General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Mitch Richards
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Mitch Richards" (@mitchrichards1532) on "David Irving - Can you trust ANYTHING he wrote?" video.

Probably because he inspires ignor ant hateful people. Did that ever cross your mind? You like his Kool Aid?
8
@svrsl7819 If you can't see Irving's lies and his agenda in his books and speeches, then its a obvious why you ask such a BS question. Work on it genius... lol
8
Irving can take a sentence from an original source and manipulate and distort it to fit his narrative like someone working a piece of clay into pottery. It's like "See Spot run", Which Irving turns into "Spot was a beautiful purebred German shepherd, related to Blondie, and was running to his master when the jealous son of a Jewish banker kidnapped and mistreated the poor dog for no reason". That's "History" David Irving style. Forcefully and convincingly written distortion of the legitimate historical record.
6
@KansasHempMan He was caught distorting the historical record by misusing his source material. He wrote lies and false narratives, so what do you call him?
6
Right.. as if the "truth" were not dug out in the TB-47 controversy that exposed Irving?
5
Look up "David Irving Tagesbefehl No. 47 controversy" or "TB-47 Irving". See how honest he was with his Dresden book. You might have to dig a bit, but its there if you want to know.
5
The knotsie inner circle were all dead by 1946. Did he use a ouija board? And who did he interview that NO ONE else did? Seriously...
5
@pasisovi Glantz knew senior German officers from WW2 and held many meetings with them to discuss their experiences with the Red Army. Did Irving do that? Nope...
5
@pasisovi I know Glantz personally, Irving is not even close to his league. The credentials, resume', bio, etc. tells everything you need to know. I read Irving's Dresden book and parts of a few others and they are full of half baked ideas, weasel words, etc. Glantz would never write in Irving's style, its utterly beneath him. Glantz is a Historian, Irving is an author who writes about historical topics. Big difference...
5
@pasisovi If you insist on ignoring Irving's known failings along with his deliberate misinterpretation and distortion of source material, then YOU need to cease. I am not trolling and I am also not going to accept your opinion of Irving as anything other than that of an apologist that agrees with Irving's pro-Nazi leanings and beliefs. Are you a denier as well?
5
@Lawofimprobability I agree 100% and that is the approach any Historian should take with people like Irving. I would gladly debate Irving on an online forum, where he can't interrupt, be theatrical and dramatic, and there is time to analyze his comments before moving on or allowing him to obfuscate.
5
No, which is why he ended up in Lipstadt's book as a denier in the first place. That, and Irving was and is not a peer of Phd.'s. He lacks the professional credentials, resume', and background.
5
lol, that's what EVERY Historian does. Look up "Historical Method" and understand that is what is taught at universities and leads to a degree in History (which Irving doesn't have).
5
Concerned with gullible people buying his BS and inciting hatred. That's a legit concern.
5
@koko2bware 1.1 mil for Auschw-Birk. 2 mil for Reinhard locations. That's about 3.1 mil, and there are witnesses, forensic evidence, pics, film, etc. The math adds up, the evidence exists, but the real question is why people like you deny it.
4
lol, really? So modern means something to you and there's no need to research the topic...got it. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that the ove ns built by Topf und Sohnen were larger, built for higher heat, and didn't need to worry about modern legal standards of fully incinerating all remains to a fine ash and that co-mingling ash is completely illegal? The 15 min it took to reduce a "customer" isn't a full reduction, just enough to introduce the next customer since the ov en was in continuous operation, hence why it was built larger for exactly that purpose. It was a specialized purpose-built design, look it up.
4
Does that hold true for the NS era in Germany and their strict censorship, book burning, constant propaganda, etc?
4
Nope
4
@iamra8826 Its rather small, Lutheran, and Germanic in nature, usually stuck in a history book written by a respectable Phd type. You? You must have a long narrow one to try and look down at people from.
4
@FortniteBlaster2 I don't go to Church much, weddings, funerals, Xmas and Easter. I'm still a Lutheran and not Jewish. That was the point, get over it.
4
"world banking system" 🤣
4
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 Pretty sure all you are capable of reading is comic books... lol
4
Until it failed under close analysis. TB-47 controversy demonstrated he both failed in his research, and then lied.
4
@melc311 Sure....ignore that he used a known forgery regarding the casualty figure, then denied it. When the original showed up he tried to claim it was a fake, and that his forgery was the original. Total BS and clearly demonstrated who he is. You really should try to look it up.
4
@TitusMaximus-g8w A denier is someone who denies the existence of established fact on a topic.
4
@Todesking69 I agree with that 100% To further that line... The next step is to apply the same process to every article, book, documentary, or even individual claim. The process is called Historical Method and it is the academic standard of evidence required to prove something as "fact". David Irving does not subscribe to it and he literally paid the price when he was found to be knowingly engaging in distortion in order to profit from controversy, that he either created or exploited.
4
@KansasHempMan He hasn't published anything in 20 years, IM DB's description of him: His self-taught and biased 'scholarship' is as questionable as his openly right-wing politics, since most of his works are concerned with rehabilitating the Th ird Rei ch and denying the Holo caust. Because of these propagandist and revisionist positions, he used to be the most popular historian in international Ne o N a zi circles, but his influence is marginal today, because he has been exposed as a fraud by serious historical scholarship.
4
"Irwing went to the source and backs it up with sitations." The basis of his Dresden claim is Tagebefehl 47 (aka TB 47) which was proven to be a forgery. The series of Tagesbefehlen all have the same common features, including the real TB47. The fake that he often quotes is a clumsy forgery with statistics inflated by adding a zero. The number that Irving tries to sell is impossible. I visited Dresden, compared the area hit with RAF before/after photos, walked it, and its clearly too small to hold that number of people for any apparent reason short of a New Year's eve party with everyone crammed in the streets. Its just plain unfiltered BS. You can literally walk outside of that area in 5 minutes and be clear of the fires. We're not talking about a nuclear flash...😐
4
Nope.... Evans has a Phd in Historical research and analysis, and also a team of experts for specific areas. An expert in German language is one of them. Dr. Evans is a first-class academic who can peel the onion on someone like Irving and his work, which is why he was retained.
3
Nice bias.... lol
3
When did they raid his home?
3
The entire court case and all the evidence that was submitted is online, it completely transparent. Look up Holo cuast denial on trial and you'll find it.
3
That's BS.... You can "question" the facts, but why would you deny established fact? Put "both sides" under equal scrutiny and see which one fails.
3
Speculations? No, that's you trying to distort what happened when Dr. Evans examined Irving's work against his source material and was able to demonstrate when and where he omitted fact, took liberties, and fabricated lies to create a false narrative. That's not speculation, that's fact. He proved it in a public court and Irving was caught red handed.
3
@sarahwilliams6384 Want to debate? How about Irving's claims about Dresden? How about whether or not the knotsies "eliminated" 3.3 million Soviet POWs? How about the Rhine Meadows claims of James Bacque? Which one works for you?
3
@svrsl7819 Interesting opinion, no substance to it, but mildly revealing about how you go about attacking anyone critical of Irving. Is this your MO, asking dishonest questions to try to put people on the defensive? How original, never seen that before. lol
3
His books aren't banned, and anyone reading them HAS to understand that he manipulates the material to fit the narrative he wants to create. Its not History, its an Irving story.
3
@paulfallon7038 I just checked amazon and abebooks, no ban on Irving's books whatsoever. So, go back and try to find another way to make Irving a martyr. Fact is, and I do mean FACT...is that he distorts his source material to fit his agenda. Its not legitimate history.
3
Your hero in all his glory, watch the whole thing if you can stand it...lol https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rBCst4hph0
3
@paulfallon7038 I see, because I have no respect for his work and know him to be a fraud, I must be a Communist? lol, thats brilliant. His research is 2nd to none, but gets the Dresden death toll wrong by a factor of 10x, and uses knotsie propaganda figures as his statistical source. You are one of das usual suspects, eh kamerad?
3
@magna4100 Good luck with that and all that you Irving the denier stand for.
3
It's interesting to watch people who think they are so intelligent and discerning about history, propaganda, etc. fall for the most basic and elementary sales tactics. In regard to a sales hook, or simply the laws of supply and demand, people remain prone to falling for "secret" information, or since it claims to be suppressed, censored, or controversial, it MUST be true. This defies logic, but human psychology isn't about logic, it's about emotion. Irving knew this, it was his style and how he captivated an audience. Academic criticism of his work only makes his audience defensive of him. His career is better as a case study in psychology than it is history. He was a great salesman who knew his customers.
3
@Michael-it7nx Ok Dr. Katz... "projection"? What I stated about Irving fits his writing 100% and you can't avoid it. Does mainstream conventional history, written using the academic process of "historical method" claim to have secret or suppressed information that is used as a sales hook? Or is that an Irving thing? lol, explain that, Dr.
3
So what's your point? The events that make up the "Shoʾah", a term used by Jewish people since 1946 didn't have a mainstream anglified and marketable name so therefore it didn't happen? What does your theory have to do with debating the hard evidence? Clearly nothing whatsoever and you're just looking to create a sideshow, a diversion from the evidence and lays the seeds of doubt. Typical dishonest denier tactic.
3
Try questioning a denier, see how productive that is. Seriously, try it.
3
@Winterwolf-fs3wh "denier" is short for Holocaust denier. A denier of established fact about the Holocaust.
3
Anyone supporting Irving most likely didn't read Dr. Evans' book. It's pretty clear that Irving is a knotsie fanbois and all of his narratives are just historical distortion to try and rehabilitate the little moustache. Anyone supporting Irving is also very likely a denier and anti-semite, and that is just my opinion based on personal observation of these very comments.
3
Irving who? There's no new material from him and he's basically a nobody now since he was exposed as an opportunist charlatan.
3
He's legally obligated to speak ill of Irving? Ok, prove it. Sounds like a total self-serving BS statement.
3
sheep....
3
@cal3207 So what exactly is wrong with the "official account" of say... the bombing of Dresden? Irving claims a different figure by a factor of 10 and uses a fraudulent document for his basis.
3
@koko2bware Typical denier response, you go straight to diversionary equivocation....its a denier trait. The topic was Irving and the Hcaust, but you go for the shotgun approach of diversions. lol So where are all those bodies at Dresden, or when it suits you that's not a requirement?
2
Amateur thoughts... Look up "Historical Method", and see that there is a tried and true academic process to producing a "fact". Some willingly, knowingly, choose to deny facts that are produced following this process. The question isn't who is right, but more like why do people choose to deny fact in the absence of any plausible alternative produced by the same reliable method. Some people simply choose to deny things without any alternative whatsoever, why is that? It has to do with psychology, not history IMHO.
2
He didn't sacrifice anything. He tried to sue a major publisher for millions of Pounds and he lost. His own books were used against him when it was proven in court that what he claimed his source material said was different than what it actually said. He's a charlatan who profited from controversies of his own making. He got caught...
2
@jamesinnitbruv Dresden claims of 100k-250k civilian casualties by use of a known forged document (TB47). He initially retracted his claimed estimates, then later walked that back and made higher claims and contested the authenticity of the forgery. He claimed that the city was full of refugees and that it was destroyed by the Allies. The fact is, the city center was destroyed, 6.5 sq km out of 328 sq km of the total city area in which the population was swollen by 100k refugees. To claim that out of approximately 750k people in the greater Dresden city limits, 33% or more of them were in 2% of the city at the time of the attack is absurd… no? He assigned the Allies a genocidal intent and a bogus 10x bloated casualty figure of civilians, claimed there was no military value, and used that to equivocate the Holo caust in some sort of zero sum moral accounting. That's one example of how he goes about distortion, denial, and writing a pro-N A zi narrative intended to stir up controversy around his books and profit from the attention. He was just a cheap salesman underneath it all.
2
@jamesinnitbruv A few other main Irving themes: That there were no hom icidal ga s chamb ers. That Je ws were not kil led in g as cham bers or at least not on any significant scale; That the Na zis had no policy and made no systematic attempt to exter minate the European Je wry and that such dea ths as did occur were the consequence of individual excess unauthorized at the senior level; That the number of Je ws mu rdered did not run into the millions and that the true de ath toll was far lower; That the Holo caust is largely or entirely a myth invented by Allied propa gandists and sustained after the war by Je ws in order to obtain financial support for the newly created state of Isr ael.
2
@jamesinnitbruv In an ocean of evidence you choose a specific pint of it to contest and convince yourself its all fake. Typical denier tactic that no one falls for, except deniers. As you said, that's not how it works. The Holo caust was a much larger event than a gas cha mber at one ca mp. Irving denied or downplayed the whole narrative, not just one small piece. BTW: You asked "What specifically did he misquote?" and I specifically gave you TB47 from his Dresden book. Obvious proof beyond doubt that he deliberately "misquoted" a source in order write a false narrative and draw distorted conclusions, make disparaging comments about the Western Allies, and make a bogus moral equivocation to the Holo caust. He claimed more Germans were lost at Dresden than Jewi sh people in the Holo caust. Thoughts? Comments on his Dresden book? "What specifically did he misquote?" -ANSWERED specifically.
2
@hakapeszimaki8369 Nope.... That's just a BS hollow counter-accusation for the simple sake of argument.... Rejected as such.
2
@hakapeszimaki8369 The Allies "crimes" are not hidden and in most cases are not "crimes" as 21st century whiners wish to portray them as. And yes, like it or not, in WWII and after the US has fought for the right ideals and causes. The efforts may have miscarried, but the moral approach was right.
2
@KansasHempMan What's cute about Irving using known bad information?
2
@KansasHempMan Cool story, now f'ing copy-paste where I did what you accuse and prove it...LIAR. You're a N A Z I fanbois and denier trash, get over yourself. Irving DID use known bad info as evidence in his Dresden book, he was publicly outed for it. You can ignore it if you want to, its what people like you do in order to maintain your warped views by not letting actual fact get in your way. F'ing trash
2
@KansasHempMan No re tard, the only good info comes from legitimate primary evidence, not fake, known forgery, etc. Know the f'ing difference. You can try to make it ambiguous as if there aren't rules for evidence, but unfortunately for you there are rules that govern accuracy of sources, quality of evidence, etc. Irving is a known charlatan, and you are now a known shill.
2
Dr. Evans is a Phd Historian educated at Oxford and has many years of experience. Penguin books contracted him as an expert in his field to analyze Irving's books in great detail to establish whether or not he used his source material faithfully or distorted it. Guess what that revealed.
2
@FortniteBlaster2 Irving pioneered the German archives? lol, ok... Odd how when people check his citations and find that he didn't faithfully translate or quote them that you would take issue. Your opinion of Dr. Evans is just that, YOUR opinion and not even a fact based one. You just make a BS statement to devalue and cancel his expertise and protect your hero Irving. That is NOT an accurate reflection of reality. Irving is exactly what Dr. Evans revealed him to be. Irving's own failures, distortions and lies are the indictment.
2
@FortniteBlaster2 When Irving relies on knotsie propaganda for Dresden figures and none of the actual evidence supports the knotsie figures, you call that interpretation? You can try to cancel Dr. Evans evidence of Irving's distortions, but only fanbois like you will agree. The Historical community knows he's a fraud, and only those who want to believe what he writes will support him. He's a provocative writer to the novice reader....that's all he is.
2
@FortniteBlaster2 I created no fallacy... I simply referred to an issue that is available on open source with just a few key strokes. Irving did what I said he did, it was proven. " You are in denial to sustain your worldview." Nope... I suggest you look a little deeper into the criticism of Irving's work to understand and see for yourself what exactly he did and when. He has you fooled, which isn't a good look. The main issue with Dresden is the actual proof. Physical forensic proof, names of victims, photographic evidence, etc. All of that points to a far different conclusion than what Irving states, or knotsie propaganda for that matter. Is Goebbels a Historian you trust also?
2
An attorney gets $500 an hour in a case like that, and then there's additional fees for assistants, fees for materials, etc. Evans was paid what an average Phd. counsel would get for his time and expertise in research and analysis. Should he have worked for free? Get real
2
Ok, now stand on the other side of that statement. Is the denier narrative full of contradictions and anomalies? Hmmm... They don't even have a coherent alternative narrative, any alternatives to where millions of people disappeared to. So how can you point out issues with a narrative without having some sort of alternative explanation that has been researched, analyzed, and vetted as being based on fact? Until denier nation can accomplish that, there can't be any kind of "equal" footing for debate. Clear? Until there's "2 sides", you can't have a 2 sided debate.
2
I suggest you read the court transcripts, there is a mountain of evidence that was presented that you seem to not know anything about.
2
Irving is a N A Zi apologist looking to distort history, create controversy (which draws attention), and profit from the scrum that follows. Cheap salesman at heart.
2
@adamcastorp6415 I know where you're going with that... The NS regime led an "Action against the Un-German Spirit" is a staged and highly publicized events at several German universities where they burned anything deemed to be in opposition to their party line (the 25 points of the NS party). So they burned anything by Jewish authors, Ernest Hemingway, anti-war book by Erich Maria Remarque, Thomas Mann, Albert Einstein, Helen Keller (advocating women's rights, pacificism), and Jack London. I can understand burning p orn, and communist/marxist books by the NS, but they pretty much went after anything and anyone that got in the way op free thought.
2
@KansasHempMan You fear books?
2
@sarahwilliams6384 Unlike Irving, I have a MA in WW2 History. I've also studied abroad, speak German, belong to several academic historical associations (AHA for one), etc. When you claim that Irving is some sort of respected "go to", you more or less out yourself as a denier and a brainwashed "revisionist". It's laughable...
2
@sarahwilliams6384 I think you'll find that most Historians estimate between 5.2 and 5.7 million perished in the Hcaust. I believe the breakdown is roughly 1 million for Ausch..., 2 million for the Reinhardt locations, 1 million for Einsatzgruppen Ops in the Soviet U. The remainder were lost in work KZs and ghettos to various causes. You can question the facts all you want, but denying them is different.
2
@MrDarudin 100% agree. Irving knows exactly what he's doing and he does it in a very deliberate and calculated manner. The underlying motivation if mostly financial, but he also loves the attention. The simple reason is that controversy sells, where as accurate and mundane to the point history doesn't. He creates his own market and is more or less just another cheap con-man.
2
@jaif7327 Wouldn't be difficult since I made zero complaints in my responses. How about you try harder to use Yiddish in a way to be anti-Semitic, not sure I quite got the extent of your N A Zi ballwashing personality. lol
2
@martinledermann1862 "But you weren't "critical" of Irving, you have just demonized him immediately by throwing a series of accusations against him" We're making comments on a video that is critical of Irving and provides the source material, but apparently you require me to retype it here and rehash it so that you feel that I understand it? Is that it? Seems to me that task should be yours to prove, not mine. Otherwise, stick to discussing what Tik said.
2
@martinledermann1862 Irving is touted by many for his depth of research into archival material and producing nuggets that were previously "undiscovered". The fact is that when his work is analyzed by people with equal or greater knowledge of said archives and topics, the compliments are replaced by questions, doubts, and mistrust, if not outright scorn. Now why do you suppose this is? Conspiracy against Irving? Or would you entertain the thought that he is a charlatan looking to create and exploit controversial claims for his own personal gain? Are you able to consider the devil's advocate position to your own opinion just to see another side of Irving?
2
@pasisovi No, they just have self serving opinions, just like you. The analysis of Irving's work revealed you cannot trust or rely on anything he says. That's the mainstream view of the man, aside from fanbois like you.
2
@AK-qy5iw Ok, understood. Sounds a bit like Kaiser Wilhelm's foreign policy, we know how that turned out.
2
Irving writes doctored and distorted historical stories that creates controversy because controversy sells. He uses some irrefutable facts, then pivots from them, uses them out of context, creates gaps in the narrative which he conveniently fills in with his own bogus "facts" and creates a whole new and controversial narrative. That is exactly what was shown to be true when he tried to sue Penguin. He was exposed as a complete charlatan.
2
" miss lipstadt speaks not a single word of german. so how can she argue her point?" Do you even know what her point(s) were? Her issues with Irving are what he stated and wrote in English, hence her statements about him. Her points were proven beyond doubt in a public courtroom and the entire case transcripts with supporting evidence are available online. You can ignore that, but it isn't going away.
2
@paulmarren7970 You're not following... Irving made Holo caust denial statements, he made rac ist statements, so she referred to him as such in her book. He sued her for libel, his speeches, lectures, interviews, jokes, articles, etc. were referenced and it was proven that he was what she said he was. He was a denier at the time and remains a ra cist. When you freely make comments of that nature in public, often, on the record, and someone calls you out on it, its not wise to try and capitalize on libel when you're guilty. Irving found that out the hard way.
2
Are authors, journalists, and producers capitalists? Do they make more money through controversy or by telling the boring truth. That's the other side of the coin you seem to be ignoring about Irving.
2
@ATHFShakeZulah Nope... Historians who stick to "Historical Method" as trained in respected universities provide honest narratives. Look up "historical method", its how honest history is written, its also the method of analysis used to detect distortion. Its the process used to prove Irving is not to be trusted. Don't trust people, narratives, etc., trust the process and use it yourself. Trust you, not them.
2
Sure, what wooden doors? What questions? I see a lot of lemmings repeating these things, but none have a clue about them. Denier tropes, debunked long ago.
2
@user-oi4bj4cv7u His research? How about Dresden... His research was crap, he got it wrong, was called out, then he made a bunch of BS excuses and tried to obfuscate. A sign of quality is when you get it wrong and can admit it, then correct it based on the evidence.
2
@Winterwolf-fs3wh Your opinion, and I don't share it... It was an unverified claim by definition and was never an established fact. You're twisting definitions to fit your own agenda, that much is plainly obvious. Anything else?
2
@scoobtube5746 What they "know" is a pack of lies, which is a detail that they don't "know".
2
@scoobtube5746 Wrong, they've been refuted in detail ad nauseum. The real problem is when these people CHOOSE alternative "facts" that aren't facts and they refuse to be reasoned with. You can't argue with that and it's not because they have a point, its because they're closed to any other view. Are you one?
2
@scoobtube5746 At least you're honest about it, that's a rare thing in revisionism.
2
@6uild6ack6etter2 Absolutely not...but if a revisionist did I suppose that's a different story? I'm only supposed to analyze one and not the other, right? Thats what you folks do.
2
@mikey2363 No, that isn't how real Historians operate at all. Apparently you know nothing of historiography. I suggest you look up the term "Historical Method" and see how history is written.
2
@mikey2363 Of course you do, every dissenting opinion to your anti-Semite/neo knotsie agenda HAS to be. lol I'm Lutheran...roots from Frankfurt. Keep working on it.
2
Try looking at this "debate" from a different angle without the current positions. Look at it from a purely informational standpoint in general and how the laws of supply and demand affect value. Is "secret" or "suppressed" information valued more highly than mainstream easily attainable information? Yes, of course it is. If a "side" in a controversy reveals that there "could be" a conspiracy, or a plot to fool people, there's "secret" information that they don't want you to know, how bad do you think interested people want that information? Usually pretty bad. This is how human psychology works in supply and demand of information, its a fact.
2
@EJisArete Sheep....
2
Irving is a capitalist looking to cash in on controversial topic of his own making. Thats it, nothing further is needed. He's a charlatan looking to profit off his own BS.
2
Irving, for those who think they know him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rBCst4hph0
2
He's a liar because he proved that what Irving said and what Irving's source material said were two different things? lol You can't refute that, Evans simply brought into public view something that is self-evident. Irving falsified his research, and he got caught.
2
I suppose that's the same as if it's you against the world, right?
2
@jasonmorgan27 How many countries declared wa r on N A Z I Germany? Just curious. 109?
2
Put it on half baked neo-knotsie bitchute too.
2
That's pure BS and you know it.... Irving writes and creates controversial topics because controversy sells far better than the truth. At the very basis of his motivation is financial gain. He is a writer looking to make a name and a living. THAT is why he writes an opposite view on controversial topics, to make money. Did you think he is some sort of suppressed truth teller? lol
2
What are crematoriums?
1
@koko2bware People like you try to use the fraction of a percent of the whole to dispute the 99% as if there's really an argument. Nuremburg laws, KZ lager, ghettos, einsatzgruppen, etc. are clear evidence of millions of people. And stop liking your own posts dipsh't. lol
1
@6uild6ack6etter2 That's your personal metric for "proof". Just curious, because the rest of the sane world doesn't use such a narrow self serving and inaccurate measurement.
1
@6uild6ack6etter2 Like I said...its your metric, and its a BS attempt. In your life you've taken thousands of sh'ts, but what proof do you have? No film of them all, so its purely circumstantial that you can prove it...According to the logic you are attempting to trot out there in your quest for Hcaust denial. If you did film it, that's pretty f'd up, much like the proof your asking for above. If you didn't, then maybe a sh't denier like you will claim its all fake and you are clearly totally full of your own sh't. Make sense dipsh't? 🤣
1
@koko2bware You speak in complete nonsense...
1
The Penguin lawsuit was Irving's genius, he tried to sue Dr. Lipstadt and Penguin for millions. lol
1
@koko2bware "During trial Evans was clueless on the technical questions" Ok, you made the claim.... Show an example for proof, otherwise its just BS.
1
Well that was total BS.... lol With Krema 1 through 5 the capacity exceeded 5k per day, and that's leaving out the outdoor "rail method" (as used at Dresden after the bom bing). Most of them were herded from the sorting ramp and went to Birkenau and not Ausch witz. So no hair cut, no nada. Off the train, off the ramp, off with the clothes, done.... How does that math work genius? Thats how it worked according to victims and perpetrators.
1
@melc311 Dunno... cremated? You know, the whole point of a crematorium? Ash is easier to dispose of in every respect compared to bod ies, yes? Asking where bod ies are in a thread talking about Krema with a 5k per day capacity is pretty f'ing du mb. lol
1
@HansChucrute88 "and we have the exact numbers of coal sent to Auschwitz" Actually we don't have those numbers, the records are only partial. "People still say they made soap from human fat, lamparines of human skin." The only people saying that are deniers who repeat it as if people are still saying it. Fact is, it was debunked at Nuremburg.
1
@angelozachos8777 Wow, correct. Apples to oranges though.... Now, how long does it take in a much larger piece of equipment (built for purpose) that has no modern legal requirements about multiple loading, no standard of reduction, or respect for the "customer" and can mingle ashes? A system like that in continuous use can take new material every 15 minutes because that's all it takes to remove the water from the material as the remainder burns. You really haven't researched this have you. Topf und Sohnen, look up the company genius.
1
@HansChucrute88 "The thing is criticize, being skeptical or even be ignorant should not be a crime." Very fair point, agreed. There's a point when skeptical crosses over to denial, and to me that's when irrefutable facts are presented and rejected without consideration.
1
@FortniteBlaster2 Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda, so how exactly do you approach him as a reference of information? In the same manner that Irving did for Dresden figures? Irving makes claims 10x over what forensic evidence supports. The German Red Cross was able to provide just under 25k names of people lost at Dresden. RAF before and after photos show a city area far too small to even contain the number of victims Irving claims, let alone also account for the survivors. Also of note, most victims were found in air raid shelters and passed due to a lack of oxygen. The Dresden raid was an incendiary operation, not a nuclear flash. It's obvious that people went to basements and shelters, where they were later found and accounted for, identified for the most part. If you buy into Irving's figures, you are clearly intellectually dim-witted or just plain corrupt. However, if all you read is Irving and deliberately avoid the academic criticism of his work, I suppose he seems like the greatest WW2 Historian of all time.
1
@FortniteBlaster2 Regardless of Irving's work in any capacity regarding Dresden, he has failed to provide evidence to back his claims. Not forensic, not photographic, not anything from the archives that provides providence to the claim made by Goebbel's ministry. He has no evidence.... So my question to you is, why do you believe him?
1
@FortniteBlaster2 As for Auschwitz, are you referring to the narrow list of names that only include German Jewish people and no one else? Or are you referring to the list that only includes those people that were processed in as workers and were given ID numbers? Either way, you are misrepresenting the historical record either willfully or ignorantly. Again, why?
1
@FortniteBlaster2 My attempt to debunk his work? Not mine at all which you very well know but choose to attempt to distort and ultimately devalue. You have a pretty pedestrian and common denier methodology to your tactics. Run of the mill denier speak. Folks like you remain on the fringe and in the creases of cyber space hoping for...something. Cheers.
1
@FortniteBlaster2 I argued the topic quite well, all of which you simply chose not to engage. That's the reality of this thread. You are exactly what you accuse me of.
1
@FortniteBlaster2 Nothing "subjective" whatsoever. In fact, I was very specific from my first post which clearly was totally lost on you. Apparently 140k is a large sum of money for you to contemplate, when in fact in this case it was likely a discount considering the man's level of expertise and academic station. From the beginning you've demonstrated little acumen for understanding this topic and simply resort to attacks as if that suffices or the tactic goes unnoticed. You are a denier, a common pedestrian denier with all the same old defense mechanisms for your warped beliefs. Own it, wear it, its who you are. Cheers.
1
Hemingway....
1
So you trust that he didn't data mine those sources for specific nuggets that support the narrative that HE wanted to create while ignoring contrary evidence that paints a different picture? Why would you trust that he wouldn't do that when the Penguin case proved beyond doubt that he did exactly that, he engaged in historical distortion.
1
@angelozachos8777 Irving is a fraud, he was exposed as such in the Pengiun case. The entire court case transcripts and evidence used is online. Read it and cope. 😁
1
You should look up Russian Information warfare. You just stated exactly what their objective is. Scary.
1
@KansasHempMan Comrade? lol, nope.... I know that topic because I'm the other end of their efforts. So ya, I do know all about it.
1
@KansasHempMan You''re "censored" cuz u so smart? LMAO... Clearly.
1
Because she went out in public and denied proven fact, that's not opinion that's making a conscious choice to break a law in a show of defiance. Germany doens't have freedom of speech for people to take advantage of and say whatever TF they feel like saying. Germany does not have to put up that type of idiotic behavior and they can arrest you for doing stu pid things.
1
@jaberhassan7916 Nope.. That's in the US, not in Germany. They don't put up with BS from people who choose to act entitled to things they aren't. When something is a proven fact, laws are enacted to protect those that would suffer if people denied said fact, and someone makes the conscious choice to break the law knowing the consequences...why is there any second thought about them? Did they become a martyr to stupidity? lol
1
It was his libel suit, his decision, and his own failures were put on display. It took a lot of time to unravel his distortion and his racist comments during speeches, appearances, etc. and that costs money. He gambled on a quick payout from Penguin, he lost when they called his bluf. He is what Lipstadt said he was and it was proven beyond doubt in a public court. Case closed
1
@ I tried to search it, came up with something from the 60's and it wasn't the Gov. Seems he embellished quite a bit to make it seem like something it wasn't.
1
Why? Do have any proof of that or a source? Irving was suing for millions, he wasn't out to defend his name.
1
@Michael-it7nx "start studying revisionism that is “illegal”. Right.... Who exactly? Tell who your experts are, I'd like to peel the onion on their "expertise" and the BS they've written.
1
@angelozachos8777 There's no fear involved genius... It's concern, not unlike how unscrupulous adults' fool children. He's a charlatan and inspires the unwitting to have distorted views. It's similar to how people like Putin and Hit ler brainwashed a generation of children in their countries.
1
No one is "penalized" for questions, but outright denial is a different issue. Denying fact is not a question, but it does beg the question of why would someone deny fact? What's their agenda?
1
Rhine meadows? Certainly not a positive experience for those interned, but James Bacque's total BS story was debunked. There was no mass dea ths there, just a really bad experience for those awaiting release/reassignment. There is no real evidence otherwise, none.
1
@KansasHempMan Ya ok, and anytime something is "censored" it becomes gospel truth to certain people just because of that. Explain that little fact of nutter psychology? It's like: Oh "they" tried to suppress the info??? Then that proves it MUST BE TRUE!!! lol, explain that complete lack of critical or even rational thought by a segment of the population.
1
He is not revered or even taken seriously by the legitimate historical community, serious students of history, or mainstream media. All that leaves is conspiracy driven types that willingly and knowingly look past his errors, failures, contradictions, and lies.
1
@sarahwilliams6384 You have another self licking lollipop opinion.... Circular logic based on opinion, and that's "serious History"? lol, good to know you folks will never progress from square one.
1
That's total BS.... Do some research beyond denier sites that make you sound like an id iot.
1
Not if you keep it to yourself and don't try to influence other people with an OPINION. Try that in Russia, North Korea, Afghanistan just to name a few.
1
@soulfuzz368 I doubt it, he didn't have much tolerance for BS and hypocrisy and neither do I.
1
@martinledermann1862 My original statement was "he inspires ignor ant hateful people." That is a true statement. He engages in historical distortion, Holo caust denial, and creates a false narrative to rehabilitate the N A zis. Those are facts and were proven beyond doubt in a public lawsuit, of which the files/transcripts/evidence are found online in their entirety. At no point have I deviated from them or offered up an "attack" as you say. Defending Irving is what anti-Semites do, pretty much all of them as he is their chosen champion. What's your agenda here?
1
Yes, and she held her ground against Irving extremely well.
1
Suvorov? lol, the guy who claims the Soviets had one million paratroopers in 1941, but fails to mention they didn't have jump training, training facilities, equipment or jump aircraft? The guy who claims the Red Army had tens of thousands of tanks, but fails to mention that only a small fraction actually ran, or had crews, or had ammunition, etc.? Sounds trustworthy.
1
@AK-qy5iw Skydiving was a youth sport? Ya ok... The Red Air Force had no drop aircraft. Solve that issue. The 25k tanks were obsolete, worn out, very few worked, they were no longer being produced and had no spare parts production. That just a few issues... Now throw in that the Tank Corps were only forming up in 1941, and had no trained crews, supporting arms, logistics support, etc. The few T34 and KV tanks were brand new, lacked crews, lacked ammunition, radios, spare parts, etc. David Glantz makes all of this clear and used Red Army documents that you can actually check...unlike Rezun's BS.
1
@AK-qy5iw So, you're going to cut and run? lol I have a MA in WWII Military History, 30 years of research, and walked several areas of the former Eastern Front on battlefield tours. Original documentation of the Red Army's Western Military Districts, specifically maintenance reports that demonstrate readiness rates of motor and armored vehicles tell a very different story that Rezun's BS. Unfortunately for you, I'm VERY well educated on the topic and have 27 years in military logistics.... So, "I can not start educating you from ABC here".
1
@AK-qy5iw "That doesn't mean that the Red Army wasn't the most powerful and well equipped army in human history having around 7 times more tanks that were later lost with ratio of 1:25 to the Germans" Obviously you don't have a clue and just believe Rezun's BS on faith. I'm no Russian troll, Soviet apologist, etc. As a professional Army Staff Officer with a Master's degree in WW2 military history, I do actually know what I'm looking at. A former Red Army Captain who writes about grand strategy from a Captain's educational perspective might fool a layman, but his work is really just amateur. I'm an American, who can speak German, and couldn't spell dog in Cyrillic. You fighting windmills Don? lol
1
@AK-qy5iw Interesting that you just joined YouTube yesterday and you're claiming to have issue fighting "Russian Trolls". Something is clearly off about you.
1
@AK-qy5iw The topic was WW2, not your misguided patriotic remarks. The world respects Russia today, I don't get the hostility.
1
@AK-qy5iw Maybe I'm jaded because I have Russian neighbors and they are great people. I used to talk regularly with a friend in St. Petersburg, he is a very intelligent man with a great perspective on things. I never got the impression he thought the world outside Russia was some sort of prison. I'd like to visit there someday, but right now seems like the wrong time. As for Putin, he won't last forever.
1
Was thinking more along the lines of reading books written by people who have the academic skills and professional integrity to stick to the evidence. That's not Irving or what you said either.
1
@KansasHempMan He was also demonstrated to use known fraud evidence in his books. Look up TB47 Irving controversy. He debunked his own Dresden book.
1
Because he cherry picks from witness comments, paraphrases, then alters the context, thus creating a false narrative. Word-twisting, distortion, etc. is what he does. It's the same with archive materials, he cherry picks, ignores anything inconvenient to the narrative he wants to write. Controversy sells, so that's what he writes. He's a cheap salesman underneath it all.
1
Didn't say anything you liked....got it. lol
1
Based on his conduct during and after the Penguin trial, I'd say why bother. He's a BS artist, proven fact.
1
Does anyone know how much money Irving thought he could get from Penguin? lol
1
Irving is not a persecuted rebel, he's a profit drive charlatan. That's a fact and wishful thinking, rose colored glasses, etc. will not change it.
1
Thoughts on Irving and the TB47 controversy?
1
How does Irving earn a living...
1
@urdude67 I wouldn't buy anything that supports Irving in any way. Irving sued Penguin for money. He sells books for money, speaks, guides, etc. So that pretty much squashes what you said about Dr. Evans. Irving did it for the money, always has.
1
@urdude67 Irving was banned from nothing prior to attempting to sue Dr. Lipstadt and Penguin books. I think you need to look in the mirror and find your own "open mind" before making false statements without prior research. Doing that speaks volumes of why you shill for Irving. Dr. Evans was kept on retainer and paid for his services, which were to research and analyze Irving's published works. What he found directly in Irving's published works was demonstrated for the world and is on the trial's website to this day. Try and disprove ANYTHING that was discussed there. Anything.... There is no need to speculate, paraphrase, or generalize, its all there for you to see exactly how it was shown in court.
1
@Azoria4 He was NOT the go to Historian at the time and the fact is that he is a historical writer, not a Historian. He does not have the education or training to earn that professional title. "Doing it for the money" is different than earning an honest living. It means sacrificing your integrity among other things in order to capitalize on a situation. In his case, controversy sells far better than honest history ever did or ever will. So he used distortion to write a controversial narrative purely for financial exploitation and personal gain. It was proven plain as day over the many weeks in court. He's a charlatan, nothing more.
1
@Azoria4 "You’re acting like there’s a business in Holocaust denial." Correct, it's called "revisionism" and it doesn't stop with denial. Irving was NOT the "go to" Historian just because you hold him in high regard. He was exposed as a fraud and charlatan by the legitimate historical community, and no amount of PR can change that. Irving now has his own history to answer to, one in which he attempted to profit from knowingly distorting his sources to build a bogus narrative. Denial in general and his Dresden book in particular. He was caught, exposed, and that's it... No going back.
1
@Azoria4 "so you really think he opted (FOR THE SOLE PURSUIT OF MONEY) to be a Holocaust denier? " Nope... Those are YOUR words, not mine. Creatively paraphrasing my points to make a false argument? That's a strawman, which makes you about as honest as Irving. Bravo... (slow clap for you). Take a bow. Back to what I did actually say... Irving profits from controversy of his own making. By creative use of fact, ommission of others, emphasis on useful facts while ignoring inconvenient ones, he creates a distorted and controversial narrative. That type of sensational writing is what sells, and it isn't honest. That is Irving. Get over it,
1
No, he'll argue, which doesn't mean he's proven anything. He's a cheap salesman, that's it.
1
lol, Irving's "truth" did.
1
Ya, those are the folks with the expertise to say so.
1
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 Ya, that thing that comes with academic education to a set standard, professional experience again to a set standard? Like going to get your teeth cleaned and checked by a licensed dentist that went to med school? Having a licensed gunsmith sell you a gun he checked? That kind of expertise. Maybe you're ok with drunk history or total amateur hour, but most folks aren't. You like freedom of choice in your views over accuracy? lol
1
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 So you think the exception is the rule? lol, brilliant! I guess we should ignore all of the well credentialed and respected professionals that gave numerous and specific examples of David Irving's failures. Go ahead, believe the things you like, doesn't make them true. The only thing true is that you believe a well known con-artist and will never question what he tells you. Does that description sound familiar?
1
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 No, just takes a real Historian/expert to spot the amateur BS artist.
1
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 Of course you do, that's how you deny the conventional narrative. If you didn't disparage and discount them, your world can't exist. That doesn't make you smart, it just puts your views in proper context. A little self serving, wouldn't you say? lol (understatement of the week).
1
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 Totally false and completely unimaginative BS response... There is a definition of what a fact is, a definitive " historical method" (look up the term) used to establish facts, and revisionism does NOT recognize established fact or use the methodology to provide them. Revisionism remains much more of a faith based approach to History and relies on distortion, fabrication, etc. It appeals to people with a psychological need to be "in the know", "see things others don't", and above all, a need to feel in control of the world around them and not be a "sheep". That's you dude, and its all in YOUR head, just a bunch of self serving BS. Look up "conspiracy psychology" and you'll find that they have your profile, and they can accurately predict your reaction to information that F's with your self image as someone who thinks they can see through everything. Thank the cyber age for your world view, you're just an average Joe that's going along with the trends of the moment. "Awake", Red Pill, etc. is just the fad of the day. You have a retro mullet too? lol
1
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 I know I can't get through to you, that's the usual reaction from you folks. I don't expect anything but you to curl up all defensive and then attack attack attack. You guys are all the same, there is very little variation. However long it takes for these current trends to play out is beyond me, but eventually you will realize that everything I told you was spot on. Seek actual knowledge instead of an echo chamber. It's a lot less comfortable, but that's how you grow. Good luck, you're going to need it.
1
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 You're very confident, very common with you folks. Look up Dunning-Kruger effect. You appear to be a poster child for it. lol
1
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 LMAO, can you copy and repurpose my posts a littler harder??? My God your bulb is barely flickering. lol Do you have a single original thought or is everything just reflected and repurposed. Wow...Go back and read this thread and observe how all you did was copy/reverse everything put to you like a complete dunce. lol
1
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 Triggered? Ah, the catch phrase of the intellectually challenged... lol My only minor fear is that people like you can legally spread your substandard DNA, thus ensuring the population's future is handicapped. BTW: at least you backed in to admitting you just copied everything I said. lol, great job. Now, turn this post around. lol
1
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 I'm Prussian by lineage, Protestant and a royalist by affiliation. That and I'm a member of German veteran associations and the volksbund. Get a f'n clue dipsh't. Your song and dance is just copycat BS from a revisionist video you never researched. F the knotsies and long live the King (the real Kaiser): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VGBaM0QQ7w&list=PLzms01dCsYiBxRTnji7YyGFVxTRBs0fMv&index=10
1
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 So this is your diversion from copying everything I said and being called out for being dumb? lol, I deny the denier. I am of Prussian decent, Protestant, etc. Maybe you can make something of me being a Mason? lol, run with that one. So far you haven't demonstrated yourself to be too intellectually astute by any measure. Lets see what your next copy or diversion is. Go (BTW: "small hats" put a high value on time and likely wouldn't waste it on you. Which makes me wonder why I'm still replying to a denier....oh yeah, because its fun!)
1
@dayswithoutjewishtricks0416 What a f'd up mind you have.... wow. You really believe that Jewish folks stalk the net looking to change the minds of anti-Semites? No, they don't... They know you're there, always have been and always will be. This latest wave of people like you is just a byproduct of the cyber age and it too will pass like any other wave or fad. You're in it and can't see the forest for the trees. I'm far above it. watching it all play out with curious interest. Someday you'll get it, but right now you're pretty F'd.
1
Do you think that about Irving's work? No agenda right? Just objective history, no attempt to create and profit from controversy....
1
Nope... the NS are "discredited" by their policies and actions as compared to a basic moral framework. Spin the NS experience any way you wish, you can't escape what they did.
1
Hamas is what to you?
1
Evans was paid less than what Irving was trying to extort from Penguin. Did you miss that little detail?
1
Interesting take, I see him as a cheap salesman. He tries to create controversy because that's what sells, then he profits from the attention. Similar to James Bacque, Viktor Rezun, and a few others. He seems pretty easy to see through to me.
1
@angelozachos8777 So you're saying that you've insulated your mind against anything other than the narrative you have an emotional attachment to? lol I'm guessing you don't even have a clue what the TB-47 controversy is.
1
"what's the barrier here?". No barrier, just a personal choice about how valuable your time is when reading anything written by someone who has been caught distorting his sources to create a false narrative according to an agenda of rehabilitating the N Azis. That's all.... your choice and no one is forcing anything on you.
1
Let's Make the Holocaust Great Again! In the format I suggested? I would absolutely destroy his arguments definitively, just like what happened when he tried to sue Penguin books. Look up the term "weasel words", then listen to Irving in a debate. Seriously, take a good look at your f'ing hero. lol
1
@koko2bware Nope
1
@Todesking69 " name any early 20th century historian who has rigorously cross-referenced his source material with original documents and written testimony" Irving did that but only to a certain extent. He cherry picked information from primary evidence, then added his own spin, along with selective quotes from other Historians to create a false narrative. That is the definition of historical distortion and exactly what Sir Richard John Evans revealed to the world during the Penguin libel suit brought by Irving. You can't un-see the evidence. And to answer your question.... name any? Ok, David Glantz. More recent example? Dr Adam Tooze. I can name dozens, but what's the point?
1
@Todesking69 "that not what EVERY historian does. Most “Historians” artfully plagiarize works whose source material is somebody else’s work. There’s a long history of fallacious work that has generated a poor window into the past." Using lower level work, general histories that aren't meant to treat anything in depth, etc. is NOT a reason to label "most" Historians as plagiarists, etc. Sounds like BS justification to subscribe to a known charlatan like Irving just because he says something different and controversial. You can't avoid that he's been exposed as a fraud, unless you invoke an intellectually bankrupt conspiracy theory.
1
Ok... The Crusades happened to reclaim the holy land, no? The Templars were formed, lost the holy land, evolved into Free Masons, founded the US. The US supports the foundation of Israel. Holy land recaptured. You can spend a lifetime researching that little circle of history.
1
@yingyang1008 I believe the total is 430k, Hamburg was 40k and Dresden 25k, so definitely not 1/3 as quoted above. Post-war statistics aren't off the cuff from memory statements, they are almost down to single people in their accuracy.
1
@KansasHempMan You're intellectually brilliant statement of "truth" wasn't censored, they must not be on to your presence here yet.
1
@EJisArete Its the simple truth of the man, he's an opportunist.
1
@EJisArete Cry more, cope... Irving is a twisted man looking to profit on a pack of lies. Not unlike James Bacque, or Viktor Rezun. Opportunists capitalizing on gullible people. PT Barnum would be proud.
1
When you see Gaza, do you ignore what Hamas did on Oct 7 2023? 1250 civilian victims in a single day? The terrorist attack? Does that ring a bell.
1
@CB-so8xd No, those weren't the best examples. In the lawsuit launched by Irving against Penguin, it was proven beyond doubt that what Dr. Lipstadt said about Irving was true. He was proven to be a racist, a Holo caust denier, and there were examples of falsified research and distortion. In order to deny that, you have to literally avoid the evidence that was presented and that is still available in full online.
1
@KansasHempMan Back to your hemp... lol
1
@KansasHempMan Who's truth, Irving's? lol, nope.... His "truth" doesn't match the evidence.
1
@KansasHempMan Agreed, but neither does what Irving has written. What I was taught in private school however.... Historical method, research and analysis, historiography, source criticism, etc. gives me the tools and process to see through people like Irving, or the Gov agenda of a public school textbook. You? Do you have that type of education, experience? Or are you a conspiracy nutter imbued with no small amount of Dunning-Kuger? lol
1
The history of the event has no fact based comprehensive alternative. There are people who deny it but offer nothing other than criticism ,and refuse to answer questions put to them on a level playing field. There's a large degree of entitlement that seems to come hand in hand with denial, as if someone owes these people something and that they owe nothing in return.
1
@levigarrett5614 No one's bowing at denier claims either. #entitlement if you feel like someone owes you something. "questioning"(denying) the evidence of the event(s) doesn't give you a valid point. The fact is you deny the facts on one side of the coin, then you buy in to denier claims on the other side without any critical analysis whatsoever. Most folks call that hypocritical. You believe denier claims based on faith, not fact, but anyone who believes the facts is misled? lol, do tell.
1
"his efforts to take another look at a historical event." His efforts are to appeal to people's natural skepticism with a false and conspiracy driven narrative are only to serve the agenda of financial gain. He didn't write books for charity or public welfare, controversy sells, he knows that, he leveraged it. The truth was not an issue or obstacle for someone like him.
1
That's exactly his sales pitch, great job in identifying how he fools people.
1
lol, do you believe that BS? Dr. Evans provided his opinion based on analysis of Irving's writings in comparison to his cited source material. They don't match and that isn't someone's opinion. Dr. Evans analyzed most of Irving's work and found a multitude of major discrepancies that ultimately led to his downfall. Irving is a charlatan, and it took an expert like Evans to prove it beyond any doubt. THAT is what "expert testimony" is you dolt...
1
@Michael-it7nx Irving's "work". Ok, summary in one example; TB-47 controversy.... Case closed, certified charlatan. Evans has a Phd, works within his mandate, therefore by definition cannot be a charlatan....words have meaning genius.
1
@Michael-it7nx Pandemic Phd's are called medical doctors. Obviously not the same as someone who earns a Phd in humanities and is an expert in research and analysis of historical evidence. Irving was a historical writer and not a Historian, a title, expertise, and credentials he clearly did not possess. Just because you agree with what he wrote doesn't make it accurate or answer for the mistakes he made or the lies he told as exposed by Dr. Evans. Dr. Evans exposed Irving's misuse of his sources and you can't take that back, he's guilty of what amounts to historical fraud.
1
"Divid wrote over 20 books by the time of trial. Over the 2 year period evens and his TEAM managed to find 9 errors in his works." They found substantial evidence to prove in a public court that he was as Dr. Lipstadt described him, a Holo caust denier. Therefore, Irving's Libel case and huge amount of money he was trying to get from Penguin were tossed out. Irving clearly wrote that the kil ling by g as was on a modest scale in Auschwitz, as well as the Reinhardt ca mps. He also claimed that the overall numbers of Jewish people that lost their lives in those places was greatly exaggerated. THAT IS denial, and he was disproven in a public court in a court case of his choosing. Mining his books for that information was Evans job, and he located the relevant information. That's it.... Irving hung himself in this and he is who the judge said he is. The whole thing is public record, and every word of every day can be read for free on the internet. Recommend you analyze it.
1
@floycewhite6991 No, those are YOUR words, nothing more. What Dr Lipstadt says in her book is a direct reflection of the image Irving created for himself by writing/saying what he did. That was proven by the defense during the lawsuit trial. As I stated previously, its all on public record. If you disagree but don't bother to look at the evidence, then that's on you and is typical of "fans" of Irving.
1
@floycewhite6991 The "official version" involves a great many irrefutable facts that Irving denied with simple and clear language. He lost the Penguin case because the comments that Lipstadt made about him in 3 pages of her book were found to be accurate and that he was not libeled. He was found guilty in Austria because he denied facts publicly and incited hatred. Tough to swallow the obvious?
1