A historian none of us have heard about. Explains a lot to me.
British. History was his passion but he didn't become an academic because he didn't like paper pushing and hierarchies. He decided to be a researcher into the archives, and to interview people still living who were direct witnesses of historical eras and figures. Early in his twenties he found a job in a steel factory owned by Thiessen, who took him on as an unskilled worker. In the course of that work he learned German.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/NW8bFLN45guZ/?list=notifications&randomize=false
41:14 Falsification of documentation. For example, alleged Nazi documentation referring to the gassing of Jews in Auschwitz. He pointed out the lack of stamps and codes on what had to be highly classified documentation, alleged to have been issued by the high German command and referring explicitly to the gas chambers for death camps.
He pointed out that a series of diaries "by Hitler" were all written in identical notebooks, more than 20. Diaries are never bought in one store in large quantities outright. Journals are always kept in notebooks that are all different because they are bought at different times, in different shops. Bingo.
42:43 "Holocaust" as referring to the gassing of Jews is a new word: it was not in the press before 1970. (There was a famous TV series with that title in the U.S. in the 70s that made it part of our vocabulary, I remember this.)
43:38 "Holocaust Denier". "Bits of the story are undoubtedly true." But if you question it, or are skeptical about the 6 million figure, you better run for the hills.
Irving asks: "Was it done premeditatedly? On the orders of Hitler as head of state? Or did it just happen? Was it premeditated, or was it second degree murder?" Was Auschwitz equipped to kill four million people by gassing them, then incinerating the bodies?
45:53 "Genocide vs Inocenticide. The killing of innocent people in war. It wasn't a crime because they were Jews, it was a crime because they were innocent Jews that were being killed. To make it only about Jews is to exclude all the other innocents killed during WW II, in Europe, in Asia. Genocide limits the concept and who is entitled to reparations (money). It wasn't their race that made it a crime. It was their innocence. But an entire industry has been built around it."
(And it became a religion that is unquestionable. If you question anything about it --- off to get burned at the stake you go.)
"It's Big Money. American taxpayers paid 4 billion dollars are year to Israel because they were "guilty". (This was in 1995; actually it's more like per month now.) You're guilty because you are the same religion and the same race as the Germans who perpetrated the Holocaust. If anyone complains, he is instantly accused of being anti-Semitic. Germany was paying a billion per year to Israel."
I'm amazed he hasn't gotten a plug of lead in the head. But at one point he did lose everything and was put in prison. He spent ---if I remember correctly--- four years in solitary confinement.
48:05 "I haven't got an ax to grind. But I am a truthful historian and I'm going to ask certain questions."
48:57 The Questions. A problem of mathematics. The original figure was that 4 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz concentration camp. "Since we revisionists, as we're called, began campaigning about this four or five years ago, suddenly the four million figure has been abandoned; there's now only one million. It's extraordinary. They wiped off four million from Auschwitz and yet the overall figure of six million hasn't changed."
You can watch the video. It's interesting, to say the least. He won the trust of all Hitler's former typists and got them to pull out from under bed all their cardboard boxes full of papers...
Now in his eighties.
I left this comment:
I imagine he wrote about the ghettoes, which were open-air concentration camps, before the war began and the bombings of Germany. They preceded the train transports to the real camps. It's all very complex, and we are invariably fed versions that are abridged, from sources with institutional bias who don't state their bias. Independent historians abounded in the 19th century, often independently wealthy scholars motivated by personal vocation. Irving is one from the 20th century. Time is needed to start to understand the past, but it's still a battle between factions who want to control the narrative.
Individuals who decide to do their own investigating are rare, and they are absolutely needed. The ones who break out of obscurity while they're still alive, are very rare.
.jfif)
.jfif)
.jfif)
.jfif)
.jfif)
.jfif)
.jfif)
.jfif)
