08 Dec 03: Quote of the day
(Letter to the Birdman - Full name posted with permission):
Hello John: I am a friend of Russ Granata
and he suggested that I write to you about David Irving. I am the
author of a book concerning the death of Heinrich Himmler, which
proves he was murdered and which was scheduled to be published
nearly three years ago. David Irving was to be the publisher. He
lied about his intention to publish and apparently has now
decided to steal my thesis and research for his own upcoming
"Himmler" book. I had been warned about Irving from a
German publisher (and a fellow researcher in England) who advised
me two years ago that he was planning to steal my book, but I
rather foolishly relied on David Irving's protestations that what
they told me was untrue. Which now brings me to the following. I
emailed Irving the other night and informed him of my decision to
put my Himmler book ONLINE so all can read for themselves the
circumstances of Himmler's death, Sure enough, Irving emailed me
back immediately, blustering and threatening that he owns rights
to the manuscript, and that I had better not do what I threatened
to do. Well, he does NOT own rights to the manuscript and I am
free to do whatever I wish with it and my wish is now to have it
put up on line and try to arrange for as many links to the
material as possible among revisionists and people interested in
this era of history in general. I realize it will not earn me one
cent in revenues, but at least it should put a crimp in Irving's
plans. I was hopeful that you would put the material up on your
site...My plan would be just to put up the last 5 chapters of the
book which deal with the actual circumstances of Himmler's
capture and death and the reasons why he was put out of the way.
Sincerely yours Joseph Bellinger
[Birdman comment:
I am working to help get Joseph's book up, and help him if
possible to earn some money from it.]
11 Dec 03: Ninth quote of the
day (Letter from a reader describing an Irving talk):
I walked over to Irving, offered my hand,
and he shook it. As such, I shook a hand that had shook a hand
that had shook the hand of Hitler. "By the way, I'm
English." I said. He looked me in the eye. I said that
because of the way he spat out the word 'English' a few times
during his brief talk [cut short by protesters]. ... Make of it
what you want, but it was enough for me to feel a sense of doubt
about the man. He is not an 'English Gentleman'. His obvious
distaste for the English came through loud and clear in the way
he said the word 'English'. The man is a phony. --W
23 Dec 03: Fifth quote of the
day (Samuel writes to Edgar J Steele on one of David Irving's
recent talks):
I gathered from your remarks that Mr.
Irving's talk was the same in all places. It was very interesting
but he did unsettle the audience with the remark that Eisenhower
and FDR were the best Presidents we have ever had. This certainly
brought a lively dissent from the audience. Of all the comments
made that evening I will never forget this one. Mr. Irving was
singing the praises of Eisenhower. He mentioned that Eisenhower
was always militarily correct. He cited for example a time in
April 1945 in Frankfurt in which through American neglect a
hospital train of wounded German soldiers suffered a near total
and catastrophic percentage of death. Mr. Irving said that
Eisenhower sent a letter to the German General Staff informing
them of this situation, his regrets and his actions to see that
something like this does not happen again. Mr. Irving said,
"I read this report myself." As soon as this anecdote
was related I scratched furiously on my note pad in order to
bring the question up of the million German soldiers starved to
death "after" the war in American POW camps. I know
about this first hand as my father-in-law told me about this
situation. As you recall James Bacque's book Other Losses
documents this. Before I could frame my question another member
of the audience asked the same question. Mr. Irving acknowledged
this as true but stated, "Maybe something Eisenhower saw
after the war changed him." This comment still floors me.
[Birdman comment: What
kind of historian can Irving be if he says FDR and Ike were two
of our best presidents? Informed readers know that FDR was
responsible for getting America into WWII and giving half of
Europe away to Stalin; while 'the Swedish Jew' Ike caused
millions of Germans to die from hunger and maltreatment after the
war. Can there be any better indication that Irving is either
stupendously ignorant or else a Jewish tool?]
24 Dec 03: Second quote of the
day (Thanks Fredrick - This is part of a much longer exchange
between Kevin MacDonald and David Lieberman - I have merely
extracted material relevant to David Irving):
Although at one time MacDonald assured
readers of H-Antisemitism that he carefully evaluated his
sources, in *The Culture of Critique* he did not blush to rely
heavily (all but exclusively, in fact) on David Irving's
notoriously shabby re-imagining of the anti-communist revolt in
Hungary of 1956 in order to claim that the situation in postwar
Poland was "analagous" to that in postwar Hungary
(Irving, *Uprising!*, 1981). In fact, MacDonald went so far as to
cite Irving as the basis for his own claim that in Hungary Jewish
men enjoyed "unrestricted access" to gentile females, a
classic and notoriously inflammatory antisemitic claim. When I
checked MacDonald's citation of Irving's overview of sexual
behavior in Hungary, I found a passage of unsurprisingly poor
scholarship, characterized chiefly by the citation of anecdotal
evidence in the form of oral history transcripts that went
nowhere near supporting Irving's very broad sociological claims.
Apart from raising questions about MacDonald's ability or
willingness critically to evaluate his sources, however, was
this: not once in the entire passage did Irving identify the
religious or ethnic identities of any of the people -- men or
women -- thought to be involved in the various transactions he
describes. MacDonald's claim about Jewish men having
"access" to gentile women, in other words, had not even
the dubious Mr. Irving to show as its basis in fact. Asked to
explain a) what methods he used to assess the value of Irving's
scholarship and b) how he was able to draw from it his own
imaginative conclusion, MacDonald chose to instead to stand on
his dignity and assert that, since these questions came from me,
they were beneath his attention. --David Lieberman, Dept. of
Musicology, Brandeis University
[MacDonald replies on the
Irving matter: The only other comment I
care to make here is regarding his complaints about me using
David Irving as a reference. 1.) At the time I wrote my book
(published in 1998), no one had accused David Irving of
manufacturing anything and he was widely regarded (and still is,
by many responsible people) as a premier historian of WWII,
particularly military history; 2.) It is simply not the case that
I rely "heavily" on David Irving. There are two
references to Irving in a chapter with dozens of references, and
even Lieberman has the grace to admit that on the critical issue
of the composition of post-WWII governments in Eastern Europe I
had a number of other sources. I would not have discussed Hungary
at all except that what Irving said was entirely congruent with
the work of Rothman and Lichter: Rothman, S., & Lichter, S.
R. (1982). Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New
Left. New York: Oxford University Press. If it's one thing I
learned in writing in this area, one has to triangulate important
things: Find several sources that agree and seem honest and well
documented. The reference to sexual access was in a footnote, a
reflection of the fact that I did not have much confidence in it.
However, no evolutionist should be surprised to find that
political power and sexual access are linked, and I included it
because I suspect it was correct.]
YOUR DONATION = OUR SURVIVAL!
Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *