• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

New Zionist Movie further slanders the good name of David Irving

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
25,143
Likes
21,773
Points
313
#1
David Irving is certainly one of the most outstanding researchers and historians of WW2. However, he was rather naive in depending on justice in a British court. One does not get to be a British judge without having first sold your soul to the cause of the British establishment. And it is considered to be very much in the interest of the British establishment to maintain the war propaganda of WW1 and WW2, where they are presented as the saviours of the world from the evil Germans - and indeed Russians. Irving should have known better than to think that justice has anything to do with British justice.

This British \ US production offers a Zionist perspective on the disgraceful show trial where a corrupt British judge upheld the slander of Deborah Libstadt that David Irving has suggested that Jews were not systematically killed in WW2. Of course, this is complete nonsense. Irving has never suggested anything of the sort, and, indeed, his research led to the discovery of papers which show that such systematic killing did take place. What Irving does do is what all historians should do, i.e. approach the material with an open mind and question everything.

The production of slanderous propaganda movies like this shows that the Zionist lobby fear that people are starting to think for themselves and ask questions. The hope is that the emotional gush of Hollywood will shore up the Big Lie for a few more years. But this is an exercise in shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. We now live in an era where there are no Sacred Dogmas that cannot be questioned.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuzQY1klxzo
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
754
Likes
88
Points
28
Location
Faoi scáth a chéile
#2
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the judgement in the court case Irving lost - very carefully and at length detailed his systematic distortion of the historical record of World War II.

Of course, he is a notorious anti-semite. One of the reasons he draws such a following of course. Asserting his antisemitism is in no way an idle aspersion. For example:
  • On Hitler's 120th birthday, Irving set up a special splash page on his site thanking Hitler, for “saving Western Europe and the world from Jewish Bolshevism".
  • He called for special investigation into Jewish members of the British Parliament in the wake of the allowances scandal.
  • He said, “one of the great benefits of a judge having called me an anti-semite” is that “I can speak it like it is.”
  • He labels Gibraltar's Jewish residents as “illegal settlers”, citing a 1713 document to claim that Jews should not be allowed to live there.
  • He says that that Jews “maneuvered” to install Barack Obama in the White House because they view him as “pliable.”
  • He glorifies the Nazis.
The court found after a careful and thorough investigation:

"...I have found that in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence.… In my opinion there is a force in the opinion expressed by Evans that all Irving's historiographical “errors” converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler or to reflect Irving's partisanship for the Nazi leaders. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency… Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to be by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on Irving's part to knowingly misrepresent or manipulate or put a “spin” on the evidence so as to make it conform with his own preconceptions..."

Sound familiar? Yes. Looking right at you Tadhg Gaelach. Of course there are susceptible people in our societies just like Tadhg Gaelach who fall in thrall to these dogmatic "solutions" and messages of hate and revisionism perpetuated by the likes of Irving.

Which is why it would be a serious mistake for our society to allow the hate speech of Irving masquerade as, or affect a sham appearance, of "free speech".

The court did its duty thoroughly and well. I look forward to watching this movie about how it fulfilled its duty.
 

Dinarius

Political Irish
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
38
Likes
30
Points
18
#3

Denial is a 2016 British-American drama film directed by Mick Jackson and written by David Hare, based on Deborah E. Lipstadt's book History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier. It stars Rachel Weisz, Tom Wilkinson, Timothy Spall, Andrew Scott, Jack Lowden, Caren Pistorius and Alex Jennings.

The film had its premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 11, 2016.[2] and was released in the United States on September 30, 2016 by Bleecker Street.The film is scheduled to be released in the United Kingdom on January 27, 2017, by Entertainment One.

Based on the book History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, Denial recounts Deborah E. Lipstadt’s legal battle for her historical interpretation against David Irving, who accused her of libel when she declared him a Holocaust denier. In the English legal system, in cases of libel, the burden of proof is on the accused, therefore it was up to Lipstadt and her legal team, led by Richard Rampton, to prove that Irving specifically knew he was lying in claiming the Holocaust did not occur.

Not sure what to think of this film, I haven’t seen it myself yet but I am expecting it to be a whitewash of anyone who would dare deny the Holocaust.

Will look, but I remain skeptical.



 

Dinarius

Political Irish
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
38
Likes
30
Points
18
#4
Damn Tadhg, I just set up a post about this, mostly on the mostly on the movie itself.

I will ask a mod to merge into yours my good man.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
25,143
Likes
21,773
Points
313
#6
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the judgement in the court case Irving lost - very carefully and at length detailed his systematic distortion of the historical record of World War II.

Of course, he is a notorious anti-semite. One of the reasons he draws such a following of course. Asserting his antisemitism is in no way an idle aspersion. For example:
  • On Hitler's 120th birthday, Irving set up a special splash page on his site thanking Hitler, for “saving Western Europe and the world from Jewish Bolshevism".
  • He called for special investigation into Jewish members of the British Parliament in the wake of the allowances scandal.
  • He said, “one of the great benefits of a judge having called me an anti-semite” is that “I can speak it like it is.”
  • He labels Gibraltar's Jewish residents as “illegal settlers”, citing a 1713 document to claim that Jews should not be allowed to live there.
  • He says that that Jews “maneuvered” to install Barack Obama in the White House because they view him as “pliable.”
  • He glorifies the Nazis.
The court found after a careful and thorough investigation:

"...I have found that in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence.… In my opinion there is a force in the opinion expressed by Evans that all Irving's historiographical “errors” converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler or to reflect Irving's partisanship for the Nazi leaders. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency… Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to be by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on Irving's part to knowingly misrepresent or manipulate or put a “spin” on the evidence so as to make it conform with his own preconceptions..."

Sound familiar? Yes. Looking right at you Tadhg Gaelach. Of course there are susceptible people in our societies just like Tadhg Gaelach who fall in thrall to these dogmatic "solutions" and messages of hate and revisionism perpetuated by the likes of Irving.

Which is why it would be a serious mistake for our society to allow the hate speech of Irving masquerade as, or affect a sham appearance, of "free speech".

The court did its duty thoroughly and well. I look forward to watching this movie about how it fulfilled its duty.

British jusdge Grey said what the régime expected him to say. Even in the quotation you give he goes off on a tangent about Irving's views on Hitler, which have nothing to do with the case being tried, i.e. did Irving claim that Jews were not systematically killed during WW2. One could love Hitler and still believe that Jews were indeed systematically killed by German forces.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,951
Likes
7,278
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
#7
I don't commend Irving at all. But the guy was clearly lynched. He represented himself badly and was swamped by a multimillion dollar lobby. He could've won it too but misfired. The judge specifically stated he wasn't there to judge what occured under the Nazis.

I'm laughing at that trailer. The sunken, melted face of a grisly and frowning Spall to portray an unloved Irving whereas the hollywood starlet gets to play the downtrodden warrior for truth, Lipstadt. Lipsadt in reality is a very thickset character with a permament frown etched on her face. One of these grim matriarchal NGO hounds basically.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
25,143
Likes
21,773
Points
313
#8
The mistake that is made by many - including the judge in this case - is conflating the personal political musings of Irving with his historical research. Irving's historical research is meticulous and highly dependable. But his views on this, that and the other are just his own private opinions - which he has a right to, like everyone else. For example, Irving says some very nasty things about Comrade Stalin, which he really has no evidence for. But, that's just his opinion. He hasn't researched the life of Stalin.
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
754
Likes
88
Points
28
Location
Faoi scáth a chéile
#9
The mistake that is made by many - including the judge in this case - is conflating the personal political musings of Irving with his historical research. Irving's historical research is meticulous and highly dependable. But his views on this, that and the other are just his own private opinions - which he has a right to, like everyone else. For example, Irving says some very nasty things about Comrade Stalin, which he really has no evidence for. But, that's just his opinion. He hasn't researched the life of Stalin.
Not according to the findings of the court.:

"...I have found that in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence.… In my opinion there is a force in the opinion expressed by Evans that all Irving's historiographical “errors” converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler or to reflect Irving's partisanship for the Nazi leaders. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency… Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to be by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on Irving's part to knowingly misrepresent or manipulate or put a “spin” on the evidence so as to make it conform with his own preconceptions..."
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
25,143
Likes
21,773
Points
313
#11
Not according to the findings of the court.:

"...I have found that in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence.… In my opinion there is a force in the opinion expressed by Evans that all Irving's historiographical “errors” converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler or to reflect Irving's partisanship for the Nazi leaders. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency… Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to be by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on Irving's part to knowingly misrepresent or manipulate or put a “spin” on the evidence so as to make it conform with his own preconceptions..."

Judge Gray was not qualified to make such pronouncements. He was simply mouthing what the establishment wanted to hear - as is so often the case with British judges.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,951
Likes
7,278
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
#12
Gray had also this to say:

“My assessment is that, as a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years.

It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent.


He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favorable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving’s military history and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans.”

He would have won his case if he played it right. Gray again:

“The Defendants made no attempt to prove the truth of Lipstadt’s claim that Irving was scheduled to speak at an anti-Zionist conference in Switzerland in 1992, which was also to be attended by various representatives of terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Nor did they seek to justify Lipstadt’s claim that Irving has a self-portrait by Hitler hanging over his desk. Furthermore the Defendants have, as I have held, failed in their attempt to justify the defamatory imputations made against Irving in relation to the Goebbels diaries in the Moscow archive. If Irving had stuck to these clear defamations by Lipstadt and had not gone off on his classification as a ‘Denier,’ he would have won his case.”
 
Joined
Feb 18, 2016
Messages
176
Likes
238
Points
43
Location
Somewhere near the sea
#13
This poorly cobbled together propaganda piece is itself revisionist history.

Irving was once one of the most respected WW2 historians - that is, until the holocaust cultists decided to attack and slander him. The attacks on him and his work grew proportionally with the spread of the holocaust industry, as can be seen on the wiki page dedicated to critical responses to his books. Compare the responses he recieved in the 60's and 70's to those he recieved in the 80's and 90's. As is pointed out on the page, Canadian historian Peter Hoffman wrote that 'though Irving had at one time played a useful role in the historical profession... the time for that had now passed'

In a review of 1977, the British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper wrote that "no praise can be too high for his [Irving's] indefatigable, scholarly industry".[4]

The British historian A. J. P. Taylor called Irving in 1978 an author of "unrivaled industry" and "good scholarship"


The British historian Paul Addison in 1979 described Irving as a "colossus of research", but criticised him for his view of "Churchill as wicked as Hitler" and as "a schoolboy in judgment".[4]

Critical responses to David Irving - Wikipedia