The Demonization of David Irving

Lasha Darkmoon — Darkmoon.me Dec 18, 2016

Doubting the mainstream Holocaust narrative can be a dangerous business, as David Irving and others have discovered to their cost.

irving

‘UNREPENTANT! . . . AND STILL  SPOUTING  POISON!’
(Daily Mail)

Here is a photo of David Irving,  age 78, “jailed, discredited and bankrupted”, according to a recent article in the Daily Mail,  “for disgracefully dismissing the Auschwitz gas chambers as a ‘fairytale.’”
The article is by a hack known as David Jones who managed to infiltrate one of Irving’s regular meetings so as to have an opportunity of spying on him and his group in order to report back to the Daily Mail with an appropriately scurrilous article. His aim? To demonize Irving and win plaudits from the politically correct readers of the Daily Mail, many of them Jews whose new religion happens to be Holocaustianity.
Jones begins with considerable aplomb:
At weekends, the Premier Inn in Gateshead throngs with football fans and young clubbers up for a wild night out in nearby Newcastle. Visitors to this cheap and cheery hotel on a trading estate seldom arrive by Rolls-Royce. Last Saturday evening, however, a vintage Silver Shadow glided onto the forecourt.
Sitting ramrod-straight at the wheel was an elderly and distinguished looking man, with silver hair and ruddy jowls. He might have been a retired brigadier. But it was none other than the infamous Holocaust-denying historian, David Irving.
In the passenger seat was the latest of Irving’s Girl Fridays — an attractive Polish woman, 50 years his junior, named Martyna Jurska. Her immediate task was to unload a stash of his books (including his laudatory 985-page biography of Hitler) from the boot of the Rolls and carry them into the hotel, in the hope he might hawk copies to an audience he was due to address, for upwards of £30 a time.
For at the age of 78, Irving — who has been jailed, discredited and bankrupted for disgracefully dismissing the Auschwitz gas chambers as a ‘fairytale’, and claiming Hitler was oblivious to the planned extermination of six million Jews (the true figure was far fewer, he maintains) — is beating his odious drum yet again.
One cannot help wondering why it is “disgraceful” to ask a few pertinent questions about Auschwitz. Most people would be sympathetic toward the skeptical position adopted by Irving if allowed access to the basic facts:
(1) The fact that not a single authentic gas chamber has been discovered anywhere, including and especially at Auschwitz, the showcase Holocaust site. Here is Robert Faurisson’s famous challenge to the mainstream Holocaust historians: “Show me a photo, an architect’s plan or even a drawing of a gas chamber!” No one to date has been able to do this. Even the famous gas chamber shown to tourists at Auschwitz is now officially admitted to be a fake, but visitors to Auschwitz are still not told this. The Auschwitz gas chamber was built by the Russians after WWII as an imagined facsimile (or  “mock-up”) and was passed off as an authentic gas chamber for several decades. The general public, in short, were systematically duped.
(2) The Leuchter Report (1988), based on expert chemical analysis of alleged gas chambers,  has concluded categorically that there is “no evidence that any of the facilities normally alleged to be execution gas chambers were ever used as such, and, further, that because of the design and fabrication of these facilities, they could not have been utilized for execution gas chambers.”  David Irving is said to have been influenced by the Leuchter Report. Predictable attempts have been made to debunk the Report, but these attempts have failed to convince everyone.
(3) The official figures for Jews gassed at Auschwitz have been revised downward over the years from over 4 million to as little as 356,000. The general public however, kept in ignorance of these “drastic reductions”, are still being bullied into believing that 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust — a mathematically impossible figure if official reductions are factored into the account.
“Utterly unrepentant,” Jones continues, “Irving has just embarked on a month-long, nationwide speaking tour. It is being conducted in a cloak of secrecy and accessible only to a select and carefully vetted audience, but last Saturday night I managed to infiltrate his first engagement. It was an eye-opening and disturbing experience.”
Jones explains that Irving had “brazenly” timed his tour to coincide with the release of the new Hollywood movie Denial. This is about Irving’s disastrous libel action against Jewish academic Barbara Lipstadt who had branded Irving a “Holocaust denier.”
“There was a time when Irving commanded considerable respect in his field,” Jones informs us, “and made a fortune from his books — as he reminded us when his talk began.
His long demise began after he published his biography of Hitler in 1977.
It is almost 1,000 pages long, yet references Auschwitz just four times — andbarely alludes to the Holocaust. He claimed to have uncovered documented proof that Hitler merely wished to banish the Jews from Europe, not wipe them out. This caused such outrage that, in 1992, he claims, his publishers Macmillan secretly ordered stocks of the book to be burnt.”
This is an ill-informed comment at the best. It will appeal only to historical ignoramuses. Irving’s methodology was a welcome departure from that of the court historians who kept quoting each other and making extensive use of secondary sources.
Having mastered German, Irving, we are told by one of his critics elsewhere, “was remarkably good at getting the wives and former associates of dead Nazis to talk to him and hand over important documents, and Irving developed a style of historical research that involved laboriously getting to know the handwriting of former Nazis, reading their journals, diaries and memos and gradually piecing together an independent view of history. Irving asserts that he found no evidence of the Holocaust anywhere in these documents.
Irving himself has noted, “If you read the memoirs of Churchill or Eisenhower or de Gaulle, they don’t mention it [the Holocaust] at all. It never happened as far as they were concerned.”
How odd that the most important event in World History, the Jewish Holocaust, was passed over in complete silence by so many eminent contemporary historians.
Here is Professor Richard Lynn, an international expert on IQ, giving his written testimony in 2005:
“I’ve checked out Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct — not a single mention of Nazi “gas chambers,” a “genocide” of the Jews, or of “six million” Jewish victims of the war. This is astonishing. How can it be explained?
Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi “gas chambers,” a “genocide” of the Jews, or of “six million” Jewish victims of the war.”
Richard Lynn
Professor Emeritus,
University of Ulster
(See here)
When Lipstadt began denouncing Irving for his “twisted views”, Jones tells us, Irving travelled to Atlanta to attend one of her lectures. He surprised her by standing up at the back of the hall and announcing “I am David Irving.” Lipstadt had just had the temerity to tell her gullible students that she possessed a blueprint of the gas chambers showing holes in the roof for fumes to pass through. Irving had pulled out a thousand dollars and challenged Lipstadt to show her students the blueprint. “I’ll give this to you straight away if you can show this blueprint to them,” he said, waving the thousand dollars.
Lipstadt was mortified. She was unable to produce the non-existent blueprint. Nor has she ever been able to do that, given that no such blueprint existed. And yet she had been quite prepared to lie to her students about this.
“Lipstadt did not meet this very public challenge,” Jones admits somewhat sheepishly. “Ultimately, she had her revenge in the High Court.”
She had her revenge in court? Yes, and what a revenge! Jones fails to mention that Lipstadt, on the advice of her solicitors, had refused to be cross-examined by Irving in court. She had read none of the original documents in German for the simple reason that her knowledge of German was so minimal as to be virtually non-existent. If she had faced Irving in court, he would have torn her reputation to shreds in two minutes.
—  §  —
Jones himself is not above lying. He says: “After a sensational trial in 2000, which attracted global attention — as it would effectively decide whether the Holocaust had happened — the judge ruled against Irving, damning him as anti-Semitic and racist.”
This is false. It was never up to the judge to decide whether the Holocaust had happened or not. All the judge was in a position to do was to tell the public that he agreed with Lipstadt that Irving was a Holocaust denier. Consequently, Irving’s libel action against Lipstadt for calling him a “Holocaust denier” had failed. Irving was ordered to pay £2 million in costs, and his home and assets were seized.
Jones continues:
Gaining entry to Irving’s opening night in Gateshead was not easy, for he ignored requests for a media pass, and after being targeted by anti-fascists he is paranoid about security.
Just three other people had shown up. One was an avuncular retiree, another a shy 18-year-old. The most vociferous was a suit-and-tie wearing Welsh casino worker with a sharp crew-cut, who said he had a history degree. As the evening wore on, and this disquieting trio punctuated their questions with bigoted asides, it became depressingly clear what their world view was.
Since there were so few of us, Irving’s talk took the form of a college seminar around a long table. Fixing us with a rheumy stare, he began by reminiscing fondly about his father. It seemed an aimless preamble, but its purpose soon became clear.
‘This film about Deborah Lipstadt says my father abandoned his family, but he didn’t at all,’ he sniffed. ‘He was away fighting the war as a commander in the Navy, so he wasn’t at home very much.’
He then lambasted the producers of the film, saying the story had been presented purely from the point of view of Professor Lipstadt, his nemesis: ‘It’ll be full of lies.’
The coy teenager was suddenly stirred. ‘I like the way they’ve chosen someone very unappealing [Timothy Spall] to play you, and someone very appealing [Rachel Weisz] to play your opponent.’

Rachel Weisz (left) plays Deborah Lipstadt in the film Denial. Click to enlarge

Note here the not-too-subtle attempt to “put a spin” on history by (a) transforming the dowdy and unappealing Lipstadt into the classy stunner Rachel Weisz, and (b) by getting a particularly unattractive actor, the rat-faced Timothy Spall, to take on the role of the dashing and debonnaire David Irving
Jones eventually asked Irving to clarify his position on the Holocaust.
He shot me a scolding glance. “Auschwitz is Disneyland,” Irving said, and referred to huge posters saying “Welcome to the Auschwitz Experience”. So he disputed six million Jews were killed? “If you do research, you’ll find six million.” But then, drawing on his vast mental database, he selected “facts” to support his insistence the camps claimed far fewer lives than we have been led to believe.
Jones argues the toss with Irving for a bit, clearly out of his depth, while managing somehow to convey the impression that Irving was a pretty nasty piece of work as well as a crackpot, whereas he, Jones, staff writer for the Daily Mail, had done his homework conscientiously over the last three days and now had all the facts about the Holocaust at his fingertips.
I asked why, if what he was saying was true, he had lost his landmark libel action. Another severe glance. “As my father said, ‘British justice is the best that money can buy’,”he sneered, recalling how he defended himself against high-powered lawyers funded by what he said were ‘Jewish film moguls’.
The case left him penniless, he says. Yet today Irving runs a Rolls-Royce and stays at an imposing 17th-century mansion with shooting, deerstalking and fishing rights, in the Scottish Highlands.
Jones forgets to mention that the Rolls-Royce is 40 years old and is retained as an investment; unlike most cars, it appreciates in value as long as it is kept in good condition.
Before drawing a disturbing evening in Gateshead to a close, Irving’s three fans paid for copies of his books and asked for selfies. Irving was only too pleased to oblige. Then he checked his watch and clapped his hands abruptly. “I think that’s enough,” he snapped. “We have a long tour ahead of us.”
On cue, Martyna [his young assistant] dutifully returned the unsold books to the Rolls.
There were, indeed, many miles to travel, and Irving will doubtless continue to pervert history to anyone who will listen, disgracefully denying the truth to the end.
Note that glib phrase, “disgracefully denying the truth to the end.”  
A “truth” that no one is allowed to debate on television, or discuss freely in public, without being severely punished for daring to hold a contrary view.
Countries with Laws against Holocaust denialAustria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland.
—  §  —
In 1980, during a radio interview in France, the great French revisionist Robert Faurisson was asked to summarize his lifetime’s research on the Holocaust in a single sentence. He did so in 60 memorable French words which have been translated as follows:
“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews constitute one and the same historical lie, which made possible a gigantic financial-political fraud, the principal beneficiaries of which are the State of Israel and international Zionism, and whose principal victims are the German people — but not their leaders — and the entire Palestinian people.”
That sentence, to this day, remains unchanged.
For these provocative words, Faurisson was denounced as a criminal in a French court of law and treated like a leper — in pretty much the same way as David Irving is today. At least Irving, to the best of my knowledge, has never had his face beaten to pulp by Jewish thugs. (See below).
Faurisson has been physically attacked like this at least ten times.

faurisson

Here is Irving in his own words: “I know what I could do to be liked by the media and newspapers – completely reverse my opinion. But I don’t do it. I’m not the kind of guy who rolls over. I’m English. I fight back. If the Jews had not started this campaign to destroy David Irving I wouldn’t have defended myself. I’ve defended myself like any other decent Englishman. And I know where the bodies are buried.”
Let a Jewish woman have the last word. She had actually been at Auschwitz. And she had no complaints about her treatment by the Germans.
“Believe me, I came into Auschwitz in a much worse condition than I actually left it.”
— Kitty Hart-Moxon, Jewish Holocaust Survivor.
June 1998 testimony, USC Shoah Foundation, Visual History Archive.

Source

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s