Why is he constantly derided when his books are often more factual and based directly off primary sources, documents...

It's OK honey, books are difficult, don't worry about it.
When's the Himmler book coming out?

He's one of the leading historians on WWII.
This is a literature board.

You’re doing it riiiight now. Enough of the posting :3

Name, maybe a title?

EXCUSE ME

David Pinker - Milk & Honey

>Vladimir Roosevelt

Attached: A510DD43-3F6E-4F94-B436-A0894B8A6A3D.jpg (500x375, 104K)

:3 please

david irving

Ty

Butterfly I need an answer, why post the picture if you didn’t want to lead me on still further? You obviously like the attention.

hehe yeah, it's definitely not you who's on the wrong board by mistake

freak

>Even though he eventually flip-flopped on the Holocaust
Could you elaborate on this? Can't find what you're referring to.

Definitely. We don’t fetishize any holocausr deniers on lit. You guys are either from /his/ or /pol/

He didn't flip flop.
He acknowledges people died in camps and that there were war-crimes committed by all sides of the war, he has consistently maintained since the beginning there was not a systematic plan for the eradication of Jewish people that can be shown by any real evidence.

He was the premier WW2 historian until he stated he didn't believe there was a German plan to kill every tranny in the world. They should have though, so I wouldn't have to see you here any time I come to /lit.

I hope someone can tell me if he's ever commented on this.

Attached: 1551190199706.png (1000x1413, 657K)

Does this evidence that Hitler knew of it or gave an order? Part of Irvings contention is that Goebbels is evidenced using killings as a mean of procuring loot to finance themselves, but there's no evidence that actually ties these actions into instruction from Hitler.

So his position is that there might have been a systematic plan to eliminate the Jews but Hitler wasn't involved? The memo is evidence that Mussolini knew about it in 1942, so it'd be strange to posit that Hitler was completely oblivious. Either he ordered it or he acquiesced, and I'm not sure there'd be a meaningful difference between the two.

Irving's position is that all confessions by Nazi's were either tortured out of them by the allies after the war, or were falsified by the allies. Every document evidencing the holocaust was faked by the allies after the war. He's a crank - he says the evidence is fake, but has no evidence of the faking process

I remember him being asked about the number of people killed in the "Holocaust" during one of his lectures a few years back, and he answered something along the lines of them certainly not being wrong by an order of magnitude, i.e. several million. I was under the impression that this was a significant departure from his previous position in the 80s/90s, but I may be wrong on that.
He's also talked about (small scale) gassings in the red & white houses in Birkenau more recently, which he does accept. I don't think he did before.

>no evidence of the faking process
The documents didn't bear official seals used on reich documents

That still doesn't validate a grander plan of extermination. It's like saying that facet to the Armenian Genocide was the plan to kill every Christian on the planet.

They were deporting Jews from every territory they occupied specifically to have them gassed. Italian officials had been preventing Jews from being deported (as urged by Himmler directly) until the Fascist government fell, at which point they started murdering them too. At the very least, it was a plan to kill every Jew within their grasp.

>They were deporting Jews from every territory they occupied specifically to have them gassed.
Then why did they send so many of them to Palestine and spend so much time telling the Jews to get the fuck out?

Wasn't that before 1942? This is where the functionalism vs intentionalism discussion begins.

Well yeah, they effectively couldn't ship the Jews out after Britain started WW2.

>after Britain started WW2
Alright, maybe I should have known this was bait.

declassification of Korherr report and Höfle Telegramm ruined his main argument

What is bait about it? Britain declared war on Germany and had no place in doing so. They didn't even protect Poland through it all, they left it to get raped by Communism. Germany also had historical cassus belli for the territories they desired. Are you historically illiterate or just retarded?

why are you speaking for Yea Forums when you're some annoying tranny from 2018? please get a grip

Because they aren't factual
Because he for years silenced critics by threatening them with libel and slander suits
Having taken Deborah Lippstadt to court and losing his case he then tried to plea as the victim

>germany had casus belli
>britain started the war
kek

according to clausewitz the side which benefits from earlier start of the war, the one who can't wait any longer, can be considered the aggressor, independent of who declares war first.

Between Germany and Poland there was no WW2. It was Britain and France which started a larger war, and continually escalated it because they got humiliated terribly.
Britain started WW2.

Attached: Britain-declares-war.jpg (648x346, 53K)

Imagine how many lives would have been saved if Britain weren't an evil Jew servant nation bent on the destruction of Europe and ownership of the world.

germany didnt expect declaration, because they knew britain and france werent ready.
they are still aggressors according to own doctrine (clausewitz)

That's Indy Neidell.

>Germany also had historical cassus belli for the territories they desired
Molotov-Ribbentrop and other information from the time suggest they weren't just going to stop at Danzig.

Germany attempted repeatedly to negotiate their borders with Poland, and were mocked, because Britain literally can't stop getting involved in everything that doesn't concern them. They used this as an excuse to burn Europe to the ground and then when it came to Polands independence, the weak excuse they leaned on, they just said "LOL SRY"
Pretty pathetic and pointless if you ask me.
Even worse that you unironically believe with all your heart and your anus that Poland was a good cause for a world war.

It just means you buy the propaganda hook-line-and-sinker.

When was Britain going to stop?
They owned the world already, just about, so they had to ruin Europe, too?

hitler could have easily avoided war with poland.
yes?
no?

> the side which benefits from earlier start of the war, the one who can't wait any longer, can be considered the aggressor, independent of who declares war first.
That's retarded.

no

Britain was by no means innocent in the grand scheme, but they had to at least try to maintain the integrity of the League of Nations.

No.
It wasn't anyones business but theirs.
We needed to make 80 million people die so Russia could control Poland and Germany in your opinion? Because that's all we accomplished.

Even worse, Russia didn't stop invading places from there. They just kept doing it and the world sat by and watched because Britain fucked up so hard.

67 Gorillion died in dresden
every german woman was raped

calm down tanky

So what? That means they were faked? By whom? Where? When? Under whose orders? And why is there no evidence for this faking operation? Millions of fake documents and eye witness accounts. The administration and logistics of producing that must have been enormous, but there is no evidence of such an operation. No eye witnesses who saw the documents being faked, or the supposed witnesses drilled to get the story straight, no paper trail about this huge faking operation. Was it organised by word of mouth and everyone involved took the secret to the grave?
Why be skeptical about the holocaust and not skeptical of this ambitious holocaust faking enterprise for which there is no evidence?

>there is no evidence?
Are you for real?

Attached: 1255362.jpg (633x800, 205K)

Once a war becomes inevitable, it's really not that interesting to argue who eventually started it. It's like asking who threw the first punch in a boxing match.

Yes, if only Irving had thought to include jpgs from /pol/ in his case, that would have been the clincher

>being this much of a communist propaganda apologist
>DURRR THERES NO EVIDENCEEEE
>*gets shown evidence*
>IT DOESNT MATTER THAT THERES NO EVIDENCE OF HITLER GIVING AN ORDER OR BEING AWARE BECAUSE I SAY SO

Can you actually source that image from Soviet archives? Or even show that it predates the Internet?

Everything surrounding the WWII period was full of faked info, edited photos, made up stories, etc. From all sides.

>When you're such a shill you are in full fledged denial that Soviets doctored photos regularly

>when you're such a shill you think every doctored image was definitely made by the Soviets
Embarrassing.

Its an obvious photoshop that looks like it was made on /pol/. If you included a source to how it was used by someone in academia as proof of nazi atrocities that would be something else entirely.

>Being such a gay nigger shill you are in full fledged denial Russians doctored photos of Russian soldiers committing warcrimes
Why would someone care that much about communists? Embarrassing.

Attached: 6104.jpg (400x359, 27K)

I'm only asking for a source, friend.

clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/BK8ch05.html

>The third case, which is probably the most common, is when neither party has anything definite to look for from the future, when therefore it furnishes no motive for decision. In this case, the offensive war is plainly imperative upon him who is politically the aggressor, that is, who has the positive motive; for he has taken up arms with that object, and every moment of time which is lost without any good reason, is so much lost time for him.

>We have here decided for offensive or defensive war on grounds which have nothing to do with the relative forces of the combatants respectively, and yet it may appear that it would be nearer right to make the choice of the offensive or defensive chiefly dependent on the mutual relations of combatants in point of military strength; our opinion is, that in doing so we should just leave the right road. The logical correctness of our simple argument no one will dispute; we shall now see whether in the concrete case it leads to the contrary.

>Let us suppose a small State which is involved in a contest with a very superior power, and foresees that with each year its position will become worse: should it not, if war is inevitable, make use of the time when its situation is furthest from the worst? Then it must attack, not because the attack in itself ensures any advantages—it will rather increase the disparity of forces—but because this State is under the necessity of either bringing the matter completely to an issue before the worst time arrives, or of gaining, at least, in the mean time, some advantages which it may hereafter turn to account. This theory cannot appear absurd. But if this small State is quite certain that the enemy will advance against it, then, certainly, it can and may make use of the defensive against its enemy to procure a first advantage; there is then at any rate no danger of losing time.

>If, again, we suppose a small State engaged in war with a greater, and that the future has no influence on their decisions, still, if the small State is politically the assailant, we demand of it also that it should go forward to its object.

>If it has had the audacity to propose to itself a positive end in the face of superior numbers, then it must also act, that is, attack the foe, if the latter does not save it the trouble. Waiting would be an absurdity; unless at the moment of execution it has altered its political resolution, a case which very frequently occurs, and contributes in no small degree to give wars an indefinite character.

Here's one with the source in the bottom left you commie degenerate.

Attached: main-qimg-6ebd673cf53023c8a3c924fbff4fe749.png (800x596, 425K)

That's the source of the original image, the German archives. I haven't seen any evidence that the doctored versions came from the Soviet archives, or that they even existed during the time of the USSR.

So it should be easy to find evidence that the holocaust was faked. There must have been a department, perhaps in London, in charge of such a large undertaking, people seconded, resources requested etc. And people would remember working for this department and working on the fake holocaust documents. People remember working at Bletchley Park and the Manhattan Project, and there is a huge paper trail evidencing those top secret activities, orders from Churchill and Roosevelt authorising it. But nobody seems to remember working on this Holohoax thing, and there is no paper trail or evidence, no mention of it in any official papers or minutes, orders from allied high command to commence such an operation.

>David Irving
>leading historian on WWII
‘The Mare’s Nest’ was the only good thing he published. The rest can basically be summed up as Nazi apologetics/fanfic

why are you /pol/ tards so embarassingly stupid? I mean to you it might make sense but everyone else can see how you always back paddle while trying to move forward, your arguments are so lousy and in the end you resort to mere swear words and "ad homs"(as you pol fags like to call em) just because you have nothing to back up your shitty pol inflated propaganda.

You guys sure are shit at poker, and sure great at ridiculing yourself in front of a tripfag.

Also this thread is meaningless. I hope the next genocide is held as a rational carneval . It probably will be.

You dont need to be a major in cogsci to know that theres plenty of atoms to blow

>casus belli
h4h4h4h4
(as in h four h four h four h four)

I live in a german speaking country. It would be better if we genocided this boring cultural identity.
The russians didnt rape enough. It is still evident.
Eisernes Kreuz will Mutti ficken

This is not what the holocaust was, and something tells me he said more than just that.

I have been with Yea Forums since you were still in diapers. You're probably still in them.

>Why is he constantly derided when his books are often more factual and based directly off primary sources, documents, interviews he conducted himself and much more well sourced than most "mainstream" history books?

I suppose this would be your answer:

en.wikisource.org/wiki/David_Irving_v_Penguin_Books_and_Deborah_Lipstadt

If you want to defend Irvings work read it

An author who isn't Stirner butterfly, those aren't really your forte though

Oh look, a tranny talking about diapers

I've had an earful of WWII over the years and was not familiar with the facial features of one fetishized historian.
Stirner is arguably a more important writer. Still know no facial features of him.

oof

>The russians didnt rape enough.
The biggest crime the russians did was not destroy the artificial germans, aka the prussians, but helped them infiltrate even more directly into the true german core.
Despicable to see all these protestant prussians on german soil corrupting the honest man
>kant was cool though, and Bismarck has dope quotes

Attached: 1552131296228.jpg (910x848, 381K)

It doesn't have to a be a grand conspiracy. Just an easy narrative forced and parroted from the get-go. The majority of things people think they know about the Holocaust and Nazis, which they learnt in school and from popular media, are lies. This applies to me, too, that's why it's concerning.

>It's like asking who threw the first punch in a boxing match.
This isn't some unimportant thing like you think it is my duderino

It's also the case for bascially any other big historical event. The problem here is how we teach and engage with history among non-historians, not muh joos.

That said I don't have much hope for it to change, if we educated ourselves better on the holocaust we'll still be retarded on slavery or whatever else. Most people don't care about precise history, they'll just go on with their lives, and ultimately I doubt those grand historical narratives have any bearing on the average pleb.

That's what I'm curious about. What's the original source of that image and if some photoshop expert can determine if its been doctored.

...

>It doesn't have to a be a grand conspiracy
To invent the holocaust and keep the myth going would need a grand conspiracy. You'd need to fabricate hundreds of thousands of bits of evidence, then plant them in Germany to be discovered. You'd need to train thousands of actors to pretend to be eyewitnesses. You'd have to make sure everyone involved in this enterprise kept quiet about the fraud being committed. You'd need Roosevelt, Trueman, Eisenhower, Churchill, Attlee, Eden, Stalin amongst other world leaders to keep quiet about the operation as well as everyone in the military who is supposed to have seen the camps. Its a monumental undertaking. It would have been easier to actually carry out the holocaust after the war than to engage in a fraud on this level then perfectly cover your tracks

On the one side you have interment camps, just like contemporary camps in the US and the USSR, to house and put to work people of dubious loyalty who pose a security and sabotage risk. As the war progresses the logistical strain and the need of the frontline means that food is withheld, and people starve to death in droves. People from the camps just happen to be emasculated and thin, like they've been going on low or nonexistent rations. Funnily enough this happened to several million soviet POWs but no one seems to care.

Alternative narrative calls for some third rate comic book villain plot, where millions of people are gassed to death and burned, where the frontline logistics are allowed to collapse just so they can send that extra trainload of expensive gas and fuel for the incinerators to waste away.

Lots of jews died, yes. Is it different from the hundreds of other times similar things happened? No.
It justifies the existence of Israel, and Israel ensures western domination of the middle east and the subjugation of the arabs and their oil. Forget holocaust and you suddenly realize that Israel is a mafia state worse than apartheid and worse than Russia.

Attached: 1520694743692.jpg (460x306, 15K)

So the guy who throws the first punch is responsible for the fight? Explain how.

>Alternative narrative
It's not an alternative narrative, its the only possible explanation of the facts and evidence. Again, you are suggesting that hundreds of thousands of documents and other physical evidence were forged, then covertly planted in former Nazi territory, thousands of stooges gave false statements, and the leaders, intelligence agencies and militaries of the main allies colluded in this forgery, that the the entire forgery operation was then covered up perfectly without leaving a single trace it had ever existed, and every single person involved stayed quiet about the entire thing over the subsequent decades.
And the whole purpose of this was to justify ruling a part of the middle East, which at the time was already ruled entirely by the British anyway.

In this particular case it's not about responsibility as it's about whoever manages to land the first punch getting more points from the judgges, you retard.

Eat shit (You) living sphincter.

>we
never say that

Seriously, one of his most prolific books is sitting right by his elbow. Besides, I know that your 1337 skills can do an RIS, especially with the handy tool built into the board. This just seems lazy of you.

>holocausr deniers
What qualifies a "denier"? Is it Irving's observation that the charges to bring Dönitz to trial needed to be rescinded and replaced because the original charges were based on unironic wartime propaganda?

Attached: trips.jpg (300x213, 20K)

Who was the judge and what country did he hail from?

He didn't deny the holocaust. He denied that Hitler directly ordered it. Being that he's one of the few English- and German-speaking historians which incomparable access to primary documents of the third reich, I think he's well-positioned to say so. Hitler may not have ever ordered the systemic execution of jews...on paper.

All controversy aside, his writing is excellent, btw.

One government physically presided over all of the "death camps" and it was not Britain.

soap and lampshades

Were there trapdoors on the roof of the gas chamber at Auschwitz?

He is yet another stormtard pathological liar. The destruction of dresden for example uses forged documentation, wartime propaganda, and lies about sources (eg funfack) to exaggerate the death toll.
But if you want a throughout research into how poor irving's research is and how much of a bullshitter he is you should read evan's report:
hdot.org/evans_toc/

Did he forge Rommel's diaries as well?

Small teaser:
>Penetrating beneath the confident surface of his prose quickly revealed a mass of distortion and manipulation in every issue we tackled that was so tangled that detailing it sometimes took up many more words than had been devoted to it in Irving's original account. Unpicking the eleven-page narrative of the anti-Jewish pogrom of the so-called Reichskristallnacht in Irving's book Goebbels: Mastermind of the 'Third Reich' and tracing back every part of it to the documentation on which it purports to rest takes up over seventy pages of the present Report. A similar knotted web of distortions, suppressions and manipulations became evident in every single instance which we examined. We have not suppressed any occasion on which Irving has used accepted and legitimate methods of historical research, exposition and interpretation: there were none.

Not that I'm aware.

Have you read Goebbel's diary?