Now that the dust has settled, was he right about anything?

1. Hitler's diaries being fraudulent

2. Discovering Goebbels diaries

3. Revealing Churchill's secret financial backers and general retardation

4. Debunking the document which makes the most horrific accusations against those running the concentration camps (the testament of the Slovakian jews with no original source and (((somehow))) not used in the Nuremberg trials)

5. Bringing the Dresden bombing to public consciousness

6. Forcing the Poles to admit the gas chamber currently observable in Auschwitz is a fake

7. Taking a £250,000 hit after refusing to support the notion that Hitler was aware of the ((("""Holocaust""")))) in his book Hitler's War


Much more too. One of the finest historians of recent times. A true original.

He has been jailed. He has been libelled. Has been beaten. He has had Jews smashing the windows of bookshops which stocked his work. On the day his daughter's funeral he was sent an anonymous wreath from his (((enemies))) with a note quoting Philipp Bouhler (Nazi in charge of killing the mentally ill) claiming her death was as "merciful" as those of Hitler's victims.

And why?

Because the truth is so harmful to (((some))) people that they will do anything they can to suppress it and destroy those who attempt to expose it.

>>9867762
fpbp

>>9867707
I'd highly recommend his books, despite some silly suggestions and misinterpretations he makes due to his sympathies.

File: 1501847629817.jpg (401KB, 867x600px) Image search: [Google]

401KB, 867x600px

He did a fuckload of original research and interviews, but a lot of his claims make all kinds of strange logical leaps and present grossly skewed, decontextualised evidence.

>>9867762
>6. Forcing the Poles to admit the gas chamber currently observable in Auschwitz is a fake

Really? Is this true?

>>9867707
>Now that the dust has settled, was he right about anything?
He looks like an angry grandpa.

>>9867835
Yes, they claim it isn't a fake, that is is a "reconstruction". But they only now admit this after people pointed out things like there being no holes in the roof through which to drop gas canisters, the door to the chamber opening from the inside and so forth.

They have also revised the figure from 4 million (as the Nazis were charged with in the Nuremberg trials) to "about one and a half" million by today's estimated. Until 1989 you could be imprisoned for arguing that fewer than 4 million people died in Auschwitz, now you would be considered a wonky historian if you claimed any more than 1.5 million died there.

>>9867845
Has Irving himself settled on a figure for the numbers of people deliberately killed by the Nazis in the camps?

>>9867801
Quick rundown on the fella on the right?

>>9867875
John Lukacs
>Jewish Hungarian
>also Roman Catholic reactionary
>forced to work in Hungarian Jewish labour battalion, narrowly escaped capture by Nazis and death camps
>emigrated to U.S. fleeing communism
>anti-communist but not 'anticommunist', criticised McCarthy and the Cold War
>elitist critical of mass culture and populism

from Wiki:
>From around 1977 onwards, Lukacs became one of the leading critics of the British author David Irving, whom Lukacs accused of engaging in unscholarly practices and having neo-Nazi sympathies. In a review of Irving's Hitler's War in 1977, Lukacs commented that as a "right-wing revisionist" who had admired some of Irving's early works, he initially had high hopes for Hitler's War, but found the book to be "appalling".[8] Lukacs commented that Irving had uncritically used personal remembrances by those who knew Hitler to present him in the most favorable light possible.[9] During his review, Lukacs argued that although World War II ended with all of Eastern Europe being left under Soviet domination, a victory that left only half of Europe to Stalin was much better than a defeat that left all of Europe to Hitler.[10]

>In part, Lukacs’s 1997 book, The Hitler of History, a prosopography of the historians who have written biographies of Adolf Hitler, is a critique of Irving’s work. Irving in his turn has engaged in what many consider to be anti-Semitic and racist attacks against Lukacs. Because of his Jewish mother, Irving disparagingly refers to him as "a Jewish historian". In letters of 25 October and 28 October 1997 Irving threatened to sue Lukacs for libel if he published his book, The Hitler of History without removing certain passages which were highly critical of Irving's work.[11] The American edition of The Hitler of History was published in 1997 with the passages included, but because of Irving's legal threats, no British edition of The Hitler of History was published until 2001.[11] As a result of the threat of legal action by Irving under British libel laws, when the British edition was finally published, the passages containing the criticism of Irving's historical methods were expunged by the publisher.[12][13]

>>9867873
I don't know I'm afraid. He does admit that the Nazis committed atrocities however and slaughtered more than a million innocent people, including Jews, gypsies etc. He simply disagrees about the fact that Hitler knew anything about it (the only evidence appears to be hearsay and conjecture) and doubts the method of extermination. He is by no means a "Holocaust" denier, he simply refuses to refer to it by that name as he sees it as a method of branding an historical event for the purpose of making money.

>On 27 April 1993, Irving was ordered to attend court to be examined on charges relating to the Loi Gayssot in France, making it an offence to question the existence or size of the category of crimes against humanity.

Ridiculous. Nobody should be put in jail for an opinion. I sometimes wonder whether self professed "liberals" wouldn't be happier in a totalitarian state, like the USSR or . . . Nazi Germany.

That way they would never have to hear a bad opinion that made their fee-fees hurt ;_;

File: irving.jpg (6KB, 169x248px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 169x248px

>>9867936
Bad goy! Police, police! Somebody rough this guy up! He's makin' fun of da Holocaust oyyyyyyy!

>>9867835
its a meme you dip

>>9867887

>Because of his Jewish mother, Irving disparagingly refers to him as "a Jewish historian".

Anyone have the source on this? Seems like it could be possible context shenanigans. Maybe, maybe not.

>>9867978
I'm a fan of Irving and I'd say it's probably true. He usually refers to the Jews as "the traditional enemy" however.

>>9867942
You're a meme and I will stop using you