Operation "Groza" Soviet Invasion of Western Europe, July 6, 1941

[Desert Fox]

Not a tall accusation at all.

You said "falsified evidence", but never provided any evidence on your part to back your pathetic accusation. Shows your credibility.

The entire world of history academia has come to the same conclusion as i have repeated.

So, in other words, once upon a time when the entire world of academia believed that the sun revolved around the earth, it must have been true. Im sure you are a devout believer of that theory.

It is very convenient how you have ignored their research and are using tangent research by controversial scholars to further your claims.

What claims have i made? Am i the one making pathetic accusations here or you?

Secondly, the currently established interpretation of this particular event in history can hardly be ignored. I'm already familiar with the "lebensraum" story, and i never denied it or made any pathetic accusations against the proponents of that story, unlike you who have made pathetic accusations of "falsified evidence" without backing your self.

I mean for Gods sake you have stated that David Irving is a reliable source. David Irving, the man who denies holocaust and is a closet Neo Nazi. You are using him as a source, i guess than its fair game to use Zaid Hamid as a scholar source for Pakistani Affairs.

Again, another pathetic accusation.

On what grounds do you make such an accusation mr "think tank"? Or are you just parroting what others have said because you know no better?

Secondly, in the above historians i listed as my sources, NOWHERE did i list David Irving as a source mr "think tank".

You just prove you are nothing but a ignorant self appointed armchair general who can only blindly parrot what others say.

Not my qualifications, qualifications of highly qualified authors whom have arrived at the same conclusion as i have. Ask yourself this question, whether the history academia agrees with my point of view or your point of view. Your point of view is only supported by a handful of these Pseudo Scholars. On the other hand, my point of view has been corroborated and supported by not just one but majority of the history academia.

"Your" point of view, sorry but it seems you don't have one, since you can do no better then throw empty accusations and not back them up, which nullifies your credibility mr. "think tank".

And "pseudo" scholars you say aye?? You mean Victor Suvorov, a former Soviet Intelligence Officer with access to thousands of Red Army/Soviet Military archives, has less credibility than some politically correct historian who bases his claims on those of his predecessors who too did the same?

Your argument/credibility is just laughable.

You can try to spin doctor this event as much as you want, your side of the story has already been busted not just once but multiple times. One does not need to look that far, all one needs to do is a read 'Main Kampf' to come to the conclusion that war between Germany and Soviet Union was inevitable. To achieve his dream of ''Lebensraum'', he had to attack the East which he did. Too bad it ended very badly for him as the Red Army smashed the Wehrmacht to pieces and finished Hitler like the dog he was.

Again, you don't have a proper argument (in fact none). You are just parroting what others have said, and secondly, i never denied Hitler's intentions of lebensraum in Mein Kampf, its just that unlike you, i won't just base my argument on words but rather actions.

Actions speak louder than words. The Nazi-Soviet pact was signed with Hitlers approval, and although Hitler deed seek Lebensraum in the East, he was in no hurry to do so before defeating Britain and sharing her Empire with Stalin. The simple fact that Operation Barbarossa was a hastily planned operation that failed since no adequate measures were taken to supply the Wehrmacht with sufficient amount of armored and motorized equipment to cope with the difficult Russian terrain and weather proves that it was a hastily planned preemptive Operation meant to stall a imminent Soviet attack.

Why you pick on me?
I agree that the Sowjet Union would have invaded Germany if they had a good chance of success. I don't know about everyone but Joachim Hoffmann writes for the IHR. There is a fine line between Historical revision and outright denial. But then some people have a habit of selective denial. Pick what you love, trash what you don't. David Irving, Lipstadt, Hoenecker, Guderian, Manstein, Zhukov, etc - I have read them all. The Sowjet Union was an evil state but there is no need for the anti Communist propaganda. There is enough of trash that is genuine. Remember - Gulags, kulak massacres, Holodomor etc is not fiction.

Not picking on you, just trying to get the point across that its not just the evil "neo-nazi IHR" and the Racist "anti-semite" David Irving who support this perspective.

 

[Desert Fox]

There is no point in continuing this conversation with someone who selectively looks for pseudo-evidence that suits his case. For some reason, @Desert Fox identifies with the Nazis - not the Germans, who are a people who have made their mark in history, but particularly for their psychotic social expression, the Nazis. His arguments pick up lousy sensationalist accounts by renegades who have to make a living out of bad-mouthing their former masters, and then it is argued that these renegades are authentic historical sources, rather than shills trying to stay out of the cold by peddling their books to the gullible. Not surprising;

, ok then, so why are you even wasting your time on this thread. Aww, look, you even decided to mention me to get my attention . I must be that important.

So "Nazis" were martians? Wow, what an observation there .

 

[Desert Fox]

Although Stalin was more than assured by Hitler that the rapid movement of German troops East Wards were simply a precautionary measure to save them from British bombing,Zhukhov or Timoshenko were under no such impressions,especially after the rapid collapse of France.It was quite imperative that the Soviets had to fortify their western border with a massive thirty divisions,no matter how ill prepared their generals were.

Revisionist historians do come up with theories that Stalin had projected an invasion of Europe there are simply not enough evidence to bed this claim at rest. The red army was not prepared at all to attack Germany.Not only they were poorly trained,their commanders simply had no doctrine for a massive counter attack.When Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed,the Soviets were supplier of a huge amount of Chromium.Manganese and oil to the Reich. So this assumption that Stalin actually planned an invasion at that time to bulldoze Europe sounds too erratic from strategical point of view.

Your argument is very simple and naive.

For one, the Red Army was not prepared for a Defensive War, but they were on the verge of launching a massive 4 million man offensive into Europe along with thousands of tanks and aircraft. Which is why, within the first month of Barbarossa the Germans captured more than 4 million Red Army troops as POW's due to the massive concentration of Soviet military buildup along the frontiers with Europe.

This fact is reinforced by the fact that during the Battle of Kursk, the Red Army, despite facing superior German Tanks, troops, and aircraft, was able to successfully halt the German Blitzkrieg because this time it had taken the necessary defensive measures to do so, even though the Russians still had fresh recruits involved in this battle as well due to which they suffered massive losses compared to the Germans, but nevertheless halted the German offensive.

 

[Desert Fox]

@notorious_eagle @Joe Shearer @SarthakGanguly And for those unknown internet forum armchair generals/"experts" bashing David Irving because they have no proper counter argument, he has more credibility in this subject than you lot ever will:

"FOR BETTER or for worse . . . the best known historians of the Nazi era are now [Daniel] Goldhagen and the British writer David Irving."-- Holocaust and Genocide Studies, vol. 11, no. 3 (Oxford University Press, in association with U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum).

"SUCH PEOPLE AS David Irving have an indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views." Professor Gordon C.Craig, The New York Review of Books, September 19, 1996.

"AND IT IS wryly, bitterly amusing to reflect that a British historian, David Irving, perhaps the greatest living authority on the Nazi era, has recently asserted in his book HITLER'S WAR that there is not a shred of evidence to prove that Hitler himself knew anything about the methods adopted by Himmler to achieve the 'final solution of the Jewish problem.'"-- Stephen Spender, The New York Times review of books,Sunday . . . March 1977

"HIS BOOK can hardly be described as an exercise in whitewash . . . The core of this book is provided by Mr Irving's narrative of Hitler's day-by-day conduct of the war . . . This ground is traversed with a sense of immediacy and grasp of detail lacking in many of the recent Führer biographies . . . Mr Irving's mastery of the German sources is superb."
-- Professor Donald Watt, The Daily Telegraph

 

[Desert Fox]

I mean for Gods sake you have stated that David Irving is a reliable source. David Irving, the man who denies holocaust and is a closet Neo Nazi. You are using him as a source, i guess than its fair game to use Zaid Hamid as a scholar source for Pakistani Affairs.

I never used David Irving as a source for my argument on this thread, but nevertheless to prove your above statement as another pathetic attempt at slandering someone.

David Irving is a reliable source, in fact a very reliable source on WW2 and this is acknowledged by many mainstream historians and various major University Professors. He is the author of Best Seller books

 

[GR!FF!N]

don't know if this is conspiracy theory or truth,but

this points are valid----
1. it was soviets who started massive level airdrops.Germany and usa,britain took it later.by 1935,SU could drop battalion size drops while by 1936,they were dropping brigades.thats some serious level of offensive capability even now.

2.BT tanks had greatest mobility in all tanks of the world that time.

3.they had good range and great speed,and good primary gun,yet low armor to decrease weight,which generally has been seen for strike weapons.

4.SU's airborne unit in 1938 was truly massive,10 airborne corps + 4 divison in 1941.by 1942,it became 18 corps...

5.actually,SU already launched his offensive on smaller states by 1940.eg are Estonia,Lithuania,Finland(winter war) and Poland.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

@notorious_eagle @Joe Shearer @SarthakGanguly And for those unknown internet forum armchair generals/"experts" bashing David Irving because they have no proper counter argument, he has more credibility in this subject than you lot ever will:

"FOR BETTER or for worse . . . the best known historians of the Nazi era are now [Daniel] Goldhagen and the British writer David Irving."-- Holocaust and Genocide Studies, vol. 11, no. 3 (Oxford University Press, in association with U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum).

"SUCH PEOPLE AS David Irving have an indispensable part in the historical enterprise, and we dare not disregard their views." Professor Gordon C.Craig, The New York Review of Books, September 19, 1996.

"AND IT IS wryly, bitterly amusing to reflect that a British historian, David Irving, perhaps the greatest living authority on the Nazi era, has recently asserted in his book HITLER'S WAR that there is not a shred of evidence to prove that Hitler himself knew anything about the methods adopted by Himmler to achieve the 'final solution of the Jewish problem.'"-- Stephen Spender, The New York Times review of books,Sunday . . . March 1977

"HIS BOOK can hardly be described as an exercise in whitewash . . . The core of this book is provided by Mr Irving's narrative of Hitler's day-by-day conduct of the war . . . This ground is traversed with a sense of immediacy and grasp of detail lacking in many of the recent Führer biographies . . . Mr Irving's mastery of the German sources is superb."
-- Professor Donald Watt, The Daily Telegraph

I never bashed David Irving. He has pursued the German archives like no one. No doubt he has had the closest access to them for a long time. His research is indispensable. If you read Hitler's War you will know - he does extremely thorough research.

I have only one problem - the way he draws the conclusions. Had he spent less time bashing the Jews(yes, he does that often) and mixes with neo Nazi groups, he would have had a better reputation. In fact initially - he was considered a rebel but superb historian. Only later in the eighties he started flirting with far right neo Nazi groups when his views changed from questioning the Holocaust to completely denying it - even blaming the Jews for it. Many of his books are worth reading - the references are flawless - from Hitler's War, The Last Battler : Nurnburg, Keitel's Diaries, etc - his sources were authentic and perfect. But his final conclusion - that the Holocaust did not happen goes against several of his own references.

 

[Joe Shearer]

An historian who undertakes seriously good research, and then goes on to contradict himself in his conclusions is beneath contempt. That is David Irving for you, beneath contempt. He allows his personal prejudices and anti-Semitism to pervert his findings.

So what does one conclude about those who cite such a despicable creature, and cite the judgements of others, using, in his citations, even the bitter sarcasm of Stephen Spender, without a shred of comprehension that Spender is writing about the irony of a Briton having written such rubbish?

 

[Desert Fox]

I never bashed David Irving. He has pursued the German archives like no one. No doubt he has had the closest access to them for a long time. His research is indispensable. If you read Hitler's War you will know - he does extremely thorough research.

I have only one problem - the way he draws the conclusions. Had he spent less time bashing the Jews(yes, he does that often) and mixes with neo Nazi groups, he would have had a better reputation. In fact initially - he was considered a rebel but superb historian. Only later in the eighties he started flirting with far right neo Nazi groups when his views changed from questioning the Holocaust to completely denying it - even blaming the Jews for it. Many of his books are worth reading - the references are flawless - from Hitler's War, The Last Battler : Nurnburg, Keitel's Diaries, etc - his sources were authentic and perfect. But his final conclusion - that the Holocaust did not happen goes against several of his own references.

1). Where has he bashed Jews?

2). Where has he denied the Holocaust?

In fact, he does not deny the whole sale massacres of Jews at the hands of Nazi police units operating at the rear of front line SS and Wehrmacht troops, particularly on the Eastern Front. He only questions the number of Jews killed and the methods used as well as the evidence used to convict Nazis at Nuremberg like the Human Soap, Human Lamp Shade, and the Shrunken Head.

But lets not turn this into a Holocaust thread.

An historian who undertakes seriously good research, and then goes on to contradict himself in his conclusions is beneath contempt. That is David Irving for you, beneath contempt. He allows his personal prejudices and anti-Semitism to pervert his findings.

Could you give me an example of this.

So what does one conclude about those who cite such a despicable creature, and cite the judgements of others, using, in his citations, even the bitter sarcasm of Stephen Spender, without a shred of comprehension that Spender is writing about the irony of a Briton having written such rubbish?

Sadly enough, you never got the point of that sarcasm. Unfortunately even Mr. Spender hasn't been able to step up to David Irving's $1,000 challenge (out of his own pocket) of coming up with a authentic document proving that Hitler gave orders to Himmler for the mass executions of Jews. All of those quotes i posted, including that of Mr. Stephen Spender, were from David Irving's own website.

 

[scorpionx]

Your argument is very simple and naive..

Please,let it be as it is.Instead of believing the dubious theories by alternate historians,majority of whose credibility is under sheer criticism by the renowned military historians, I would prefer to stick to the conventional version of the history of World War II,which places its judgments on pure facts preserved and well documented in military archives,circumstantial evidences and the rational analysis of contemporary world affairs. I have no problem in learning alternate histories or questioning the actual number of deaths in holocaust until and unless it comes from a balanced,credible source and the least from a questionable character.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

1). Where has he bashed Jews?

2). Where has he denied the Holocaust?

In fact, he does not deny the whole sale massacres of Jews at the hands of Nazi police units operating at the rear of front line SS and Wehrmacht troops, particularly on the Eastern Front. He only questions the number of Jews killed and the methods used as well as the evidence used to convict Nazis at Nuremberg like the Human Soap, Human Lamp Shade, and the Shrunken Head.

But lets not turn this into a Holocaust thread.

Please excuse me this time -
Irving once said he works to remove the "slime" applied to the reputation of Adolf Hitler. - [URL='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#CITEREFRosenbaum1999']Rosenbaum 1999, p. 232[/URL]
, Irving put a copy of Hitler's "Prophecy Speech" of 30 January 1939, promising the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" if "Jewish financiers" started another world war, onto his wall. - Evans 1989, p. 167
Irving proclaimed Hitler to be the "biggest friend the Jews had in the Third Reich" - Lipstadt 1993, p. 162

It gets worse ...

In a 1986 speech in Australia Irving argued that photographs of Holocaust survivors and dead taken in the spring of 1945 by Allied soldiers were proof that the Allies were responsible for the Holocaust, not the Germans. -Van Pelt 2002, p. 40
Holocaust was not the work of Nazi leaders, but rather of "nameless criminals",[66] and furthermore claimed that "these men [who killed the Jews] acted on their own impulse, their own initiative, within the general atmosphere of brutality created by the Second World War, in which of course Allied bombings played a part." - Van Pelt 2002, p. 40
Irving claimed that "historians have a blindness when it comes to the Holocaust because like Tay-Sachs disease it is a Jewish disease which causes blindness" - Stern 1992, p. 32
In a 1990 speech, Irving stated: "I say the following thing: there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz. There have been only mock-ups built by the Poles in the years after the war" - Van Pelt 2002, p. 55.
He called the Holocaust was just a "propaganda exercise" - Lipstadt 1993, p. 8
In January 1990, Irving gave a speech in Moers where he asserted that only 30,000 people died at Auschwitz between 1940–45, all of natural causes, which was equal—so he claimed—to the typical death toll from one Bomber Command raid on German cities - Van Pelt 2002, p. 55
Irving went on to call the Auschwitz death camp a "tourist attraction" whose origins Irving claimed went back to an "ingenious plan" devised by the British Psychological Warfare Executive in 1942 to spread anti-German propaganda that it was the policy of the German state to be "using 'gas chambers' to kill millions of Jews and other undesirables" - Lipstadt 1993, p. 179.

"Ridicule alone isn't enough, you've got to be tasteless about it. You've got to say things like 'More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.' Now you think that's tasteless, what about this? I'm forming an association especially dedicated to all these liars, the ones who try and kid people that they were in these concentration camps, it's called the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust and other Liars, A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S. Can't get more tasteless than that, but you've got to be tasteless because these people deserve our contempt."
Stern 1992, p. 48

On 17 January 1991 Irving told a reporter from the Jewish Chronicle that "The Jews are very foolish not to abandon the gas chamber theory while they still have time". Irving went to say that he believed anti-Semitism will increase all over the world because "the Jews have exploited people with the gas chamber legend" and that "In ten years, Israel will cease to exist and the Jews will have to return to Europe". In his 1991 revised edition of Hitler's War he had removed all references to death camps and the Holocaust. In a speech given in Hamburg in 1991, Irving stated that in two years time "...this myth of mass murders of Jews in the death factories of Auschwitz, Majdanek and Treblinka...which in fact never took place" will be disproved (Auschwitz, Majdanek, and Treblinka were all well known Vernichtungslager). Two days later, Irving repeated the same speech in Halle before a group of neo-Nazis, and praised Rudolf Hess as "that great German martyr, Rudolf Hess".[89] At another 1991 speech, this time in Canada, Irving called the Holocaust a "hoax", and again predicted that by 1993 the "hoax" would have been "exposed". - From Wiki

"I have to take off my hat to my adversaries and the strategies they have employed—the marketing of the very word Holocaust: I half expected to see a little TM after it" - Shermer & Grobman 2002, p. 50
Irving used the label "traditional enemies of the truth" to describe Jews, and in a 1963 article about a speech by Sir Oswald Mosley wrote that the "Yellow Star did not make a showing" - Guttenplan 2001, p. 51.
Irving stated his belief that Jews were his "traditional enemy". - Rosenbaum 1999, p. 234
Irving also stated that he would be "willing to put [his] signature" to the "fact" that "a great deal of control over the world is exercised by Jews" - David Irving vs Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt

his diary entry for 17 September 1994, in which Irving wrote about a ditty he composed for his young daughter "when halfbreed children are wheeled past":
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.

 

[JAT BALWAN]

..............

 

[IND151]

Although Stalin was more than assured by Hitler that the rapid movement of German troops East Wards were simply a precautionary measure to save them from British bombing,Zhukhov or Timoshenko were under no such impressions,especially after the rapid collapse of France.It was quite imperative that the Soviets had to fortify their western border with a massive thirty divisions,no matter how ill prepared their generals were.

Revisionist historians do come up with theories that Stalin had projected an invasion of Europe there are simply not enough evidence to bed this claim at rest. The red army was not prepared at all to attack Germany.Not only they were poorly trained,their commanders simply had no doctrine for a massive counter attack.When Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed,the Soviets were supplier of a huge amount of Chromium.Manganese and oil to the Reich. So this assumption that Stalin actually planned an invasion at that time to bulldoze Europe sounds too erratic from strategical point of view.

Germany needed wheat and oil on enormosu scale. Only one nation in Europe could offer Germany both.

Soviet Union. (Oil fields in Caucasus and Wheat stocks/fields in Ukraine.)

 

[Desert Fox]

Revisionist historians do come up with theories that Stalin had projected an invasion of Europe there are simply not enough evidence to bed this claim at rest. The red army was not prepared at all to attack Germany.Not only they were poorly trained,their commanders simply had no doctrine for a massive counter attack.When Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed,the Soviets were supplier of a huge amount of Chromium.Manganese and oil to the Reich. So this assumption that Stalin actually planned an invasion at that time to bulldoze Europe sounds too erratic from strategical point of view.

For one, the Red Army was not prepared for a Defensive War, but they were on the verge of launching a massive 4 million man offensive into Europe along with thousands of tanks and aircraft. Which is why, within the first month of Barbarossa the Germans captured more than 4 million Red Army troops as POW's due to the massive concentration of Soviet military buildup along the frontiers with Europe.

This fact is reinforced by the fact that during the Battle of Kursk, the Red Army, despite facing superior German Tanks, troops, and aircraft, was able to successfully halt the German Blitzkrieg because this time it had taken the necessary defensive measures to do so, even though the Russians still had fresh recruits involved in this battle as well due to which they suffered massive losses compared to the Germans, but nevertheless halted the German offensive.

 

[Desert Fox]

Please excuse me this time -
Irving once said he works to remove the "slime" applied to the reputation of Adolf Hitler. - Rosenbaum 1999, p. 232
, Irving put a copy of Hitler's "Prophecy Speech" of 30 January 1939, promising the "annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe" if "Jewish financiers" started another world war, onto his wall. - Evans 1989, p. 167
Irving proclaimed Hitler to be the "biggest friend the Jews had in the Third Reich" - Lipstadt 1993, p. 162

It gets worse ...

In a 1986 speech in Australia Irving argued that photographs of Holocaust survivors and dead taken in the spring of 1945 by Allied soldiers were proof that the Allies were responsible for the Holocaust, not the Germans. -Van Pelt 2002, p. 40
Holocaust was not the work of Nazi leaders, but rather of "nameless criminals",[66] and furthermore claimed that "these men [who killed the Jews] acted on their own impulse, their own initiative, within the general atmosphere of brutality created by the Second World War, in which of course Allied bombings played a part." - Van Pelt 2002, p. 40
Irving claimed that "historians have a blindness when it comes to the Holocaust because like Tay-Sachs disease it is a Jewish disease which causes blindness" - Stern 1992, p. 32
In a 1990 speech, Irving stated: "I say the following thing: there were no gas chambers in Auschwitz. There have been only mock-ups built by the Poles in the years after the war" - Van Pelt 2002, p. 55.
He called the Holocaust was just a "propaganda exercise" - Lipstadt 1993, p. 8
In January 1990, Irving gave a speech in Moers where he asserted that only 30,000 people died at Auschwitz between 1940–45, all of natural causes, which was equal—so he claimed—to the typical death toll from one Bomber Command raid on German cities - Van Pelt 2002, p. 55
Irving went on to call the Auschwitz death camp a "tourist attraction" whose origins Irving claimed went back to an "ingenious plan" devised by the British Psychological Warfare Executive in 1942 to spread anti-German propaganda that it was the policy of the German state to be "using 'gas chambers' to kill millions of Jews and other undesirables" - Lipstadt 1993, p. 179.

"Ridicule alone isn't enough, you've got to be tasteless about it. You've got to say things like 'More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.' Now you think that's tasteless, what about this? I'm forming an association especially dedicated to all these liars, the ones who try and kid people that they were in these concentration camps, it's called the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust and other Liars, A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S. Can't get more tasteless than that, but you've got to be tasteless because these people deserve our contempt."
Stern 1992, p. 48

On 17 January 1991 Irving told a reporter from the Jewish Chronicle that "The Jews are very foolish not to abandon the gas chamber theory while they still have time". Irving went to say that he believed anti-Semitism will increase all over the world because "the Jews have exploited people with the gas chamber legend" and that "In ten years, Israel will cease to exist and the Jews will have to return to Europe". In his 1991 revised edition of Hitler's War he had removed all references to death camps and the Holocaust. In a speech given in Hamburg in 1991, Irving stated that in two years time "...this myth of mass murders of Jews in the death factories of Auschwitz, Majdanek and Treblinka...which in fact never took place" will be disproved (Auschwitz, Majdanek, and Treblinka were all well known Vernichtungslager). Two days later, Irving repeated the same speech in Halle before a group of neo-Nazis, and praised Rudolf Hess as "that great German martyr, Rudolf Hess".[89] At another 1991 speech, this time in Canada, Irving called the Holocaust a "hoax", and again predicted that by 1993 the "hoax" would have been "exposed". - From Wiki

"I have to take off my hat to my adversaries and the strategies they have employed—the marketing of the very word Holocaust: I half expected to see a little TM after it" - Shermer & Grobman 2002, p. 50
Irving used the label "traditional enemies of the truth" to describe Jews, and in a 1963 article about a speech by Sir Oswald Mosley wrote that the "Yellow Star did not make a showing" - Guttenplan 2001, p. 51.
Irving stated his belief that Jews were his "traditional enemy". - Rosenbaum 1999, p. 234
Irving also stated that he would be "willing to put [his] signature" to the "fact" that "a great deal of control over the world is exercised by Jews" - David Irving vs Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt

his diary entry for 17 September 1994, in which Irving wrote about a ditty he composed for his young daughter "when halfbreed children are wheeled past":
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.

I don't see where he denied the mass murdering of Jews at the hands of certain Nazi officials and their subordinates. He has only raised valid questions/points to certain events of the war.

"I have to take off my hat to my adversaries and the strategies they have employed—the marketing of the very word Holocaust: I half expected to see a little TM after it" - Shermer & Grobman 2002, p. 50

Huh..... The Holocaust Industry | Norman G. Finkelstein

his diary entry for 17 September 1994, in which Irving wrote about a ditty he composed for his young daughter "when halfbreed children are wheeled past":

I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.

I don't know if i should laugh at this part due to the immense hypocrisy. The fact that mobs of Jews in Israel beat up dark skinned people (of your and mine skin color) in Israel and Israeli Political parties condone such behavior doesn't leave these major Jewish organizations who paint Mr. Irving as a "racist" "neo-"Nazi" with any credibility. But instead, makes them even bigger hypocrites.

Israeli Kristallnacht: Africans attacked in Tel Aviv anti-migrant demo (PHOTOS) — RT News

Demonstrators attack African migrants in south Tel Aviv Israel News | Haaretz

Chinese workers in Israel sign no-sex contract | World news | The Guardian

This isn't the thread for Holocaust discussion or David Irving, so please save that for another thread.