Irving's research and writing is second to none. He has dared to tell the truth from primary sources and has been unfairly demonized. Highly recommend people go to his family's bookshop at https://irvingbooks.com/ and find out for themselves.
Took the words out of my mouth. There is no other historian equal to him, and trust me, I have read a load of 2nd & 3rd hand hearsay fiction books by Jewish authors, and even believed them, long before I discovered Irving. I have now 7 of his best works.
As a youngin, I didn't know the Holocaust came into vogue long after the war ended. When I became aware I researched. Of all the victors tomes on WW11, nary a one spoke of the holocaust. Strange, no? Then I tipped accidently into Eisenhower's prisons camps. An unspeakable horror. Then came Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel and finally David Irving. Then came reports from credible sources in labor camps. Auschwitz was of critical interest to me.
When Stephen Spielberg interviewed candidates for Schindlers List he eliminated those still lucid internees about their time in Auschwitz and ran with the thoroughly propagandized folks, matching the already established narrative. Those that were eliminated still existed on video. Quite telling.
It was the Leuchter Report that sealed the deal for me. Fred Leuchter's expertise in his field of study was preeminent non-negotiable empirical truth. I'm in contact with David Irving twice yearly, we exchange holiday stories, a great man, the unequivocal master of WW11, bar none.
Last I spoke to his daughter, he was ailing. I did not inquire. But he isn't alone. His daughters are always there for him and he speaks with the greatest love for them and the care they bestow on him. They also proof read his writings and said he had not slowed down as much as they would like. Not being able to meet him personally when in London, I imagine he's at a good, comfortable space drinking a beer.
Good to hear he is still with us - I did ask about him about a month ago and I was told he'd taken a short pause on his Churchill Volume III but was typically tenacious enough to not stop completely. (Looking forward to that final volume).
Yes he has done amazing work and put up with so much hate and persecution to bury most people. I saw Deborah Lipstadt was in the news recently bragging about Israel blowing off the hands etc of Lebanese.
"...the title of the “Tavistock Square” which spawned the Tavistock Clinic and Tavistock institute, which managed MK Ultra after WW2 was directly tied to the Bedford owned-town of Tavistock which the particular bridge upon which Hitler was sitting in his self portrait is a short walk from Tavistock. So the question is: WHY the hell were Hitler (and Hess) there prior to WW1 in the first place and why is it that no historian that I’ve heard of (beyond Uwe Alschner) has acknowledged this very easily observable fact..."
"We will be successful when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, director of the CIA (1981). This quote has become a touchstone for me. I have been finding that so many things, including what I thought was settled history is false or at least very misleading. Basically, the myth of the "Good War" is a carefully curated lie. What we think we know about the USSR we get from the enemies of the Soviet Union - pretty much all of it.
Hitler was an agent of the German state, just like an FBI infiltrator, when he joined the workers party. He was not only financed by German and British banks and industrialists, also by American ones too. (E.g. German transport trucks were made by Ford; Rockfeller's Standard Oil provided much of the oil and gas that powered the Nazi war machine which they stockpiled before and in the early part of the war.) American interests co-owned many German big businesses involved in war production (these were strategically NOT BOMBED). Yes, the intent was always to go after the Soviet Union. Something I didn't know, was that the reason why France fell so easily was that most of its ruling class were fascists themselves and they engineered an coup to hand over the strategic areas of France to Nazi control. Why? Because they were more afraid of their own working class (the communist party in France was very strong and ended up leading the resistance) than they were of the Germans.
Here's a very interesting brief overview of WWII from a communist perspective.
I agree with all that but I haven't yet watched the video.
David Hughes has a great concept of vertical war/horizontal war where he says the deep state is transnational and they unite when the interests of the ruling class are threatened to fight a vertical war against the working class. I think this fits the facts.
I disagree with Hughes that the purpose of the mRNA shots are an attempt to install a kind of updatable nanotech operating system in humans to control us and that the deaths and illnesses are just collateral damage from that giant project. I think they are just a stealthy way to depopulate and if they are experimenting with nanotech that way then its just because they're taking advantage of the opportunity.
Excellent summaries and great to bring this into the open.
Other good sources are the Unz Review where there is an abundance of excellent free materials on alternative narratives to the usual dross about WW2.
Ron Unz has written a number of long pieces on WW2 and summarizes the work of Irving and other revisionist historians.
Other authors on his site have written about the myth of Pearl Harbour and FDR's role in Pearl Harbour.
Patrick Buchanan's, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War is excellent as well. This is an excellent place to start with an alternative narrative to the cartoon history we are taught in school and university.
PB shows how Churchill was a war monger who embraced the advent of war with Germany rather than working to avoid it. It also saved his political career. His view of Churchill is very similar to Irving's view of him.
The work of Mark Weber is also excellent. He has lots of podcast and video interviews available.
“Proof that some of Winston Churchill’s most famous radio speeches of the war were delivered by a stand-in has emerged with the discovery of a 78rpm record.
The revelation ends years of controversy over claims – repeatedly denied – that an actor had been officially asked to impersonate the Prime Minister on air.
The record makes it clear for the first time that Norman Shelley’s voice was used to broadcast some of the most important words in modern British history – including ‘We shall fight them on the beaches’. It is marked ‘BBC, Churchill: Speech Artist Norman Shelley’ and stamped ‘September 7, 1942’.”
"They were both really one war with an intermission. Empire’s goals were achieved."
That's my understanding as well, and therefore essential that we go back and question the origin of things. I'm not at all familiar with Mr. Irving's perspective. Does he mention Churchill's being owned and steered as early as the Boer War by Britain's secret elite? Maybe it's just me, but it seems the portrayal herein makes Churchill rather more independently minded and an unpredictable, loose cannon.
Historians Jim MacGregor and Gerry Docherty co-authored a two-part, meticulously researched history on the origins of WW1 called "Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War" followed by "Prolonging the Agony: How the Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WW1 by Three-and-a-Half Years". Their work is inspired by Carroll Quigley's assertions as documented in "The Anglo-American Establishment". Their website is likewise an extremely generous goldmine of information without having to buy their books: https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2018/03/13/fake-history-1-controlling-our-future-by-controlling-our-past/
I credit James Corbett for introducing these two historians' exhaustive research and presenting their findings in his excellent documentary "The WW1 Conspiracy": https://corbettreport.com/wwi/
As for WW2, Hitler and Churchill, it appears the latest thing is to paint Hitler as sorely misunderstood and demonized. Being a conspiracy realist demands constant, boring and sobering work to not be yanked around by the many Hegelian dialectics put in play with the purpose to confuse our perception of who the real bad guys were/are. Antony Sutton authored a book called "The Best Enemies Money Can Buy" - that title neatly sums up the entirety of the 20th century to present.
I got my 1st computer the same year Corbett did in 2004 when he moved to Japan. So I've been following him for quite a while. To answer your 1st paragraph question, I have Irvings double feature on Churchill and he absolutely gets way down, deep and dirty about Boer.
Good for you. I resisted technology for as long as possible and boy, when I succumbed, I had to relearn and unravel 50 years of lies. Forget about distortions, I hate that word, outright lies is what it is. Nothing has changed
This book takes the conspiracy back before Weissman and the Illuminati and the infiltration into freemasonry. Interesting is the infiltration into religious organizations and government.
"Against Our Better Judgment
The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel" Alison Weir - covers pre-WWI through creation of Israel.
"I think it’s true, to understand WW2 as a British Empire engineered demolition of its two main rivals, Germany and Russia."
Hello, I have been writing an article about Palestine ("the situation in Palestine"), and what comes out is that Britain seems to be at the very root of the same thing, among others (prison torture camp, and much more, what Israel did already existed there before it was a country)
Technically, the latest Hamas attack is a perfect match for Germany: allegedly of Palestinian origin, a quick research shows how this Hamas is some proxy stuff; result is that Palestine has now left the stage. Britain made Germany destroy itself, Britain makes Palestine destroy itself. Without anybody noticing it.
Hitler was devoted to the people of Germany and White people. Hitler admired England/USA and that's why he allowed the English to evacuate 400,000 troops at Dunkirk for 3 days. Hitler invaded Russia only because Russia's plan was to invade all of No. Europe in July 1941. If Hitler had waited, let the Russians invade and then fought, he would have lost the oil fields in Romania temporarily.
AND... they have said Hitlers Dunkirk was a total misstep, that he didn't know what he was doing. Hitler could not bring himself to destroy the flower of French & British youth. He said, "that's not the way you fight wars".
CM: Yes, Hitler was the GR8st leader in history, not just the 20th Century. Perhaps at Dunkirk, Germany could have used the 400,000 as workers, or at least those that would volunteer. Did you know Dunkirk did not surrender until May 8th, 1945?
I Just love history, it's all I read. "In all of history"? I don't know about that but he surely was the greatest leader in the 20th century. I am drawing significant parallels between Hitler and Putin. The conditions they inherited, the sweeping changes they made to lift their peoples, their calm respectful manner, their love of animals and children, their inability to hurt innocent civilians, pragmatic and cautious and most of all the way Western societies have demonized them both.
In Hitler's War, by Irving, you will see how Hitler struggled and postponed Operation Barbarosa. He didn't want to go in half cocked. He labored over that decision. I have serious doubt he would have failed had he chosen a more hospitable time of year. The German army was formidable.
CM: I think Hitler delayed Barbarossa due to driving the British out of Greece and the Balkans in the spring of 1941. History of WWII is sad, I do not love it. In 1940 Hitler should have gone southwest to Gibraltar. He then could have controlled the Mediterranean.
It is true, he had other fish to fry, a tad busy and he didn't want to open up on the Eastern front. When he had the time, the weather was wrong. When the weather was right, he couldn't pull the troops he needed. My own personal feelings about Hitler (btw, I met him at Trousseau's in London, amazing wax) and what his plans were after the fire sale known as Versailles, was to take his territory back, end of story.
As far as USSR was concerned, Hitler saw what happened during the Bolshevik Revolution and he knew the perpetrators. Their brethren were well installed in Germany. The killing of 20 million Christians in very short order by Jews, financed by Wall St and London bankers didn't exactly sit well with him and he knew he'd have to deal with that issue eventually. That's my take on Barbarossa, not verified by any historian.
Maybe I dont know enough, (clearly) but Im amazed you say Britain (Churchill) created Hitler to save its own empire by destroying Germany and Russia! I think you credit Churchill with too much. Plus if it is as you describe, the war totally decimated England, brought it to its knees and got rid of its empire, so Churchill was not such a great strategist heh? Plus how could Churchill surrender to Hitler and then allow him to depopulate Eastern Europe and rule England according to Nazi principles. Having said all that, I know James Delingpole says his eyes have been opened regarding Churchill, and I rate Delingpole highly so I do need to do more homework.
England was never decimated. England is home to the Rothschild bankers who's spokes of the wheel extend to all corners of the globe coming back to one central location. Hitler never wanted to conquer Europe. He wanted to unite Europe.
I recognize that today David Irving is a highly respected historian an' also that those that question his scholarly "works"may have a bias... Not sayin' that all we learned of WWII is "true" nor that Churchill was a "hero" but I myself would trust many others besides Irving who had his own agenda...
Background: Darryl Cooper has "Made David Irving Great Again" by taking up his torch...
Sharin' some alt. views on Irving (they reflect on his intergrity or lack thereof as a historian, not just re. Hitler but also re Churchill and other humans / events)
Well-done video: Richard Evans - what Evans found in Irving's overall work - David Irving / distorting history and inventing elaborate stories vs trusting what he's written - A compare and contrast also takes place with original source material vs Irving
He proved gas chambers were real and that the SS filled them in before the allies came (not hard to cover evidence that way--like wiping fingerprints off a glass). His credentials for his work were far more robust than the "opinions" of executioner Leuchter whose research was supported by Irving but debunked (whatever that means) but many others:
ps I totally decry any nations that forbid folks from questionin' the holocaust or even questionin' it's very existence--I'm all for questions... but also for the right to rebuttal ;-)
"Hitler seems to have been created to take on the Russians and in one masterstroke destroy both Germany and Russia, British Empire’s two primary challengers."
Ridiculous. But it does still force the bogus narrative and protects the real (((culprits))).
The Balfour Declaration was created before Hitler was on the radar to install Jewish supremacy in the M.E. As you see today, Israel can massacre with complete impunity and immunity, kinda like Pfizer. All that's needed is a narrative to convince the goyim of unfettered atrocities committed against Jews. Done deal. Follow the money.
To my knowledge Hitler was raised Catholic. The Judeo-Christian hoax narrative, so-called belief system we have going on in the US today is laughable to me. No two religions could be more diametrically opposed than Judaism and Catholicism. It is my belief that Christians have been joined with jews as groups deserving of Hitlers ire to demonstrate a communal feeling between the two, create sympathy for the Jews, as we are one with the same God. Not even close to reality.
Irving's research and writing is second to none. He has dared to tell the truth from primary sources and has been unfairly demonized. Highly recommend people go to his family's bookshop at https://irvingbooks.com/ and find out for themselves.
Took the words out of my mouth. There is no other historian equal to him, and trust me, I have read a load of 2nd & 3rd hand hearsay fiction books by Jewish authors, and even believed them, long before I discovered Irving. I have now 7 of his best works.
As a youngin, I didn't know the Holocaust came into vogue long after the war ended. When I became aware I researched. Of all the victors tomes on WW11, nary a one spoke of the holocaust. Strange, no? Then I tipped accidently into Eisenhower's prisons camps. An unspeakable horror. Then came Robert Faurisson, Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel and finally David Irving. Then came reports from credible sources in labor camps. Auschwitz was of critical interest to me.
When Stephen Spielberg interviewed candidates for Schindlers List he eliminated those still lucid internees about their time in Auschwitz and ran with the thoroughly propagandized folks, matching the already established narrative. Those that were eliminated still existed on video. Quite telling.
It was the Leuchter Report that sealed the deal for me. Fred Leuchter's expertise in his field of study was preeminent non-negotiable empirical truth. I'm in contact with David Irving twice yearly, we exchange holiday stories, a great man, the unequivocal master of WW11, bar none.
How is David Irving as I have heard he is very ill?
Last I spoke to his daughter, he was ailing. I did not inquire. But he isn't alone. His daughters are always there for him and he speaks with the greatest love for them and the care they bestow on him. They also proof read his writings and said he had not slowed down as much as they would like. Not being able to meet him personally when in London, I imagine he's at a good, comfortable space drinking a beer.
Good to hear he is still with us - I did ask about him about a month ago and I was told he'd taken a short pause on his Churchill Volume III but was typically tenacious enough to not stop completely. (Looking forward to that final volume).
Yes he has done amazing work and put up with so much hate and persecution to bury most people. I saw Deborah Lipstadt was in the news recently bragging about Israel blowing off the hands etc of Lebanese.
"...the title of the “Tavistock Square” which spawned the Tavistock Clinic and Tavistock institute, which managed MK Ultra after WW2 was directly tied to the Bedford owned-town of Tavistock which the particular bridge upon which Hitler was sitting in his self portrait is a short walk from Tavistock. So the question is: WHY the hell were Hitler (and Hess) there prior to WW1 in the first place and why is it that no historian that I’ve heard of (beyond Uwe Alschner) has acknowledged this very easily observable fact..."
https://substack.com/@matthewehret/note/c-68027954?
"We will be successful when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, director of the CIA (1981). This quote has become a touchstone for me. I have been finding that so many things, including what I thought was settled history is false or at least very misleading. Basically, the myth of the "Good War" is a carefully curated lie. What we think we know about the USSR we get from the enemies of the Soviet Union - pretty much all of it.
Hitler was an agent of the German state, just like an FBI infiltrator, when he joined the workers party. He was not only financed by German and British banks and industrialists, also by American ones too. (E.g. German transport trucks were made by Ford; Rockfeller's Standard Oil provided much of the oil and gas that powered the Nazi war machine which they stockpiled before and in the early part of the war.) American interests co-owned many German big businesses involved in war production (these were strategically NOT BOMBED). Yes, the intent was always to go after the Soviet Union. Something I didn't know, was that the reason why France fell so easily was that most of its ruling class were fascists themselves and they engineered an coup to hand over the strategic areas of France to Nazi control. Why? Because they were more afraid of their own working class (the communist party in France was very strong and ended up leading the resistance) than they were of the Germans.
Here's a very interesting brief overview of WWII from a communist perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTH1DsIwlpY&t=3533s
David A. Hughes has also questioned how could the Covid con happen. Yes, it goes back to the Nazis. See this book:
"Wall Street, the Nazis, and the Crimes of the Deep State."
I agree with all that but I haven't yet watched the video.
David Hughes has a great concept of vertical war/horizontal war where he says the deep state is transnational and they unite when the interests of the ruling class are threatened to fight a vertical war against the working class. I think this fits the facts.
I disagree with Hughes that the purpose of the mRNA shots are an attempt to install a kind of updatable nanotech operating system in humans to control us and that the deaths and illnesses are just collateral damage from that giant project. I think they are just a stealthy way to depopulate and if they are experimenting with nanotech that way then its just because they're taking advantage of the opportunity.
Excellent summaries and great to bring this into the open.
Other good sources are the Unz Review where there is an abundance of excellent free materials on alternative narratives to the usual dross about WW2.
Ron Unz has written a number of long pieces on WW2 and summarizes the work of Irving and other revisionist historians.
Other authors on his site have written about the myth of Pearl Harbour and FDR's role in Pearl Harbour.
Patrick Buchanan's, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War is excellent as well. This is an excellent place to start with an alternative narrative to the cartoon history we are taught in school and university.
PB shows how Churchill was a war monger who embraced the advent of war with Germany rather than working to avoid it. It also saved his political career. His view of Churchill is very similar to Irving's view of him.
The work of Mark Weber is also excellent. He has lots of podcast and video interviews available.
Unz in amazing. Great resource.
About Churchill's oratory...
“Proof that some of Winston Churchill’s most famous radio speeches of the war were delivered by a stand-in has emerged with the discovery of a 78rpm record.
The revelation ends years of controversy over claims – repeatedly denied – that an actor had been officially asked to impersonate the Prime Minister on air.
The record makes it clear for the first time that Norman Shelley’s voice was used to broadcast some of the most important words in modern British history – including ‘We shall fight them on the beaches’. It is marked ‘BBC, Churchill: Speech Artist Norman Shelley’ and stamped ‘September 7, 1942’.”
https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/myths/an-actor-read-churchills-wartime-speeches-over-the-wireless/
Didn't know that, Thankx Navyo
"They were both really one war with an intermission. Empire’s goals were achieved."
That's my understanding as well, and therefore essential that we go back and question the origin of things. I'm not at all familiar with Mr. Irving's perspective. Does he mention Churchill's being owned and steered as early as the Boer War by Britain's secret elite? Maybe it's just me, but it seems the portrayal herein makes Churchill rather more independently minded and an unpredictable, loose cannon.
Historians Jim MacGregor and Gerry Docherty co-authored a two-part, meticulously researched history on the origins of WW1 called "Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War" followed by "Prolonging the Agony: How the Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Extended WW1 by Three-and-a-Half Years". Their work is inspired by Carroll Quigley's assertions as documented in "The Anglo-American Establishment". Their website is likewise an extremely generous goldmine of information without having to buy their books: https://firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2018/03/13/fake-history-1-controlling-our-future-by-controlling-our-past/
I credit James Corbett for introducing these two historians' exhaustive research and presenting their findings in his excellent documentary "The WW1 Conspiracy": https://corbettreport.com/wwi/
As for WW2, Hitler and Churchill, it appears the latest thing is to paint Hitler as sorely misunderstood and demonized. Being a conspiracy realist demands constant, boring and sobering work to not be yanked around by the many Hegelian dialectics put in play with the purpose to confuse our perception of who the real bad guys were/are. Antony Sutton authored a book called "The Best Enemies Money Can Buy" - that title neatly sums up the entirety of the 20th century to present.
I got my 1st computer the same year Corbett did in 2004 when he moved to Japan. So I've been following him for quite a while. To answer your 1st paragraph question, I have Irvings double feature on Churchill and he absolutely gets way down, deep and dirty about Boer.
I also follow Corbett and the MacGregor/Docherty book. But I got my first computer in 1986 :-)
Good for you. I resisted technology for as long as possible and boy, when I succumbed, I had to relearn and unravel 50 years of lies. Forget about distortions, I hate that word, outright lies is what it is. Nothing has changed
Thank you.
There are many books out there which helps shed light on why things happened and who are the driving forces. A great book written in the 1950s is "Pawns in the Game" by William Guy Carr is is also available on Audible. The pdf is available at https://archive.org/details/pawnsinthegame_201708/page/n17/mode/2up - There is also a pdf of the FBI file they had on him https://ia601307.us.archive.org/12/items/WilliamGuyCarr/Carr%2C%20William%20Guy-HQ-1.pdf
This book takes the conspiracy back before Weissman and the Illuminati and the infiltration into freemasonry. Interesting is the infiltration into religious organizations and government.
"Against Our Better Judgment
The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel" Alison Weir - covers pre-WWI through creation of Israel.
Other Losses: The Concealed Aftermath of WWII in Europe https://www.bitchute.com/video/pOQq6Vr65Vvs
Hellstorm: The Hidden History of WWII
https://www.bitchute.com/video/oI9kdwezy03r
good 🙃🙃🙃🤗🤗🤗😘😘😘😍😍😍🥰🥰🥰
"I think it’s true, to understand WW2 as a British Empire engineered demolition of its two main rivals, Germany and Russia."
Hello, I have been writing an article about Palestine ("the situation in Palestine"), and what comes out is that Britain seems to be at the very root of the same thing, among others (prison torture camp, and much more, what Israel did already existed there before it was a country)
Technically, the latest Hamas attack is a perfect match for Germany: allegedly of Palestinian origin, a quick research shows how this Hamas is some proxy stuff; result is that Palestine has now left the stage. Britain made Germany destroy itself, Britain makes Palestine destroy itself. Without anybody noticing it.
Hitler was devoted to the people of Germany and White people. Hitler admired England/USA and that's why he allowed the English to evacuate 400,000 troops at Dunkirk for 3 days. Hitler invaded Russia only because Russia's plan was to invade all of No. Europe in July 1941. If Hitler had waited, let the Russians invade and then fought, he would have lost the oil fields in Romania temporarily.
AND... they have said Hitlers Dunkirk was a total misstep, that he didn't know what he was doing. Hitler could not bring himself to destroy the flower of French & British youth. He said, "that's not the way you fight wars".
CM: Yes, Hitler was the GR8st leader in history, not just the 20th Century. Perhaps at Dunkirk, Germany could have used the 400,000 as workers, or at least those that would volunteer. Did you know Dunkirk did not surrender until May 8th, 1945?
I Just love history, it's all I read. "In all of history"? I don't know about that but he surely was the greatest leader in the 20th century. I am drawing significant parallels between Hitler and Putin. The conditions they inherited, the sweeping changes they made to lift their peoples, their calm respectful manner, their love of animals and children, their inability to hurt innocent civilians, pragmatic and cautious and most of all the way Western societies have demonized them both.
In Hitler's War, by Irving, you will see how Hitler struggled and postponed Operation Barbarosa. He didn't want to go in half cocked. He labored over that decision. I have serious doubt he would have failed had he chosen a more hospitable time of year. The German army was formidable.
Our current state of history in all its obfuscation and rewriting reminds me of Orwell: 'He who controls the past controls the future.'
CM: I think Hitler delayed Barbarossa due to driving the British out of Greece and the Balkans in the spring of 1941. History of WWII is sad, I do not love it. In 1940 Hitler should have gone southwest to Gibraltar. He then could have controlled the Mediterranean.
It is true, he had other fish to fry, a tad busy and he didn't want to open up on the Eastern front. When he had the time, the weather was wrong. When the weather was right, he couldn't pull the troops he needed. My own personal feelings about Hitler (btw, I met him at Trousseau's in London, amazing wax) and what his plans were after the fire sale known as Versailles, was to take his territory back, end of story.
As far as USSR was concerned, Hitler saw what happened during the Bolshevik Revolution and he knew the perpetrators. Their brethren were well installed in Germany. The killing of 20 million Christians in very short order by Jews, financed by Wall St and London bankers didn't exactly sit well with him and he knew he'd have to deal with that issue eventually. That's my take on Barbarossa, not verified by any historian.
Maybe I dont know enough, (clearly) but Im amazed you say Britain (Churchill) created Hitler to save its own empire by destroying Germany and Russia! I think you credit Churchill with too much. Plus if it is as you describe, the war totally decimated England, brought it to its knees and got rid of its empire, so Churchill was not such a great strategist heh? Plus how could Churchill surrender to Hitler and then allow him to depopulate Eastern Europe and rule England according to Nazi principles. Having said all that, I know James Delingpole says his eyes have been opened regarding Churchill, and I rate Delingpole highly so I do need to do more homework.
England was never decimated. England is home to the Rothschild bankers who's spokes of the wheel extend to all corners of the globe coming back to one central location. Hitler never wanted to conquer Europe. He wanted to unite Europe.
"To me, that would explain why Churchill rejected peace in 1940"
hmm.
If only he had surrendered...
I recognize that today David Irving is a highly respected historian an' also that those that question his scholarly "works"may have a bias... Not sayin' that all we learned of WWII is "true" nor that Churchill was a "hero" but I myself would trust many others besides Irving who had his own agenda...
Background: Darryl Cooper has "Made David Irving Great Again" by taking up his torch...
Sharin' some alt. views on Irving (they reflect on his intergrity or lack thereof as a historian, not just re. Hitler but also re Churchill and other humans / events)
Well-done video: Richard Evans - what Evans found in Irving's overall work - David Irving / distorting history and inventing elaborate stories vs trusting what he's written - A compare and contrast also takes place with original source material vs Irving
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsLW7VrOpA8
Irving invents no. of dead killed in Dresden--chgs. 20,000-25,000 to over 200,000k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrrBRQDD_Jo
Interview with Irving "'Hitler was a great man and the Gestapo were fabulous police'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315591/David-Irving-claims-Hitler-great-man-leads-Nazi-death-camp-tours.html
"Auschwitz is Disneyland" - Irving
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3996138/Still-spouting-poison-Hollywood-makes-movie-views-Holocaust-denier-David-Irving-continues-pervert-history-make-money-s-it.html
This: "“Hitler appointed me his biographer"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david-irving-hitler-appointed-me-his-biographer-1366464.html
from a fella that too David Irving's tour and had a comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgBgbVfCsrU
Victor Hanson Davis:
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-cooper-ww2/
Konstantinkisin
https://www.konstantinkisin.com/p/why-im-so-triggered-by-anti-churchill
Jan Ven Pelt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InKifJC13s4
and this also questioning the Irving narrative
https://www.livescience.com/44443-treblinka-archaeological-excavation.html
As for reading, look up Jan van Pelt--any study of his will do. Also Jean-Claude Pressac who wrote too books on the topic with massive evidence.
Also, more recent excavations here:
https://www.livescience.com/44443-treblinka-archaeological-excavation.html
He proved gas chambers were real and that the SS filled them in before the allies came (not hard to cover evidence that way--like wiping fingerprints off a glass). His credentials for his work were far more robust than the "opinions" of executioner Leuchter whose research was supported by Irving but debunked (whatever that means) but many others:
https://www.auschwitz.org/en/history/holocaust-denial/leuchter-report/
https://monolith.asee.org/documents/zones/zone1/2010/professional/Designers-of-Death-Nazi-Engineers-during-the-Holocaust.pdf (see page 3)
One of TWO Nazi patents were found for gas chambers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Auschwitz_-_Crematorium_II_gas_chamber_cross-section.jpg
This if you have jstor access...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1wn0s3n and
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1wn0s3n.10?seq=6
also this on the operation of the gas chambers:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1455365?read-now=1
one more:
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/holocaust/gas-chambers-crematoria-birkenau/
Mobile Gas Chambers
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/how-truth-behind-gas-chambers-27141057
then THIS (which starts out on other topics but does get to gas chambers)
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/11/15/evidence-of-evil
Posen Speeches proving Hitler used specific verbiage such as extermination that contradict the concept of just expatriating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches ( 4 October 1943 speech is a good one to look at)
fwiw, answering many of the common questions posed by Irving"
https://www.museumoftolerance.com/education/teacher-resources/holocaust-resources/what-is-holocaust-denial.html#9
respectfully submitted...
ps I totally decry any nations that forbid folks from questionin' the holocaust or even questionin' it's very existence--I'm all for questions... but also for the right to rebuttal ;-)
If one were to focus on minor opinio n pieces and ignore what actually happened, this revision might almost seem credible.
Yes. I'm sticking with Andrew Roberts and Victor Davis Hanson.
"Hitler seems to have been created to take on the Russians and in one masterstroke destroy both Germany and Russia, British Empire’s two primary challengers."
Ridiculous. But it does still force the bogus narrative and protects the real (((culprits))).
Who are??
The Balfour Declaration was created before Hitler was on the radar to install Jewish supremacy in the M.E. As you see today, Israel can massacre with complete impunity and immunity, kinda like Pfizer. All that's needed is a narrative to convince the goyim of unfettered atrocities committed against Jews. Done deal. Follow the money.
Whomever the author thinks created Hitler (and for the purposes they describe). Ridiculous drivel.
They ignore context and believe fitments and scraps. Sort of like the people who bought the lies Hikkary started about Trump and Russia.
So who are or were the real culprits?
As far as Hitler was concerned, the Jews and the Christians. He killed them both. Hmmm - almost like America's Biden!
To my knowledge Hitler was raised Catholic. The Judeo-Christian hoax narrative, so-called belief system we have going on in the US today is laughable to me. No two religions could be more diametrically opposed than Judaism and Catholicism. It is my belief that Christians have been joined with jews as groups deserving of Hitlers ire to demonstrate a communal feeling between the two, create sympathy for the Jews, as we are one with the same God. Not even close to reality.
Spot on! It was a jew who created the term Judeo-Christian.
wishes he could...
Someone is not #Noticing
Please explain.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The+Noticing
Agreed.