Scrapbookpages Blog

October 15, 2016

My thoughts about the movie entitled “Denial”

Filed under: Holocaust, movies, Uncategorized, World War II — furtherglory @ 10:43 am

Yesterday, I was the first person to line up at my local theater, for the long awaited opening of the movie entitled “Denial.” I assumed that the theater would be crowded, and I wanted to get a good seat. As it turned out, there were only about 8 other people there.

The actress who plays Debra Lipstadt is on the left and Lispstadt is on the right

The actress who plays Debra Lipstadt is on the left and Lispstadt is on the right

I won’t keep you in suspense, waiting for my verdict on the movie:  this is, by far, the worst movie that I have ever seen in my entire life. I started going to the movies twice a week, when I was four years old, so I have seen a lot of movies, and this was the worst: “the worst Jerry, the worst.”

Why is this movie so terrible, you ask?

David Irving

David Irving

The movie is about David Irving, a famous British writer who has written a million books, give or take a few. The actor, who plays the part of Irving, looks nothing like him. I have met David Irving twice, so I know that Irving is a handsome man, who has a beautiful voice. He speaks perfect English.

Irving is now 78 years old, and he might have lost some of his good looks, but there is no way that he looks like the actor who plays him in the movie. I think that this casting, of an ugly man to play him, was a way of putting down David Irving and denigrating him.

David Irving used to be the world’s most famous writer of history books — until he made the mistake of denying that Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz. He denied the gas chambers, long before he had even been to Auschwitz.

In the movie, Debra Lipstadt is shown as she tours the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp in the winter when the ruins are covered with snow. The inside of a gas chamber is never shown in the movie.

However, a peephole, into the alleged gas chamber in the Auschwitz main camp, is shown. This peephole was actually for the SS men to look out of the alleged gas chamber in the main camp to see if it was all clear to come out.

I have a photo of the door with the peephole on this blog post: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/the-door-into-the-auschwitz-main-camp-gas-chamber/

The alleged gas chamber in the Auschwitz main camp is located across the street from the SS hospital, and right next to the administrative offices of the Auschwitz camp. This would be the worst possible place to put a homicidal gas chamber.  The alleged gas chamber was a place for the SS men to go in case the camp was bombed.

David Irving has been called a “denier” because he disputes the claim, by the Jews, that the Holocaust was the deliberate, methodical attempt by the Nazis to kill every last Jew in the world.

It wasn’t until 1988, after Irving had written many books about history, that he became a Holocaust denier, claiming that there were no gas chambers used to kill the Jews.

David Irving is famous for saying that “More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.”

This famous remark ruined Irving’s image as a historian and turned him into a Holocaust Denier, the worst label that a person can possibly have. Currently, deniers are in danger of going to prison, for 5 years or more, in 20 different countries, not including the USA, which is the last outpost for deniers.

The thing that has distinguished David Irving from other historians, who deny the Holocaust, is that he was once considered to be a respectable historian, although he was an admirer of Adolf Hitler. I have met David Irving: he is like a walking encyclopedia when it comes to history. He was always nice to me, and did not put me down, when I talked with him.

In her famous book entitled, “Denying the Holocaust”, Debra Lipstadt wrote that Irving went from being an author, with unconventional views about World War II, to being a falsifier of history. She wrote that Irving believed the pseudo scientific “report”  written by “a self-proclaimed American execution expert named Fred A. Leuchter.”  She wrote that Leuchter said that the gassing facilities at Auschwitz had not been used to kill human beings, but to kill the lice that spread typhus. I believe that Fred Leuchter is correct: why would he lie?  I have met Fred Leuchter; he is the nicest person that you will ever meet.

In 1996, Debra Lipstadt and her book publisher, Penguin, were both hit with a libel lawsuit brought against them by David Irving. In one of the early scenes in the movie, Lipstadt, who is portrayed by actress Rachel Weisz, shows disbelief as her attorney, Anthony Julius (played by Andrew Scott), tells her the rules of British libel law. The burden of proof will be on Lipstast, the defendant, not on David Irving.

In other words, Lipstadt will have to prove the truth of the Holocaust in order to validate her claim that Irvin denied established facts. Prior to this, Lipstadt had always refused to debate with Holocaust deniers. Now she is being forced to debate with David Irving, the world’s most famous Holocaust denier.

Lipstadt now has the choice of allowing Irving  to claim victory, or to prove the Holocaust in a court of law. Lipstadt chooses to fight David Irving in court — and she wins the case. She proves the Holocaust, as claimed by True Believers. End of story.

 

54 Comments »

  1. The movie is going to suck.

    Comment by Denying-History — October 17, 2016 @ 6:45 am

    • You wrote: “The movie is going to suck.”

      I have no idea what you are talking about, but I don’t mind looking up all the previous comments to see the name of the movie to which you are referring.

      Comment by furtherglory — October 17, 2016 @ 7:04 am

      • Think hard, what movie is your blog talking about. (Hint: Denial)

        Comment by Denying-History — October 17, 2016 @ 7:07 am

  2. Revisionists are allowed to have their say at the IMDB message board for Denial. Why don’t people here chip in and make a comment ?
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4645330/board/

    Comment by Les — October 16, 2016 @ 1:51 pm

    • Great idea,but the data base is more than likely run by liberals. Negative comments would probably get yanked. That’s my “2 cents worth”.

      Comment by Tim — October 16, 2016 @ 2:05 pm

      • Did you actually have a look at some of the threads on the Denial message board ? There are plenty of negative comments that have not been removed. Check it out for yourself.

        Comment by Les — October 17, 2016 @ 3:18 am

        • “IMDB”. Internet movie database . Are we on the same page here? You said,”denial message board”. What does that have to do with IMDB? If that’s what we’re talking about (IMDB). I don’t know . You might be talking about something different. I’m talking about the site that deals with specifics of movies. They ain’t gonna have holo debates there.

          Comment by Tim — October 17, 2016 @ 2:22 pm

          • I provided a link in my first post. Did you even bother to click on it ? Every movie that the IMDB lists has a message board where people can discuss the film. That is what I am talking about. You can see that people are discussing the movie Denial including revisionists. Here is the link again –
            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4645330/board/

            Comment by Les — October 18, 2016 @ 2:21 pm

            • Les Nessman. Number one,your link didn’t come up till this letter. Number two,I only saw three comments there.

              The first two comments were pretty much generic. The third comment was in depth about one persons opinion of the holo. With the third comment being the only one of intellect. There’s really no discussion of the holo film.

              Like I said,IMDB is a liberal site. Most of the people that frequent it,I’m gonna say are Libs.

              The first person sounded more like Rex Reed giving his critical thoughts of the movie,with a dash of history thrown in .

              Victim number two flat out admitted they did not know the true story of the holo. That person was trying to line out Debs work trying to show she’s right. I can’t include that person,because he (or she),has come to a conclusion based on one side of the story.

              I’ve not seen you here before,so I’ll tell you what I tell everyone else. I’m in the fence when it comes to the holo. I don’t have all the facts on this time period,so I listen to both sides here.

              People for the holo make good points,yet I’ve seen them make comments to where all I can say is,”uh what ?” Holo deniers make good points at times. Then again they might make a point,where all I’m saying is,”what the hell are they talking about”.

              That section on IMDB is just that. A comments section. None of the comments on there could lead to a discussion. That’s just my take on it

              Comment by Tim — October 18, 2016 @ 9:59 pm

              • good quote I picked uped on that site
                Nice to see some people get it.

                Quote
                My words show that I value scientific inquiry and research over flimsy superstitions. The thing is this: your faction is unwilling to admit that Revisionists are anything other than mouth-breathing antisemitic buffoons. I get it. That’s old news.

                But for those who aren’t biased, let them read the truth: Holocaust Revisionists are predominately scientists and professionals alike who critically reject the Holocaust propaganda over the past half century or so because of the inconsistencies, implausibilities, and glaring problems of it all. They have done extensive research of their own, much of it found in the spectacular Holocaust Handbooks series, which I think any honest, critical-thinking person will wholeheartedly embrace and from that information be forced to conclude that the Holocaust as we know it is nothing but a collosal lie.
                I say this not out of bias or superstition, not out of faith or belief, but because I have held up Revisionist truth to exterminationist propaganda and cannot in my right mind say that I can in any way believe what the propaganda has to say. I had no agenda going into it. Now my agenda is to defend Revisionists and Revisionism, a movement I completely embrace, against what amounts to a witchhunt.

                Comment by jrizoli — October 18, 2016 @ 10:09 pm

              • If you scroll up to the top of the comments section my original comment with link is number 2. The link to IMDB is clearly visible. If you can’t see it at your end then there is something wrong with your computer or whatever device you are looking at this comments section.
                I don’t know how you can say there is no discussion because as J Rizoli has demonstrated (see comment below) people are discussing the pros and cons of holocaust revisionism. Links have also been provided to revisionist sites such as CODOH – http://codoh.com
                One thread is about the testimony of Robert Jan Van Pelt who appeared on behalf of Lipstadt. Members of the general public who because of media censorship have not read what the revisionists have to say in their own words are now able to do so and decide for themselves if they have been lied to or not. There are several revisionist threads such as one about Lipstadt being against holocaust denial laws and also one about the fraud Elie Wiesel. If you don’t like the IMDB then so be it but I am simply alerting people to the fact that they can have a discussion there unlike other mainstream media outlets.

                Comment by Les — October 19, 2016 @ 5:58 am

                • This comment above was directed to Tim. I clicked on reply to his reply but for some reason it went below Jim’s comment.

                  Comment by Les — October 19, 2016 @ 6:01 am

    • Actually, more than anything else that IMDB ‘Denial’ thread shows why it is almost always a complete waste of time to discuss Holocaust revisionism with the general population.

      Comment by eah — October 19, 2016 @ 12:37 pm

      • I tend to agree that discussing the HoloHoax with the general populace is a waste of time. They have been so brainwashed they don’t know whether they’re coming or going anymore and trying to explain to them in simple terms just doesn’t cut it. The Jews have all their information out there brainwashing these people from every angle I don’t usually get on these other sites especially having to go through what I had to go through on the skeptic site truly despicable people on that site very vindictive evil vengeful people. This site is probably the only one I do it on because it’s futile to do it on the others it’s like Jesus said don’t throw your Pearls Before Swine no insult to the swines intended.

        JR

        Comment by jrizoli — October 19, 2016 @ 1:03 pm

  3. I seem to recall that Lipstadt accused Irving of providing the trigger mechanism for Timothy McViegh’s OKC Murrah Federal Bldg. bomb. Irving let them turn his libel trial into a Holocaust trial when it was simply about slander. He’d written a book about the Nuremburg trial so he must have known what a judicial farce it was and “the traditional enemies of truth’s” capacity for controlling a courtroom. So, he’s either very stupid for going into Old Bailey without a barrister and letting the Pinocchios hijack the proceedings, or he was in kahoots with them as controlled opposition from the get go. Notice that revisionism has proceeded along unsung without any further contributions from Irving, Mark Weber or David Cole yet the media needle is stuck on these three wafflers as the standard bearers of Holocaust denial.

    Comment by who dares wings — October 15, 2016 @ 11:09 pm

    • ” or he was in kahoots with them as controlled opposition from the get go “.

      Hmm…that’s an interesting proposition – his strategy for the trial was certainly a misguided one to say the least! Fancy going into the high courts in London without a barrister – let alone any legal advice – and trying to take on the mighty cohorts of the Jewish monopolised legal establishment. Did he really think, that as an English upper-class gentlemen, his accomplished work as a WW2 historian would persuade another learned upper-class English judge to come down in his favour at the trial ?

      And his case was entirely about libel, so why on earth did he allow his opponents to turn the proceedings into a song-and-dance act about the entire “holocaust” – with himself asking questions and debating with witnesses about “gas chambers”, about which he had no expert knowledge at all.

      But on the other hand, if he was “controlled opposition”, then he lost a lot of money as a result of the trial; had his reputation trashed, and for ever after could be labelled openly as a “holocaust denier” which of course the Jewish monopolised mainstream media have proceeded to do each time his name is mentioned.

      However, Irving’s views and actions over the last decade have suggested that he really is ( or was ) a “holocaust believer” Without producing any evidence, he has managed to increase the numbers that the official proponents claim perished in the Rheinhardt camps by over a million!; and not only that, but has joined the ranks of the believers of “the little white cottage and little red cottage in the woods” myth at Birkenau.

      I wonder if Irving believes in “Little Red Riding Hood”, or the story of “The Three Bears”. After all, they lived in a cottage in the woods, and had their porridge eaten by Goldilocks ( in this case, maybe it was Ilsa Koch – the “Bitch of Buchenwald” ).

      And it is interesting that Irving is able to travel feely to Poland each year as a tour guide, and lead visitors around the Rheinhardt camps and the Wolf’s Lair up in former East Prussia. So why do the Polish authorities allow a notorious “holocaust denier” to enter the country at all – after all, there are very strict penal laws about this subject in Poland – surely they would want to keep a person like him out of the country.

      Could it be, that the British intelligence services have asked their Polish counterparts to get their government to allow Irving open access to the country, because he is a useful tool for them in buttressing the official holocaust narrative.

      Comment by Talbot — October 16, 2016 @ 6:45 am

      • You wrote: “[David Irving] has joined the ranks of the believers of “the little white cottage and little red cottage in the woods” myth at Birkenau.”

        I wrote about this on this blog post. Scroll way down to see a video of David Irving at the former location of the “little red house”:

        https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/the-location-of-the-little-red-house-the-first-gas-chamber-at-auschwitz-birkenau/

        Comment by furtherglory — October 16, 2016 @ 7:53 am

      • You wrote: “And it is interesting that Irving is able to travel feely to Poland each year as a tour guide, and lead visitors around the Rheinhardt camps and the Wolf’s Lair up in former East Prussia. So why do the Polish authorities allow a notorious “holocaust denier” to enter the country at all”

        My memory is not what it used to be, but I vaguely recall that David Irving was NOT allowed to visit any of the Holocaust sites for a few years. Finally, he was allowed to go and he started conducting tours. I wanted to go on one of his tours, but the price was too high and I thought that it might be too strenuous for me; I might slow down the tour.

        Comment by furtherglory — October 16, 2016 @ 8:01 am

        • This is off topic. My question pertains the to Paulus surrender. The Reds took 91,000 German POWs. Out of the 91,000,only 5,000 survived.

          I don’t give a shit what anyone says,why weren’t criminal charges put on the Soviet pigs? A lot of the POWs probably died from lack of medical treatment for wounds that existed when they went to lockdown. A lot died from starvation.

          How many died as a direct result of abuse from the Red Bastards? F–k all the BS. They wanna put cases on the Krauts,drag the c–sucking soviets into the court room.

          Next time the Hebs start with their BS,ask them why those German POWs that died at the hands of those sons of pigs,were never put on trial.

          You’ll probably have to remind the crybaby Hebs,the law don’t make distinctions. If you’re accused of breaking the law,you go on trial. If convicted,you face the penalty.

          Why did we kiss Papa Joe’s ass? He ain’t nothing but a spousal abusing,piece of soviet shit. Can’t we just nuke Russia,and turn it into on big glass parking lot? There’s nothing over there I’d miss.

          Comment by Tim — October 16, 2016 @ 11:18 am

          • I wrote about Russian POWs, who were killed, on my website at
            http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Buchenwald/Atrocities2.html

            Comment by furtherglory — October 16, 2016 @ 12:28 pm

            • I don’t care about the Russian POWs. The more that died,the better. I want to know why so many of General Palus’s men died in captivity. I like General Palus,at the same time though,I don’t agree with him disobeying a direct order. Hitler said,no surrender. Fight to the last man. As a soldier I disagree with going against a direct order. As a man,he surrendered to save the lives of the men under his command. I respect him for that. Being a soldier and a man,can conflict sometimes.

              Comment by Tim — October 16, 2016 @ 1:38 pm

      • You wrote: “Fancy going into the high courts in London without a barrister – let alone any legal advice – and trying to take on the mighty cohorts of the Jewish monopolised legal establishment.”

        David Irving is super smart, but he is also conceited. Bad combination. He honestly thought that he could act as his own lawyer.

        Comment by furtherglory — October 16, 2016 @ 8:07 am

        • I am replying to my own comment to add something. David Irving is a very imposing person. If he had asked my opinion, about acting as his own lawyer, I would have told him that this was a great idea. I would have told him that I don’t think that any lawyer could do as good a job as you, yourself, could do.

          Comment by furtherglory — October 16, 2016 @ 8:22 am

          • Like the old adage goes,”anyone that acts as their own lawyer,has a fool for a client”.

            Comment by Tim — October 16, 2016 @ 9:13 am

    • wdw wrote: “He’d written a book about the Nuremburg trial so he must have known what a judicial farce it was and “the traditional enemies of truth’s” capacity for controlling a courtroom. So, he’s either very stupid for going into Old Bailey without a barrister and letting the Pinocchios hijack the proceedings, or he was in kahoots with them as controlled opposition from the get go.”

      Good point! I had never thought of the 2nd option.

      wdw wrote: “Notice that revisionism has proceeded along unsung without any further contributions from Irving, Mark Weber or David Cole yet the media needle is stuck on these three wafflers as the standard bearers of Holocaust denial”

      First, they crown a few half or weak revisionists ‘Kings of Holocaust Denial.’ Then they proclaim triumphantly that even Holocaust deniers believe in the alleged Aktion Reinhardt gas chambers. And finally they can gloat over Gentile gullibility…

      Comment by hermie — October 16, 2016 @ 4:36 pm

  4. The Irving -Lipstadt trial in 2000 was existential for the Zionist project. Irving had to be defeated. Likewise the Trump-Clinton battle is existential for the Jewish banking cartels.

    Comment by peter — October 15, 2016 @ 1:10 pm

    • The Irving-Lipstadt trial in 2000 was existential for the Zionist project.

      In essence there is truth in your statement — if you listen to talks given by Irving in the late 1980s and early 1990s (you can find these eg on youtube), you can hear him say, on a number of occasions, that the gas chamber myth is going to collapse — and that he has advised his Jewish friends to give up on the gas chamber story, the same way they have already given on the stories about soap made from Jewish fat, shrunken heads, etc — he gives different time frames — this was just after eg the Zündel Trial/Leuchter Report, and then the study by Germar Rudolf (now available as the Rudolf Report) — sadly, I think he gravely underestimated the power of Zionists, as well as media and government establishments heavily influenced, and in the case of the media, controlled to a significant degree, by Jews — the Irving-Lipstadt case was definitely one they did not want to lose.

      Comment by eah — October 15, 2016 @ 1:31 pm

      • Irving didn’t stick on topic he went off topic and let them take the places that he shouldn’t have gone. This case had to do with her accusing him of things that weren’t true. He should have stuck with those issues he did win on those issues to some degree he just went too far and he thought he was insurmountable. He thought the truth was going to win out. The Holocaust was not on trial here her accusing him of some stupid things was.

        JR

        Comment by jrizoli — October 15, 2016 @ 2:00 pm

        • Like I mentioned to FG,”anyone who is their own attorney,has a fool for a client”. He’s a historian,not an attorney. That’s why we have that select group of criminals called lawyers. Like the old joke goes,”what do you call a 100 attorneys in front of a firing squad? A good start”.

          Comment by Tim — October 16, 2016 @ 9:19 am

    • Nice video. The man, who is speaking on the video, says that David Irving is a handsome man. So I am not the only person who thinks this. “Handsome is as handsome does” is an old saying. Irving is handsome in this sense also.

      Comment by furtherglory — October 15, 2016 @ 1:37 pm

      • FG. Once again this is off the subject. I remember seeing something a few years back about 4 female spies. They were prisoners of the nazis. There was something about the nazis injecting them with some nasty concoction that killed them . The show said they torched their bodies after. It said one of them didn’t die. Supposedly she was making a ruckus when she was being torched. So they killed them. That’s what happens to spies. I don’t buy the story,because every spy I heard the nazis had,was shot. So what’s the skinny on this?

        Comment by Tim — October 16, 2016 @ 2:14 pm

    • existential for the Jewish banking cartels

      A simple question that people generally cannot answer: Why does the United States federal government, which has the legal authority to print/create money, have to borrow money/go into debt in order to run a budget deficit?

      A famous quote by Thomas Edison on the subject:

      If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good, makes the bill good, also. The difference between the bond and the bill is the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. … It is absurd to say our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay, but one promise fattens the usurers and the other helps the people.

      Comment by eah — October 15, 2016 @ 1:43 pm

  5. Eight souls at the flick beside you. Well,Rachel Weisz picked a role that sounds like it’s gonna bomb out. She’s married to Daniel Craig. He was offered 2 more James Bond movies for a 150 mill. He’s undecided.

    If this movie bombs for Rachel,her career might not recover. Her husband might wanna consider taking the 2 James Bond movies. His wife could be out of a job.

    This is a surprising movie in my opinion. Hollywood can get more mileage out of movies involving,mistreatment of blacks and immigrants. This movie sounds rather dull to me. I wouldn’t look for it at the Oscars. Pray they don’t nominate Rachel for an Oscar.

    If they do and she wins it,I can see it now. “I’d like to dedicate my Oscar to the truth being uncovered by people who try to bury it.”

    Comment by Tim — October 15, 2016 @ 12:46 pm

    • You wrote: “This movie sounds rather dull to me.”

      The movie is not exactly DULL; it is just hard to understand. Most people who see this movie will not understand it at all. I did not like the photography in the movie, but young people might think that the photography is great.

      Rachel Weisz is very beautiful. She will have no problem getting more movie roles.

      Comment by furtherglory — October 15, 2016 @ 12:54 pm

      • I’ve seen some actors take the “wrong” roles,and their career never recovers. To be honest,I can’t watch her in any other movie,without expecting Imhotep the mummy to pop up. Only 8 people showed up for the flick. Couldn’t have been that exciting. I’ll piss my money away on Debbie Does Dallas,before seeing this movie.

        Comment by Tim — October 15, 2016 @ 1:06 pm

    • Tim wrote: “This movie sounds rather dull to me. I wouldn’t look for it at the Oscars. Pray they don’t nominate Rachel for an Oscar.”

      Golden Globes 2009:

      Comment by hermie — October 16, 2016 @ 4:52 am

      • Golden globes is a crappy liberal organization too. Golden Globes,Oscars,they’re all organizations that give people ,”their” opinion,because those people that accept their opinions,are too weak to think for themselves.

        Need proof? Slap their accolades on the advertisement for a movie. You’ll fill that theater in a heartbeat.

        F–k the critics. F–k Gene Shalit ,Siskel and Ebert (f–k the dead one too ),and Rex Reed. People are stupid enough to listen to them.

        I went and saw,”Miss Saigon” back in ’92 ( it’s an updated version of Madame Butterfly). I loved it. One critic thought it was shit. F–k him. I make my own conclusions. A lot of people probably missed the show,because they accepted the review of that idiot.

        I’m sure a lot of people here will agree,people take the written word of others as the gospel,without doing their own investigating.

        I’ve seen no matter which side of the fence people fall on here,they do their own investigating. Jimbo and Jeff are the perfect example. They go at it like junkyard dogs,but they don’t scrap it out over an opinion that someone has given them. They do their own independent research. General population takes their opinion from history,thinking it’s the gospel. Same thing with the movies. The critics say it’s shit,then it must be.

        Comment by Tim — October 16, 2016 @ 6:30 am

  6. So, there are no gas chambers that appear in the movie – although it seems that Lipstadt and a film crew went all the way in the snow to Auschwitz in order to find one. But you say they took some footage of a door with a peephole and decided to include it in the movie. The producer and director must have been “over the moon” with excitement and joy when the plucky team returned to the film studio with such an incriminating piece of evidence!

    But the terribly lonely and perplexed audience of eight people in the movie theatre will have been thoroughly underwhelmed by such a paltry piece of evidence for a gassing program that was alleged to have murdered…. well – your guess of how many is as good as mine! They must have trooped home afterwards in a state of bewilderment at the idea that if the holocaust was true, then why would it need to be argued over in a court of law – and more to the point, why would a Hollywood movie need to made that show the legal proceedings.

    They would also have been left scratching their heads at the two unknown – or barely know – protagonists, neither of whom ever spent any time in an “extermination camp” – either as a perpetrator or as a survivor.

    Comment by Talbot — October 15, 2016 @ 12:28 pm

    • You wrote: “They [the 8 people in the audience] must have trooped home afterwards in a state of bewilderment at the idea that if the holocaust was true, then why would it need to be argued over in a court of law – and more to the point, why would a Hollywood movie need to made that show the legal proceedings.”

      The point of the movie is that Debra Lipstadt is a famous person, who [allegedly] proved that the Nazis killed Jews in gas chambers”.

      Most of the people who see this movie will not realize that Lipstadt proved nothing. She only claimed victory. AFAIK, David Irving did not make any mistakes in his books.

      Comment by furtherglory — October 15, 2016 @ 12:43 pm

      • Here’s a good review of what happened.

        JR

        Comment by jrizoli — October 15, 2016 @ 12:59 pm

  7. With all the interviews of Deborah Lipstadt,why has no one interviewed David Irving, who is not only very much alive, but FAR better-looking than Lipstadt? More-articulate, too, I say, hoping not to damn him with this faint praise.

    Comment by Jett Rucker — October 15, 2016 @ 11:58 am

    • You wrote: “why has no one interviewed David Irving, who is not only very much alive, but FAR better-looking than Lipstadt?”

      The last time that I saw David Irving, he had a “handler” who was the most beautiful woman that I have ever seen. She gave his lecture for him, while he sat, in the front row, and looked at her longingly. It was obvious that he was in love with her. After a few years, she deserted him, and he was inconsolable. As far as I know, he does not give lectures any more.

      Comment by furtherglory — October 15, 2016 @ 12:14 pm

    • They don’t want to interview David Irving because David Irving would show them that this whole movie is one big lie and misrepresentation of the truth. So it’s very unusual to have a movie about somebody and not wanting to interview them which shows how the Jews control the media they do not want anything to get out about this movie but the good news is it does not seem like many people even are going to see the movie anyway. I don’t plan to go see it unless it comes on Netflix later other than that it’s a piece of trash I know it’s a piece of trash and I’m not going to bother with it.

      JR

      Comment by jrizoli — October 15, 2016 @ 12:27 pm

    • http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/Moncrieff/Highlights_from_Moncrieff/162296/David_Irving_on_infamous_Holocaust_court_case

      Here’s a recent interview with DI about the movie…

      Yes, he still gives talks and tours, but is showing signs of wearing down. He’s older, more frail, and weakened from the fight. But he still has some fire in his belly.

      Comment by Schlageter — October 19, 2016 @ 4:33 am

      • I’m not able to hear that podcast for some reason. Had Irving seen the movie before that interview. I’d like Irving’s opinions on the movie.

        Comment by blake121666 — October 23, 2016 @ 3:16 am

  8. “She proves the Holocaust, as claimed by True Believers. End of story”
    You mean true HoloHoax believers.
    But not the true story….

    JR

    Comment by jrizoli — October 15, 2016 @ 11:11 am

  9. “David Irving used to be the world’s most famous writer of history books — until he made the mistake of denying that Jews were killed in gas chambers at Auschwitz. He denied the gas chambers, long before he had even been to Auschwitz.” He has since recanted – we conclude, to sell his books again. I consider them tainted, unusable.

    Comment by Diane King — October 15, 2016 @ 11:11 am

    • You wrote: ” I consider them [Irving’s books] tainted, unusable.”

      His books about History are still usable.

      Comment by furtherglory — October 15, 2016 @ 12:17 pm

    • You wrote: “He [David Irving] denied the gas chambers, long before he had even been to Auschwitz.” He has since recanted – we conclude, to sell his books again. I consider them tainted, unusable.”

      I also denied the gas chambers, long before I ever went to Auschwitz. That’s because I lived in Missouri as a child, and I had seen the real gas chamber in Jefferson City, MO. A real gas chamber needs a very high chimney to get rid of the gas fumes after someone has been gassed. The Auschwitz gas chambers did not have a high stack to get rid of the gas fumes.

      Comment by furtherglory — October 15, 2016 @ 2:19 pm

  10. Irving is 78, not 93…

    Comment by Schlageter — October 15, 2016 @ 10:54 am

    • You wrote that David Irving is 78, not 93. I have made that correction on my blog post.

      Comment by furtherglory — October 15, 2016 @ 12:20 pm

    • Has David Irving already watched this movie? And if he has, what are his impressions of it?

      Comment by hermie — October 16, 2016 @ 4:59 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: