• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe he thought that the trial would give him free publicity or cement his reputation within the denialist cycles and, in the long run, outdo the costs?

Quickly reading over the Wikipedia entry (take that as you like), it also seem like he tried to get Penguin book to drop from the case, probably hoping that the threat of the lawsuit would be enough for them to back off.
It might have been a bluff.
 
So, let's see, all of those brave holocaust revisionists couldn't collect their pennies and fund a lawyer for this brave champion of truth? Their conviction of Irving's ability to win a SUIT HE BROUGHT, wasn't very high, it would appear. Probably did the calculation...established facts vs. Irving facts and decided a liable/slander suit wasn't a good investment.
 
Simon39759 said:
Maybe he thought that the trial would give him free publicity or cement his reputation within the denialist cycles and, in the long run, outdo the costs?

Quickly reading over the Wikipedia entry (take that as you like), it also seem like he tried to get Penguin book to drop from the case, probably hoping that the threat of the lawsuit would be enough for them to back off.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, of course. And he had successfully extorted money from other publishers before using this same tactic.

But that doesn't make him any less a fool. And the image of the poor, put-upon defendant David Irving unfairly swamped by Spielberg's money is an out and out lie -- a lie that neo-Nazi's like to spin to avoid having to see just how badly their hero got stomped into a greasy smear.
 
,.. or lacks the funds to afford one, a problem Deborah Lipstadt did not have.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe Irving shouldn't have sued her, then.

Irving sued her, and then his fans complain she actually fought back and won. Hitler invades the USSR, his fans complain the Russians fought back and won.

Why is it that the neo-Nazis find it perfectly OK for them to randomly attack (in court or in war) anybody they dislike, and then whine when their target strikes back?

I mean, what did they expect, milk and cookies?
 
He expected her to crumble in the face of his overwhelming, scholarly evidence and his towering Aryan intellect. This was his "history will absolve me" moment and instead he turned it into a legal and intelectual route...for his opponents.
 
Having met David Irving, I can tell you I think very little of the man. And less of those who would defend his "work" on the holocaust.

What I know of him, I learned upon and after meeting him.

Interestingly, Irving brought two friends with him; both were with the KKK (a reporter I know had interviewed them in the past & recognized them). That's the kind of circle he moves in...
 
Skeptic said:
Well, maybe Irving shouldn't have sued her, then.

Irving sued her, and then his fans complain she actually fought back and won. Hitler invades the USSR, his fans complain the Russians fought back and won.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, the Nazis try to exterminate the jews, and then complain that some of them survive, even worse, take that whole episode amiss.

Why is it that the neo-Nazis find it perfectly OK for them to randomly attack (in court or in war) anybody they dislike, and then whine when their target strikes back?
Click to expand...

Oh, but that is different, don´t you know? They "know" they are the good guys, and of course as the good guys they can do such things and it´s okay by definition. And it´s not like they´re being unfair or anything... they did very graciously allow their enemy, that ultimate evil, the chance to roll over and die gracefully, didn´t they?
 
Khonshu said:
Having met David Irving, I can tell you I think very little of the man. And less of those who would defend his "work" on the holocaust.

What I know of him, I learned upon and after meeting him.

Interestingly, Irving brought two friends with him; both were with the KKK (a reporter I know had interviewed them in the past & recognized them). That's the kind of circle he moves in...
Click to expand...


Tell us more about the little nazi symp!
 
Someone once said about Mao's poems: "If poetry were painting, he'd be better than Hitler, but worse than Churchill."

The records of Hitler's rejection from the art academy have survived. You can just imagine the conversation: "I can't accept this guy -- he's a lousy painter. Just imagine the horrible consequences if someone like that gets accepted!"
 
Last edited:
timhau said:
True, but for me it's fascinating to read an account of the Third Reich by someone who was actually there at the time and saw it develop. It was the first historical work I read on the subject (apart from schoolbooks), and I think it was a good one for that purpose.
Click to expand...
SHirer's "Rise and Fall" was one of the first books I read on the Third Reich myself.
I actually think Shirer's "Berlin Diary" is a better read as far as a eyewitness account goes.
His Third Reich is a good book, but it does need to be updated. And Shirer is weak on some specific topics..the economics in particular.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Irving acting as his own defense is the perfect proof of the old saying "A man who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client."
Click to expand...

9/11-investigator said:
... or lacks the funds to afford one, a problem Deborah Lipstadt did not have.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it takes a very special kind of stoopid to sue a publishing house without the funds for a lawyer. It's kinda like fighting a two-front war with insufficient manpower while dedicating significant amounts of personnel and logistic resources to kill mainly harmless people who rub you the wrong way.
 
I highly recommend: Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics by Spotts. It shows hitler to be a dilatant with remarkably pedestrian bad taste -- oh yes, also a genecidal, murderous scum bag, but with an emphasis on the pedestrian bad taste.
 
timhau said:
Yes, but it takes a very special kind of stoopid to sue a publishing house without the funds for a lawyer. It's kinda like fighting a two-front war with insufficient manpower while dedicating significant amounts of personnel and logistic resources to kill mainly harmless people who rub you the wrong way.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't be so harsh. Thanks to Irving and his ilk, we now know that no one died during World War II.
 
I have seen some interesting examples of the sorts of architecture that the Italians left behind in Libya (first-hand) and in Ethiopia and Eritrea (via the internet.)

What the Italians put on the ground was more forward-looking than what Hitler envisioned.

Hitler was too wrapped up in delusions of Germanic grandeur and destiny. He would have had something in common with today's rapture-raedy Dominionists. "Who cares if it burns the world to a cinder, we will fullfil our destiny."
 
headscratcher4 said:
I highly recommend: Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics by Spotts. It shows hitler to be a dilatant with remarkably pedestrian bad taste -- oh yes, also a genecidal, murderous scum bag, but with an emphasis on the pedestrian bad taste.
Click to expand...


His taste in music was not bad, but as far as art and literature go.....:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
 
headscratcher4 said:
He expected her to crumble in the face of his overwhelming, scholarly evidence and his towering Aryan intellect. This was his "history will absolve me" moment and instead he turned it into a legal and intelectual route...for his opponents.
Click to expand...


I have the feeling that he expected to bully and intimidate her and can imagine the look of astonishment on his pudgy face when she handed his balls back to him.
That image makes me happy.
 
Come to think of it, Joe Stalin had pretty bad taste also. He and Hitler certainly both suffered from "The Ediface Complex".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom