in the Korherr report? Doesn’t Mr Irving see any devil in this detail? Why?

            Comment by hermie — September 2, 2014 @ 4:45 am

            • Schlageter, you wrote “Jews being “processed” in locations T, S, B, and L which meant nothing to the British in 1943”. That’s interesting. Why should those words mean anything sinister in 2014? What happened between 1943 and now? I’d answer: 7 decades of very intensive brainwashing by Zionist-owned mass media teaching us to see evil things in every “natzeee” things.

              Concerning the things that meant nothing to the British in 1943, it’s interesting to note that the British of that time had spent the previous years in fear being fed with all kinds of anti-German atrocity propaganda lies. The Great Zionist Holohoax Campaign had already begun at that time. In mid-December 1942, 19 Allied nations, including UK of course, had publically blamed Hitler for his alleged campaign of extermination against Europe’s Jews. If words like “processed” had to be intrepreted in a sinister way, that time’s British were in the appropriate atmosphere to do it. The words “which meant nothing to the British in 1943” make sense only with the former narrative claiming that nobody was aware of the “Holocaust” until after WW2*. But it doesn’t make any sense with today’s narrative claiming that everybody was aware of the “Holocaust” but did nothing.

              (* “I must say that I had no idea, when the war came to an end, of the horrible massacres which had occurred; the millions and millions that have been slaughtered. That dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.” – Winston Churchill, speech before the House of Commons on 1 August 1946.)

              Comment by hermie — September 2, 2014 @ 5:44 am

        • Yes it does, the British decodes, which I am holding in my hands, match closely with the “revised” numbers of 59,000 Jews. The Korherr report, the hoefle telegram, and the decodes coincide. The soviet / mainstream/ PC number of 1.5 million had zero credibility

          Comment by Schlageter — September 2, 2014 @ 12:41 pm

          • So the Jews who died of typhus and other diseases at Majdanek were also counted as Jews “Reinhardt actioned” in the 6…ehrm…2 homicidal gas chambers at Majdanek? Is that what you mean?

            Wasn’t the number of Jews “processed in L” around 25,000 according to the Hoefle telegram?

            Comment by hermie — September 2, 2014 @ 1:17 pm

            • Yes that’s correct 25000 is the number on the telegram. And great deduction on the liquidated vs typhus etc. I’m with you…

              Comment by Schlageter — September 3, 2014 @ 12:42 am

              • So the numbers “coincide” only with deductions, not on paper? The documents need to be “adjusted”/interpreted to coincide. Were around 24,000 Jews (59,000 minus 25,000) registered as having died of typhus and other diseases at L or is that just a free adjustment to make documents coincide? I’m just trying to understand the reasoning.

                Comment by hermie — September 3, 2014 @ 2:45 pm

                • Sorry. I meant 34,000 ‘natural’ deaths, not 24,000.

                  [quote]

                  Consider the estimate of 59,000 Jewish victims—a number that comes from the director of the Majdanek Museum, Tomasz Kranz (2007). In order to accept his number, we need to know how and when these people died. But even he gives us a rapidly shifting story. In 2003, Kranz wrote that “60 percent of the victims in Majdanek died as a result of starvation, forced labor, maltreatment, and illness” (2003: 230). If this holds for the Jews, it means some 35,000 died of these ‘natural’ causes, while the remaining 24,000 died by gassing or shooting. But we also have the story of the “Harvest Festival” (Erntefest) massacre, in which 18,000 Jews were allegedly shot at Majdanek on a single day, 3 November 1943. If this is true, it leaves, at most, only (24,000 – 18,000) = 6,000 Jews who were gassed or shot prior to that date.

                  But Kranz could evidently see that this caused a problem for the conventional view, which demands large numbers of Jews gassed at each of the six death camps. If only 6,000 were ‘shot or gassed,’ and if, say, one or two thousand of these were shot, this leaves only perhaps 4,000 that were gassed—unacceptably low for our traditional historians. This is likely why, in 2007, Kranz backpedalled. He now makes no claims about gassings versus shootings or other causes. He makes no mention of the victim count at the “Harvest Festival.” He simply says, “We do not, after all, have at our disposal any data documenting deaths by dividing them into various forms of killing” (2007: 104). In a footnote he adds that “estimates concerning the numbers of mass prisoner shootings and gassing…are very general estimates and are not supported by source research.” Therefore such figures “should be considered of little use.” In other words, we know almost nothing about how the Jews died; it is all speculation. But if this is true, how can he be so confident of his 59,000 figure?

                  [end quote]

                  (Source: http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2014/volume_6/number_3/the_great_holocaust_mystery.php)

                  Comment by hermie — September 8, 2014 @ 4:21 am

                • Everything about the Majdanek camp is suspicious, starting with the fact that it is on a major road where thousands of people, driving past it, could see everything. It is currently INSIDE the city limits of Lublin. The “Harvest Festival” is very suspicious. I wrote about this in several blog posts, including this one: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2014/05/04/what-is-the-truth-about-the-infamous-aktion-erntefest-at-majdanek/

                  The so-called “gas chambers” at Majdanek are ridiculous; they have now been downgraded from the original claims, which were laughable.

                  Comment by furtherglory — September 8, 2014 @ 7:59 am

  10. Years ago, Irving moved the accusation against Benjamin Murmelstein to have been obtained by blackmail a huge sum from an USA insurance company. That Company did not even answer my question about the affair and it took a long time to get the Irving organization to admit their error. Indeed a certain Mermelstein – not Murmelstein – had settled a litigation with that company. The Holocaust occurred – the great Jewish communities of Central and East Europe disappeared (!) – however at all the trials the Nazi defendants held the version to have only obeyed orders given by Hitler, who became Chancellor in 1933, having been appointed by President Hindenburg. It is well known that Hitler gave only oral – never written – orders. Besides, the destruction of Jews was – and is – part of the Nazi “ideas” based on racism.

    Comment by Wolf MURMELSTEIN — August 30, 2014 @ 9:27 am

    • Wolf M. wrote: “the great Jewish communities of Central and East Europe disappeared”

      And other Jewish communities grew, notably the one in Palestine.

      – Zionist population transfer operation & establishment of a new state (through war and atrocity propaganda): Successful
      – Drainage of the former “Pale of Settlement”: Almost complete
      – Mission: Accomplished

      “The aim of our efforts is to organize a systematic massive Jewish evacuation from all the countries in which they live.” – Zionist leader & Holohoax propagandist [through the Bergson Group’s campaigns in America, eg the “We Will Never Die !” tour in 1943] Ze’ev Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1936.

      Wolf M. wrote: ” at all the trials the Nazi defendants held the version to have only obeyed orders given by Hitler”

      Classical “Speer defense” in order to get a light sentence.

      And many Nazi defendants on trials denied any knowledge of the “Holocaust” or even denied the “Holocaust” itself (http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8165).

      For instance, Dr. Horst Pelckmann, defense counsel for the SS at Nuremberg, exposed the fact that over 1,500 SS men denied the “Holocaust”.

      21 August 1946 – HERR PELCKMANN: “On the question of whether the SS members recognized the destruction of Jewry as an aim of the leaders, 1,593 out of 1,637 affidavits which mention this problem state that the Jewish problem was not to be solved by killing or the so-called “final solution,” and that they had no knowledge of these intentions of the leaders. They point out that the SS members were forbidden to undertake individual acts against Jews. As evidence, numerous members refer to the fact that many death or other severe sentences were passed because of crimes against Jewish persons or Jewish property.” (IMT Proceedings, vol. 21, p. 368)

      Wolf M. wrote: “It is well known that Hitler gave only oral – never written – orders.”

      That’s a lie. Many orders from Hitler were given in writing and were found after WW2. Only the “Holocaust” remained in the dark as far as documents are concerned.

      “The archives torn from the bowels of the Third Reich, the depostions and accounts of its chiefs permit us to reconstruct in their least detail the birth and the development of its plans for aggression, its military campaigns, and the whole range of processes by which the Nazis intended to reshape the world to their pattern. Only the campaign to exterminate the Jews, as concerns its completion, as well as in many other essential aspects, remains steeped in fog. Psychological inferences and considerations, third- or fourth-hand accounts, allow us to reconstruct the developments with a considerable verisimilitude. Certain details, nevertheless, will remain unknown forever. As concerns the concept proper of the plan for total extermination, the three or four principal actors are dead. No document remains, and has perhaps never existed.” – Leon Poliakov, Breviaire de la haine (Breviary of Hate) , Paris, 1979, p. 134.

      “Hitler’s role in several major crimes (euthanasia, the murder of British Commandos and Soviet commissars) is documented beyond doubt, […] But the German academics like Jäckel have produced no evidence at all that Hitler ordered the Holocaust. They have all just run around in circles quoting each other. They have built their case on the biggest act of incest since 1945. The fact is, they have less evidence than a Brixton magistrate would accept in a case of bicycle stealing.” – David Irving

      Comment by hermie — August 31, 2014 @ 6:59 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: