Deborah Lipstadt nominated to be the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism

Deborah Lipstadt has been nominated to be the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, a  position where, if confirmed, she will have an official position as a Jewish activist, as opposed to her current position in which she masquerades as a “scholar.” Because I participated in David Irving’s lawsuit against Lipstadt, I wrote the following on her, excerpted from this general discussion of my participation in the trial. Yes, Lipstadt is yet another academic Jewish activist.

Despite the fact that David Irving contacted me because I had discussed the suppression of his book, I continued to be concerned that this issue was not really central to Irving’s case and that my purported expertise on Judaism was irrelevant. The link to the case was that Deborah Lipstadt had joined the effort at suppression despite her lack of scholarly expertise on Goebbels. The Washington Post of April 3, 1996 quoted Lipstadt as stating that “In the Passover Hagadah, it says in every generation there are those who rise up to destroy us. David Irving is not physically destroying us, but is trying to destroy the memory of those who have already perished at the hands of tyrants.” “They say they don’t publish reputations, they publish books…. But would they publish a book by Jeffrey Dahmer on man-boy relationships? Of course the reputation of the author counts. And no legitimate historian takes David Irving’s work seriously.” These comments were made in reaction to the St. Martin’s Press rescinding publication of Irving’s book, Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, and were clearly intended to support that decision. The decision to sue Lipstadt came only after St. Martin’s Press had rescinded publication of the book, and only after Lipstadt’s public support for that decision (David Irving, personal communication; see also Guttenplan 2000, 53).

In the trial, the defense argued that my testimony was irrelevant and the judge seemed to agree but then changed his mind when the link with Lipstadt was made clear. Irving’s complaint goes beyond simple libel against him to the assertion of an organized campaign of suppression. Evolutionary theory did not enter into my testimony, and it only entered my written statement to the court in a general way—that I saw Jewish- gentile relations as being examples of competition between ethnic groups.

David Irving is in many ways not an ideal person. There is no doubt in my mind that he has strongly held political views — although the extent to which this is a reaction to his demonization by Jewish activist organizations is at least open to conjecture. Whenever a person has strong political views, it is reasonable to assume that these views may color one’s perception of reality. Since I am not a professional historian, I am in no position to judge the validity of his archival research. I am very impressed by the fact that Irving is a recognized expert on certain aspects of W.W.II— recognized by several noted authorities for having made original contributions to knowledge in the field — none of whom are Holocaust deniers or revisionists. These include Gordon Craig, A.J.P. Taylor, Hugh Trevor-Roper, and John Keegan. (A column by Keegan, written for the Daily Telegraph (UK) appears as Appendix 1 below. [Keegan concludes: “Prof Lipstadt, by contrast, seems as dull as only the self-righteously politically correct can be. Few other historians had ever heard of her before this case. Most will not want to hear from her again.”])

Post-trial comment: In his opinion, Justice Gray seems to concur with this evaluation:

As a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving’s military history … and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans …. [Richard Evans, a historian who testified for the defense, had stated that Irving has had “a generally low reputation amongst professional historians since the end of the 1980s and at all times amongst those who have direct experience of researching in the areas with which he concerns himself”; although not noted by Judge Gray, Evans also reiterated Lipstadt’s charge that Irving was not a historian at all.] But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving’s military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime.

The judge is implicitly agreeing with me that Lipstadt libeled Irving by writing he was not a historian and by writing that “no legitimate historian takes David Irving’s work seriously.” I suppose that in the judge’s view this was far less serious than the accusation that he had manipulated data in order to exculpate Hitler, etc., and I have no objection to that judgment.

I also felt that Lipstadt exaggerated the extent to which Irving denied the Holocaust, since there are many places in his writings where Irving describes Nazis engaged in organized killing of Jews. I was also swayed by my knowledge that Irving’s Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich received a positive but critical review in The New York Review of Books (Sept. 19, 1996) by Stanford historian Gordon Craig who cautioned against censoring people like Irving. And finally, I had finished reading Goebbels myself and decided that, whatever faults a close analysis might reveal, it was highly informative on many points—an indispensable source of information on the man and the period. Obviously I would not trust only my own feelings on this issue; but in fact I had satisfied myself that indeed it was a major contribution to the field.

I was also swayed by finding that Lipstadt is a Jewish ethnic activist whose own writings have been criticized by a well-recognized historian as exaggerating the role of anti-Semitism in the Western response to the Holocaust during World War II [see below]. Lipstadt is thus part of a pattern discussed extensively in Separation And Its Discontents in which some (but by no means all) Jewish historians engage in ethnocentric interpretations of history. It is highly significant that Lipstadt’s book Denying the Holocaust was written with extensive aid from various Jewish activist organizations, including the ADL. Lipstadt’s book was commissioned and published by The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In her acknowledgements, she credits the research department of the Anti-Defamation league, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Institute for Jewish Affairs (London), the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the American Jewish Committee’all activist organizations.

Lipstadt is the Chair of the Institute for Jewish Studies at Emory University. Historian Jacob Katz finds that academic departments of Jewish studies are often linked to Jewish nationalism: “The inhibitions of traditionalism, on the one hand, and a tendency toward apologetics, on the other, can function as deterrents to scholarly objectivity” (p. 84). The work of Jewish historians exhibits “a defensiveness that continues to haunt so much of contemporary Jewish activity” (1986, 85). Similarly the preeminent scholar of the Jewish religion, Jacob Neusner, notes that “scholars drawn to the subject by ethnic affiliation’Jews studying and teaching Jewish things to Jews’ turn themselves into ethnic cheer-leaders. The Jewish Studies classroom is a place where Jews tell Jews why they should be Jewish (stressing “the Holocaust” as a powerful reason) or rehearse the self-evident virtue of being Jewish.” (Times Literary Supplement, March 5, 1999).

Perhaps the best indication of Lipstadt’s Jewish activism is that she serves as Senior Editorial Contributor at the Jewish Spectator, a Jewish publication for conservative, religiously observant Jews. Her column, Tomer Devorah (Hebrew: Under Deborah’s Palm Tree), appears in every issue and touches on a wide range of Jewish issues, including anti-Semitism, relations among Jews, and interpreting religious holidays. In her column she has advocated greater understanding and usage of Hebrew to promote Jewish identification, and, like many Jewish ethnic activists, she is strongly opposed to intermarriage. “We must say to young people ‘intermarriage is something that poses a dire threat to the future of the Jewish community.’ ” Lipstadt writes that Conservative Rabbi Jack Moline was “very brave” for saying that number one on a list of ten things Jewish parents should say to their children is “I expect you to marry a Jew.” She suggests a number of strategies to prevent intermarriage, including trips to Israel for teenagers and subsidizing tuition at Jewish day schools (Jewish Spectator, [Fall, 1991], 63).

In his recent book, The Holocaust in American Life, historian Peter Novick clearly thinks of Lipstadt as an activist, although not as extreme as some. He repeatedly cites her as an example of a Holocaust propagandizer. He notes that in her book Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust 1933-1945, Lipstadt says Allied policy “bordered on complicity” motivated by “deep antipathy” toward “contemptible Jews.” Novick says that while there is no scholarly consensus on the subject, “most professional historians agree that “the comfortable morality tale … is simply bad history: estimates of the number of those who might have been saved have been greatly inflated, and the moralistic version ignores real constraints at the time” (Novick, 1999, 48). Novick characterizes Lipstadt as attributing the failure of the press to emphasize Jewish suffering as motivated by “willful blindness, the result of inexcusable ignorance’or malice” (p. 65) despite the fact that the concentration camp survivors encountered by Western journalists (Dachau, Buchenwald) were 80% non-Jewish. Lipstadt is described as an implacable pursuer of Nazi war criminals, stating that she would “prosecute them if they had to be wheeled into the courtroom on a stretcher” (p. 229). In a discussion of the well-recognized unreliability of eye-witness testimony, Novick writes: “When evidence emerged that one Holocaust memoir, highly praised for its authenticity, might have been completely invented, Deborah Lipstadt, who used the memoir in her teaching of the Holocaust, acknowledged that if this turned out to be the case, it ‘might complicate matters somewhat,’ but insisted that it would still be ‘powerful as a novel.’ ” Truth is less important than the effectiveness of the message.

The intrusion of ethnocentrism into historical scholarship is a well-recognized problem in Jewish historiography, discussed at length in Separation and Its Discontents. Historians such as Jacob Katz (1986) and Albert Lindemann (1997) have noted that this type of behavior is commonplace in Jewish historiography. A central theme of Katz’s analysis—massively corroborated by Albert Lindemann’s recent work, Esau’s Tears‘is that historians of Judaism have often falsely portrayed the beliefs of gentiles as irrational fantasies while portraying the behavior of Jews as irrelevant to anti-Semitism. To quote the well-known political scientist, Michael Walzer: “Living so long in exile and so often in danger, we have cultivated a defensive and apologetic account, a censored story, of Jewish religion and culture” (Walzer 1994, 6).

The salient point for me is that Jewish historians who have been reasonably accused of bringing an ethnocentric bias to their writing nevertheless are able to publish their work with prestigious mainstream academic and commercial publishers, and they often obtain jobs at prestigious academic institutions. A good example is Daniel Goldhagen. In his written submission to the court on behalf of Deborah Lipstadt, historian Richard Evans, describes Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners, as a book which argues “in a crude and dogmatic fashion that virtually all Germans had been murderous antisemites since the Middle Ages, had been longing to exterminate the Jews for decades before Hitler came to power, and actively enjoyed participating in the extermination when it began. The book has since been exposed as a tissue of misrepresentation and misinterpretation, written in shocking ignorance of the huge historical literature on the topic and making numerous elementary mistakes in its interpretation of the documents.”

These are exactly the types of accusations leveled by Lipstadt at Irving. Yet Goldhagen maintains a position at Harvard University; he is lionized in many quarters and his work has been massively promoted in the media while his critics have come under pressure from Jewish activist organizations (Guttenplan, 2000).

28 replies
  1. Some White Guy
    Some White Guy says:

    What stands out for me when I read things like this is my shock at the appalling capacity to lie. The one core issue for me of how to properly exist is to never lie and always seek and speak the truth.

    If there is anything that is our prime downfall as Westernkind, it is having ever allowed such lying snakes into our midst.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Hey, White Guy — “Westernkind” didn’t “allow” these lying snakes into our midst; they slithered in as only snakes can do. Its downfall (continuing today) is to have let them stay, and pass laws protecting them.
      Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists were the only regime in power who tried to do it differently and look what “the West” has done to him. I call it cowardice vs courage. What do you call it?

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          You differ about what, exactly? Posting an html document is inadequate. England just sent their Jews to other European countries, while Hitler’s plan was to remove Jews from all of Europe and create something of a Fortress Europe.
          The article ends:

          “Most of the Jews went from England to France, while others wandered to Spain, Germany and Flanders. [… Edward’s] example was followed sixteen years later in France, by Philip de Bel, and two centuries later by Ferdinand and Isobel of Spain.”

          Germans at that time were not a nation, but inhabited a collection of fiefdoms and dukedoms with no central government. So I imagine many of these Jews settled there, as well as in The Netherlands. So none of these countries did Europe any favors but were very short-sighted. The Jewish communities only grew stronger during these times.

          • KingEdwardIwasRight1290
            KingEdwardIwasRight1290 says:

            King Edward, I was very successful for the most part from keeping most of the corrosive element out of England for over three hundred years or so, not just banishment but placing laws to prevent their return or obtaining any privileges because of their crimes like Usury, forgeries of Charters, clipping and sweating of gold coins, blood-libel and falsifying of monies, nothing short sighted there on trying to protect England

            He’d even try to work with these people at one point which failed so removing them and bringing in laws to protect his folk after his death was his only way forward, however with the so-called English civil war, the sell-out Oliver Cromwell and his money backers from Holland the slow rot set in. I’d first point out that I admire Adolf Hitler and the German people very much but for you to say he was trying to build some European fortress system is complete nonsense, he removed the communist bolshevik elements from Germany, tribe members in power and influence in banking, media and education but there were still thousands of jews freely living in Germany during when Hitler came to power and after during the war years. A witness to History by Micheal Walsh has some very good telling quotes on the subject, of course, you know this already.

  2. Conrad Gaarder
    Conrad Gaarder says:

    Disgusting is the word that comes to mind.
    Lipstadt and the rest of the usual Jews destroyed Irving’s career. Maddeningly, they did it by calling him a “Holocaust denier,” as if that’s a thing. And the publishers all got the message.
    So Irving, instead of a futile suit against her for tortious interference with a business relationship, has to sue her and claim (absurdly) “I’m not a Holocaust denier.”
    So what is that?
    If you say four million died and not six, are you a denier?
    If you say Jews were gassed, but not at Auschwitz, are you a denier?
    If you say six million were killed but there’s no document of any kind that shows Hitler ordered it or knew about it, are you a denier?
    What if you say yes, there was a Holocaust but it’s only “a detail of history?” Are you a denier?
    Who gets to decide what “denial” means?
    To me, the greatest offense is that Lipstadt, this nobody, actually had the nerve to claim that no legitimate historian thinks Irving is even a historian.
    I have read nine of his books and I heartily endorse him as a very fine writer and historian. I will order a few more of his books (from his own website so that he gets the money) and if he ever makes it to the US for a speaking tour (lately cancelled because of Covid) I will be in attendance.

  3. Peter
    Peter says:

    The US cares more for Jews and Israel than it does about Christians in the Middle East and Near East who have been devastated by US “allies” such as Turkey and the terrorists they sponsor.

    One would think, therefore, that the US is a majority Jewish nation rather than a majority Christian one.

    In terms of sheer power, maybe the US is more Jewish than Christian, come to think of it.

    Certainly US Christian Zionists care more about Jews and Israel than they do about Christian nations and people abroad.

    Here’s an example of a GOOD American Christian organization that supports a small Christian nation, but most Christian Americans apparently couldn’t care less: (“Genocide [committed by Turkey and Azerbaijan] in Plain Sight”).

  4. Robert Penman
    Robert Penman says:

    What strikes me as odd, is that as we get further from the events of the Second World War, the less free we seem to be to ask questions about it, or hold different opinions on it! Very strange, imagine if there was one official narrative of Napoleon and if you questioned it you would be tracked down and labeled something terrible, if you wrote a book with different opinions you would have your books banned, and in some cases put in prison! Think how insane that would be.

    To me it is clear that the official story of National Socialist Germany, Hitler, and particularly the Holocaust is not correct, but just saying that makes me a sort of criminal in the eyes of those with power.

    The more these people censor things, the more obvious it is they are trying to hide something.

  5. Ned J. Casper
    Ned J. Casper says:

    “I don’t know what you mean by ‘Holocaust’, ‘denial’, ‘antisemitism’ or ‘hate speech’,” Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you’!”
    “But ‘denial’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument,” Alice objected.
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “who is to be master – that’s all.”
    THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS – 150 years later.
    [NB – Tenniel’s portrait of the giant anthropomorphic egg is excluded because of its – purely coincidental, of course – resemblance to the Rt Hon Eric, Baron Pickles Kt PC, Conservative Friends of Israel Chairperson, UK Special Envoy on Post-Holocaust Issues; see e.g. Robert Philpot, “Why this Christian Tory peer leads the fight…,” The Times of Israel, September 29, 2018, online.]

  6. Robert Keith
    Robert Keith says:

    This is frankly a disgusting development. Let’s remember that this scumbag was the non-entity who brought the lawsuit against the famous so-called ”Holocaust denier”, and who wrote that crushingly boring (because irrelevant) drivel-piece about “denying” the H. If your “government” is supposed to be pulling for the truth in an objective manner, it’s doing its typical lousy job of it. This abomination should be sordidly condemned.

  7. Robert Keith
    Robert Keith says:

    D Lipstadt is a par-for-the-course appointment. She will work well with the three Jews ( holocaust boosters) at the top of our
    Israel-in-Residence State Department. Talk about being obvious. That’s obviously no longer a concern.

    I paid $250 for his set on Hitler, and it was well worth it. On the other hand, trying to get to page 10 in Lipstadt’s book on Holocaust non-denial was an effort. I paid far less for it, and it was a total waste of money. Surely, there wasn’t a second printing, so anyone who wants a free copy, give me a shout and I’ll send it on. if I haven’t already chucked it.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Cognoscenti , on nonjewish history narratives and other nonjewish descriptions of various realities , have coincidentally blasted a huge hole in the chosenhite jewmasterss owned/controlled worldwide web that was intended to keep the predominantly White Westernworld Christians in their respective subservient corrals . If the web cognoscenti blast hole can be kept open at least until enough capable Whites can escape thru it , then maybe “The Whites”
      ( genetic descendants of mostly EuroMan/Aryans/Europeans/Indo-Europeans/Caucasians )
      could get sufficiently re-organized to forthwith CANCEL the most egregious enslavement aspects of the “The Jewes” www . Of course , that is a big “if”.

  8. Lancashire lad
    Lancashire lad says:

    I remember the Irving trial in London from coverage in the UK media. It happened before the internet was much of a thing and before anyone had found out about revisionism first hand (whatever they might make of it). Irving was presented as a charismatic fascist in the Mosley mound who needed to be brought down a peg and I assumed (correctly, as it turned out) that the verdict of the trial was something of a foregone conclusion. The effects of the trial are still with us, particularly in BBC news coverage, the presence and prestige of “Holocaust studies” in our universities and the exclusion of the radical right from mainstream politics.

  9. William Gruff
    William Gruff says:

    What an ugly creature Lipstadt is; ugly intellectually, ugly morally, ugly emotionally and ugly physically; she is, in every aspect of her ugly being, utterly repulsive. She exhibits many of the flaws of her race, most notable amongst them being the belief that only Jews matter and all others exist only to ensure the comfort and security of Jews, a resource to be exploited by Jews. Fifty five million people are said to have died in the second world war, however, only the suffering of the Jews matters, all else is of little if any importance. It is obscene to complain that not enough goys sacrificed themselves to save the Jews.

    My father served in that war and I remember him saying, many times, as I grew up, that he and his contemporaries were told they were fighting to save a way of life, the British way of life. Not once did he say that there was ever any mention of saving Jewish lives. Had they been told that I doubt that many would have bothered, he certainly wouldn’t have done. His service and the hardships and deprivations he endured in the expectation of a nasty death were to protect his homeland from foreign conquest and to preserve his culture, his traditions, his customs, his language and his ancient rights and liberties.

    Those at the top, directing the war, knew what was going on and their priority was the prosecution of the war to final victory, not pointless effort to preserve a relative handful of tactically unimportant people from a fate that at the time was only a rumour. Perhaps they alone amongst the people of the embattled free world knew that the stories were nothing more than propaganda lies, which makes criticism of them now for doing nothing doubly obscene.

    Time after time after they ask ‘why us’ without ever taking a second to pause for thought. They have a lot to answer for.

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      Lipstadt said she was pleased to be played by Rachel Weisz in the “Denial” movie. If Gwyneth Paltrow or Scarlett Johansson had been preferred as an alternative gingit beauty it might have been stretching the portrayal just over the parody line.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” Fifty five million people are said to have died in the second world war, however, only the suffering of the Jews matters, all else is of little if any importance.”

      Here in the USA , most Whites go along with the self-serving narratives provided to them by their chosenhite jewmasterss and pay scant attention to any other historical narratives .

  10. Scott Burns
    Scott Burns says:

    Knows more about WWII than anyone else, master command of subject, encyclopaedic knowledge, Kodak memory, uncovered more documents about the war than anyone else, bursts AH diaries hoax, MSM star, persecuted martyr, got all the right enemies, educates the masses, erudite, suave, handsome, produces four(?) daughters, publishes his own books, fights for his people, travels the world, marries Spanish nobility, hangs with the Fuhrer’s old crew, rides a Rolls and with a crib in Mayfair. David Irving is quite something.

    OF COURSE such a person is slimed and hated in our Clown World.

    • Bob
      Bob says:

      He’s a wanker. I find it hard to believe Himmler turned himself into the allies. “Here I am…go ahead and torture me , guys 🙂 ” that alone sounds highly suspect. Not to mention Hitler just decided to kill himself ; but they can’t find the body. One SS guy was a prolific Nazi…he killed every Jew and non catholic in Yugoslavia in WW2. I’m not sure about all the Holocaust denial stuff. Irving is a Highly suspect source of information. A gate keeper , even. Watch his ” death of Himmler ” video. I’ll never believe Himmler turned himself in. He couldn’t pull a Gehlen and join the CIA? These wars look like depopulation programs to me. Interestingly enough…the Nazis were obsessed with eugenics and racial purity. It will be interesting to find out at the end of time. From God , if one is religiously inclined.

    • Bob
      Bob says:

      Himmler was probably hiding in a secret bunker because he was probably prepared to win at any cost…one of his buddies gets captured… tortured…turns him in. That I can believe 🙂🧐

  11. bruno
    bruno says:

    This is absolutely an excellent article. I don’t like most I’ve touched within her environment. I first became acquainted with Lipstadt when visiting friends in Worcester, Massachusetts. After returning from Europe. Students and others who did not know each other were thinking she was an absolute farce. In no way was her work anywhere near approaching any type of scholarship. Her writings do exhibit a certain mindset. It’s because of creatures like her that certain subjects cannot be discussed in doing so can result in losing a job and harm to one’s children.

    Moreover, she was what appeared to be a fanatical Z activist. She represents a symbol of certain types of power, indoctrination and potential due to support from those who have been detrimental to Western civilization.

    As for KMac’s take about not being a historian I beg to differ, in many ways. Of course, he doesn’t have a sheep skin in that field. Nevertheless, he’s an exceptionally well read individual and if we adjudicate by most of the trash pertaining to Eurocide I and II, he certainly has much credibility.

    On the other side of the coin, as for Prof. Evans, he’s an interesting character. I had purchased his three volumes pertaining to WWII. Spare time was even absorbed doing book reviews on his most famous best selling books. Only after reading about halfway through either his second or third book was it realized that some of his views were slanted perhaps due to certain realizations. My take was that all historians seeking distribution have to -in some fashion- kiss a little Z arse.

    On the other hand, I had conversed with many high-ranking individuals in both the Wehrmacht and Red Army, as well as the AK (Home Army). Further, having read perhaps as many as 1,000 bucks on that topic —it’s one of my passions, as a hx buff— I consider myself an absolute expert. Evans was correct about his perception pertaining to AH being detrimental to both Europeans and Germans. Of course, like masses of others I’ve (also) seen much anti-German propaganda that’s absolutely repulsive and has made me sick. Yet, on the topic of H, had he been killed in 1944, millions of lives would have been saved, cities would not have been leveled and, in brief, the damage would have been much less. He not only gambled with Germany’s faith, he was a piss poor diplomat. He was the worst thing that could’ve happened to both the German and the European people. I have always sincerely believed that if Hitler had not come on the scene, today Germany might be the leading nation on the planet and if not right up there near the leader.

    Taking this further, Evans cannot be much of a person if he represented Lipstadt’s assertions. If Lipstadt was not a Z activist, she’d have never had her labour distributed globally.

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      01 Let’s blame Friday the 13th for what you said, beginning half way through your second last paragraph.

      02 Yes, if Hitler had not come on the scene, Germany would still be an even worse Weimar; by being a PROVINCIAL CAPITAL UNDER MOSCOW.

      03 The Treaty of Rapallo [1928] had already kick-started that: entire German towns sprang up all over the SU, housing the workers in the German-established factories.

      04 If Suvorov’s well sourced ICEBREAKER is among your 1,000 books, then you would realize, that if we Germans had not bled to death in the East ALL OF EUROPE WOULD HAVE [ PREMATURELY ] BECOME COMMUNIST.

      05 Not S alone is of that opinion. Many courageous and UNCENSORED Soviet Historians share his opinion and those of rare German colleagues, including the Wehrmacht’s Eastern Espionage [ Fremde Heere Ost – under Gen. Gehlen ]: all supported by Soviet era documents, increasingly disclosed since Perestroika. IN CONTRAST TO GB, TO THIS DAY.

      06 Read Hitler, where he says, that even he would not have believed his informants, had they told him how great, and proximate the SU buildup was.

      07 Several excellent videos explain Suvorov’s reasoning further: including videos of his lectures at the Naval Academy at Annapolis, with most attentive pupils.

      08 S intended to use Germany’s still formidable industrial capacity, patents, expertise, V-I, V-2 etc., as an ICEBREAKER to conquer the Continent, including GB: before breakfast.

      09 An American effort to reconquer, from Norfolk, Va., this Fortress Europa, stretching from Greenland to Turkey, would have been stillborn. Thousands of Fighters, from Spitfires to Me-262 jets and uncounted bombers of all sizes would have taken out any American invasion endeavor.

      10 Millions of disciplined former POWs, from two dozen disparate nations, all in one Red Army uniform, would have annihilated any accidentally successful landing.

      • Bob
        Bob says:

        Stalin was a gulag prisoner who robbed trains. Probably didn’t really run anything. That is some interesting stuff you’ve saying though. 😦

    • William Gruff
      William Gruff says:

      ‘ … I consider myself an absolute expert.’

      I consider the kindest reply to be to quote my late mother’s admonition to me when I was a small boy: self praise is no praise.

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      Taking sides is no help.
      Irving has made several signficant “mistakes” in text and tactics, which Evans, Lipstadt and others have pointed out. But Lipstadt’s various attacks on Irving and “Holocaust Denial” are deeply flawed, in some respects self-destructively pathetic. Neither she nor Evans come properly to grips with Mattogno. Irving’s capacity for “documentary stunts” goes back to his youthful years, and he has not done his reputation much credit with obsessive insults about Jews, although decent people can sympathise with his fate at the hands of the vindictive. It is all rather a sad mess.

      • Bob
        Bob says:

        Hitler doesn’t strike you as perhaps crazy 😦 the ranting and raving speeches. I’m just being objective here. Would you buy a car from that guy ? I don’t think Alexander the Great or other great leaders had quite that level of apparent mental instability. It wasn’t as apparent , I mean to say .

Comments are closed.