Prof Robert Faurisson vs David Irving, Jan 8, 2023

Prof Robert Faurisson vs David Irving, Jan 8, 2023
Jim and Diane discuss David Irving that he is NO Revisionist.

Guillaume N: “Neo-exterminationst” is the term to describe Irving. When, in 2009, the poor Williamson was seeking a line of defence after being trapped into trouble by a Swedish television crew, Irving publicly advised him that he would be wrong not to recognise that the Germans had slaughtered 2 million or so Jews in the east (his “Reinhardt sites”). Are there words to describe such baseness? Another text to which he’s never given a reply (apart from an e-mail to me saying “don’t bother me with your squabbles, which are of interest only to Nazis and I am neither) is Jürgen Graf’s masterful piece. Everyone should read it.

https://juergen-graf.vho.org/articles/david-irving-and-the-aktion-reinhardt-camps.html

PROF ROBERT FAURISSON CHALLENGES DAVID IRVING
https://robert-faurisson.com/history/a-challenge-to-david-irving/

Prof Faurisson: Here I would like to take the liberty of making an observation. When David Irving says “certainly,” that is when he is least certain. This kind of adverb is often used to give weight to what one is not certain of being able to demonstrate. According to Hans Frank and the other defendants at the Nuremberg trial, Hitler was playing a double game. According to David Irving, it was Hitler’s entourage that was playing the double game. In reality, the double game never existed. Neither Hitler nor the others were concealing a terrible secret: the one about the program for the extermination of the Jews. That program quite simply did not exist.

Prof Faurisson concludes by saying to Irving: You are right to be suspicious. In historical investigation, suspicion is the beginning of wisdom. But what you consider to be in some sense a finish line, a line which must be maintained in order to continue the inquiry, I consider to be the starting line. Start with that suspicion if you wish, but do not stop there. Let that suspicion be a stimulus for an investigator like you. Do not hesitate to question it when you need to. You yourself frankly say that you “haven’t investigated that particular aspect of history”. You even say that you “haven’t got into that”. Let someone like me, who has got into that subject for many long years and who has conducted some investigations which few others have conducted, investigations as materialist in character as possible, let me tell you that the moment has come for a historian of your importance to get into the subject and to study it for yourself in your own fashion.