David Irving and Other Historians Agendas

[Chevan]

@deadkenny

OK, aside from the ‘debate’ on how killing civilians is ‘bad’, I’m wondering when Irving got into the so called Holocaust denial. The only work of Irving that I have read was “Hitler’s War”, and he seems pretty clear about the fact that the Holocaust did occur and that it was deliberate. The only divergence from the ‘main stream’ was his questioning of whether Hitler clearly and directly ordered it, or whether Himmler ‘read between the lines’ and initiated the setting up of the ‘death camps’ on his own authority. I’m not sure that position actually qualifies as ‘Holocaust denial’, does it?

Good question deadkenny.
In fact nobody of so called “Holocaust denied” don’t deny indeed the fact of mass execution of jew in Nazi germany- there a lot of evidence in photo and film where is the nazi mass killed the “low race”.
All those deniers which i read , just doubt in the figure 6 million of jews , which were killed in supposed death camps. Moreover after the war appeared a lot of mythical cases of jews killing - for inctance famouse “soap from the bodies” this proved to be the lie.
Moreover the cases of “dissapeaing” of millions victims of death-camps like it was in Aushvitz after the communism fall down in Poland. Former table “here were killed 4 million people” - was simply changed “were killed 1,2 millions”.
Those fact just confirmed the doubts of the deniers.
This is very normal to be the sceptic it simular cases.
But what is strange those denier become “out of law”. Some state get the anty-deniers lows, which practically make equal the doubt in official figures of Holocaus and Nazi propoganda.

Cheers.

[Egorka]

Do you know that Germany proposed again, couple of weeks ago, to make this law valid in the whole European Union?

[Chevan]

@Egorka

Do you know that Germany proposed again, couple of weeks ago, to make this law valid in the whole European Union?

It’s not surpiring for me.
It’s could be just one explanation - the one group of ancient origin is not proportionally presented today practically in each west european gov.
I have nothing to say against them but the reasons of forbidden to study this question is strange. Its seems they only protects the own interests.

Cheers.

[town3173]

One reason, not mentioned so far, that the Western Allies chose to follow the total war doctrine was the widely held view that WW11 only came about because of mistakes made at the end of WW1.

It was, and still is, thought that the reason the German people were happy to enter another war so shortly after the horrors of WW1 is that they had not tasted total defeat. The battlefields and hard ship of WW1 occurred in France & Belgium so the German civilians never saw or tasted total war. Agreed they did suffer millions of casualties but so did everybody else. It was felt in the West that the seeds of another conflict were sown when the German army was allowed to march back home and falsely claim it had never been defeated. This also helped promote the view in Germany that the terms forced on them after the conflict were unfair on an undefeated nation.

This does not explain all the reasons the Western Allies opted for total war until the very end of hostilities, some of the other reasons have already been mentioned in this thread. What it does do is give another perspective where it was felt that the Germans needed to experience the horrors they had inflicted on other people to ensure they never again started a world conflict.

This may seem idealistic now but it was a commonly held view at the time.

[Egorka]

town3173:

This may seem idealistic now but it was a commonly held view at the time.

You call it idealistic? Do you mean it in its traditional way, like “of high moral or intellectual value; elevated in nature or style; “an exalted ideal”; “argue in terms of high-flown ideals”- Oliver Franks; “a noble and lofty concept”; “a grand purpose””?

If Allies did it to teach Germans not to start another war, it should be called brutal revenge.

And do you know what I am afraid of? I am afraid that, that was actually exactly the way they were thinking!

Best regards
Igor Korenev

[Cojimar_1945]

It appears that considerable testimony on Soviet war crimes was provided by Germans who witnessed them and some of the Soviet participants. A number of books mention them. The Soviets could be quite brutal.

[town3173]

[QUOTE=Egorka;93377]town3173:

You call it idealistic? Do you mean it in its traditional way, like “of high moral or intellectual value; elevated in nature or style; “an exalted ideal”; “argue in terms of high-flown ideals”- Oliver Franks; “a noble and lofty concept”; “a grand purpose””?

Hi Igor, yes, in its traditional way. I am trying to say the feeling at the time was that to give the German people a taste of what they had visited on the world would help prevent them starting another war, therefore benefiting all. It should be pointed out that this view was shared by all the allied nations and not just the US & GB.
[COLOR=“Sienna”]
If Allies did it to teach Germans not to start another war, it should be called brutal revenge. [/COLOR]

Absolutely not, revenge is something done with no other purpose than to pay the opposition back. I am suggesting this act was done for a very specific reason which was to prevent yet another conflict.

And do you know what I am afraid of? I am afraid that, that was actually exactly the way they were thinking!

If I am correct and this view did form part of the reason for the Allies prosecuting total war to the very end the people who made that decision could claim some success. The most aggressive European Country of the 20th centuary spent over half of that centuary apologising for what it had done and making laws to prevent it happening again. I’m not claiming this was the sole reason for Germanys change in character but it is hard to see them feeling the need to change so dramatically had the Allies stopped at the German boarder and ceased strategic bombing once they new the Germans could not win the war.

Cheers

Rob

[Chevan]

@town3173

You call it idealistic? Do you mean it in its traditional way, like “of high moral or intellectual value; elevated in nature or style; “an exalted ideal”; “argue in terms of high-flown ideals”- Oliver Franks; “a noble and lofty concept”; “a grand purpose””?

Hi Igor, yes, in its traditional way. I am trying to say the feeling at the time was that to give the German people a taste of what they had visited on the world would help prevent them starting another war, therefore benefiting all. It should be pointed out that this view was shared by all the allied nations and not just the US & GB.
[COLOR=“Sienna”]
If Allies did it to teach Germans not to start another war, it should be called brutal revenge. [/COLOR]

Absolutely not, revenge is something done with no other purpose than to pay the opposition back. I am suggesting this act was done for a very specific reason which was to prevent yet another conflict.

And do you know what I am afraid of? I am afraid that, that was actually exactly the way they were thinking!

If I am correct and this view did form part of the reason for the Allies prosecuting total war to the very end the people who made that decision could claim some success. The most aggressive European Country of the 20th centuary spent over half of that centuary apologising for what it had done and making laws to prevent it happening again. I’m not claiming this was the sole reason for Germanys change in character but it is hard to see them feeling the need to change so dramatically had the Allies stopped at the German boarder and ceased strategic bombing once they new the Germans could not win the war.

Cheers

Rob

Well Rod. .
I heared the one popular point to justification of any violence above German polulation to force to forget them about Germany militarism. In Fact Germany twice began in 20 Centure the world war and twice was defeat ( last time with enourmous casuailts).
I think this is the point which was created the racist theory according which all evill in Europe come from the Germany.
I cann’t agree with. I strongly doubt that Germans was more military than the evry other Great nation in the world: US, UK, France,Italy,Russia and ets…In fact each of those states had the imperialistic war , war for resources , and each European state had a war for colonies.
If you simply wath to the statistic of states which took part in war and war conflicts in the 20 Centure , you will learn for instance that absolut record has the USA. But nobody wish to kill the americant to teach them to be the pieceful, right? ( i do not mean the islam’s fanatic idiots).

Cheers.

[town3173]

@Chevan

Well Rod. .
I heared the one popular point to justification of any violence above German polulation to force to forget them about Germany militarism. In Fact Germany twice began in 20 Centure the world war and twice was defeat ( last time with enourmous casuailts).
I think this is the point which was created the racist theory according which all evill in Europe come from the Germany.
I cann’t agree with. I strongly doubt that Germans was more military than the evry other Great nation in the world: US, UK, France,Italy,Russia and ets…In fact each of those states had the imperialistic war , war for resources , and each European state had a war for colonies.
If you simply wath to the statistic of states which took part in war and war conflicts in the 20 Centure , you will learn for instance that absolut record has the USA. But nobody wish to kill the americant to teach them to be the pieceful, right? ( i do not mean the islam’s fanatic idiots).

Cheers.

Hi, I am not saying who was right or wrong. All I am doing is suggesting another perspective for why the Allies were intent on making Germany’s defeat total.
Your view that the Germans were no more militaristic than the Allies seems very hard to justify bearing in mind the UK, France & US did not want war and both the UK & France were not ready for it in 1939. However, this may well be for another thread.

Rob

[Cojimar_1945]

Other European countries have been highly aggressive. Colonialism is a good example of this. Perhaps all the nations oppressed by the British ought to seek out revenge. The Germans did evil things in WWII but other European nations have pursued policies of aggression and frankly I don’t see why the Germans would have reason to apologize if other nations are not apologizing for their own heinous crimes.

[Cojimar_1945]

Germany’s problem in world war II was not just militarism but insanity. Even highly aggressive countries could be expected to refrain from actions that are highly likely to result in their defeat. The German leadership just didn’t seem to grasp that they would be outmatched if they tried to fight everyone at the same time.