Hadding Scott talks frankly about David Irving's flaws as a revisionist

Published by carolyn on Wed, 2016-05-25 15:42

David Irving tours the Majdanek Museum grounds in Poland. Fred Leuchter's findings about Majdanek are inconvenient for Irving's current version of the Holocaust.

In a substantial, well-researched and courageous article, Hadding Scott reveals the superficiality of the British historian's holocaust theories, and proposes his own theory as to why Irving made such a turnaround about the “gassing” claims. This is a must-read for everyone who wants to keep up with the latest currents in revisionism. I give it an A+.

Comments are welcome here since Codoh doesn't have the option of comments except in their forum.

"Talking Frankly" about David Irving
A Critical Analysis of David Irving's Statement on the Holocaust


It's incredible to me that David Irving would endorse the alleged Rumbula massacre scene in which Jews lined up waiting their turn to go lay down in the pit to be shot! There are other stories like this, but the one I know best is the Babi Yar "massacre" which is just full of nonsense and one crazy story by a supposed survivor. This woman told how she and a young boy had 'miraculously' escaped the bullets and after dark they crawled out of the pit and got away. She became famous with her story -- forget her name and don't want to go to all the trouble to look it up.

It's just too bad so many people want to believe stories like that. Even Irving, it turns out!

Short of excavating sites like Treblinka. I don't think we'll ever no what did or didn't happen there. Of course, I don't think the Polish government will ever allow this to happen.

The truth is, Justin, we do know what happened -- Jews were cleaned up, fumigated, etc. and put on trains into Russia. Since the current authorities won't allow excavation, it means there is nothing there to excavate. To say "we can't ever know what happened there" is only playing into the hands of the obstructors.

It's the same as saying "We'll never know whether Elie Wiesel has a tattoo or not." Since he doesn't allow anyone to look, it means he doesn't. Got it?

I will say this, it wouldn't have been easy to dispose of all the bodies supposedly at Treblinka (700-800,000 is the estimate I've often heard). Irving has come up with an interesting alternate theory of the Holocaust though. I do think he really believes it as well. In my opinion, he's committed to "real history" even if it might make his own chosen side (the Germans-at least I think) look bad. I've been to three of his lectures, one which dealt quite a bit with this topic, and he presents his case very well. Personally, I hope that the Aktion Reinhardt camps were mainly just for transit. However, Irving has planted some seeds of doubt. Regardless, I still think Europe would have been better off with a German victory in World War II.

Justin, tell me the truth. Did you even read this article by Hadding Scott? You're speaking in generalities and do not refer to a single point or any of the research presented by Hadding Scott in the article.

Obviously, you are a fan of Irving's and you don't want to change your mind. You've put out the money to go to three of his lectures. But in truth, Irving has NOT planted any seeds of doubt that the "Reinhardt" camps were transit camps, except with those who trust everything he says and are not informed otherwise. What this article does is show that you cannot trust Irving's "facts" any more than you can trust the "facts" of mainstream historians.

Hi Carolyn. I did read over the article by Hadding before I posted. Not in great detail though. It just seems to me that these decoded messages, assuming they're authentic, are very open to interpretation. I'll definitely do a second, more thorough reading of Hadding's article. I do enjoy your site.

Justin, thanks for the reply and I'm glad you don't think I'm picking on you. I hope we hear from you again after a more thorough reading.

The troll says:
"I did read over the article by Hadding before I posted. Not in great detail though".
Well if you did NOT read in GREAT DETAIL, then, AFAIC, you did not read it AT ALL!!!
(I've had enough with these idiots; and I'm using the word in it's original meaning, before it became a slur.)

Thank you beautiful lady.  I laughed out loud.  The wall black, it's only white when you look at it. Ha ha.  

I've read Hadding's 12 page essay and find it fascinating. It took me back to my younger days, when I devoured Irving's books, like so many others, because of his 'revisionist' reputation and his alleged sympathies for the Germans. (You can find free copies of his books for download at white nationalist and racialist sites). But, when you open up one of Irving's books, you find - gassings and shootings of Jews galore. Irving even gives credence to some of the other anti-German atrocity stories, for example, the 'OperationTannenberg' slaughter of 20,000+ Poles by German death squads after 1939. After reading Irving, I became a confused individual: even though I didn't believe in the full Holocaust story, I believed in parts of it - in the so-called 'Rumbula' massacre, for example. I used to tell my friends, 'Okay, the Germans didn't gas the Jews, but they did shoot dead thousands of Jews in pits in Riga'.
Why did I believe? Because, Irving! His books seemed based on a scrupulous analysis of original documents (well, Hadding has exposed that misconception) and also, he has the reputation in the world's media as Revisionist Number One. When you mention Holocaust Revisionism to an educated person, the first thing they say is, 'Oh, that's David Irving, right?'. In my experience, they've never heard of Faurisson, Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Butz...
The other reason I believed is that so much of the rest of Irving's work is good for the German cause. He does a brilliant job, in his book on Rommel, of exposing the treachery of some of the top German generals and their aiding and abetting of the Normandy invasion. He was probably the first historian to tackle the subject of the mass rapes and murders of French women by the Allied soldiers in France (after the Allied invasion at Normandy, Irving writes, French civil disobedience of the German occupiers went down - the Allies made the Germans look good in the eyes of the French).
But, in the end, he'll always be known as a 'Holocaust Revisionist'. These days, I think that the media - and Jewry - have pushed the notion of Irving as the world's foremost Holocaust denier as a means of tricking people. The layman who picks up his books will come away [with]  the impression that 'Holocaust Revisionism' (as epitomised by Irving) doesn't deny the Holocaust, only Hitler's responsibility for it. On their own initiative, the SS gassed and shot millions of Jews, and Hitler didn't know a thing about it.

Brilliant job Hadding.  Saw David's revised views video on Joe Rizzoli's YT channel.
 Great job calling out his lies.
Comment from a YT user:
 "Consider this dear friends..
 The "Denial" movie will be coming out in the future (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4645330/)..
How wonderful would it be to have David Irving admitting for all the world to hear that he believes the Holocaust happened? Now, pan the camera in on Mark Weber and David Cole/Stein and have them do the very same thing. Controlled opposition. Prominent revisionists renouncing the truth. Leave everything else on the cutting floor except their statements saying they believe the Holocaust happened. Boom! Then you bring them on TV shows and just overload the public airwaves with their statements to precede, accompany, and follow the "Denial" movie.
http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=385 Hmmmm....."

It's a common dzew tactic: Drag people to court with judges on the zionist payroll, bankrupt them then promise them money when they to a 180 degree turn. It worked with Cole, it works with Weber, why not with Irving. They are not just controlled opposition, they are simply SO DISGUSTING.

Excellent article, but Brun's "confession" was actually not a confession but a story he supposedly told his fellow inmates while being secretly overheard by hidden microphones. I'm a bit curious as to where Hadding gets the idea that this "confession" was tortured out of him?

You don't find the story absurd? Jews passively lined up for 1.5 km to be executed?
Bruns was in the London Cage. Torturing statements out of prisoners is what they did there.
I didn't include it in my article, but Bruns also contradicted his confession at his trial. Whereas the confessions says that he was present at these events, at his trial he said that he only heard about them.

I had not suspected that anyone could still believe in Bruns' statement after having its absurdities pointed out, but since this seems to be the case, I added this paragraph to the article:
"An important indication of the untrustworthiness of this statement is that Bruns told a substantially different story when put on trial: at Nuremberg, Bruns testified that he had not witnessed the shooting himself; rather he had heard an oral report about it from two subordinate officers that he was (strangely) unable to identify. (G. Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution, 1987, p.83)"

I didn't get the impression Fleischer meant he believed Bruns' story, but that it wasn't tortured out of him. Brun told the story, sort of, as I understood it, as a "big fish story" to fellow prisoners at The Cage in a room that was bugged. Later, he was required to testify about it.

There's no doubt confessions were tortured out of prisoners at the London Cage, but was that the case with Bruns? I think that's the only point of contention.

There are supposed to be audio-recordings of these statements from the London Cage but Arthur Butz has said that the recording of Bruns has never been made available.

I think you're interpreting Fleischer's use of the word "story" the wrong way. He's saying that because Bruns is not confessing any crimes that he himself committed it was not contrary to his individual interest to discuss it, and therefore, Fleischer infers, Bruns might have said it casually without coercion. Fleischer is defending David Irving on that point..

Yes, correct. 

It seems to me silly to suppose that Bruns spontaneously gave such a lengthy narrative so convenient for the victors' propaganda. Not likely.

I don't doubt that Bruns could have been tortured. I just didn't see how the statements you referred to could be referred to as "the confession tortured out of Walter Bruns", since it wasn't really a confession.
It seems to me that this was rather a case of rumormongering among Wehrmacht soldiers, and the fact that Bruns changed his story at Nuremberg to something weaker would suggest that he wasn't tortured. People who are tortured tend to want to please their torturers - they don't usually retract their claims.

"... and the fact that Bruns changed his story at Nuremberg to something weaker would suggest that he wasn't tortured."
Huh? Bruns fundamentally contradicted the statement that CSDIC extracted from him by saying that he did not personally witness anything.

Assuming you are THE Hadding Scott, is there any way one can download the entire article at once? I find it time consumming having to move from page to page and sometimes my poor internet connection times out and have to start and refresh all over again. Yes, there are some areas even in the USA where Internet is still very slow and iffy. If anyone has found this article in its entirety in one link please post here. Or if you want to be extra helpful, just sent it to R11RA(at)gMail(dot)com. It will be highly appreciated. 

For the well researched article. I was hesitant to comment on the article as like you,  was and am a friend and admirer of David Irving. And know he may read this and see it's by me.
You clarified and went into detail of some of the things Irving stated that I had no knowledge of. Though even I could see that he couldn't possibly believe that the Rienhardt Camps were killing machines. If I know it, then David Irving damn well knows it as well.
So why has he taken this stance ! I think he somewhat explains this at the beginning of the video. I'm getting old and the light has turned amber. I've loss lots of money. Been assaulted, jailed, had my once promising career destroyed.
However, this is no excuse. And I for one are very saddened by his new stance. For being so bright, he sure is acting dumb. And I also fear what the motives are of the group that is now supporting him in Scotland and pray that he's well aware of what's he's doing now and has taken steps to ensure his archives don't fall into the wrong hands, should be pass onto the next life.
In summary, he's see's himself as a writer and wants to make money . Jews buy books ! Didn't he say that in the video. Well there's more than one way to skin a cat David.

Irving said that the book-buying public in the USA was MOSTLY Jews, alleging his former literary agent Max Becker as the source. I have a friend in the book-business who finds that claim absurd.
Irving just likes to spice up his talks with this kind of paradoxical statement. You have to understand this about Irving and apply appropriate skepticism.

In other words he's a compulsive liar and has rendered himself next to useless to us. It's a tragedy. Did they threaten his children to get him to recant? In two more generations Europeans will have disappeared if we can't get the truth out. Had he been scrupulously honest he could've been a hero, in that struggle.
Marvellous article Mr Scott. Thank you Frau Yeager for your wonderful work.