47 Comments

1. Michael Lonie:

In Russell Weigley’s book “Eisenhower’s Lieutenants” Weigley says that Churchill was worried by the estimated numbers of civilians who might be killed by the Allied preparatory bombing for D-Day, particularly the Transporation Plan. He had the Generals and Air Marshals consult the Fighting French for their opinion. De Gaulle’s comment was, essentially, C’est la guerre. Fortunately, Weigley notes, the campaign did not kill as many French civilians as was feared.

As for the bombing in general, the Axis powers started it and, in WWII terms, attacking the enemy’s industry was a valid military target. After gassing Ethiopians from the air (something Nasser’s air force did later in Yemen I might add), terror bombing Spanish Republican towns, terror bombing Polish cities, terror bombing Rotterdam, terror bombing British cities, and two terror bombing campaigns in China by Japan that completely leveled Chungking twice, the Axis powers really had no standing to complain that the Allies did to them what they had done to the Allies. All they had standing to do was complain that the Allies did it more effectively.

Churchill remains a hero and Irving remains scum.

Sep 11, 2009 - 12:25 am 2. RAP:

Irving is right. Check out the million plus Biharis who were deliberately starved to death by the British in 1942. This was the second worst government induced famine in the 20th century. If Baharis owned the NYT this would be a well known event. But of course they are only poor backward people not considered important enough for the West to worry about. Also don’t forget the thousands of Iranians who died of famine after the Brits and Russkies invaded their neutral country and seized the railways. Germans were tried at Nueremberg for similiar acts but you didn’t see Churchill in the dock. As for Stalin his crimes are so well known they hardly need mentioning.

Sep 11, 2009 - 1:04 am 3. Patrick Of Atlantis:

Mr. Irving’s so called revisionism landed him in jail. It’s hard to consider that to be banal. What is banal is the historical narrative which has been served up in schools for sixty years, that Hitler killed 6M Jews for no reason.
What is a revisionist anyway? Someone who doesn’t buy into the ‘approved’ version of history? That would make just about everyone who visits the School Book Depository in Dallas a revisionist since almost no visitor believes the official story on the JFK assassination.
Recently, Pat Buchanan spoke in England, recounting the career of Winston Churchill. He makes

Sep 11, 2009 - 1:54 am 4. Patrick Of Atlantis:

the case against the man as a force for good and whle some may say that’s revisionisn, that;s bad, that’s banal. I disagree. I say it’s about time.

Sep 11, 2009 - 1:56 am 5. Don:

Sorry, there is good and there is evil. The Nazi Machine with it’s mechanisms of mass murder (starting with the extermination of the mentally handicapped, and children born with birth defects, and the permanently disabled . . . oh? The same audience Ezekiel Emmanuel would have us deny medical care) was evil. The allies (especially Stalin) were not the Angels of goodness, no wartime commander can be (especially before the advent of smart weapons), but they did not plan campaigns to exterminate whole ethnic groups. Mr Irving (if he is a German) can express pride in the conduct and professionalism of most of the German military through the war, but to make excuses for the Party or Hitler is asinine. To promote a belief in a “relativism” between Hitlers machine and the allies is as stupid as comparing the US and the Salafiyah. Those who do are “useful idiots” for those would will tear us all down.

Sep 11, 2009 - 4:04 am 6. Dave M.:

If the Allies wanted to commit genocide on the German people, why do they still exist? We occupied and controlled Germany for years after the end of WWII. It would have been very easy to round up all the Germans and systematically kill them. They were helpless. We had all the guns, all the control, all the power. Instead, we (I am not including the Soviet Union here) rebuilt their country into an industrial giant. We protected them from the onslaught of totalitarianism. We fed, clothed and warmed the citizens of West Berln. We stood ready at the Wall and on the eastern frontier. Sure, we waged war at a time when this country fought to win. And win we did. But look how we waged our peace.

Maybe Mr. Irving does not think it matters who won WWII. Maybe Patrick Of Atlantis and RAP think it doesn’t matter either. Maybe they all wish Hitler had won. My question: How can we take these people seriously? Ignore them.

Sep 11, 2009 - 6:13 am 7. Marie Claude:

In Russell Weigley’s book “Eisenhower’s Lieutenants” Weigley says that Churchill was worried by the estimated numbers of civilians who might be killed by the Allied preparatory bombing for D-Day, particularly the Transporation Plan. He had the Generals and Air Marshals consult the Fighting French for their opinion. De Gaulle’s comment was, essentially, C’est la guerre. Fortunately, Weigley notes, the campaign did not kill as many French civilians as was feared.

20 000 civils were killed in Normandy under US & Brits bombings, not all of these operations were justified, the enemi was already gone.

This is why I used to hear the elders calling the liberators, “liberatueurs”

267 000 civils were killed for the total war casualties

Sep 11, 2009 - 6:21 am 8. Jack Olson:

An historian’s duty is to “tell it like it was” and let the reader draw his own conclusions. But, Irving doesn’t even get the facts right, as he himself has admitted. For example, Irving’s first successful book claims a death toll from the bombing of Dresden which even Irving now contradicts. Irving first called the spurious Hitler Diaries forgeries, then he quickly reversed himself and called them genuine. Historian as chameleon.

Sep 11, 2009 - 6:42 am 9. Markus:

“If the Allies wanted to commit genocide on the German people, why do they still exist?”

The Morganthau plan was a plan for genocide and was implemented as JCS-1067. It was carried out and caused tremendous suffering and death for hundreds of thousands for Germans, until rescinded by Harry Truman in July 1947 and replaced shortly afterwards with the Marshall Plan. Basically, the Cold War and the belated realization that we had helped Uncle Joe conquer half of Europe caused a power shift in U.S. foreign policy towards American patriots like George Keenan, putting the postwar blood lust of Morganthau and Deputy Treasury Secretary and soviet spy Harry Dexter White on the back burner.

The two great fratricidal wars of the 20th Century will be seen in the coming centuries as the most catastrophic events for European people in the entire history of Europe. David Irving is a hero for being willing to sacrifice his own freedom and reputation in order to construct a more balanced picture of the causes of these wars, and a more accurate measurement of the scope of tragedy.

Sep 11, 2009 - 7:40 am 10. bubblehead:

Marie Claude –

Perspective: How many innocent civilians died in the wake of Napoleon’s marches? How many French civilians died when the Germans invaded in WWII? How many died in WWI?

You, being such a Frankophile and historical expert have the numbers at your fingertips, I am sure!

I don’t know who all of you goofy people are, but let’s bring some TRUTH to the conversation, shall we?

WWII was started by states that were seeking territorial expansion at the expense of their neighbors. Whether it was “living space” or “rightful access to resources” the whole point was to take something from someone else by force of arms. These armed forces did not sit in the countryside and invite attacks. As the Islamists do, they mixed themselves in with the general population in densly urban areas. The weapons of war were made in those urban centers. Those weapons were transported on civilian roads and railways. Civilian electrical and communications systems were used for military purposes.

Since it was necessary to destroy these infrastructures in order to weaken the enemy prior to assault, bombing of these industrial centers was necessary. It was the only way available with the technology of the time. Yes, many innocent civilians died; that has always been the consequence of war. It is one of the things that makes warfare so terrible!

Now, all of you revisionists here who want to try to equate what the Allies did with what the Axis did should keep in mind that as soon as the Axis armies attacked they guaranteed massive civilian casualties. Do you think there were no Polish casualties? Were there no French casualties from the German invasion? Did the Allies round up people deemed undesireable and exterminate them? Your arguments are specious, self-serving and driven by a craven desire to spread anti-western propaganda!

Marie-claude, you especially deserve condemnation because your name, your country, your culture, your language and possibly your very existance are owed to some American and British kids who died on French beaches and among French hedgerows to free your country from the Facist boot!!!!! For you to try to equate what the Allies did to what the Axis did and to try to provide cover for the Nazis makes you a traitor!

Anyone who tries to claim the Allies practiced genocide is an ignorant fool, a willful liar, or both!

Sep 11, 2009 - 8:43 am 11. DavidN:

This argument gets so weird at so many different levels that it’s difficult, at this point, for me to sort them out. I have a life-long interest in World War II, have read more books than I care to admit, and frankly find the whole controversy surrounding Irving a bit odd and distracting.

For one thing, Irving’s not your typical historian, British or otherwise, military or otherwise. This is generally overlooked when people write about him. He doesn’t fit into any of the typical subsets of professional military historians. He’s not an ex-soldier himself, he’s not a journalist, and he’s not a college professor. He didn’t complete his studies at the university he attended, as far as I know, and if he has a degree I’m pretty sure it’s honorary. His background is very working-class, a group that in Britain isn’t supposed to write books, especially history, especially especially iconoclastic history. So he’s very much a maverick.

The first book he wrote, about the bombing of Dresden, has become something of a cause celebre in historical circles. The allies bombed the city right at the end of the war. “Strategic” bombing of the city would have, by then, been meaningless: the Soviets were going to have tanks driving down the city’s streets in a week or two, so stopping a factory from producing something was only minimally effective, even assuming the factory would be stopped. The allies bombed the place repeatedly (the British hit it at night; American Flying Fortresses hit it again during the day) and the Germans have for a bunch of reasons resented this ever since. The results of the bombing have been exaggerated ever since: a book a few years ago pretty much debunked the whole thing, but was met with a storm of disbelief and attacks from Germany, and sympathizers.

Irving’s second book dealt with Convoy PQ 17 and the controversy surrounding it. I won’t go into the whole thing, but suffice it to say that Irving wound up in court defending the assertions in his book, and (I believe) one of the plaintiffs wound up winning partial satisfaction, refuting Irving’s accusations of controversy. Most of his books since have been intended, in one way or another, to provoke controversy.

Now let me say, with regards to the Holocaust, that I’ve never been a denier, or anything like one. Hitler killed a lot of Jews, maybe 6 million, maybe somewhat less, but at what point does that matter? If he’d only killed 3 million would he be better regarded in history? A mass murderer is a mass murderer…after the first million or so, I don’t really think keeping score makes much sense, except of course to the families of the victims.

One point where I do agree with Irving though is the Holocaust industry. Studying the event is reasonable, scholarship regarding it entirely worthwhile, but Hitler’s mass murders weren’t an exclusively Jewish event, in terms of victims. They also killed a quarter of a million Gypsies, and at least 3 million Russian prisoners of war. Almost all of the Russians weren’t Jews, and were worked to death in labor camps in 1942-3. The point I’m making is this: Hitler’s Holocaust was a catastrophe, and there certainly was a large element of it that was aimed at the Jews, but it wasn’t exclusively focused there. Sometimes, within the scholarly Holocaust studies community, that’s the impression you get: the Holocaust was completely about the Jews, and no one else.

I personally believe that Irving is a bit deranged and demented, run off the rails by the way he’s been treated for writing books that don’t look at history from the “proper” perspective. Historians, military or otherwise, repeatedly try to reinterpret the history of the events they’re studying. John Keegan recently tried to blame all of Western military carnage on Carl von Clausewitz. I don’t agree with him, but that doesn’t mean I want him silenced. Irving has put forward some controversial arguments, and in the case of the Holocaust he’s taken several positions over the years, and recently somewhat backpedaled on the subject of the Holocaust specifically. While I disagree with what he’s said in a number of instances, the attempts by some people (fairly successful, overall) to silence him and ruin his career as a historian have been pretty chilling. Censorship is rarely pretty.

Sep 11, 2009 - 8:50 am 12. David H:

The funny thing is that while I am pro-Israel, cried at the age of 13 when seeing my first documentary about the Holocaust and recognise the evil that the Nazi’s did, I also believe that never again should mean that and support Israel every which way, I still sort of see where Irving comes from in terms of Himmler, Himmler was the real author of the Holocaust, I read somewhere that Hitler has said that he wished to deport the Jews to Israel, but the Mufti of Jerusalem had said no why don’t you kill them which fits with Islamic attitudes to Jews, also that Himmler was very into Islam…

Hitler of cause was head of state, but Himmler was in charge of the whole appratus of state security and the private army of the Nazi party the SS. Hitler used the distrust of the other (the Jews) to gain power, I don’t excuse Hitler, but when people say Holocaust to me I think more of Himmler than of Hitler. I think Irving has a right to focus on the true architect of the Holocaust, when I look at pictures of Hitler and Himmler, I feel a great sense of evil from pictures of Himmler, but in terms of Hitler I get a sense of someone wrapped up in his own self-importance and extremely delusional, that is of course not to excuse his role.

Marie Claude, the majority of the French people killed in the bombings were around Caen, where the German army had dug themselves in. I always thought you were more likely to be upset over Dakar… The occupation was a dark period of French history which is treated as a shameful thing for La France, my mother in laws familly hid Jews at great risk to them in their hotel, I am not going to go any further than this as the French I know (in the provinces) are wonderful people, well the old French that is…

Sep 11, 2009 - 9:40 am 13. Markus:

And here is what Irving, who went to prison for Holocaust denial, wrote to Richard Willismson:

“My advice, which you might like to pass to His Excellency, is to accept that there were organised mass killings from the spring of 1942 to October 1943 at Himmler’s three sites on the Bug River – Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec; there is much dispute over numbers and methods of killing, but he should not dispute that there were such killings”.

This is the kind of thinking that gets you thrown in prison for “Holocaust Denial”!

Sep 11, 2009 - 9:41 am 14. Marie Claude:

Bubblehead,

Alright, if you’re going back to Napoleon’s times, then tell me if your people cared to burry the french soldiers that died for your independance ?

http://hnn.us/articles/5442.html

When it comes to remembering World War II, Americans should be more like the French — yes, the French. French memories of the war are more inclusive and accurate than our own. Americans have lost sight of the fact that even World War II’s “greatest generation” could prevail only with substantial help from its allies, including the Soviets, British, Canadians, Chinese and many others

Unlike Americans, the French also commemorate all fronts of the European war. During the Cold War, members of the large French Communist Party celebrated the pivotal Soviet victory over the Nazis at Stalingrad. They noted, accurately, that the Soviets inflicted the vast majority of German casualties and that, without Soviet sacrifices on the Eastern Front, D-Day would not have succeeded

Sep 11, 2009 - 9:53 am 15. Marie Claude:

David H, Dakarr wouldn’t have happened if there wasn’t Mers el Kebir before !

Sep 11, 2009 - 9:57 am 16. David H:

“During the Cold War, members of the large French Communist Party celebrated the pivotal Soviet victory over the Nazis at Stalingrad”

But forgot completely the pact that Stalin made with Hitler and the carving up of Poland, would Hitler have dared to attack Poland if he not made that deal with Stalin? And before you go to far, think about how much worse it would have been if Britain had come to a deal and the USA had never joined the war, all those soldiers tied up fighting Britain and America would have given Germany certain victory over Russia.

Sep 11, 2009 - 10:07 am 17. Marie Claude:

About Caen, Patton was against Montgomerry that wanted relentlessly bomb the wrong part of the city though, 2000 deads quand même !

so Bubble, not all the Americans were obssessed with bombing !

Sep 11, 2009 - 10:08 am 18. David H:

Actually Mers el Kebir was what I meant.

Sep 11, 2009 - 10:12 am 19. Marie Claude:

“would Hitler have dared to attack Poland if he not made that deal with”

he would, he wanted the Danzig Korridor

But he misestimated the Russian will to fight back, that were programmed, caucasian oil was his agaenda

Sep 11, 2009 - 10:21 am 20. Marie Claude:

if you ment mers el kebir, then you don’t know the objective history

http://www.droit.univ-nantes.fr/labos/cdmo/centre-droit-maritime-oceanique/cdmo/neptunus/nept/nep0/nep0_1.pdf

Mais c’est l’affaire de Mers el Kébir, qui va entraîner une indignation en France, et va engendrer un
sentiment général d’anglophobie dans la Marine, et va contribuer au rapprochement de certains amiraux
français à Vichy et réduire le ralliement de marin français à la France libre de De Gaulle.

But this is the case of Mers el Kebir, which will cause outrage in France, and will generate a
general feeling of Anglophobia in the Navy, and will contribute to bringing some admirals to Vichy
and reduce the rallying of French sailor to free France of De Gaulle.

Sep 11, 2009 - 10:30 am 21. Calvin Ball:

We’re missing our regular lefty trolls, but you sure know how to shake the other whackadoodles out of the woodwork.

Having said that, Holocaust denial laws were always a dumb idea, and are particularly dysfunctional in the internet age. All they do is make martyrs of the prosecuted. Most Europeans don’t grasp this simple concept, but the primary reason for the American First Amendment is practical.

Hitler himself benefited from being arrested and incarcerated. When will these political types understand that you just make martyrs and heroes out of people when you prosecute them for speech?

Sep 11, 2009 - 10:52 am 22. Calvin Ball:

And btw, the Obamites are making a similar tactical error by trying to marginalize the tea partiers. Same basic dynamic. When the government tries to tell people what they can say and think, it doesn’t help them.

Sep 11, 2009 - 10:54 am 23. Michael:

Hitler was very cognizant of the dangers of a two front war. If he could not get a pact with either the West or the Russians he would indeed have been very reticent about a shooting war. He wanted Poland and the Danzig Korridor was just a pretext. He didn’t want a two front war because he himself blamed the Kaiser for taking Germany into an unwinable two front war in WW I.

Anti-Semitism was an easy target to unite large parts of Germany. Anti Semitism was very pervasive in Europe pre WW II and nothing to brag about in the US which had its own if less pervasive version. No to mention the fact that Hitler and his cronies got a lot of their eugenics ideas from America of the 1920s.

Still when it comes down to it Hitler was only interested in the pure Germanic stock, the Aryans. All others must be supplanted and at best that meant that they would be worked to death or if not that then eliminated. That was the basis of Hitler’s philosophy. Everything else was just window dressing.

He wanted the Jews dead, he just left the details to Himmler.

Sep 11, 2009 - 11:15 am 24. David H:

23. “He wanted the Jews dead, he just left the details to Himmler.”

Highly likely that was the case, yet I have a slight doubt for the reasons I detailed above. Hitler used the otherness of the Jews, the harsh terms of the Versailles treaty and the economic situation to gain power, once unleashed he could not pull back even if he wanted to as he would have been removed by people like Himmler, Irving spoke to many people who were close to Hitler which is why he makes the point that Himmler was really the architect of the final solution.

“While clearly accepting the historical veracity of the events comprising the Holocaust, Irving attempts to shield Hitler from direct responsibility for them. On his account, the real author of the Holocaust was Himmler. “Hitler was the head of state and as such responsible for what happened,” he tells Suárez. “But one can be both responsible and ignorant. Hitler was a simple man who was constantly being deceived by his subordinates.””

Did you know that Irving managed to interview nearly all of the surviving people who were close to Hitler, and while one has to wonder how much they said to white wash themselves, I think you cannot ignore his research out of hand with such a simplistic ending statement, you may be right, but are you certain.

Sep 11, 2009 - 11:53 am 25. Roderick Reilly:

Let me try to put things in perspective for those posters who are “relativists” like Irving:

If the Western allies were “as bad” as the Axis powers, what with mass bombings of civilian targets and the dropping of two nuclear bombs, then the following would NOT have happened:

We would NOT have instituted the Marshall Plan
We would NOT have nurtured democracies in our former enemies’ nations
We would NOT have returned to normalcy, with our children joining the boy scouts and girl scouts instead of the Hitlerjungen
We would NOT have ended segregation
We would NOT have raised women from secon-class status

And the list goes on and on. I am so tired of the sick intellectual laziness of moral relativism. Get your heads out of your asses and take a look around you and please tell me that we are like those we vanquished.

I’m waiting . . . .

Sep 11, 2009 - 1:14 pm 26. Michael:

Germany had acute resource scarcity throughout the war. Significant resources were used and also lost though the rounding up and disposal of undesirables (Jews and some others) including desperately needed railroad capacity. Hitler had to know of the loss of this capacity especially as the allies closed in on Germany. He had to at least tacitly approve of it.

Hitler surrounded himself with people who believed as he did. Also those who failed to do what he wanted usually had very poor prospects for the future, as whether they would be living in it.

Hitler fancied himself an economist among other of his delusions. His philosophy and the war were based on his ideas about economics. He saw America as the greatest threat to German hegemony. That was because he saw America’s great economic might resulted from its great size and natural resources. He therefore wanted the same for Germany.

The land he wanted, the great plains available for agriculture and the mines and oil fields were in Russia. Everything he did was to help facilitate the conquest of that Russian territory. If Hitler didn’t think the Final Solution wasn’t essential he wouldn’t have allowed that drag on the German military.

That is why I believe Hitler knew and approved.

Sep 11, 2009 - 1:17 pm 27. Xanthippe:

When I try to imagine what the world would look like today had Germany not been stopped, I’m pretty sure there wouldn’t have been anything like the Marshall Plan.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Sep 11, 2009 - 1:22 pm 28. Marie Claude:

I’m waiting . . . .

Hmmm you would not be waiting

Sep 11, 2009 - 1:23 pm 29. David H:

25. No we were not as bad as the AXIS powers, and I know that Dresden had the HQ of an army there, we made mistakes. However as a Brit I have a certain regret for civillians and that it was a fine city.

Marshall plan, agreed
Democracy, agreed

I will stop there, lets look at something else, democracy, freedom patrotic feeling, why is it ok for Americans to be patriotic and for me a European not to be, why do Americans seem to tie patriotic feeling for ones country in Europe as nationalism akin to the Nazi’s. The USA has followed a policy of destroying any patriotic feeling in Europe as Nationalism that would cause wars, as if two world wars were not lessons enough, the first world war did that, that knocked out any glory of war rubbish in our peoples. I am sick and tired of the US support for the EU an anti democratic force if ever I have seen one on the basis it would stop us Europeans from killing each other or dragging you in. You can have freedom and liberty, but not me, its OK to see me lose my freedom so that there are no wars in Europe, thank you very much…

And then those self same Americans call us wimps when their own policies on Europe have destroyed any pride or will to fight and defend their countries, I love Americans, but I am so sick and tired of your holier than thou rubbish and contempt for what you have made us to be through your own stupidity, the Suez canal what a stupid thing your country did and your paying for it now. The US went out to destroy the British Empire as a policy goal, well done, great idea, and as a result those places did not really have the chance to develop and have been rolled back into the chaos that was there before. But we were colonists, simple isn’t it.

But I will never forget the US airborne troops crosing the Rhine to save British troops at Arnham in flimsy boats, damn this what a mess, I am a freedom loving, free market person and I feel betrayed. In the UK people never taught people that the Nazi’s were Socialists, what a surprise that, but in France they did, the lies the moulding of history is all there.

A bit of a rant true, but you really should open up your eyes…

Sep 11, 2009 - 1:44 pm 30. David H:

26. All sensible reasons for that feeling and I would not disagree and yet as I said look at what Irving did, speak to people very close to Hitler. I am not defending Irving, Holocaust denial is just stupid and an insult, but I will acknowledge historical research, though his leanings do make him suspect. Its like anything read between the lines, but at least understand what he did to get those feelings.

Sep 11, 2009 - 1:50 pm 31. Caesar:

“. They also killed a quarter of a million Gypsies, and at least 3 million Russian prisoners of war. Almost all of the Russians weren’t Jews, and were worked to death in labor camps in 1942-3. The point I’m making is this: Hitler’s Holocaust was a catastrophe, and there certainly was a large element of it that was aimed at the Jews, but it wasn’t exclusively focused there. Sometimes, within the scholarly Holocaust studies community, that’s the impression you get: the Holocaust was completely about the Jews, and no one else.”

The special position occupied by the Holocaust of Jews and Roma in history of XX century is that it was a deliberate genocide not a tribal level but undertaken by a nation. It is true — and I, a Jew, speak about it at every opportunity — that Roma suffered exactly the same fate as Jews. In fact, we have much in common ever since Roma appeared in Europe: numerous expulsions (including in 1492 by Isabella), murders and roobery. It well may be that Judaic scholars focus mostly on their own poeple, but Roma and Jews did suffer the same fate.

The measures you apply are misleading. It is one thing to say that 3M Polish Jews were wiped out, and it is another to say that 90% of them lost their lives. Germans, the perpetrators, suffered greatly in the end — about 12% of the population. To be sure a loss of 3M Btits would ba a national tragedy, but it would still pale in comparison with a loss of 45-50M. That would be the equivalent of the loss suffered by Polish Jewry. To be sure, every single life is precious, including the lives of the innocent Germans lost in the war and post-war suffering. But if you speak of the losses suffered by peoples and nations, it is the percentages that constutute a better measure.

Sep 11, 2009 - 2:55 pm 32. Caesar:

David H:
“I am a freedom loving, free market person and I feel betrayed.”

May G-d bless you for being pro-freedom. But, forgive me, it is ridiculous to blame U.S. for the existence of EU. It is a dream of socialists (all of them, including American) to have a world without borders. EU is a creature of Europeans, not Americans. Yes, the presense of American troops deterred wars and protected Europeans from the Soviets. But it has nothing to do with the creation of EU. Thank Euro socilists and communists for that.

“In the UK people never taught people that the Nazi’s were Socialists,”
You are correct, the modern=day “liberals” claim that Nazis were on the Right rather than Left. What a joke: the ONLY thing that differentiated them from Stalinists was that they were openly Nationalist whereas Stalinsts were on paper Internationalists.

But, at the same time, how much teaching is really needed here? “Nazi” stands for National SOCIALIST Workers’ Party.

Sep 11, 2009 - 3:06 pm 33. Michael:

David H, we may be at the point that it would be next to impossible to prove one way or the other. Personal interviews do cary weight. On the other hand these people he talked to would look much better if they were following a “simple” man who didn’t know what was going on then if they knowingly followed a mass murdering sociopath.

I did read Irvin’s “Hitler’s War” and it sounded rather convincing, however on reflection it just didn’t ring true to me. I don’t think he or anyone writing about history should be censored. I do think all should have their sources checked and there conclusions debated.

Sep 11, 2009 - 3:57 pm 34. adam:

Everyone here is missing the point–the genocide of the Jews, which could only have been carried out in accordance with Hitler’s full knowledge and consent, was singular: the Jews, in anti-semitic ideology are all the cause of all suffering in the world–they pervert all that is good and pure, they are capitalism and they are communism, they are the corrupting media, they are behind the traitors in government, they are the source of emasculating Christian morality and chaotic democracy–everything in the modern world that threatens or offends the hard working peasant, stout-hearted patriot, traditonalist aristocrat or hard pressed middle class. None of this comes anywhere near applying to the Gypsies or other victims. Even more: since the Jews were everywhere, and were completely integrated into both Western and Eastern European societies, all citizens in these societies had to actively separate themselves from and implicitly abandon and denounce the Jews. The idea was to implicate everyone in evil. It is impossible to compare this to anything the Allies did, and it’s astonishing that these basic truths are lost in this nitpicking about some of the “good points” Irving might have had. If you can’t recognize the unique evil of the Nazis, you just can’t recognize evil at all. And today it is no different–as George Gilder argues, attacks on the Jews are nothing more than resentful attacks on accomplishment, excellence and civilization.

Sep 11, 2009 - 4:48 pm 35. Marie Claude:

“It is a dream of socialists (all of them, including American) to have a world without borders. EU is a creature of Europeans, not Americans”

No, the man who is at the origin, Jean Monnet, was a true capitalist, (cognac business, banks, in the US and divers positions as chairman in big companies).He became Roosevelt’s adviser for european relations from the beginnings of the war.

The EU was ment as an alliance for making the business restart between France and Germany, as the mines were situated in Lorraine and in german Saarland : “charcoal and steel” was the first association for the common founds.

Then there’s the Marshall plan that need such an organisation.

This was rather a merchands and bankers alliance, to the damn of De Gaulle that was rather for an alliance of autonome nations, but that would have taken longer to make them agree on political goals, so the businesses facilities prevailed.

So we can say that the US fully endorsed the creation of EU.

Like David I don’t like what EU is become, some technocrats government.

http://germany.usembassy.de/eu_presidency/milestones.htm

Sep 11, 2009 - 4:51 pm 36. Greying Wanderer:

In the muslim enclaves of Europe there are a sea of satellite dishes pointed at middle-eastern TV stations. Muslim and heavily muslim schools no longer teach about the Nazi holocaust and these ideas are spreading into the mainstream through social contacts.

The usual revisionists would never have been enough on their own to achieve critical mass. So
when Jews wonder who to blame people for this development they should blame the marxists that wanted Europe to be submerged under mass immigration and multi culturalism.

They should also blame those who have spent so many decades denying the Bolshevik holocaust, which was the primary reason ordinary German people voted for an extreme party like the Nazis. This lie has to come out – too many were murdered by the marxists for it to be covered up forever and telling the truth obviates the need to make laws against the truth – laws which automatically make people suspicious and feed into the revisionist argument.

Sep 12, 2009 - 12:02 am 37. David H:

32. It is a policy goal of the US government, pushed especially hard by your state department, surely you know that. And as you are the leader of the free world your countries pushing has a huge weight.

33. A fair point indeed, I read it too.

34. Of course I regonize the evil of the Nazi’s and the evil of persecuting the Jewish people. Our current load of Charlies in power seem to forget the meaning of never again.

Sep 12, 2009 - 1:39 am 38. Marie Claude:

“they should blame the marxists that wanted Europe to be submerged under mass immigration and multi culturalism.”

Hmmm, this is funny, the unions, which are of lefty obedience, were/still are opposed to importation of cheap labor forces, say, the capitalists bourgeois wanted to improve their benefits, and, curiously, they live in ivory towers, where they don’t hear noises and smell these exotic fragrances

” which was the primary reason ordinary German people voted for an extreme party like the Nazis. ”

this is in contradiction to what it is usely acknowledged as “national SOCIALISM”

Sep 12, 2009 - 3:39 am 39. Marie Claude:

David, a beautiful and “tasty” chronicle of a village in north of Caen during the siège, but it ended tragically for the french family, so typical of the provinces

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/14/a4000014.shtml

Sep 12, 2009 - 7:52 am 40. dave:

Amazing. The EU is America’s fault, the bombing of Dresden makes the Allies no better than the nazis, the Jews are to blame for keeping the details of the german mass murder of Roma from reaching the public, etc.
Thanks for the laughs.

Two things. One, you can’t blame America for europe’s shame. Their nationalism ended with the ruins of WWI. That was the last time any continental european was able to defend his nation against fascism or occupation. The reason for the shame is that continental europeans either fell to the nazis, surrendered to the nazis, or became a nazi. I’d be ashamed too.

Two: The austrians have decided to make Holocaust denial illegal and put Irving in jail. Austria is one of the most unrepentant nations, as well as the most guilty, when it comes to culpability in nazi crimes. Austria prefers not to talk about their nazi past, and someone like Irving only serves to bring unwanted attention to this significant part of austrian history.
While your typical Irving sympathizer will blame ‘the Jews’ for Irving’s jail term, in fact it is the austrians, the greatest nazis of all, who choose to muzzle Irving rather than countenance the negative attention his visit brings.

Sep 12, 2009 - 11:50 am 41. Marie Claude:

Dave, you’re a bit lazy, you jump to quickly on deductions
The probem is that you’re listening too much to MSM

it’s funny, on this side of the pond, we care more of the details

who said Europe feels shame ? not more as you should, remember America isolationism ! If you had cared of what Germany was prepearing, then not such happening would have occured, cuz America had her word to say, since your president Wilson wanted to assist to the VersailLes treaty

The thing is that if America can’t make businesses with any nations, then America fights back.

all your policies are based on free marckets, not on people’s life and threaths

Sep 12, 2009 - 4:56 pm 42. Bleepless:

11. Forgive me for getting back on the original topic, but this is about David Irving. His second book, “The Destruction of Convoy PQ 17,” blamed a very bad decision on the commander of the convoy. This was not true. When Irving’s publisher asked him about this issue, he blithely replied that the guy probably was daad, so publish. It worked. Alas, the commander was still alive and sued the crap out of Irving and the publisher. He won a bundle.

Sep 12, 2009 - 7:41 pm 43. Greying Wanderer:

38 “the unions, which are of lefty obedience, were/still are opposed to importation of cheap labor forces”

Union members may be opposed but not the union bosses – more members equals more power.

However I do agree it’s not just marxists who wanted this mass immigration – big business also wants it for cheap labour and hasn’t taken into account the permanent left-wing government that would inevitably result.

“this is in contradiction to what it is usely acknowledged as national SOCIALISM”

The Fascist parties (regardless of the name) were violently anti-Communist. That’s why they gained enough support to take power. The name is irrelevant. In Britain there was never a very strong Communist party so there was never a very strong Fascist reaction.

The marxist left wants their holocaust covered up. One consequence of this has been the focusing on the Nazi holocaust with the consequent obsession over race. This obsession over race is preventing any kind of defense of the western world from Islam.

Bringing out the Bolshevik crimes puts the focus on the common link, totalitarian ideology, all totalitarian ideologies, both political and religous.

It has to be done. The only alternative is the slow spread of those satellite dishes throughout Europe.

Sep 12, 2009 - 7:57 pm 44. GB:

David H. I think you are on the money. In school in the ’50s I was taught that 6,500,000 Jews perished at hands of Nazi’s. End of argument! Not a soul fewer. Even then it rankled to have someone else tell me what I had to believe, or else. A book I later read argued in a detailed manner the total was 4.9 million. The events are nearly 70 years ago so we will never be much the wiser. The propaganda of the “Holocaust Industry”, caused me for several decades to be anti-semitic, until I grew older and came to realise that it was just the MSM doing its usual (crappy) thing. The only people they present are the most outspoken, loudest, and angry, or those who are after something. Perhaps many Jewish people reflect on their loss and appreciate that these “spokespeople” cause much resentment. I have known post-WWII migrants from Poland and Baltic states. They loathe Jews, and much of it is a perception that the “Holocaust Industry” went too far and over-reached in its demand that 100% of sympathy be for Jews and none at all for the others who perished. Of course, the Jewish failed to integrate in Eastern Europe and the SS had little difficulty in recruiting helpers in its “final solution”.
I read a long book by David Irving about Erhard Milch. I could sense his sympathy and admiration for his subject, but found his book easy to read. If the Austrian Gov’t wants to chase deniers of WWII events it is their affair but they set themselves up as hypocrites and for ridicule. Many years ago Kurt Waldheim was pilloried by the “Holocaust Industry” because he served as an intelligence officer for the Wehrmacht. He had been drafted into the army, and after 1942 saw service in Balkans in a guerrilla war. I felt sorry for him as it was fate that led to his birth in 1918 in Austria and an intelligence that caused his selection as an officer. Waldheim, later Sec. General of United Nations and diplomat probably never wished to participate in the maelstrom of the Balkans insurgency, but the outraged screams of the harridans of the “Holocaust Industry” incline me to give him a free pass. As an English speaker I resent groups appropriating words from my language. Is is spelt holocaust. I hope that the witch hunt for WWII war criminals has had it’s day. The real criminals, in positions of power are probably all dead! And Pope Benedict. He was 16 and had no say in it-get over it please!

Sep 12, 2009 - 8:28 pm 45. David H:

As a European nationalist I am in the position of supporting Israel and the Jewish people because it is the right thing to do as the Jewish people are enlightened humane people who are perhaps the best of us, though I sometimes wonder if their own self-depreciation is what makes them make so many wrong choices, excuse the generalisation there.

The Holocaust happened and there is no getting away from it, the Jewish people hunted those Nazi’s that got away and that was good, however later we saw the very same people who went after real Nazi’s hounding people that were caught up in all and did nothing worse than try to survive.

It does not matter how many Jews were killed does it make it any worse or better, the fact that some people decided to use the Jewish people to gain power and then went out to exterminate them, these were fine talented gentle people and the world has lost much for their execution.

In terms of Irving, he went out and spoke to people close to Hitler, no matter what people feel about his motives or leanings he was reporting what they said.

Dave, the shame of the first world war I accept, the shame of extreme Socialists like Hitler and Stalin I reject totally, my people were those like Churchill who stood up and were counted. The USA has supported from the start the EU to prevent any more European wars, I wonder what would have ben the situation if your government had kept its eye on democratic principals, liberty and basic freedoms in all of this, I would think that I would not have lost my freedoms to this degree if your leaders had been the shining beacon on the hill that I so much admired. Anyway great demo in DC, I wish that we could have the same in Europe, too late for that now, we have nothing to stand up for and no matter your contempt for my feelings, I live in Europe and see the impact of the EU day after day. I do not blame the USA, I only blame the USA as the leading democratic country for not sticking up to its prinicpals and that is one of the reasons why I have lost many of my freedoms. And I am truly sad to say that.

Marie Claude, a sad story, I regret their loss, we are from a different political spectrum, but I see that you are pround of La France and I respect you greatly for that.

Sep 13, 2009 - 6:24 am 46. BrianS:

“when asked by Eduardo Suárez of El Mundo whether on his account Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Truman “were all equally bad,” Irving responded as follows:

“Of course. All of them had absolutely no respect for human life. The real crime of the Second World War was not genocide, but what I call “innocentocide.” The killing of innocent persons. The killing of the Jews is not a crime because they were Jews, but rather because they were innocent Jews. “”

The problem of treating the population of an enemy as ‘innocent’ is not just European. It is a decidedly American problem as well. It is the acceptance of ‘Just War Theory’ – a theory the US has made, much to its detriment – its controlling policy, as evidenced by both wars in Iraq.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp

Put simply, the relativism cited in Rosenthal’s article is but an example of a more widespread and more devastating philosophic virus – a virus which most are oblivious to but which is now pandemic in the West.

Sep 13, 2009 - 3:32 pm 47. David H:

Personally I do not agree with Irving views, but in this case he managed to get people who were close to Hitler to express themselves and anyone interested in the facts should at least listen to their stories.

Sep 14, 2009 - 2:10 am