Holocaust Denier Irving Freed

Journal of Historical Review article

The Journal of Historical Review sounds an impressive publication, however Wikipedia notes:

The Journal of Historical Review is a controversial serial, periodical, or journal published by the Institute for Historical Review in Torrance, California. Its subject purported to be history. The journal, in it hay day, engaged in holocaust-denial. It was, and continues to be, designated as an antisemitic publication, in regard to its contents, by the Anti-Defamation League.

The Organization of American Historians had commissioned a study in which a panel had found that the Journal of Historical Review was "nothing but a masquerade of scholarship."

The journal commenced publication in the spring of 1980 as a quarterly periodical. Publication was suspended in 1986-87. The journal is now defunct. However, back issues continue to be distributed and sold by its associated organization, the Noontide Press.

The Journal of Historical Review sounds an impressive publication, however Wikipedia notes:

 

The Journal of Historical Review is a controversial serial, periodical, or journal published by the Institute for Historical Review in Torrance, California. Its subject purported to be history. The journal, in it hay day, engaged in holocaust-denial. It was, and continues to be, designated as an antisemitic publication, in regard to its contents, by the Anti-Defamation League.

 

The Organization of American Historians had commissioned a study in which a panel had found that the Journal of Historical Review was "nothing but a masquerade of scholarship."

 

The journal commenced publication in the spring of 1980 as a quarterly periodical. Publication was suspended in 1986-87. The journal is now defunct. However, back issues continue to be distributed and sold by its associated organization, the Noontide Press.

No surprises there then. What is it about Jews that you dislike so much angle20?

Irving and Faurisson would be classified as revisionists (to use a less emotionally loaded term than 'denier'), and I haven't quoted anything from Irving in support of arguments I've made, but who's the third one?

To a Nazi sympathiser like yourself, Irving would be seen as a revisionist - to everyone else, including the court in Austria he will be viewed as a denier - that is why he was found guilty and served his sentence.

Irving sued another historian because he refused to be viewed as a holocaust denier. The British court ruled that Irving was indeed a holocuast denier.

Two independent law courts, the academic community and 99.9% of joe public view him rightly as a holocaust denier.

Your views are 'off the radar'

Jean-Claude Pressac

Not so. Here's the reply I gave when redrobbo tried to argue this on the Auschwitz thread a little while ago:

You imply that Jean-Claude Pressac is a "discredited Holocaust denier". He contributed a chapter to this book:

Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp

 

Quote:

Newly authoritative information is included in several essays, including one by Jean-Claude Pressac, a French investigator and former Holocaust denier, on the construction of the gas chambers and crematoria

Amazon link re-pasted:

Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp

So, that makes two, not three. If, on the Holocaustian side of the argument, you having difficulty counting to three, that does not augur well for coping with larger numbers, does it?

What is it about Jews that you dislike so much angle20?

You have no evidence for this assertion, Halibut. It would be true to say, on the other hand, that I cast a more sceptical than average eye over the Jewish role in history and current affairs. As there is a strong Jewish influence - through the neoconservative political school - in the government of the world's current superpower this is, I believe, a topic of legitimate public debate.

Incidentally, are you contributions going to continue to consist primarily of one-liner questions, or are you going to share with the forum some of your own views?

You have no evidence for this assertion, Halibut. It would be true to say, on the other hand, that I cast a more sceptical than average eye over the Jewish role in history and current affairs. As there is a strong Jewish influence - through the neoconservative political school - in the government of the world's current superpower this is, I believe, a topic of legitimate public debate.

 

Incidentally, are you contributions going to continue to consist primarily of one-liner questions, or are you going to share with the forum some of your own views?

Why don't you just say that you admire the Nazis and Hitler...why not just tell the truth instead of skirting around the edges.

Not so. Here's the reply I gave when redrobbo tried to argue this on the Auschwitz thread a little while ago:

Wrong, check post 57 on this thread and you'll find the following quote used by yourself:

"630,000 - the lower end of the range suggested by the leading Holocaustian scholar, Jean-Claude Pressac."

Jean-Claude Pressac's book, AUSCHWITZ: TECHNIQUE AND OPERATION OF THE GAS CHAMBERS (1988, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation) reproduces many German documents. The documents which Pressac considers to be most incriminating are, in the great majority of cases, either "photocopies" or "microfilm copies" made available by the Soviets; many have been retyped by unknown persons and do not even purport to be photocopies; others are obvious forgeries.

That I believe is 3 or would you like to deny that as well?

You have no evidence for this assertion, Halibut. It would be true to say, on the other hand, that I cast a more sceptical than average eye over the Jewish role in history and current affairs. As there is a strong Jewish influence - through the neoconservative political school - in the government of the world's current superpower this is, I believe, a topic of legitimate public debate.

Come on Angle, you can say New World Order and I suppose you believe the Jews are running it...

Incidentally, are you contributions going to continue to consist primarily of one-liner questions, or are you going to share with the forum some of your own views?

Yes, primarily one-liner questions. My own view is that the Holocaust happened and that those that deny this are Jew haters.

Torture by British soldiers it would seem. Here's one source:

 

Journal of Historical Review article

 

The answer to your second question can be found at post no 61 above.

All you said in that post was that Hoess's information was obtained under duress. You never said by whom it had been 'discarded'.

I'm just seeking to set the record straight.

And why is it that you seem so obsessed with setting ‘the record straight’ on issues involving Jews?

Teabag posed the question: "How about six million historical truths"? As there were quite possibly 'only' 600,000 or so deaths at the largest extermination camp it is rather doubtful that there are "six million historical truths". Similarly, your own assertion (above): "once the figures are up into the millions" is likely to be fallacious. Pay attention in class, plekhanov.

So you deny that millions of people were murdered in the Nazi holocaust? Do you also deny the Armenian holocaust and Rwandan Genocide or is it simply recognised historical episodes of ethnic cleansing and genocide in which Jews were prominent victims that you deny?

Now, in learning lessons and moving forward it is important to realise that the Holocaust episode is an important moral prop to Jewish thinkers and activists.

So what? Just because the fact that the Nazi holocaust happened is abused by people it doesn’t make the Nazi holocaust any less real.

It underpins the 'anti-semitic' card they produce if anybody questions their activities. There is strong Jewish influence in the neoconservative political school which currently holds sway over the Republican party and the Bush administration in the USA. One Jewish neoconservative figure (amongst a number who circulate around the well- funded think tanks and lobby groups) is a chap called Michael Ledeen. I recently came across an interesting quote from Ledeen's book War on the Terror Masters. The quote is purportedly about America's attitude to Arab states but I think it might be taken as an interesting insight into Jewish attitudes to other peoples:

This rather neatly highlights what is wrong with your world view and particularly your attitude to Jews; a rightwing academic who happens to be Jewish says some arrogant stuff about the US’s role in the Middle East and somehow your addled mind reads it as a confession of collective Jewish attitudes to the whole world

Here (for fun) are some Ledeen quotes, courtesy of Wikipedia:

So? If I wanted I could cut and paste a list of objectionable quotes by GW Bush or Condoleeza Rice by your ‘logic’ all white and black Americans would be guilty of sharing those views simply by being in the same ethnic group.

As Iran might be the next "small crappy little country" to be thrown against the wall one can understand why President Ahmadinejad might have had an interest in hosting a Holocaust conference.

Yeah because Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitism and holocaust denial is really hurting those warmongering against Iran

Arguing with angle is like trying to argue with David Icke....pointless - too far off the radar