You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. Remove these ads when you register. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
eeesh those protesters eh. that would have been an interesting debate
yeah its giving platform to their views in just about the most sensible sort of place they could possibly get a platform. somewhere that intelligent debate is going to occur which will highlight just how ridiculous their thoughts are, they arent really going to do much recruiting there.
I'm not going to defend what he thinks about the Holocaust, but he wouldnt be the first person to question how much Hitler himself had to do with the execution of the Holocaust. 'Mainstream' historians divide quiet evenly on the issue.
No, he wouldn't be the first person. Well, obviously he didn't take the next train down there and pour the pellets down the chute or sort the clothes!
You don't wanna debate it, ok. Neither do I, really. I call it the 'is water wet' debate, cuz that is what it feels like I am debating, when I am. But people of Russian heritage like me respond almost against our will (those that aren't anti-semitic, that is) cuz we don't like to see Hitler let off the hook, as Irving tries to do.
I disagree with yer statement mainstream historians divide evenly. The claim that Hitler was unaware is an extremely MARGINAL opinion.. ... More evidence comes out as govt. archives are released, diaries, etc. Ya Hitler and his closest death cult pals killed themselves rather than face the music, so they weren't around to testify ... And a written order has not been found (known as the Holy Grail of Holocaust research!). But others did talk .... My Gawd, the Allies knew it was going on by 1943! And Hitler didn't??!
How can anyone read Goebels diaries and come away thinking Hitler did not know? Not only did he know, but after some stalling, gave the order in around December 1941. (more and more info about this critical time is available ... meetings with Hitler, who was told what, etc that's what I consider a more meaningful debate, when he ordered it).
Goebels diary February 24, 1942, after a visit with Hitler in Berlin:
The Fuehrer again voices his determination to remorselessly cleanse Europe of its Jews. There can be no sentimental feelings here. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that they are now experiencing. They shall experience their own annihilation together with the destruction of our enemies. We must accelerate this process with cold brutality; by doing so we are doing an inestimable service to humanity . . . .
I’m not sure how it would amount to letting Hitler off the hook, given his reputation for other things. Wouldn’t it be putting others on the hook with him?
In my view it not that Hitler was unaware, just that he had other preoccupations, like you know, winning the war, so liquidating jews and all the logistics involved in that was not his main priority. That is also the argument Irving developes in 'Hitlers War'. Hitler was not the architect of the Holocaust, that was Goebbels and Himmler. How independently they worked from the Fuhrer is contestable.
Goebbels Diaries are something else we would know much less about if it wasn’t for Irving.
At the last IHR Conference, in October 1992, I spoke about my visit to the secret Soviet state archives in Moscow, where I found the private diary of Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister, microfilmed on eighteen hundred glass plates. [See: D. Irving, "The Suppressed Eichmann and Goebbels Papers," March-April 1993 Journal, pp. 14-25.]
I can't tell you just who tipped me off about this, as it would breach confidentiality, but there are certain German historians who are friendly to me, and one of them tipped me that the material was just waiting to be found by someone. I went to Moscow and got this material -- to the unbounded rage of rival historians around the world, who couldn't believe that I, the "incorrigible," "neo-Nazi," "Fascist-scum" historian, had got the stuff for which they had been looking for 50 years
"As a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving's military history."
'THE reference is to the Schlegelberger Memorandum. You will find the dossier on this crucial document on my website here. It is from a slim Reich Ministry of Justice file titled "Behandlung der Juden" - Dealing with the Jews. I found it and quote it, the conformists didn't and don't. '
You will not find any reference to it in the books of conformist historians, though it is genuine beyond doubt (it is in the German government archives). It is a memorandum drafted by a lawyer, referring to Hitler, the decision on Jews, the final solution (as such), and dates and deadlines! In fact it was not by a mere "administrator", but by Franz Schlegelberger, minister of justice. Not even mentioned by my critics -- because it shows Hitler saying he wanted the final solution deferred until the war was over. Some genocidist!!
Translation in full: "Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."
__________________ Everyday is a winding road
I get a little bit closer
Everyday is a faded sign
I get a little bit closer to feeling fine
Last edited by light my candles : 11-28-2007 at 08:38 AM.
Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, accused the event's organisers of staging a "juvenile provocation" and reducing freedom of speech to "a silly parlour game".
I’m not sure how it would amount to letting Hitler off the hook, given his reputation for other things. Wouldn’t it be putting others on the hook with him?
Irving's whole motivation was to lesson the culpability of Hitler and the nazis.
Quote:
In my view it not that Hitler was unaware, just that he had other preoccupations, like you know, winning the war, so liquidating jews and all the logistics involved in that was not his main priority. That is also the argument Irving developes in 'Hitlers War'. Hitler was not the architect of the Holocaust, that was Goebbels and Himmler. How independently they worked from the Fuhrer is contestable.
Of course Hitler approved of the Holocaust. whether he was busy conducting the war or not was irrelevant. No way the mass killing of Jews, and others, takes place without his blessing. During the American revolutionary war troops in the continental army observed "Pope's Day" by burning the Pope in effigy. General Washington ordered it stopped. He called it ridiculous and childish. In the American Civil War Lincoln rescinded an order by General Grant that would have expelled Jews from Union controlled territories. Washington and Lincoln were both involved in trying to win a war and yet, they found time to step in and stop an order by their generals or behavior by the troops they didn't like. It would have been the same for Hitler.
As for Schlegelberger Memorandum. A synopsis of the Irving libel trial:
5.159 (Professor Richard J. Evans ) was critical of Irving for the way in which he describes the memorandum in Goebbels:
"Hitler wearily told Lammers that he wanted the solution of the Jewish problem postponed until after the war was over, a ruling that remarkably few historians now seem disposed to quote".
Evans regarded that passage as a complete misrepresentation of the memorandum. There was no ruling by Hitler. In any case the deportations and killings continued unabated, which would scarcely have happened if Hitler had ordered their suspension.
5.160 But Evans reserved the main thrust of his criticism for the account of the memorandum in Hitler's War, where the reader is clearly given to understand by the passage at p464 that the note is "highly significant" because it shows Hitler to be wanting to put off the entire Jewish question until the end of the war. Irving regards the note as so important that he includes the following reference to it in the introduction:
"Whatever way one looks at it, this document is incompatible with the notion that Hitler had ordered an urgent liquidation programme".
Evans maintained that evidence of actions taken within the Ministry of Justice and elsewhere belie Irving's claim. Moreover, if Hitler had indeed given an instruction to postpone the final solution of the Jewish question until after the war, how, asked Evans, is it that the extermination programme pressed ahead in the remaining months of 1942 and thereafter.
Irving's whole motivation was to lesson the culpability of Hitler and the nazis.
Of course Hitler approved of the Holocaust. whether he was busy conducting the war or not was irrelevant. No way the mass killing of Jews, and others, takes place without his blessing. During the American revolutionary war troops in the continental army observed "Pope's Day" by burning the Pope in effigy. General Washington ordered it stopped. He called it ridiculous and childish. In the American Civil War Lincoln rescinded an order by General Grant that would have expelled Jews from Union controlled territories. Washington and Lincoln were both involved in trying to win a war and yet, they found time to step in and stop an order by their generals or behavior by the troops they didn't like. It would have been the same for Hitler.
As for Schlegelberger Memorandum. A synopsis of the Irving libel trial:
5.159 (Professor Richard J. Evans ) was critical of Irving for the way in which he describes the memorandum in Goebbels:
"Hitler wearily told Lammers that he wanted the solution of the Jewish problem postponed until after the war was over, a ruling that remarkably few historians now seem disposed to quote".
Evans regarded that passage as a complete misrepresentation of the memorandum. There was no ruling by Hitler. In any case the deportations and killings continued unabated, which would scarcely have happened if Hitler had ordered their suspension.
5.160 But Evans reserved the main thrust of his criticism for the account of the memorandum in Hitler's War, where the reader is clearly given to understand by the passage at p464 that the note is "highly significant" because it shows Hitler to be wanting to put off the entire Jewish question until the end of the war. Irving regards the note as so important that he includes the following reference to it in the introduction:
"Whatever way one looks at it, this document is incompatible with the notion that Hitler had ordered an urgent liquidation programme".
Evans maintained that evidence of actions taken within the Ministry of Justice and elsewhere belie Irving's claim. Moreover, if Hitler had indeed given an instruction to postpone the final solution of the Jewish question until after the war, how, asked Evans, is it that the extermination programme pressed ahead in the remaining months of 1942 and thereafter.
Evans would say that though wouldn’t he. He has to say something. How much was he getting paid? Jewish marriages? At this stage of the war that was what Hitler had in mind with the ‘final solution’?
I find Irvings interpretation more plausable.
Irving’s response
5.162 Irving acknowledged that the Schlegelberger memorandum is an unsatisfactory document. But he is satisfied that it is authentic. He pointed out reference was made to a complete copy of the memorandum (typed out in full with initials) as early as 1945 in a list compiled by the British Foreign Office of documents found in the files of the Nazi Ministry of Justice. That copy subsequently went missing. Irving has attempted, without success, to obtain the top copy from the US National Archives. He speculated that the copy in the file which was assembled by the prosecutors at Nuremberg file may have been removed by them because they did not want Lammers to be able to use it to exculpate himself. At all events Irving has no doubts about the genuineness of the memorandum. (Evans agreed that the Abschrift is a record of an authentic memorandum, adding the rider that Irving’s eagerness to treat this document as genuine contrasts starkly with his scepticism about the integrity of documents which do not fit in with his thesis).
5.163 Regardless of its unsatisfactory features, Irving remained firm in his view that the Schlegelberger note is vital document which provides a clear indication of Hitler’s wish expressed in the spring of 1942 to postpone a decision on the Jewish question generally until after the end of the war. During the evidence Irving made reference time and again to the memorandum, which he regards as the linchpin of his case for saying that Hitler sought to protect the Jews.
5.164 Irving dismissed the notion that the note dates back to 1941 as a “vanishingly small probability”. In support of this conclusion Irving referred to a Staff Evidence Analysis sheet, apparently prepared by the prosecutors at Nuremberg who assembled the file which contained the memorandum. Irving points out that, with one exception, the documents in the file come from the period March to April 1942. So the 1942 date tallies with the dates of most of the documents in the file.
5.165 In support of his contention that Schlegelberger was referring to the Jewish question generally, Irving argued firstly that the discussion at the continuation of the Wannsee conference on 6 March 1942 was not confined to the mischlinge problem (although he agreed that the minute of the meeting suggests otherwise). Irving cited in support of this contention the post-war evidence of Ficker and Boley who were both present. (Evans dismissed their evidence as self-exculpatory). Irving went on to point out that the file in which the memorandum was contained is broadly entitled “Treatment of the Jews”. Another document in the file is “Overall solution of the Jewish problem”. Irving maintained that the immediately preceding document in the file supports his interpretation of the note that it is dealing with the question of Jews generally, not just mischlinge. In that document dated 12 March 1942 Schlegelberger referred to the meeting which had been held on 6 March as having been concerned with the treatment of Jews and mixed races. He expressed the wish that Lammers should consult Hitler about the decisions which would need to be taken which he considered to be completely impossible. Irving argues that this letter also indicates that both the Jews generally and the mixed race issue were under discussion. Following his receipt of that message, it appears that Lammers offered to meet Schlegelberger on the return of the former to Berlin at the end of March. As Evans agreed, the pair probably met in early April. Irving argued that this chronology suggests that the date of the memorandum would be early April by which time Lammers had spoken to Hitler.
5.166 Irving relied on the terms of the Schlegelberger memorandum itself. He pointed out that it refers conjunctively to Jews and mixed marriages as if both (separate) topics were under consideration. It is headed “The solution of the Jewish question”, which suggests a broad not a narrow subject-matter. (Were it not so headed he would have considered Evans’s interpretation a viable alternative theory). Irving argued that there is nothing in the terms of the memorandum itself to justify the narrow interpretation put on it by the Defendants. Irving argued that in the spring of 1942 Hitler was preoccupied with events on the Eastern front. In that situation his likely reaction, upon being asked about the Jewish question, was that it should be put off until the end of the war. Evans considered that this argument ignores Hitler’s obsessive anti-semitism which continued to dominate Hitler’s thinking, even at times of military crisis.
5.167 Irving produced what he described as an extract from the evidence which Lammers gave at his trial when he testified that Hitler had told him that he had given Himmler an order for the evacuation of the Jews and that he (Hitler) did not want to hear any more about the problem until the end of the war. Evans took the view that that Lammers was seeking to avoid incriminating himself when he claimed that Hitler wanted no more than the deportation of the Jews.
5.168 Irving defended his treatment of the note at p 464 of the 1991 edition of Hitler’s War by pointing out that he did make mention of the problem of the mischlinge. He explained that pressure of space prevented him from making clear to the reader of the text of Goebbels that the 6 March 1942 conference was confined to the mischlinge issue. There was, he said, no question of his having distorted the evidence.
5.169 Irving maintained that the Defendants are trying to devalue what is a “high level diamond document” when they argue that it bears only on the problem of the mischlinge.
______________________________________________
I just read the entire court transcript, provided on Irvings website. David Irving v Penguin & Lipstadt
That has caused me to give no weight to this courts decision.
As for who won: since Lipstadt's team wasted some 13 million dollars which they could not recover, it must seem a Pyrrhic victory at best. What kind of victory is it that costs so much, and takes a team the size of theirs, with payments the size they are found to have made to their witnesses, to accomplish against a lone and unskilled plaintiff, arguing without legal aid, and unaided in Court?
I wonder if any UK publisher will dare to publish her next book: we are eagerly awaiting her next arrival in the UK. As her lawyers remarked in private correspondence with other lawyers, which I have seen, "David Irving is more active than ever before," writing books, travelling the USA, lecturing, organising lectures and international conferences and the rest.
I certainly do not feel defeated.
The expert witnesses were invited to express opinions on the basis of their expert knowledge, -- and they were paid upwards of half a million dollars each by only one side. Go figure. When Gray J was told of the actual fees paid to these "neutral" expert witnesses, he said that he was shocked, that the amounts were "obscene" (his word), and that he would not allow them to be charged in their entirety. As it was, the Defence, despite explicit Orders to do so from the Court of Appeal, never had their costs taxed. I do not wonder why.
As for pursuing Gita Sereny and The Observer: by agreement with them I played that match second; unfortunately however the British Government trustee seized my entire archives including all my legal files, and including the case files for The Observer action, Discovery, etc., etc. This has delayed things beyond the point where it seems to make sense to proceed. The trustee is now negotiating to return my archives, library etc., but we have a new fight with them as I am claiming substantial compensation for wrongful deprivation.
Wolff LCJ ruled in the first clause of his new Rules of the Supreme Court that justice must be obtained with proportionate costs, or words to that effect. When one side spends $13m, and the other can afford to spend nothing at all... As I said in my remarks to the press on the Judgment day in April 2002, "Sometimes Goliath wins."
__________________ Everyday is a winding road
I get a little bit closer
Everyday is a faded sign
I get a little bit closer to feeling fine
Evans would say that though wouldn’t he. He has to say something. How much was he getting paid? Jewish marriages? At this stage of the war that was what Hitler had in mind with the ‘final solution’?
I find Irvings interpretation more plausable.
Irving's interpretation is only more plausible if you're a Holocaust denier.
His supporters tend to be radical Muslims, neo nazis, or maybe Mel Gibson.
Irving failed to convince the trial judge. In fact the judge called him a racist and an anti Semite.
"No historian of the Second World War can afford to ignore Irving.' Few contemporary scholars of the Third Reich have his depth of knowledge, virtually none has met as many of its leading figures and nobody, surely, has unearthed more original material--a private archive known as the 'Irving Collection,' always generously made available to other researchers, which weighs more than half a ton."
"David Irving knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War. He discovers archives unknown to official historians and turns their contents into densely footnoted narratives that consistently provoke controversy... His greatest achievement is Hitler's War, which has been described as `the autobiography the Führer did not write' and is indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round. Now he has turned his attention to Joseph Goebbels... The result is a characteristic Irving book: 530 pages of text and 160 pages of relentless references..."
__________________ Everyday is a winding road
I get a little bit closer
Everyday is a faded sign
I get a little bit closer to feeling fine
Last edited by light my candles : 11-28-2007 at 02:53 PM.
Can I remind y'all, in case it's getting lost, that this thread was originally about the invitation of Irving and Griffin to the debate. The subject of the debate was freedom of speech, not the Holocaust.
Also, from another forum:
Quote:
"I went. The only interesting thing were about 20 Fascists being chased down a side-street by police on horseback before some SolFed people managed to get to them. One of the BNP supporters tried to get an Indian cop to protect him. I found that funny.
Anyway, a lot of people do not support the free speech for the BNP side mainly because they have been threatened for the very fact that they even blogs about them (they should be threatened because of writing blogs full stop). A mate had death threats sent to him. Plus the far-right runs Redwatch (I am not aware whether Searchlight still does the lefty version of this). Basically, the far right doesn't allow its opponents free speech - so why then should they be allowed it?
Oxford isn't full of overprilvilaged twats (well, not as many as you'd think) but the Oxford Union definately is. They are the worst possible hacks, and their President only invited these guys because it would further his career (after all, OU Presidents usually become Ministers or PMs)."
The defence had the backing of 13 million dollars and Penguin. Irving represented himself.
Bogus argument since it was Irving who did the suing and he did it in a country (the UK) that has libel laws that favor him. The burden of proof was on the person/persons he was suing. He still lost..badly. It was a total rebuke of his revisionists/denier views.
"No historian of the Second World War can afford to ignore Irving.' Few contemporary scholars of the Third Reich have his depth of knowledge, virtually none has met as many of its leading figures and nobody, surely, has unearthed more original material--a private archive known as the 'Irving Collection,' always generously made available to other researchers, which weighs more than half a ton."
"David Irving knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War. He discovers archives unknown to official historians and turns their contents into densely footnoted narratives that consistently provoke controversy... His greatest achievement is Hitler's War, which has been described as `the autobiography the Führer did not write' and is indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round. Now he has turned his attention to Joseph Goebbels... The result is a characteristic Irving book: 530 pages of text and 160 pages of relentless references..."
But Keegan also said:
"Some controversies are entirely bogus, like David Irving's contention that Hitler's subordinates kept from him the facts of the Final Solution, the extermination of the Jews..."
And
"Well, I read Hitler's War, the appropriate passages, very carefully over the weekend, and I continue to think it perverse of you to propose that Hitler could not have known until as late as October 1943 what was going on to the Jewish population of Europe, and indeed many other minority groups as well, not only minority groups."
Can I remind y'all, in case it's getting lost, that this thread was originally about the invitation of Irving and Griffin to the debate. The subject of the debate was freedom of speech, not the Holocaust.
But that half of that debate wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Irving's denial of the Holocaust.
But that half of that debate wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Irving's denial of the Holocaust.
Yes and no. If he hadn't been jailed for it, it wouldn't really be relevant to the debate at all. I assumed that the reason to include him in the debate is that he has firsthand experience of the negative repercussions of voicing an unpopular opinion. How many of us nice moderate people can say that?
That, to me, would be a very valid reason to include him, although I'm sure they could have fairly easily found others who had experienced the same thing who would be less controversial.
