Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Denial - the David Irving movie and a wider debate about the Holocaust

Status
Not open for further replies.
I watched this the other day.
Superb.
My only disappointment is that they didn't show when he addressed the judge as 'Mein Fuhrer'...
Spall was great.
They didn't make enough of Evans' research, though.
BUT hopefully folk who see it will look deeper into Irving's history of lies.
 
He wrote a very good book about it - 'Lying ABOUT Hitler'.
Well worth a read if you have the time.
He systematically rips Irving a new one.
Sadly the movie doesn't have enough time to go deeper into his testimony, nor that off Christopher Browning.

Title edited to fix it. Sorry
 
Last edited:
I watched this the other day.
Superb.
My only disappointment is that they didn't show when he addressed the judge as 'Mein Fuhrer'...

I heard an interview with the writer that Irvine sued where she said that it was the best bit of the whole trial and that they thought about putting it in the movie but decided that the audience would not believe that it really happened!
 
"decided that the audience would not believe that it really happened!"
Private Eye reported it at the time, and readers wrote in and asked 'Are you just being satirical again?', or words to that effect.
Hislop could reply that yes, it had happened!
 
Aha!

And when it came to rebutting the defense charge of consorting with neo-Nazis in Germany, Irving’s habit of improvising from his prepared text led him into a fatal slip of the tongue, as he inadvertently addressed the judge as “Mein Führer.”106 Everyone in court knew that he was referring to the judge as “Mein Führer” from the tone of voice in which he said it. The court dissolved into laughter.“No one could believe what just happened,” wrote one spectator. “Had we imagined it? Could he have addressed the judge as ‘Mein Führer’?” Irving himself denied having made the slip.But amid the laughter in court, he could be seen mumbling an apology to the judge for having addressed him in this way.
 
I saw the film with my eldest the other week. Although it was interesting, I didn't really think it gave a balanced view of Irving or his work (ie. that there was gradual a drift in his work, from earlier serious and still respected researcher towards him 'going native')
 
I saw the film with my eldest the other week. Although it was interesting, I didn't really think it gave a balanced view of Irving or his work (ie. that there was gradual a drift in his work, from earlier serious and still respected researcher towards him 'going native')
Any film covering such a short period of time and one subject, the court case, would find it difficult to give what would be seen as balanced by all sides. The film is about the consequences of the gradual slide from respected researcher to a biased commentator.

I have not seen the film, but know the story. I am really looking forward to watching this.

From my own POV, I think the Jewish caucus has hijacked the holocaust - there is very little mention of the other groups systematically exterminated by the Nazis; the politicals, homosexuals, mental health patients, Russian/Slav PoWs and many others the Nazis felt were 'awkward'.
 
From my own POV, I think the Jewish caucus has hijacked the holocaust - there is very little mention of the other groups systematically exterminated by the Nazis; the politicals, homosexuals, mental health patients, Russian/Slav PoWs and many others the Nazis felt were 'awkward'.

Very much this. From Jewish commentators, it's completely ignored, as they would, but it's starting to seep into mainstream commentary now
 
This is on my reading list:

The_Holocaust_Industry%2C_first_edition.jpg


Finkelstein argues that the American Jewish establishment exploits the memory of the Nazi Holocaust for political and financial gain, as well as to further the interests of Israel.[1] According to Finkelstein, this "Holocaust industry" has corrupted Jewish culture and the authentic memory of the Holocaust.
 
From my own POV, I think the Jewish caucus has hijacked the holocaust - there is very little mention of the other groups systematically exterminated by the Nazis; the politicals, homosexuals, mental health patients, Russian/Slav PoWs and many others the Nazis felt were 'awkward'.

I think that the other element there is that they have made it an act of heresy to question any of the holocaust narrative. I must admit to finding it a bit of a revelation to discover that the documented indebted calorific value of rations for prisoners/workers (versus the starvation rations actually received) didn't add up, with much of the difference seemingly being due to the culmulative effect of various levels of corruption in the supply chain, some of which was punished, some not [Pancheff, Fortress Alderney]
 
Any film covering such a short period of time and one subject, the court case, would find it difficult to give what would be seen as balanced by all sides. The film is about the consequences of the gradual slide from respected researcher to a biased commentator.

I have not seen the film, but know the story. I am really looking forward to watching this.

From my own POV, I think the Jewish caucus has hijacked the holocaust - there is very little mention of the other groups systematically exterminated by the Nazis; the politicals, homosexuals, mental health patients, Russian/Slav PoWs and many others the Nazis felt were 'awkward'.

Visiting Bergen Visitor centre it clearly mentions all the different groups who fell victim to the Holocaust, although Anne Frank is mentioned a lot. Much more poignant to see all the Serbian survivors and relatives of the victims of the Stara Gradiska sub-camp being refused permission to cross the Croatian border to lay wreaths at the camp site, a sub-camp of the Jasenovac camp. Eventually they elected to hold a commemoration in the middle of the bridge over the Sava and throw the wreaths into the river.
 
I saw the film with my eldest the other week. Although it was interesting, I didn't really think it gave a balanced view of Irving or his work (ie. that there was gradual a drift in his work, from earlier serious and still respected researcher towards him 'going native')
That assumes that there was any.

Allegedly, Irving hung out with the far right as a teenager. The trend in his work can be read as simply becoming bolder and bolder about saying things he believed to begin with (in itself, a perfect example of questionable research).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New posts

Top