Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

David Irving - Total Loon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • David Irving - Total Loon

    Below is an interview with noted holocaust denier, racist, hypocrite all around nasty piece of work David Irving. While there is too much unecessary editorializing, Irving is given anough rope to show that he is clearly a nutjob.

    You only have to scratch the surface of one of these poster boys for holocaust denial to find someone you would cross the street to avoid.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann..._b_158017.html



    Johann Hari, Columnist, London Independent

    Posted January 14, 2009

    "Hitler Appointed Me His Biographer": An Exclusive Interview With David Irving


    "Hitler appointed me his biographer," David Irving says. He is not laughing. He is announcing that the Fuhrer - the man he has revered since he was a child - saw him coming. Yes: Hitler prophesied Irving as the man who would clear away the smears and bring The Truth at last to an unwilling world. Irving discovered this prophecy when he was writing a biography of Adolf Hitler, but he is only prepared to disclose it baldly now. "I made a great point of tracking down all Hitler's surviving doctors," he says, "and I identified Erwin Giesing as the doctor who treated Hitler after the bomb attempt on his life in 1944." He tracked him down in the 1970s to Aachen in West Germany, and when Irving called, he claims Giesing said: "Yes, I've been expecting you."

    Irving arrived at Giesing's surgery and, he says, was immediately handed a 400-page file. "Giesing said it was his diary [of his time with Hitler]. 'That's what you have come for,' [he said]. I asked why, why me? Why haven't you given it to Jacobson or Hilburg or any of the other great historians?" Giesing said the answer lay on page 385. Irving flicked to this page, and, he says, "it is August 1944 and he is treating Hitler - cauterizing his eardrum - and he says, 'Mein Furher you realize that you have the same illness now in your inner ear that the Kaiser had?' Hitler said 'Yes that is true, how did you know that?' And Geesing said he had read it in the biography of the Kaiser written by an Englishman, J D Chamier." And he says Hitler replied: "One day, an Englishman will come along and write my biography. But it cannot be an English man of the present generation. They won't to be objective. It will have to be an Englishman of the next generation, and one who is totally familiar with all the German archives."

    Irving sits back with an expression of beatific calm. "So [when] I phoned the doctor and he said 'I've been expecting you,' the Messiah had come. The one he had been waiting for all these years. And of course all the other historians hate that because they don't fit." I stare silently for a moment. To clarify: you actually think Hitler wanted you to be his biographer? "Yes. Yes and I am not ashamed of that. Hitler knew that. Hitler himself said that for fifty years they won't be able to write the truth about me."

    And I realize this interview isn't about history; it's about pathology.

    How did this happen? How did a clever boy abandoned by his father in wartime Essex - as Nazi bombs fell all around - end up as the last man entranced by Adolf Hitler? How did a historian feted, for a while, by the English right end up in jail in Austria under laws banning the reconstitution of the Nazi Party? How did the father of a disabled daughter end up believing the great killer of the disabled was spiritually guiding him? And how did it end here, with this?


    I Swinging the lantern

    David Irving has limped to the door of his large Berkshire country house, and is standing by a Christmas tree, waiting. I trudge up the drive, wondering how a recent bankrupt can afford all this, when he beckons me in with a rather severe look. As we walk into his kitchen, he explains his awkward movements: "If you spend four hundred days in prison, your muscles turn to Marmalade jelly. We were allowed to walk around once a day in a yard smaller than this room -" he waves his hand around the kitchen - "seventy men, walking clockwise. At my age," seventy, "the muscles don't come back. I have to crawl like a cockroach up stairs."

    He begins to make coffee and bleak chit-chat. He says that two days after he was released from prison, he fell over in Swiss Cottage tube station. "A woman came up to me and said 'What's happened to you?' I said, 'Well, I've been in prison for 400 days...' and she scuttled away." While the water boils, he takes me on a tour of the grounds. There are acres of rolling greenery, lapping over private tennis courts and spurting fountains. He lives here alone. His former partner - or "concubine", as he calls her - Bente Hogh ended their relationship when he was imprisoned, and he is single now. Their teenage daughter Jessica visits sometimes. As he shows me the foliage proudly, he explains that he used to live half the year in Florida, but now immigration is "a nightmare." He adds with a wag of the finger: "If you go to Florida, don't go with a woman. Florida is very humid, and she will blame the humidity on you. It will be your fault."

    We settle in the living room looking out over the grounds, and our photographer begins to snap him. He mentions that the white coffee-cup Irving is holding works well against the green, and Irving says: "Well, it is an Aryan cup."

    A picture of his father, John, stares out from the mantelpiece. "I saw him very little," Irving says. "The rumour in the family was that when he found out that my mother was expecting twins - me and my brother - he turned and fled. [That was] 1938. There were various attempts, sporadically, at reconciliation. In those days families didn't divorce. He came back once from Wales where he was living, and I've got a vague memory of him being there for three or four days and then kicking over the traces and going again. I remember in those two or three days, I went to Brentford school happy, nonchalantly mentioning that I was going to be having a chat with my father that evening. But then he was gone again. Then some time in the 1950s he came back for about another week. He tried and also failed."

    He only got to know his father in the last year of his life: 1964. John said he fought in the Battle of Jutland, so Irving got a contract for him with his publisher to write a book about it for the anniversary. But his mother warned him he would only be let down again: the book would never arrive. So Irving drove to Wales and took his father back to London to live in his flat. "I sat him at that table and I put out an old tape recorder in front of him and I said you dictate and I'll spend all afternoon typing [it] up. Between us we finished the book."

    He suspects now his father was a fantasist. He said he fought in the war and was invalided out after being on HMS Edinburgh, but "after a time, when you get to know your father, in retrospect you think - I wonder if that was true? My sister has done a lot of research and says, 'You know David, a lot of what daddy told us wasn't exactly true.'... Oh, he was full of stories. He affected a mock Welsh accent when he told them." Then he adds: "In the navy they call this make-believe and exaggeration 'swinging the lantern.'"

    Are you like your father, David? "Oh, everyone spots similarities between me and my father... In fact my first wife, Pilar, got on very well with my mother, and at one point [she told her] I was being just the same as my father. I know how he behaved." How was that? "Oh, probably some chauvinism. I've got pronounced views on women. They're very useful but they have their place." And he thought that? "Oh, I'm sure he did. When he died, his brother sent me a twelve page letter telling me what a rotter my father had been."

    David was left alone with his mother and his siblings in the village of Ongar, in Essex. She rose them alone, making money by drawing sketches for the Radio Times. I ask how she explained that their father didn't return. "Oh, I take always with a pinch of salt what women say about how their husbands behave. I've heard equally bad stories about her having complained to the Admiralty about him, which didn't do his career any good." Nonetheless he says she raised her four children "absolutely impeccably. She managed to get us all into public school in Brentwood." But it was a tough wartime childhood. He says: "You're very indignant you've got no toys. Our toys were made of broomsticks and wood. My older brother John had a Hornby train, the only reason I've ever wanted to have a little boy was so I would have an excuse to have a Hornby train."

    And this is where Adolf Hitler first enters David Irving's story.


    II That Man

    "I was told you don't have toys because of that man Hitler," he says, sipping from his Aryan cup. "He was called That Man. [In the newspaper cartoons] there were Nazis parading around - Mr Hitler with his crinkly boots and little toothbrush moustache, and there was Dr Goebbels with his club foot, and fat old Goering with his medals. And I thought - because of them I've got no toys?" He snorts. "You split away from your parents at a very early age. They tell you things and you nod and say 'yes mummy,' but at the back of your brain you think, well, I'm probably being sold a bill of goods. You make a little mental check.... I said to myself, if they're such ludicrous people, then why are the Germans doing it for them?"

    His twin brother, Nicky, remembers David at six years old running towards bombed-out houses after a Nazi air-raid, shouting "Heil Hitler!" Irving shakes his head. "Untrue, untrue," he mutters. His infatuation began, he says, a few years later, when he was sent away to school. He got hold of a copy of Hitler's Table Talk, and he would read it at night, allowing himself only a few pages at a time so it would last longer. "I don't know if you've read Hitler's Table Talk, but it's [in bites of] two or three page describing in the first person what Hitler said at lunch or dinner, from 1941 to 1944," he says. "It's fascinating to read what Hitler was thinking. A lot of it made sense." Like what? "Oh, about women... Women have very special minds. They are superficially similar to us and they speak a very similar language to us but they are also rather like ants. They can communicate with each other, without actually [using] a language that you can hear... More than that I'm not going to say, I've got enemies enough already."

    What could be more taboo in the Britain of the 1950s than to embrace Adolf Hitler, the man the country had united to defeat, as an alternative father-figure? It was the most absolute and shocking way to reject everything around him. "I was beaten solidly throughout [school]. It was a very sadistic process... Our house master was the gym teacher, which meant he was very muscular... There was an umbrella stand with ten different bamboo canes of different calibre with a cushion next to it, which he would try them out on first" - he makes a repeated thrashing noise - "and he would say right come with me, follow me." It was ritualised, I say. "Oh, absolutely, it was sadistic. And I wouldn't have missed it."

    When he was in his mid-teens, he won a school prize. He could choose a book to be presented to him on Speech Day by the Deputy Prime Minister, Rab Butler. Irving asked for Mein Kampf. "I arranged for all the local press to photograph the deputy prime minister giving a copy of Mein Kampf to Brentwood schoolboy David Irving," he says with glee. "I stood there holding the book up long enough for all the people to get their focus and flash and I sat down. I looked at the book and it wasn't Mein Kampf, it was a German-Russian technical dictionary. They got their own back."

    After Brentwood he went to Imperial College, London to study science, but he believes he was thwarted by a "Communist" professor and had to drop out. He headed for Germany. "I was the only foreign labourer in the whole of the Ruhr," he says. Working in the steelworks, he began to hear whispers of another taboo. "Dresden was a word which just didn't exist in the English vocabulary then," he says. But the Germans told him their city - filled with civilians, with little military role - had been firebombed by the Allies. "The whole of the city centre was cordoned off while they were cremating the bodies, ten thousand at a time on the city square," Irving says, shaking his head.

    So he wrote his first history book, a densely researched account of the firebombing of Dresden. Suddenly he was an up-and-coming historian, acclaimed across continents. But he remained within the historical consensus: the book condemns Nazi atrocities. When I remind Irving of this now, he says these passages were inserted into the book without his knowledge. "My publisher William Kimber... felt very deeply about the Dresden air raid and he put in certain lines into my Dresden book without telling me. Okay?" He only realised this, he insists, "years later." I must look incredulous. You didn't see the proofs? "No." Why would he do that? "Political correctness. Don't raise your eyebrows in great shock, this happens. You'd be surprised if you knew how many people have a hand in a book before it's finally published, lawyers, publishers, editors' sisters and wives." Ah yes, women.

    By telling the story of Dresden from the perspective of the Germans, he suddenly found another door opening - to Hitler's ghost.


    III The Magic Circle

    Scattered across Germany, silent and shamed, were Hitler's secretary, his personal guard, his doctor. They were, he says, "a small circle of very frightened people who had had a very tough time. When one of them [died], they would meet at the graveside." They had never spoken to anyone. Irving was the first outsider to penetrate this "Magic Circle". Otto Gunsche had been Hitler's personal adjutant, the man who burned his body at the end - and he liked the Dresden book. After a series of meetings, he led Irving to the rest.

    "They were all very nice people," he says. "This was something that impressed me from day one - these are people who've been to staff college, they've been to university, they're educated, upper-middle class people, chosen for their qualities and their abilities... and they all spoke to me in private in terms of glowing admiration of the Chief. And I thought to myself - there must be two Hitlers, there's the Hitler we're told about by Hollywood and Madison Avenue and there's the Hitler that these people worked for."

    They told him about a Hitler who was kind to children and animals. He recounts a very long story about how Hitler once noticed that two stenographers were cold, and insisted they be brought heaters.

    When I suggest that all dictators have a loyal clique who like them - it means nothing - he keeps dodging the question. Eventually, he responds by arguing dictators are often misjudged: Idi Amin gets a unfair press, for one. Irving says he owns a medallion that belonged to the Ugandan dictator, and he likes to wear it secretly below his clothes when he is delivering a lecture. But, I respond, he ethnically cleansed the Ugandan Asians. He shrugs: "Expelling people is something that's been going on for a long time."

    From within Hitler's circle, Irving began to develop an elaborate theory that "the Chief" was innocent after all. After the barrage of unanswerable evidence presented at his trial, Irving now concedes that the Holocaust happened - and there were "some" gassings at Auschwitz - but he insists Hitler had no idea it was going on. It was orchestrated by the evil Joseph Goebbels and his staff. They deliberately hid it from Hitler, because he was "the best friend the Jews had in the Third Reich."

    Eva Braun "suckered him", and Goring made him look anti-Jewish when, in fact, by 1938, Hitler "wasn't anti-semitic at all." Hitler wasn't anti-Semitic? If you look at his career, both in detail and in general, Hitler was the person who protected the Jews," he continues. "But he was repeatedly outsmarted by the Heinrich Himmlers, the Martin Bormanns." When I start listing Hitler's many genocidal rages against Jews, he says he was just "playing to the gallery." Of course, to maintain his view that Hitler knew nothing, he has to tamper with historical documents - changing words, and deliberately ignoring all the contrary evidence, as was shown ad nausem at the trial. I am more interested in teasing out why Irving should contort himself to believe this.

    If a raddled, aged Adolf Hitler appeared at your door now, what would you say to him? "I would switch on my tape recorder." And after you had heard everything he had to say, would turn him in? "Then I would base my decision on what he told me he had done and I would adopt a very harsh measure on that. In the case of Herman Goerring, for example... a lovely, enjoyable buffoon but he was undoubtedly a hanging case. He committed murders, and in my mind if you commit one murder you're for the rope." So you think it's conceivable that Adolf Hitler could not have committed even one murder? "With his own hands?" No, not with his own hands. He goes off on a long side-track about how Winston Churchill did kill people with his bare hands. I have to drag him back to Hitler. "Oh, he's technically responsible, he's constitutionally responsible, but what interests me... [is] you find out again and again he's been duped, he's been duped by Eva Braun, he's been duped..."

    The last time he saw his mother, she disowned him because of this Hitler-love. She had come to visit his new baby, Josephine, and she was sitting with the child when Irving tried to read her a passage from one of his books. In revulsion, she asked: "What is this viper I've nurtured to my bosom?" Irving says: "She wasn't interested and I said, 'You just want to play with Josephine, you don't want to listen to what I'm [saying], you've just never been interested in anything I've done, have you!' Afterwards you kick yourself that those are the terms you have parted company for ever." But still he cannot stop. He says: "One hundred years from now Hitler will get a very decent hearing. Not so much his underlings."


    IV The Enemy

    There were no Jews in the village where David Irving grew up, and he used to think there were none at his school. "But let me tell you a horrible little anecdote..." he says, leaning forward. "Immediately after the Lipstadt trial I flew to Florida so they couldn't touch me... On the plane a man came down the aisle towards me, and said 'You're David Irving aren't you?' I said no you're mistaken, and he said 'I know you're David Irving, and I know why you're denying it.' I said no you don't. Whoops!" But when he got to Florida, the man told him angrily: "I know who you are! I went to school with you and you made life unbearable for me and another Jew. I was a boy at Brentwood school, you called us filthy little yids, you screamed at us!"

    Irving looks bemused as he recounts this story. He assured the man there were no Jews at his school, and he must be mistaken. But he was so shaken he got the man's name from the checkout desk. (He claims the airline staff reassured him: "Them Jews, them Jews, they all want to have suffered.") He checked with his old school and "I got all the details. He was a year behind me, two years behind me. Well, I don't know if you know anything about public school, but you never, ever, ever speak to boys in the year, or two years behind you. They don't exist, they are lower than low. No way would I have spoken to him."

    This story is, to Irving, yet more evidence of Jewish wickedness. He offers the old racist rote: the Jews organised "most" of the wars of the twentieth century, and sneer at "the goyim." Who were the first Jews you knew? "At university. Mike Gorb. He was my flatmate in Kensington, very, very nice guy." He is now uncontactibly dead, after a mountaineering accident. "John Blok, he was a kind of mentor for me at the university... Jaqueline Gross we employed and she was very nice, very jolly girl and she thoroughly enjoyed working for us. That was in 1982 or 1983 or something." He insists these Jews were nice people - but when at a lecture a few years ago a Jewish man asked him if he was saying the Jews brought Auschwitz on themselves, he responded: "The short answer is yes."

    How were Mike and John and Jacqueline bringing on their own gassing? He shifts in his chair. "I know that I'm not liked and I know why I'm disliked and I know what I could do to become instantly liked. The Jews have never asked themselves, so far as I can see, over the last three thousand years why they are not liked." But there is a vast literature by Jews trying to figure out why anti-Semitism happens. He backs off for a second. "I'm not familiar with Jewish literature, because I don't read it. But do they ever reach an objective and useful conclusion?" he asks ingenuously. Plainly is a mass hysteria, like the witchcraft craze - a long, mad search for a scapegoat. "Maybe you're right, I hope you're right, but then why would holocausts happen, why would the German people have turned a blind eye?" he says. When I don't respond immediately, he exclaims: "Gotcha! Gotcha! Gotcha!"

    Do you think every persecuted group in history brought it on themselves then? Did the "witches" cause their own murder? "Indirectly, yes, by not creating a society in which this wouldn't, couldn't happen." I run through a long list of persecuted groups in history, and finally come across a few he thinks were just the victims of "mass hysteria." So couldn't anti-Semitism be a mass hysteria? "No."

    He believes Jews are responsible for their own persecution because they do not "police their own community," and begins talking about the fraudster Bernie Madoff as an example. He believes Jews let him get away with it - even though a preposterously small proportion of Jews could possibly have been aware of his crimes. So if your Jewish researcher or your Jewish flatmate was to be killed by anti-Semites, they would be responsible because they didn't stop Madoff? "Or the Madoff of their days, yes."

    He seems incapable of seeing Jews as individuals for long. The faces of Mike and John and Jacqueline soon disappear into the amorphous monstrous mass existing only in his mind known as The Jew, which - intriguingly - suffers from many of the characteristics Irving's critics ascribe to him: it is attention-seeking and greedy and brings about its own destruction.

    Yet he insists that, like his Hitler, he is only saying this for the Jews' own good. "I'm a great friend of them... I'm saying this in their own interest. I'm trying to stop it happening again, whether it's in America or wherever else the Jews flee to. They don't recognise the fact that it's just possible that they are the architects of their own misfortune, to use that wonderful phrase. They are so arrogant, they won't accept this. Every time some rich Jew dies, [they say in his obituaries he was] the noted philanthropist. He won't go down in history as being a noted philanthropist, he'll go down in history as being a Jew, and the non-Jews see the Jews and say 'well how have they made all their money? From us.' And that's one reason to dislike them. It's human nature."

    There will, he reckons, probably be another Holocaust in thirty years, when we realise we have been conned. Oh, and if the Jews are lucky, there will be a David Irving or an Adolf Hitler there to protect them.


    V Josephine

    In a box in the corner of this room, there sits the ashes of a girl Hitler would have murdered. It is Irving's eldest daughter, Josephine. Like in a moralistic Victorian parable, this Hitler-devotee ended up with a severely disabled daughter - and I want to know how he dealt with the dissonance.

    "In 1981 she became schizophrenic and it was a terrible shock for us," he says, his voice dropping from its confident strut. She had been getting into trouble at school for a while, but Irving assumed it was normal teenage turbulence until one day she left an exam and walked home. She told her father: "Oh, the devil was sitting in the road just in front of me." Irving looks into the middle distance. "You hear your own daughter saying things like that and it begins to become very frightening. You don't realise what's going on." A Harley Street doctor diagnosed her with latent paranoid schizophrenia. "It is not curable. It can be treated, but for the benefit of the rest of society," he says. "My wife vanished for three months. She couldn't take it, left me with the children to look after. I can't begrudge her that, it was a terrible shock and it took a long time to sink in."

    He remembers walking with Josephine on the anniversary of her diagnosis, and he said she had been ill for a year "She turned those blue eyes to me and she said, 'Oh no daddy, I've been ill for many more years than that.' Imagine your oldest daughter saying that... For the next 18 years she struggled with this appalling affliction which got worse and worse. She heard these voices which speak with enormous compulsion. The voice that tells you to stand back from the edge of a platform as an express train rattles through, with equally the same cohesion tells schizophrenics to do the exact opposite."

    In 1996, he tried to commit suicide by hurling herself from a building, and ended up "a complete cripple", as Irving puts it, with a broken back and both her legs amputated. She secretly married another seriously disabled man who "had a bad, bad brain," but after three years, she attempted suicide again - this time successfully. The hospital staff, he says, told him "she must have been a very determined suicide indeed to pull herself out of a window, a fifth floor window, in that condition." Their son is now grown up, and fighting in Afghanistan.

    He says the experience has changed him. "I find myself becoming a lot more human towards people who have a disability.... Now if I find a Down Syndrome child or someone a paraplegic or somebody with some other obvious disability wheeled past me I will go out of my way to go over to them, to smile, to say hello because you realize that they are humans too."

    You do realize, I say as gently as I can, that Hitler would have killed Josephine? "Yes, Hitler had one of his own cousins killed, this is one of the appalling things." He then quickly goes off on another tangent, talking about a radio programme he was once on, and I have - for once - to draw him back to the Hitler. I can almost see the conflict within him, as he veers back and forth from admitting Hitler did something wrong. "Hitler had the very best of reasons, if I can put it very oddly like that."

    He claims the first case of euthanasia authorized by Hitler was of "a child who had been born hideously disfigured in some way, and the doctors and the parents wanted to put the child down for its own sake... That was the kind of reasoning behind it, and then [Karl] Brandt [Hitler's physician] came to Hitler and said of course this isn't the only case, there are many many more cases like this, but this was the foot in the door. [It] provided a lawful basis for termination of people who were medical misfits and it became ever wider. When war broke out people said well, we need the hospital beds now for people who really need them, and gradually the field became broader and broader."

    And so he concedes with a sigh: "Had we been in Nazi Germany then Josephine would have been swept up in that procedure." But then he adds quickly, in a sentence that uncharacteristically dissolves into meaninglessness: "Except of course that we now have drugs" to treat schizophrenia, "so I am not sure that [Hitler] would have [killed her] because, as I say, just at the end, by that time the drugs would have been there which would have made it possible to..." He stops and collects his thoughts.

    "The way the Nazis did it was always in the nicest possible way," he says at last. "The parents were told 'oh she has succumb to pneumonia', something like that. [It was] evil with good intentions." Where were the good intentions? "The parents would not have been told." But the child would know that they were being killed, and the parents would still have a dead child. "I don't know, it is very difficult when you get into these fields, a what-if, a hypothesis." It's hardly a wild what-if: it happened to tens of thousands of real people just like you. He is silent.

    So you really think the murder of people exactly like your daughter was an act committed "in the kindest possible way"? "Oh, I am quoting that television gentleman... what is he called... he crossed his legs all the time and wore a beard." Kenny Everett? "Kenny Everett. I'm, uh, just quoting his catchphrase. The Nazis did these things, but they didn't do it, they didn't do it, they did it in a concealed way so that parents only later on found out to their horror what had actually happened." Does that make it any less horrific? He clams up. "I think this argument is so stilted I don't want to get entwined in it."

    He looks over at the ashes, and then looks down, speechless for the first time in our interview.


    VI Silenced

    In 1989, Austria's Chancellor Franz Vranitzky said publicly: "Should Irving ever turn up here again, he'll be locked up immediately." His lectures had breached the country's laws banning denial of the Nazis' crimes and rebuilding a Nazi movement - and the punishment ran to twenty years in jail. Yet in 2006, Irving chose to return to the country, knowing there was a warrant out for his arrest. Was he seeking a confrontation? He shakes his head. "No, but I was prepared for it... I can't allow people to silence me forever. One day I shall have to go back to Germany. I have to continue research there, but I'm banned from Germany. I can't allow people to silence me or to stop my research."

    He was put on trial, and blames his conviction on the fact the fact that eight members of the jury were "stolid, slab-featured, middle-aged Viennese Hausfrau type women, with a bus-stopping range of perhaps a hundred yards or more." But prison, he insists, was wonderful. "I thoroughly enjoyed it," he says, pushing out his chest. He says it's great for a writer to have all the distractions shut out. He quotes Evelyn Waugh approvingly: "Anyone who has been to an English public school will always feel comparatively at home in prison."

    But is this true? This was the first time he was forced into close contact with black people, a group he believes are inferior. He says America used to have a "nicely stratified system, with the white on top followed by the coloureds followed by the blacks and the slave labour on the bottom," until the Jews decided to shake it up with the wicked civil rights movement. Yet he says he made friends with a "young Black" called Momo, and with "lots of them. There were Africans in the prison from Nigeria of course. I suppose it's even racist to say of course, but I mean the Nigerians, blacks are going to be largely criminal. I spoke most of their languages, French or Spanish or whatever and so they came to me."

    In his new book about his time in jail, 'Banged Up', he describes an odd incident in which he "accidentally" drank detergent, saying he mistook it for lemon juice. Did you try to kill yourself? "Lord good Lord no!" he says with a great forced guffaw. "No, I would never commit suicide. Suicide is partly congenital like alcoholism. If you want to be an SS officer, which probably you don't..." - he laughs - "one of the forms that you had to fill in looks at if there is a history of suicide in your family or a history of alcoholism then that is a black mark." He then describes an elaborate scenario in which detergent and lemon juice became interchangeable.

    As I get up to leave, his daughter Paloma, who is visiting from Madrid, wanders in. She asks our photographer nervously: "Did he behave himself?" Irving takes me around the house for one last time, proudly pulling himself up the stairs. He was declared bankrupt in 2003 - so how does he afford this gorgeous house? "I'm not going to talk about money very much, but I have an income." I heard you were supported by a Saudi prince. "I tried it, oh I tried it," he says. He claims that in 2003 Prince Salman Fahd - son of the Saudi king, and then Interior Minister - promised him £800,000, just before he died of a sudden heart attack. "I would say eighty percent of my income comes from the United States... It's very enjoyable showing that despite every effort the enemies make to smash me, provided my heart holds out, then I'm okay. I can survive."

    VII The scamp

    As we stand by the Christmas tree, with the door open and the cold wind blowing in, I wonder -does David Irving believe what he says? Does he actually think Adolf Hitler ordained him as his defender when he was just a toddler in Essex? His twin brother, Nicky, has said: "I've never been entirely convinced that, deep down, David really holds these ridiculous views. It's possible that he was simply doing what we did when we were children - anything to get attention. It's almost a sickness with him." His former partner Bente agrees: "I never really felt he believed a lot of it. I still don't really. He enjoys being provocative. He's an extraordinary attention seeker, always has been." Is he just swinging the lantern, like his father?

    He laughs at this suggestion. "I am a scamp, yes a scamp," he says. "Ever since school. I like to have one piece of mischief on every page I write so you go to turn the page and are thinking, well, what was that page about?" And he closes his eyes tightly in the freezing air. For one moment, it seems as though he is back at Brentwood School, asking for a copy on Mein Kampf for speech day, and thinking all this - all this hate, and all this hard work to rehabilitate the worst genocidical killer of the twentieth century - is only a jolly, jolly jape.

    Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here. For a forensic rebuttal of the holocaust denial myths, click here.
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  • #2
    Let me get this right;

    Johan Hari, claims that David Irving told him during the course of the interview how he once went to Aachen to visit Hitler's doctor Erwing Giesing, and Giesing handed Irwing his diary, which has Hitler stating (and it seems to be quoted as literally):


    "One day, an Englishman will come along and write my biography. But it cannot be an English man of the present generation. They won't to be objective. It will have to be an Englishman of the next generation, and one who is totally familiar with all the German archives."


    Never mind the remarkable premonitory abilities, Hitler would not have used the terms "familiar with all the Germans archives", and Irwing who is of course a falsifier, is not that stupid and knows it.

    Either Irving has totally lost it, or Hari is exaggerating and lying, or maybe the doctor knew of Irving and knew was coming some day and had forged his own diary; without discarding all of the above.

    It just catch my attention because everything in that entire paragraph seems to be a lie, including the "ands" and "the’s.".

    Interesting piece no doubt. It gets into some personal details in a way I'm not sure is decent, even if it is to make a point about a character as despicable as Irving.

    But I have to say I dislike this Johan Hari. Maybe he is trying to redeem himself for his own falsifications regarding the Israel-Arabs question, which are anti-Israel at the very least, if not outright anti-Semitic.

    Here is the evidence based on the analysis of his articles:

    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...6&x_journo=464


    David Irving is not a historian in any meaningful way of the term, and neither Johan Hari is a journalist, unless being a journalist means lying and smearing.


    PS: BF, on a related subject we were debating, don't think I'm done, just preparing my next comments ;)
    L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

    Comment


    • #3
      How the hell can someone deny something that was witnessed by millions?
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
        How the hell can someone deny something that was witnessed by millions?
        Because the denial, or any other lie, is not based on the facts, but in the stupidity of the listeners. And stupidity abounds.

        Anyway, Irving is more subtle than the majority of revisionists, and does not openly deny that the holocaust existed, "just" that is open to doubt, that in any case there was not coherent plan to murder European Jews, or that Hitler didn't know about it.
        L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

        Comment


        • #5
          Take Irving's claim about Hitler's lack of knowledge about the holocaust.

          You don't have to be a historian to infer that if that were true, then it has to be necessarily true that the Führer was an idiot who didn't have a clue of what was going on, and the rest of the leadership of the Nazi party a bunch of traitors - all of them.

          Anyway, here is a proper demolition from the remarkable site Nizkor.


          Is there any evidence that Hitler ordered a mass extermination of Jews?

          .....

          Nizkor replies:

          Of course there is. Himmler, Eichmann, Höss, and others have said that the orders for the genocide came directly from Hitler.



          - Consider that Hitler received in December 1942 a report from Himmler stating that 363,211 Jews had been murdered in August-November 1942. This was just one of many reports from the Einsatzgruppen, who had the job of exterminating the Jews and anti-Nazis behind the eastern front. A photograph and the text of the report are available.




          - Or consider a phone log from Hitler to Himmler, in which Hitler ordered "no liquidation" of a particular trainload of Jews, because they wanted one suspected passenger questioned. If Hitler did not know of the liquidation process, how could he have ordered it stopped in this one instance? (Ironically, David Irving used part of this phone log out of context to indicate that Hitler was trying to put a stop to the extermination program. Of course, this was before Mr. Irving changed his mind and decided that there never was any extermination program, much less that Hitler knew about it.)



          - From Höss' memoirs (Höss, Commandant of Auschwitz, 1959, p. 205):

          In the summer of 1941, I cannot remember the exact date, I was suddenly summoned to the Reichsfuhrer-SS [Himmler], directly by his adjutant's office. Contrary to his usual custom, Himmler received me without his adjutant being present and said in effect:

          "The Führer has ordered that the Jewish question be solved once and for all and that we, the SS, are to implement that order....The Jews are the sworn enemies of the German people and must be eradicated. Every Jew that we can lay our hands on is to be destroyed now during the war, without exception. If we cannot now obliterate the biological basis of Jewry, the Jews will one day destroy us." (R. Hoess. Commandant of Auschwitz. London: Phoenix Press. 2000 [1959]. Pg. 183)



          - Evidence presented at various war-crime trials

          SS-Obersturtmbannführer Dr. Martin Sandberger, commander of EK 1a:

          "I myself was present during the discussions in the palais Prinz Albrecht in Berlin and during the speech by Streckenbach when the well-known Führer order was announced."

          "Streckenbach personally informed me about the Führer order, which said that, in order to secure the Eastern territory permanently, all Jews, Gypsies, and communist functionaries were to be eliminated, together with all other elements who might endanger society."

          According to Sandberger, the work of an EK commander consisted of four elements:

          [Establishing] a good relationship with the army as far as possible; second a strict and energetic leadership of the commandos under his command; third, as quick and thorough an execution of an order as possible, in particular concerning the Jews; and fourth, as part of this Führer order, a bitter fight against communism.

          Q. What orders did [Brigadeführer Walter] Stahlecker give you before you left Riga?

          A. He gave me two orders particularly, the first order was to have as good a relationship as possible with the army and, second, as i have said, according to the Führerbefehl to have Estonian Jews eliminated. (From the testimany delivered for the Einsatztruppen Case, 1947-1948, vol. 6, pp. 2143-2176, quoted in Ezergailis op. cit., pps. 204 - 205, with thanks to Eugene Holman)



          - Captured German documents

          SS-Brigadeführer Walter Stahlecker's Memorandum of August 6, 1941. This memorandum was written in response to Heinrich Lohse's "Guidelines on the treatment of Jews in Ostland" (July 27, 1941). Up until the beginning of the war against the Soviet Union, policy towards Jews in Nazi-occupied territory had primarily been to ghettoize them and exploit them for labor. Hinrich Lohse, the civilian governor of the Ostland, had recommended that the same policy be continued. In response to this SS-Brigadeführer Walter Stahlecker, head of Einsatzgruppe A, wrote:

          "The projected measures concerning the settling of the Jewish problem are not in harmony with those orders concerning Jews in the Ostland given by Einsatzgruppe A of the Security Police and the SD. Nor does the project take into consideration the new possibilities of cleaning up the Jewish question in the Eastern regions.

          "In the Generalgouvernement there was no serious danger to in leaving the Jews in their living quarters and work places. But in the Ostland, the resident Jews or those brought in by the Red powers became the leading supporters of the Bolshevik idea. Numerous Jews are openly communist activists. The experience so far allows us to expect that, even a long time after the military occupation of the Ost territory, disorders will arise. Sabotage and acts of terror can be expected not only from communists not caught in previous actions, but precisely from Jews who will use every possibility to create disorder. The pressing need to pacify the Ost area quickly makes it necessary to eliminate all likely sources of disorder.

          "The project apparently does not foresee the resettlement of the Jews as an immediate measure provided under paragraph V, but rather sees that as a lower, later development.

          "In closing, let me sum up by saying that the Jewish question shall be solved by 1) a complete and 100 percent clearing of the Jews from the Ost territory; 2) preventing the Jews from increasing their numbers; 3) using the Jews to the fullest as a work force; 4) a considerable facilitation for the later collective transport to a reservatrion outside Europe.

          "This definite measure can be carried out only by the forces of the Security and the Order Police.

          A post script to the letter reads:

          "Consider it desirable, before issuing any basic statement, once more to discuss these questions by word of mouth, especially since it is safer that way, and since it concerns fundamental orders from higher authority to the Security Police, ones that should not be discussed in writing"

          (The full text of the memorandum is given in A. Ezergailis, The Holocaust in Latvia: 1941 - 1944. Riga: The Historical Institute of Latvia. 1996. Pgs. 378 - 380. with thanks to Eugene Holman)

          According to Ezergailis, Stahlecker made three further rerefences to the fundamental orders - on October 15, 1941, and on January 31, 1942.

          Stahlecker's Consolidated Report, October 15, 1941:

          "From the very beginning it was to be expected that pogroms alone would not solve the Jewish problem in the Ostland. The goal of the cleansing operation of the Sicherheitspolizei, in accordance with the fundamental orders, was the most comprehensive elimination of the Jews possible."

          The same report continues:

          "It is appropriate to mention in this connection the considerable resistance by officers of the Civil Administration against the implementation of large-scale executions. This resistance was countered in all cases by pointing out that the implementation of executions was the result of a fundamental order."

          Stahlecker's Consolidated Report, January 31, 1942:

          "According to the orders of establishing basic principles to be followed, the systematic purge operations in the Ostland, including the elimination, as completely as possible of Jewry."

          (Ezergailis, The Holocaust in Latvia: 1941 - 1944. Riga: The Historical Institute of Latvia. 1996. pg. 232. with thanks to Eugene Holman)



          - Eichmann's final speech to the court, after being sentenced to death, included the following statement:

          These mass murders are solely the result of the Führer's policy.

          This is as quoted by the revisionist Paul Rassinier, The Real Eichmann Trial, 1979, p. 152.



          - Felix Kersten was Himmler's personal manual therapist. As he wrote in his memoirs (Kersten, The Kersten Memoirs, 1956, p. 162-3):

          Today I had a very long talk about the Jews with Himmler. I said that the world would no longer tolerate the extermination of the Jews; it was high time that he put a stop to it. Himmler said that it was beyond his power; he was not the Führer and Adolf Hitler had expressly ordered it. I asked him whether he was aware that history would one day point to him as one of the greatest murderers on record, because of the way in which he had exterminated the Jews. He should think of his reputation, not sully it with that reproach. Himmler replied that he had done nothing wrong and only carried out Adolf Hitler's orders.

          ... I told Himmler that he still had a chance to stand well with history by showing humanity to the Jews and other victims of the concentration camp -- if he really disagreed with Hitler's orders to exterminate them. He could simply forget certain of the Führer's orders and not carry them out.

          "Perhaps you're right, Herr Kersten," Himmler responded, but he also added that the Führer would never forgive him and would immediately have him hanged.

          Hitler met with the Mufti, Haj Amin Husseini, on 28 November 1941. Notes of the meeting were taken by Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt (see Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution, 1984, pp. 101-104). At this meeting, Hitler promised the Mufti that, after a certain objective was reached, "Germany's only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands."



          - Furthermore, don't discount Hitler's own public speeches, cited in the reply to question 1. He stated his intentions to exterminate the Jews no fewer than three times, in public.



          "No evidence," indeed.



          Recommended reading: Fleming's Hitler and the Final Solution

          Source:

          http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar26.html


          http://www.nizkor.org/
          Last edited by Castellano; 22 Jan 09,, 19:01.
          L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

          Comment


          • #6
            See, Irving bases his lie of Hitler not knowing anything about it, in the absurd idea that there is not signed document by Hitler saying: "Let's do it"

            And from that concludes there is no proof.

            Well, there are plenty of proofs.

            BF, you did notice the reference to the minutes of the meeting with the Mufti al-Husseini, right?

            These are the excerpts:

            Excerpts from the meeting between Hitler and the Mufti,
            Haj Amin Husseini, on 28 November 1941.


            The notes were taken by Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt and are quoted in Fleming's "Hitler and the Final Solution", p. 101-104. Also geheime Reichssache 57 a/41, Records Dept. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Pa/2.

            ---------------------------------------------------------------------


            The Fuehrer then made the following declaration, requesting
            the Mufti to lock it deep in his heart:

            1) He (the Fuehrer) would carry on the fight until the last
            traces of the Jewish-Communist European hegemony had been
            obliterated.

            2) In the course of this fight, the German army would - at a
            time that could not yet be specified, but in any case in
            the clearly foreseeable future - gain the southern exit of
            Caucasus.

            3) As soon as this breakthrough was made, the Fuehrer would
            offer the Arab world his personal assurance that the hour
            of liberation had struck. Thereafter, Germany's only
            remaining objective in the region would be limited to the
            annihilation of the Jews living under British protection
            in Arab lands.
            L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
              How the hell can someone deny something that was witnessed by millions?

              He is a 'Fruit Cake'. Good reading though.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                How the hell can someone deny something that was witnessed by millions?

                How can an entire country(I'm not talking about Germany) deny something happened, when Germans, Americans, and Austro-Hungarians(just to name a few) all witnessed it?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Kansas Bear View Post
                  How can an entire country(I'm not talking about Germany) deny something happened, when Germans, Americans, and Austro-Hungarians(just to name a few) all witnessed it?
                  .

                  They Allied Forces didn't witness, they found the Camps as the advanced through Europe, Belson (Stalag XI-C) being one of the first, they discovered that through the stench of the place, that is where Anne Frank is buried. Then there was the POW Camps at Oerbke near Fallingbostel, Stalag XI-B & XI-D, full of Russians, British, Italians, Americans Polish, Dutch, French, Belguians.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Castellano View Post
                    Let me get this right;

                    Johan Hari, claims that David Irving told him during the course of the interview how he once went to Aachen to visit Hitler's doctor Erwing Giesing, and Giesing handed Irwing his diary, which has Hitler stating (and it seems to be quoted as literally):


                    "One day, an Englishman will come along and write my biography. But it cannot be an English man of the present generation. They won't to be objective. It will have to be an Englishman of the next generation, and one who is totally familiar with all the German archives."


                    Never mind the remarkable premonitory abilities, Hitler would not have used the terms "familiar with all the Germans archives", and Irwing who is of course a falsifier, is not that stupid and knows it.

                    Either Irving has totally lost it, or Hari is exaggerating and lying, or maybe the doctor knew of Irving and knew was coming some day and had forged his own diary; without discarding all of the above.

                    It just catch my attention because everything in that entire paragraph seems to be a lie, including the "ands" and "the’s.".

                    Interesting piece no doubt. It gets into some personal details in a way I'm not sure is decent, even if it is to make a point about a character as despicable as Irving.

                    But I have to say I dislike this Johan Hari. Maybe he is trying to redeem himself for his own falsifications regarding the Israel-Arabs question, which are anti-Israel at the very least, if not outright anti-Semitic.

                    Here is the evidence based on the analysis of his articles:

                    http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...6&x_journo=464


                    David Irving is not a historian in any meaningful way of the term, and neither Johan Hari is a journalist, unless being a journalist means lying and smearing.


                    PS: BF, on a related subject we were debating, don't think I'm done, just preparing my next comments ;)
                    Castellano,

                    Not great journalism, but the essence of the subject gets across.

                    I checked your link to CAMERA. I'm afraid I came away with about the same opinion of them as I did of Hari. Alleging or implying anti-Semitism in the way that they do is every bit as nasty as Hari's anti-Israel tone & just as injurious to proper public debate.

                    On the subject, if you are gathering your proofs for the 'Palestineans & the holocaust' thread don't bother. I learned long ago that rational debate on the issue of Israel simply isn't possible. Any discussion is never more than a few posts away from incivility & I'm having enough problems with the Singapore hive mind at the moment. I should never have posted there & haven't visited the tread since my last post.

                    On the Mufti, I have never denied that he was a nasty piece of work, just your interpretation of what it means.
                    sigpic

                    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Chaobam Armour I think Kansas Bear was talking about events other than WWII, notice Austro-Hungary reference.


                      Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                      I checked your link to CAMERA. I'm afraid I came away with about the same opinion of them as I did of Hari. Alleging or implying anti-Semitism in the way that they do is every bit as nasty as Hari's anti-Israel tone & just as injurious to proper public debate.
                      In my opinion, being anti-Israel does have an anti-semitic component, you know, why the hell one would be anti-Israel, or anti-Italy, or anti-Burkina Fasso? I can admit that some sectors in the left have managed to be anti-Israel with an apparently sophisticated discourse without being anti-semitic. They are just against western civilization in general, which they would happily bury.

                      But listen to this guy Hari, I respect CAMERA and agree with them when they point out something like this:

                      For example, a pre-Christmas 2006 column, dressed up as an appeal for a Palestinian charity, would make an early nineteenth century Eastern European pogromist proud. He writes:

                      In two days, a third of humanity will gather to celebrate the birth pains of a Palestinian refugee in Bethlehem - but two millennia later, another mother in another glorified stable in this rubble-strewn, locked-down town is trying not to howl. ("'What would happen if the Virgin Mary came to Bethlehem today?" Dec. 23, 2006)

                      Here Hari taps into the campaign led by the Palestinian Sabeel Institute that seeks to replace the Jewish roots of Christianity with Palestinian victimhood while casting Israel in the image of the Roman persecutors. In this revision, Mary is transformed from a Jewish woman into a Palestinian refugee.

                      The alleged circumstances that Hari recounts paint the Israelis as brute oppressors. He claims it is a "nightmare to be pregnant in the West Bank today," adding: "They have been giving birth in startlingly similar conditions to those suffered by Mary 2,000 years ago."
                      Source:

                      http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1313

                      Thing is, I think these kind of "journalists" who have been also exposed lying about sheer facts, always to benefit the same side, actually have blood in their hands. Maybe that's what you mean by injurious.

                      Anyway let's leave it there if you wish.

                      About Irving there was an interesting debate few years ago in which Christopher Hitchens defends him as a "necessary" historian of the period. I'll see if I find and post the articles.

                      It got me thinking about it when you posted this, because recent events in the Netherlands about freedom of speech.
                      L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        IIRC, David Irving hasn't always been so blatant about his pro-Hitlerism/pro-Naziism; I seem to recall some of his earlier books were more or less balanced, but he got more & more unbalanced as he got older. I guess he finally came "out of the closet", so to speak.
                        "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Castellano View Post
                          In my opinion, being anti-Israel does have an anti-semitic component, you know, why the hell one would be anti-Israel, or anti-Italy, or anti-Burkina Fasso? I can admit that some sectors in the left have managed to be anti-Israel with an apparently sophisticated discourse without being anti-semitic. They are just against western civilization in general, which they would happily bury.
                          There are undoubtedly some critics of Israel who are motivayed by a dislike or even hatred of Jews. I imagine there are critics of China or Japan who are motivated by anti-Asian bias & critics of African nations motivated by anti-black racism. In all cases they are a small minority, people who choose to defend the policies of such governments by hiding behind accusations of racism are simply trying to shut down criticism. If I criticize Iran I am not necessarily 'anti-Muslim' or 'anti-Persian', I just don't like the government &/or aspects of the society.

                          Anti-semitism is one of the most severe labels that can be placed on someone in Western discourse. it immediately places that person in company with people who are the very definition of evil. By using the term as a way to shut down debate people debase the term & dishonour those who have genuinely suffered.


                          Originally posted by Castellano View Post
                          But listen to this guy Hari, I respect CAMERA and agree with them when they point out something like this:
                          Yes, but on the same issue they try to link him with anti-semitic slurs about poisoning wells. he may have been wrong or even lying about the origin of the sewage, but fear of it poisoning water have nothing to do with anti-semitism.

                          Originally posted by Castellano View Post
                          Thing is, I think these kind of "journalists" who have been also exposed lying about sheer facts, always to benefit the same side, actually have blood in their hands. Maybe that's what you mean by injurious.
                          Have a look at Mkenny's posts in the thread on David Miliband in India. He has an example that runs counter. I suspect that I could chase down a lot more if I tried. In my experience people tend to see 'media bias' where they choose.

                          Originally posted by Castellano View Post
                          Anyway let's leave it there if you wish.
                          Since I have replied to your comments it would be impolite to tell you not to reply to mine, but I don't plan to go on with the discussion.

                          Originally posted by Castellano View Post
                          About Irving there was an interesting debate few years ago in which Christopher Hitchens defends him as a "necessary" historian of the period. I'll see if I find and post the articles.

                          It got me thinking about it when you posted this, because recent events in the Netherlands about freedom of speech.
                          I suspect that Hitchen's point is about Irving's views on Churchill. From memory Hitchens finds his views on the holocaust appalling, but enjoys his iconoclastic view of Churchill. This could simply be the contrarian in Hitchens, but Churchill is a figure who has virtually departed the realm of fact & history in some realms. I think Hitchens feels that Irving is quite good at pointing out that not only are the feet made of clay, but quite a bit more of the body too.

                          I'm not enough of a Churchill historian to pick out which interpretaions are correct, but I wouldn't trust a single page of anything Irving has ever written without a well qualified historian in the field to make sure sources hadn't been monkeyed with to make them say what Irving wants them to say. It is a pity that such a skilled researcher should be such an untrustworty author.

                          There have been other legitimate defences of some of what Irving has written. Historian Gordon Craig had something positive to say, but he is one of the few people with enough knowledge of the field to make use of the good work Irving does while also being able to pick out the dodgy stuff. Hitchens may be commentling along similar lines.
                          sigpic

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Castellano View Post
                            Chaobam Armour I think Kansas Bear was talking about events other than WWII, notice Austro-Hungary reference.



                            In my opinion, being anti-Israel does have an anti-semitic component, you know, why the hell one would be anti-Israel, or anti-Italy, or anti-Burkina Fasso? I can admit that some sectors in the left have managed to be anti-Israel with an apparently sophisticated discourse without being anti-semitic. They are just against western civilization in general, which they would happily bury.

                            But listen to this guy Hari, I respect CAMERA and agree with them when they point out something like this:



                            Source:

                            http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_co...x_article=1313

                            Thing is, I think these kind of "journalists" who have been also exposed lying about sheer facts, always to benefit the same side, actually have blood in their hands. Maybe that's what you mean by injurious.

                            Anyway let's leave it there if you wish.

                            About Irving there was an interesting debate few years ago in which Christopher Hitchens defends him as a "necessary" historian of the period. I'll see if I find and post the articles.

                            It got me thinking about it when you posted this, because recent events in the Netherlands about freedom of speech.
                            I stand corrected sir. :)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Links for castellano

                              Castellano,

                              Here are links to the story I referenced earlier

                              http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives...jenvey_has.asp

                              http://the-sun-lies.blogspot.com/200...o-chamber.html
                              sigpic

                              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X