[rerevisionist]

Gee, you're a real good debater

[Wroclaw]

Let me review our back-and-forth so far.

I ask why you consider Harwood a good source.

You respond that, in part, that he hasn't been refuted.

I refute him.

You call me a liar.

I question your tactics.

You question mine.

Tell me now: Who broke form first?

[rerevisionist]

The first thing you said is that CODOH is a 'revisionist story jerk' or something like that. You started with an insult.

I pointed out that 'Did Six Million...?' is an overview piece. It has ten sections, and between them they span the entire WW2 field of war crime allegations, what happened in the USSR, the German Army, the Red Cross, Stalin, war crimes of the 'west', 'Eye Witness' lies, spurious documents, confessions under torture, the post-war promulgation of the myth, its use for racist and militarist purposes, and the rest.

You reply was that the document was easily refuted, and pointed to just two claims, out of dozens made in the document. Even if what you said was true, it's not in any sense a 'refutation'. Your claim to have refuted it is a lie.

[rerevisionist]

David Irving - not a Holocaust Revisionist?

'Mkk' (who seems to be very young) posted on the CODOH site that David Irving is not a Holocaust Revisionist. This was in a thread on Irving and Mark Weber, which stated, among many other things, that Weber had offered their mailing list for sale to the ADL. The whole thread has now been removed, to my irritation, as I spent some time on it. I may as well add it here.

Roughly, from memory, this was the exchange between 'Mkk' and me:--

David Irving is self-centred and an arrogant narcissist - I'm certain of this because he doesn't read other peoples' work!
** You don't seem to realise he is a documentary historian. For example, when writing Hitler's War he assembled a card index of Hitler's activities on every day of the war. (This is how he knew the Hitler Diaries were fake). Other documents include diaries, medical records, and hospital and other records relating to injuries and deaths.

David Irving is not a Holocaust revisionist. Faurisson, [list of names] found him wanting. In Hitler's War Irving said that Hitler did not know what was being carried out in his name. In the tightly controlled world of the Third Reich, this was quite obviously impossible.
** It's true that Irving is a documentary historian of the Second World War, and was not specifically interested in what was later called 'the Holocaust'. Let me give a comparison: suppose you became convinced that no Christians had been killed in the Colosseum (true, it seems) then you might become a 'Colosseum Revisionist'. Irving would correspond to a historian writing of a couple of emperors of the Roman Empire. From that point of view, it's a detail. Perhaps Irving found their history 'wanting'.

Irving said he'd read Neilson's book on Churchill, but did not credit it his Churchill bibliography. He is narcissist!
** Irving stated at the Lipstadt libel trial, to Rampton, that he 'never reads books'. This should be present in the trial transcript, though I haven't checked. He regards historians as little better than bent journalists. [Maybe not all of them...]

Diplomatic history, and sources, are well known to be corrupted...
** It's true that official published volumes on diplomacy are biased. A J P Taylor wrote a piece The Rise and Fall of Diplomatic History on that very topic. That's why Irving goes to the original documentary sources. He has mentioned many times that published typeset volumes may not indicate that passages have been interpolated or cut out, and therefore aren't reliable.

The death of six million is more than juust a detail !
** The Jews controlling the USSR murdered tens of millions. The Americans murdered 3 million Vietnamese. American official sources couldn't give a sh*t. For that matter, India on partition had deaths on a scale estimated to be similar to the biggest death tolls in WW2. The late 19th century Belgian Congo had atrocities running into millions. So your assumption that deaths will always be considered significant is incoreect.

Why do you say that about Hiroshima? The figures are well known!
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not atom-bombed. See Hiroshima myths on this. However the point I was making is that everyone carries over some assumptions. Irving was shocked when I said Jesus Christ probably never existed. If the 'Holocaust' happened, as Irving assumed, since almost every segment of the media said so, then Irving was unimpeachably correct to state that the documents appeared to show that Hitler knew nothing about it. Most people have view on AIDS, 9/11, etc etc and historical events which are wrong.

[Wroclaw]

Why you find it necessary to defend CODOH, an organization's forum in which you've already clearly been censored, is beyond me.

I did not claim to have refuted DSMRD. I claimed to have refuted your claim that it isn't refuted.

[RealityWall]

The first thing you said is that CODOH is a 'revisionist story jerk' or something like that. You started with an insult.

Wroclaw stated that CODOH was a rev "circle jerk." Either you don't know what that means or you didn't read it closely. It is very true remark as the moderator there bans anti-revisionists.

But, you are quick to resort to insults instead of debating facts. Remember your post of 14 Sept 2011 in this thread?

If you read RealityWall's posts, it's clear that he/she thinks any amount of deceit, lies, changing the subject, evasion, insults are justified. In fact, it seems to be an instinct - there's not even a question of making a value judgement, any more than someone injected with adrenalin makes a conscious decision to feel hyped up.

And then again on 1 Oct 2011, after I posted two 'inconvenient' documents debunking denial. What is your best response?

It's quite funny to see the liars at work - as though this chap has investigated Himmler's writings, and just happens to find the same example as was dredged up at Irving's libel case. Anyway the importance is the lessons to be drawn from the ridiculous imposture - one of them being the way large numbers of people can be made to support fakery, usually for selfish reasons. Quite a complicated set of balance-sheets to be drawn up. Plus one master summary.

Indeed despite the evidence of Nazi exterminations posted to this thread the largest response has been insults. Quick trigger. Very telling.

[rerevisionist]

Yawn, yawn. Are you claiming to be an expert in reading the handwriting of Himmler? Your fraud has had quite a run for its money. Or rather for our money.

BTW @ 'Wroclaw' CODOH tries to implement a strict policy of discussing ONLY 'the Holocaust'. But of course there are endless issues which are related to it. I pointed out to them they might have a forum on related issues, but it's their forum and their policy, which they've firmly adhered to, for about ten years I think. I tried to get them to split their forum into sub-issues, so that older posts don't get buried, but maybe it's just too much work for them.

Incidentally it's possible to download the entire CODOH site, something I did recently, though it took a couple of days. I'd recommend you do the same, so you can check for issues which have been covered. It will give a surer foundation for your future lies.

[rerevisionist]

Lol. '.. Despite the evidence..' Anyway it's clear neither of you two has any intention of addressing the genuine issues here. Never mind; you can waste someone else's time.

[rerevisionist]

For a truly depressing experience, look at this garbage from the BBC.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vy70d

The BBC is pure state propaganda - a state that is corrupted and has no concern for human values.

[rerevisionist]

[1] Roman Catholics. This is edited, from CODOH---

Re: What made you first question the holocaust?
Post by vincentferrer » Dec 2011
I first heard these words in the year 2000: " The holocaust is a Jewish financial scam". The person who spoke them to me is a friend who holds a Ph.D (with honors) in philosophy ... He was and still is a Roman Catholic priest who held a high ranking position in the Catholic church.
. . . .I had never heard anything like that before and had no idea how to respond. Therefore I just let it pass and we talked about other things.
. . . .3 years later, in 2003, I heard virtually the same comments from a different Catholic priest. He too was a trusted friend. This time, I decided to do some homework to prove him wrong. Long story short, after 3 weeks of doing research, I found out these priests were right. It was a hoax.

It seems Bishop Richard Williamson is not alone. In fact, of course, their Church has its own information sources - Bavaria was a Catholic stronghold, for example. Wouldn't it have been nice if they'd had the guts to say something a little bit earlier, rather than waiting for many painstaking revisionists to do their work.

[2] German Americans. I was surprised to find that WIkipedia tolerated an extract from an open letter (june 1936) by H L Mencken to Upton SInclair; an extract being You protest, and with justice, each time Hitler jails an opponent; but you forget that Stalin and company have jailed and murdered a thousand times as many. It seems to me, and indeed the evidence is plain, that compared to the Moscow brigands and assassins, Hitler is hardly more than a common Ku Kluxer and Mussolini almost a philanthropist. As with Lindbergh, Mencken tends to be unmentioned.

[rerevisionist]

Slightly off-topic. I was browsing David Irving's book The War Between the Generals (first published 1981) which is available as a free download
https://www.fpp.co.uk/books/WarBetween/2010_edition.pdf

This book (sources are listed near its end) lists disputes and annoyances between the allied Generals - Eisenhower, Patton, Montgomery and so on - relying on state papers, memoirs and diaries and communications with Field Marshals, Generals, Admirals, bystanders such as de Gaulle, and so on. This is mostly English-language material; a corresponding book dealing with Russian Generals would certainly be horrific. It has, like many war books, an unrealistic gung-ho expenses paid feel: naturally enough, a great deal of supporting information is missing - there's nothing on payments for the War, how materials were obtained, and so on. It's light on technology; the Bletchley code-breaking techniques were revealed slowly, and mostly not until this book was published, so it could not have been possible for Irving to be sure of the reliability of the information the Generals relied on. There are mentions of the cavity magnetron for radar, and the 'atomic bomb' - but the Jewish-USSR link is missing. Eisenhower's behaviour in (I take it) starving Germans after the war is not taken into account - it wasn't known at the time, though Irving discusses the Morgenthau Plan, which I think he discovered, or rediscovered. There is also all but nothing on Hiroshima, and ditto on Auschwitz etc. Even 35 years after the nominal end of the war, there are omissions.

I'm uncertain what the lessons are, though. The whole fake edifice of the Holocaust does not appear. Nor is there much foreshadowing of the nuke fraud and the associated rigged up 'Cold War', and Bretton Woods and the pseudo-internationalist organisations. Can it really be so very difficult to infer the objectives of wars? Are writers discreetly steered away from trying to take an overview?


More on Patton; inserted 2013 May 8th:---

[From UK's The Daily Telegraph]
General George S. Patton was assassinated to silence his criticism of allied war leaders claims new book
    George S. Patton, America's greatest combat general of the Second World War, was assassinated after the conflict with the connivance of US leaders, according to a new book. General George S. Patton was assassinated to silence his criticism of allied war leaders claims new book 'We've got a terrible situation with this great patriot, he's out of control and we must save him from himself'. The OSS head General did not trust Patton.
    By Tim Shipman in Washington   7:16PM GMT 20 Dec 2008

The newly unearthed diaries of a colourful assassin for the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA, reveal that American spy chiefs wanted Patton dead because he was threatening to expose allied collusion with the Russians that cost American lives.
    The death of General Patton in December 1945, is one of the enduring mysteries of the war era. Although he had suffered serious injuries in a car crash in Manheim, he was thought to be recovering and was on the verge of flying home.
    But after a decade-long investigation, military historian Robert Wilcox claims that OSS head General "Wild Bill" Donovan ordered a highly decorated marksman called Douglas Bazata to silence Patton, who gloried in the nickname "Old Blood and Guts".
    His book, "Target Patton", contains interviews with Mr Bazata, who died in 1999, and extracts from his diaries, detailing how he staged the car crash by getting a troop truck to plough into Patton's Cadillac and then shot the general with a low-velocity projectile, which broke his neck while his fellow passengers escaped without a scratch.
    Mr Bazata also suggested that when Patton began to recover from his injuries, US officials turned a blind eye as agents of the NKVD, the forerunner of the KGB, poisoned the general.
    Mr Wilcox told The Sunday Telegraph that when he spoke to Mr Bazata: "He was struggling with himself, all these killings he had done. He confessed to me that he had caused the accident, that he was ordered to do so by Wild Bill Donovan.
    "Donovan told him: 'We've got a terrible situation with this great patriot, he's out of control and we must save him from himself and from ruining everything the allies have done.' I believe Douglas Bazata. He's a sterling guy."
    Mr Bazata led an extraordinary life. He was a member of the Jedburghs, the elite unit who parachuted into France to help organise the Resistance in the run up to D-Day in 1944. He earned four purple hearts, a Distinguished Service Cross and the French Croix de Guerre three times over for his efforts.
    After the war he became a celebrated artist who enjoyed the patronage of Princess Grace of Monaco and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.
He was friends with Salvador Dali, who painted a portrait of Bazata as Don Quixote.
    He ended his career as an aide to President Ronald Reagan's Navy Secretary John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission and adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign.
    Mr Wilcox also tracked down and interviewed Stephen Skubik, an officer in the Counter-Intelligence Corps of the US Army, who said he learnt that Patton was on Stalin's death list. Skubik repeatedly alerted Donovan, who simply had him sent back to the US.
    "You have two strong witnesses here," Mr Wilcox said. "The evidence is that the Russians finished the job."
The scenario sounds far fetched but Mr Wilcox has assembled a compelling case that US officials had something to hide. At least five documents relating to the car accident have been removed from US archives.
    The driver of the truck was whisked away to London before he could be questioned and no autopsy was performed on Patton's body.
With the help of a Cadillac expert from Detroit, Mr Wilcox has proved that the car on display in the Patton museum at Fort Knox is not the one Patton was driving.
    "That is a cover-up," Mr Wilcox said.
George Patton, a dynamic controversialist who wore ivory-handled revolvers on each hip and was the subject of an Oscar winning film starring George C. Scott, commanded the US 3rd Army, which cut a swathe through France after D-Day.
    But his ambition to get to Berlin before Soviet forces was thwarted by supreme allied commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, who gave Patton's petrol supplies to the more cautious British General Bernard Montgomery.
    Patton, who distrusted the Russians, believed Eisenhower wrongly prevented him closing the so-called Falaise Gap in the autumn of 1944, allowing hundreds of thousands of German troops to escape to fight again,. This led to the deaths of thousands of Americans during their winter counter-offensive that became known as the Battle of the Bulge.
    In order to placate Stalin, the 3rd Army was also ordered to a halt as it reached the German border and was prevented from seizing either Berlin or Prague, moves that could have prevented Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after the war.
    Mr Wilcox told The Sunday Telegraph: "Patton was going to resign from the Army. He wanted to go to war with the Russians. The administration thought he was nuts.
    "He also knew secrets of the war which would have ruined careers.
I don't think Dwight Eisenhower would ever have been elected president if Patton had lived to say the things he wanted to say." Mr Wilcox added: "I think there's enough evidence here that if I were to go to a grand jury I could probably get an indictment, but perhaps not a conviction."
    Charles Province, President of the George S. Patton Historical Society, said he hopes the book will lead to definitive proof of the plot being uncovered. He said: "There were a lot of people who were pretty damn glad that Patton died. He was going to really open the door on a lot of things that they screwed up over there."

---

If you read the Telegraph piece above, you’ll find no mention of Jews. Probably the book doesn't either. In fact, of course, Eisenhower was a ‘Swedish Jew’ and must have been co-operating with Jews in the Soviet Union. They wanted the USSR to get to Berlin first maybe to pretend the USSR was a great fighting machine; maybe to be sure as many Germans and German women would be killed or raped; maybe to steal equipment, food and money; maybe to consolidate, so American public opinion would not suggest further attacks—who knows why. Possibly the 'colourful' Bazata was a Jew. I’d be surprised if the book even mentions this issue; it is itself a bit of controlled information.- Rerevisionist

[rodin]

Interesting. Never heard the story of Nero from that angle. ....

Nero was egged on by his Jewish wife Popaea.

Whose name is sinister in that it contains the titles 'Pope' and 'Papa'....