+Kurt Daluege Denial legislation covers denial and/or trivialisation of any event under Third Reich rule, including, but not limited to: Oradour, Lidice, the Sagan murders, and Dresden. But for some reason, we only seem to get complaints about the Holocaust bit. Now why is that, I wonder? These laws are primarily intended to prevent extreme right-wing ideologies from becoming bona fide political thinking. And it has to be said, it is immensely satisfying to see deniers, Neo-Nazis, White Supremecists and other worthless non-entities getting their just deserts for exploiting their liberties to champion an ideology whose principle aim - above all else - is to deprive everyone else of theirs. If lesbians, coloured people, foetuses, rivers, air, rare frogs, and plastic can have laws, then why not Holocaust victims? And frankly, if being barred from publicly denying the Holocaust blights your life - then it must be a pretty shit one to begin with. Get over it.
@@TheRENigma1990 I guess the truth doesn't matter if you label somone a racist and full of antisemitism. Sounds like a good system, if the catholics want to burn you alive for being a sinner I guess we would just have to support them doing that to you as well. You are incredibly dumb.
When someone not only forbids you to question a past event but makes it illegal and threatens you with a costly lawsuit and imprisonment, you have to ask yourself what is being hidden.
I absolutely agree. Absolutely. This is the most Taboo event in modern human history, that no one is allowed to question the veracity of, and get accurately to what actually occurred. Considering the exposure, even in greatest length, of the lies and deceit of the Western media in recent weeks, I think a serious person, that is a truth seeker, may ask themselves, reasonably, is it possibly that the so called official history of the Holocaust is in fact accurately depicted, and why is it that freedom of speech is curtailed and punishable. That to me is almost a complete give away that there is misinformation and disinformation involved. I may be wrong on this, but the very fact that free research is not allowed is to me a sign that there is deliberate deception.
@@jacobwatson3781 how do you explain it being illegal to deny the holocaust ??? if we are free and have free speech, then why cant we say certain words ???
There's a strange similarity with this journalist and piers morgan, interrupting attacking the guest. Whether right or wrong let the guest talk and let the viewer hear them, whether right or wrong. it's called respect
Its called Neuro Linguistic Programming and they use it in the media to discredit the people they interview - good example here - th-cam.com/video/N9BeXEvdcpo/w-d-xo.html
I cant see why you're not allowed to investigate the holocaust? I dont question the cruelty of the Gestapo and the SS but I doubt 11 million were killed between the Wansee conference in 1941 and it was done in 3 years? Im Polish Jewish on my fathers side by the way!
I just watched a video where he said the only reason a white woman would marry a black man was because she is a reject and can't get a white man and that asians are smarter than everyone. ..so he seems pretty racist to be fair@8elionadvancing884
Even a Pro-Israel, Anti-Nazi like myself am horrified by this pathetic, biased line of questioning with constant interruptions. In fact, the interviewer now makes me want to explore Irving’s evidence for his opinions, since he’s so defensive against any thing he says. Maybe, I wouldn’t agree with Irving, but a plane crash interview like this won’t hurt his reputation at all. Irving would be clever enough to know he’d win over many after this.
Welcome to the end of the rabbit hole. JFK figured it out and referred to them as “secret societies”, tried getting in their way and they whacked him. Extremely powerful and influential people. Learning the lies and brainwashing they got away with left me with many sleepless nights and genuine terror. People warn about 1984 happening in America, it already did during and after WW2.
This interview was the last time the BBC dared to give Irving a hearing. He proved so popular and ignited so much interest they would never risk it now.
No, it's because this man has been proven to be such a psycho lunatic, that nobody would give him the time of day. It's why holocaust denial isn't taken seriously, ever
@@Jordblitz “it’s why holocaust denial isn’t taken seriously, ever” haha, isn’t taken seriously 🤪🤪 people in some countries are put in PRISON for even questioning anything to do with the holocaust - the lack of the basic right of freedom of speech shows what a communist mindset your ilk have. Silencing someone either by threat or imprisonment only proves to rational thinking people that there is some truth in what the person being silenced has to say.
Maybe because the shit coming from his grotesque mouth is so ridiculous the interviewer is left with no choice but to interrupt. The backing of Irving on this thread is so unreal, us it happening or are you all just pure cunts. The allied soldiers were the first to liberate the camps and it was they who reported the monstrous sight they saw. Are they all telling lies. Sheesh, sad fuckers defending Irving sickens me.
Irving was a darling of the Historian world until he took on the 2nd World War and uncovered some uncomfortable facts. History is written by the winners and truth is the first casualty of war. Well done David, we need brave people like you.
He was never a darling, and he has thus far not uncovered any facts. In fact, when put in a position where he had to prove what he was saying, he could not.
One thing I learned from this is how the media cleverly cherry picks phrases out of context to smear your character, discredit and break and demolish your creditibility
It hasn't even aged, it was an embarrassment for Irving then and it's an embarrassment for Irving now. They put his misinformation on the big screen, for everybody to see and laugh at him.
Nobody faces the music anymore. They’d rather hide from their views. Whatever you think of this man, he at least didn’t run and hide. He faced his accusers.
He tried to silence his accuser, Deborah Lipstadt, by filing a lawsuit against her. He hoped to get her book withdrawn and to get paid damages. Lipstadt and Penguin Publishers, which Irving also sued, decided to fight the lawsuit. Irving decided to be his own lawyer, cross examine witnesses himself, and present his own arguments. In court, Irving did not do very well. He was exposed as a liar who falsified historical records, invented historical events, deliberately mistranslated historical documents, and did it all with the aim of making Hitler look good. A writer who does those things cannot be considered a historian. Irving does not adhere to the standards of the profession. Rather he manipulates the appearance of historical research in order to promote his political views, which are all about Hitler being a big hero. The Judge in the case wrote a detailed decision, and found that Irving had failed to prove his case. In a lawsuit, the loser is required to pay damages and costs. The Judge ordered Irving to pay about 2 million pounds, since his lawsuit had cost his opponents a great deal of money to pay for their defense. Irving has always been greedy for publicity. He loves to be on TV and in other media. His strategy is not to "run and hide", but to take center stage and talk forever about his pet subject: Hitler and the Nazis, and how great they were, despite occasional "mistakes". He is a rabid anti Semite like Hitler, and like Hitler, he would no doubt like to kill all the Jews. In this interview he attacks Jews, claiming that when he filed his lawsuit, he never dreamed that his opponents would fight back, and spend what was necessary to put on a winning defense. How mean of the Jews to hire experts to go through Irving's books and find the lies, distortions, inventions and propaganda! How unfair to present evidence that totally destroyed irving's reputation as a historian! The fact is that Irving, by filing his lawsuit, asked for all that. No one forced him to sue Ms. Lipstadt and Penguin, her publisher. It wa shis own idea. No one stopped him from hiring a lawyer to make his case. He decided he was smarter than any lawyer. No one stopped him from raising money to finance his case (he raised a lot of money from his Nazi pals). The whole disaster was of Irving's own making. But, like the Nazi that he is, he blames "the Jews" for his defeat, and claims that he was the victim of a Jewish conspiracy. But the question arises: which Jew told him to file the lawsuit? Which Jew told him to be his own lawyer? Which Jew told him to lie and distort and invent instead of being truthful in his writing? Nazis are sewer rats who belong down in the sewer. Get your ass back down in the sewer, Nazi.
@Casual Noticer Too bad Irving did NOT have the truth and has made a lot of money peddling his pro-Hitler lies. You're not a "Casual Noticer", you're a Fucking Nazi. Back down your sewer, rat.
"Hard Talk" is a show that asks the hard questions and tries hard to get answers from the person. Appearance on the show is voluntary. Tim Sebastian is highly regarded as one of the best interviewers in the UK. He was fair and polite throughout the show. But he did ask tough questions and he did push Irving to answer those questions. Irving knew what he was getting into when he agreed to appear on the show. But in his arrogance he thought he could talk his way out of everything Sebastian asked. He failed, coming across as a fast talking bullshit artist. Irving thought he could fast talk his way to winning his lawsuit. Once again, he was revealed to be a liar and a fraud, a pro Nazi propagandist who loves Hitler because Hitler killed Jews. So he lost the lawsuit he initiated, and was ordered to pay millions in damages and costs.
He was asked hard direct questions, he knew he would be asked them, just as Jeremy Paxman asked him on "Newsnight". Mr. Irving was not used to being asked questions by people who had prepared their groundwork before interviewing him.
@@matthewharris8819 David Irving was sentenced to three years in an austrian jail because of the books he wrote. History is complex, people are able and should be able to disagree about what happened in the past without being punnished for it.
@@amund8821 The facts of the Holocaust are established. Some acts are known to have happened. Mr. Irving, like all Holocaust deniers and revisionists, aren't good faith actors merely asking questions. All their questions have been answered, repeatedly. They are partisans trying to clear the name of the worst people in history. He knew when he went to Austria that the people of Austria aren't interested in his nonsense, and that there would be consequences for his actions. He went there anyway. Thats on him.
He lied about the holocaust. He knew it was a crime yet he continued to claim to thousands of school children it was false. That's what got him locked up. @@amund8821
@@matthewharris8819the Russians admitted to building suppose a Chambers 3 years after the war. The amount of coke it would take to burn millions. Several decades before the they were already using the 6 million figure. Google censors any real discussion because their Brazilian.
Anyone advocating 100% truth based on his honest conviction has no reason to fear open debate. If you imprison someone dissenting from a generally accepted but untested/undebated theory, you may well be imprisoning the truth, thus precluding advances in civilisation. Judging from the lecture he gave on TH-cam, he is an extremely well-learned man on the subject he talked about with impeccable scholastic conscience and incredible powers of memory.
Yes, he's very childish, asking uneducated questions. The KKK funding question is ridiculous. An American hate group that is struggling to exist. Where would they even get the money?
@@rottweilertom If you wanna debate, let's discuss facts. Or are you scared??? 👻👻👻 An anti-Semite is someone a Jew hates. Besides, most Jews aren't even semites...😂
That is utter rubbish no you're not supposed to interrupt , be aggressive and bias like this so called interviewer was . What a lefty idiot you are no he's not racist in the slightest and unless you can prove that he is shut up and do some research of your own ! .
I don't know enough about Irving and his writings, to pass any judgement whatsoever. However, if anything history has shown us over the last 25 years it is that when people go against the consensus and / or the narrative, they are routinely mocked, silenced, sacked, pilloried and threatened.
One only has to look at the double speak from all governments around Co(n)vid over the last 2.5 years, the truth was spoken very briefly, then a narrative had to be followed,.and those doctors,.professors etc that spoke the truth were shut down, silenced, their words became the next buzz phrase, misinformation,.then the stronger, disinformation and anybody speaking this way was called a conspiracy theorist. History is written by the victors, and should be looked at with a sceptical eye. Not a disbelieving eye, but heroes are often tyrants themselves, it's just that they are wearing the winning colours. Notice, winning, not correct. Irving's beliefs, his contentions,.may well be in bad taste to many,.but to brand hin a Holocaust Denier, when he has never denied that millions of Jews were killed, is wrong. People don't like what they find under rocks, when they are overturned, the little bugs and creepy crawlies scare them, so they don't turn over the rock.
@TheNobullman His footnotes are often false or distorted. His books are aimed at cleaning up Hitler's reputation, and he doesn't hesitate to ignore evidence and falsify information to make Hitler look good.
Really? How about Donald Trump? He got to be president -- and he's a tax evading fraudster who convinced many people to pay tuition for his "university", which never existed. He had to pay them $25 million. Yet he occupied the White House for four years, he got to meet the Queen, he went to international conferences, and he has millions of worshipers. Many who oppose the conventional view of thing go on to be highly successful and admired for their courage. You must be referring to people like Martin Luther King, who stood up for civil rights and justice, and got killed for it. Or like Navalny, the opponent of Putin who is now slowly being killed in prison. Or Noam Chomsky, who can never get on TV because he's too left wing. Or Harvey Milk, a gay activist and elected official who was assassinated. That's who you're talking about, right?
One thing is for certain. That is the best I've ever seen someone handle being on the hot seat and not becoming unglued. Irving was professional and reserved, however he matched this incredibly hard interviewer who hammered him for all 24 minutes relentlessly, word for word and gave back just as hard as he got without ever losing his cool.
@@chickenandksivideoreviewer9739 BBC and the evil merchants who make it up will not be judged kindly in hindsight. Same saga as the Bolsheviks whose ethnic crimes are now coming to light.
2022 Nov 16, I wonder has it occurred to very many that truth, and being dedicated to such grasp of mo0st likely truth and reading so much over time that rather tones one's brain to see through the untruths more readily, it's curious. Irving can still be a racist and write what he can see or show what's true, can't he?
I think if he were foaming at the mouth publicly about his racism, anti-semitism or homophobia he would look like the kook he is in private. If he stays calm and measured it makes his awful take on history more digestible, even to the worst among his delusional fans.
I hate it when an interviewer attempts to debate and smear the individual they are interviewing. Irving responded well and held his own. Regardless of him being correct or incorrect, we shouldn’t police people’s opinions.
@@calum66 I would like to know the truth of what they did, why and who was funding them. Germany was a small nation who was flat broke and I'd like to know who paid for WW2 so I could at least know all the perpetrators to despise.
kal 61 Nazis are just soldiers for a man many believed to be evil. Do you despise Americans soldiers because they went into Vietnam and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese? raped and murdered women and children?
@@calum66 I despise communism. Whatever label was attached to his regime, Hitler and his cronies were Marxists, his regime a Marxist one. I also despise the BBC. Propaganda outlet aside, they bully and criminalise people for ownership of a piece of technology, turn a blind eye to pedophiles and, even after the Jimmy Saville thing hit the news (after he was dead, naturally, at which point it turned out that everyone knew but were afraid their snout might lose trough-privileges if they said anything, which is a criminal offence) they went on to do a piece on the Rolling Stones, the presenter of which was convicted child rapist Johnathan King.
This is not interviewing this is keeping someone in the hot seat to torture and punish for this thought, why interview, he knows he has time and will have a lot of money when Ervin will be in jail if he talks or try insult his science and research, this is like the story, Socrates has been convicted of corrupting the youth of Athens and introducing strange gods, and has been sentenced to die by drinking poison hemlock.
David Irvine is one of the greatest historians of our time - His meticulous research reveals the truth ! He is a man of the greatest integrity fighting pure evil
Mate, your country is one big masonic lodge at the top. Cops, lawyers, judges, magistrates...most of Whitehall. Masonry is basically one major intelligence gathering and networking operation for zyonism. Here's a quote from the father of zyonism, Theo Herzl: 'Masonic lodges have been established all over the world to help us achieve our independence. Those pigs, the non-Jewish masons, will never understand the final objects of Masonry.'
@@CR-og5ho and he was known world wide as the foremost expert on German ww2 history. Plus they jailed him for saying what he found. Unbelievable, do there people have no shame or sense of forgiveness?
Look at the discipline david irving has knowing what this interviewer is doing mocking him. That should be a good judgement in character. He stays calm and never shows aggression unlike the interviewer. He is very condescending towards irving.
@@zeophyistalentless8287 black people like Muhammad Ali, Malcom X, Tupac, Mike Tyson etc judge people by the colour of their skin, but if a white person does it they’re racist?
@@jasonjames6870 I wish Mike Johnson were joking but I doubt he is. To be a holocaust denier you have to be a) ignorant enough to not know of the extensive historical record, or b) stupid enough to be taken in by liars like Irving, or c) a bad enough person that the deaths of millions of innocent children, women and men don't bother you. Or some combination of ignorant, stupid or bad, of course.
Tell that done of the simpletons who watched an took away an ENTIRELY different interpretation than was blatantly clear for all I would've thought.... But not. Not even close
@@stevemeszaros5132 just that oots of you tube comments from people are apparently, not seeing what to us both I'd say was unavoidable and obvious as you stated yourself also
typical david irving interview. irving answers every question its intelligence and truth and the interviewer gets shut down then interrupts with the next question
@@santhanaraj5863 Yes, actually. In the report Leuchter claimed that samples of concrete taken from the surviving walls at Auschwitz's gas chambers contained quantities of hydrogen cyanide that were too low to kill human beings, and thus suggested the chambers were for delousing. But the truth was quite the reverse. The real amount of hydrogen cyanide needed to kill humans is 22 times lower than that needed to kill lice. Irving wrote the foreword to the Leuchter report. During the trial he was forced to admit it was riddled with errors. You can see all this in the judgment, together with the 30 or so examples where Irving fabricated or misrepresented the meaning of sources, to exonerate Hitler, because he plainly hero worshipped him.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 Ervin did not hero worship or attempted to exonerate Hitler or distort the facts! That's your personal opinion! That's totally incorrect and no proof of that! His research over 40 years specifically corrected the mistakes and disinformation in the official narrative! He was treated very unfairly by court and media. No proof the so called "evidence" provided by the defence was all true! Ofcourse the judgement was expected as no UK court would dare go against the official narrative! Its a Red Line! Had he won the case, it would lead to floodgate of litigation and courts will never allow that. Its the same all over Europe!
@@santhanaraj5863 his name isn’t “Ervin” it’s Irving. It’s not a UK court it’s an English court. You clearly haven’t read the judgment or even tried to. You will see that Irving himself made various admissions about the errors in his work, he accepted this in his own words, and he changed his position on a number of subjects during the course of the trial, which you would know if you had bothered to look at this subject. The only issue was whether he did it deliberately or not. You’re obviously not interested in engaging with the issues. As for accusing the court of being biased, that clearly wasn’t Irving’s view given he was the one who sought the court’s assistance as he was the claimant! The judgment is detailed and makes extensive reference to the facts and evidence heard. Which of those in particular do you say the judge got wrong?
@@louislemire6691 Jordan, as usual, is full of shit. The BBC has high standards of fairness developed over its 80 years of existence. It is universally regarded as a reliable source of information on current events. The BBC's coverage of 9/11 was done in accordance with those high standards. Only conspiracy nuts pretend that it was "controlled". There are plenty of conspiracy nuts around. Those are the people who think everything is "controlled" by shadowy forces they are too coy to identify. But the targets of the conspiracy nuts are well known to rational people who are not fooled by the conspiracy nuts' tactic of making allusions and giving hints, but never actually saying what they mean. I have repeatedly challenged such people to say out loud who they are blaming for "controlling" everything, and all I ever get is vague references to "they" or "the elites" or other meaningless bullshit. The real question to conspiracy nuts is: if these forces are powerful enough to control the media, the government, the banks, etc, How come they can't "control" the comments made by the conspiracy nuts? If "the elites" are so all powerful, how come the conspiracy nuts can find plenty of propaganda against those "elites"? If "the elites" are so ruthless, how come the conspiracy nuts are still around to fill the internet with their bullshit? If you really believe what you are saying, how come you say it publicly? Aren't you afraid "the elites" will destroy you? Why aren't David Icke or Alex Jones hiding from the dread "elites"; how come people like Jordan get rich and famous instead of getting arrested for criticizing "the elites"? Your whole pile of bullshit about the "elites" is worthless, stupid, and wrong. Or -- you'd be dead or in jail by now.
@@BeansofBringlesNo only in your mind the vast bulk of the world do not believe the official story of what they said happened and would like to know the truth . Even in western Europe with all the new evidence that's come out on this and other things that we have been taught about . Far more as is clear from this comment section do not believe most or all of this event we were told happened . Either way it is also clear that you are a brain dead lefty who believes that your fake news like CNN is actual journalism when clearly it is not ! .
@@BeansofBringlesIn your dreams actually most of the world knows that most or all of the official story put out on this event that supposedly happened is rubbish .
Yeah I realised that a while back. Especially in the issue of race, his brutal honesty when he says “I’m probably a bit racist like most people” which is perfectly true but most people wouldn’t say that and therefore it puts the average mule who goes back and forward to work right off and they then think his research is all discredited which isn’t true, I’ve studied what is called the holocaust and he’s right on the money, it’s the greatest piece of propaganda in history
David Irving was correct. Some of the photos said to be the German act are about how the Allies treated the German prisoners of war in the Rhine basin camps.😢
@@snowflakemelter1172they created the term "unarmed combatants" so they didn't have to treat them as POWs, which is a protected class under international law (which we now know is a farce, the allies were never trialled for multiple war crimes). The Germans followed the rules, if they hadn't my grandfather wouldn't have come home.
Don't agree with him in many things but his book Hitler's War is one of the best written and most thoroughly researched history books I've ever read. He shouldn't have gone to jail and his commitment to the métier of historian has few parallels.
Really what you should learn from all of it, maybe you do know is that Democracy is a sham - and there will not be free discussion on any matters which endanger "the state" in the west. Germany - Japan - Italy are still countries which are not free (occupied) and cannot make decisions for themselves - their laws and "constitutions" still are written by the victors of WW2 - democracy can only be spread through the knife the bullet and the bomb. Liberal democracy is slavery and its the biggest lie going. We are paying the price and the next generation are paying the price.
I never believed Irving but watching how brutal the interviewer was it made me think why did he need to be so aggressive if he had all the aces... Now I'm not so sure..
@@BertBobRobert You desperately STUPID Muppet.. desperate reasoning an desperate excuse (to up-hold you're delirious shoddy world view I'd hazard a guess ?) If you can't see the deceiving snake-like motive and nature of the interviewer in this attempt to pour shit on good truth which is absolutely par for the course with this outfit and broadcaster, then you are lost and don't deserve the cost incurred of the headlight of the train you have the demented head on your shoulders makes first contact with when you deliver justice to yourself through your subconscious making the decision that is the only graceful action left for you to bestow this good Earth, which no doubt it will be ashamed to co inhabit with such a vaporous insult to the human experience we call life ,.. you know you see that being done to a man ( even in that 24 minutes of this shite program as a stand alone) an to not be aroused by such wicked evil tactics that are completely unbridled and are clear for all to see being used as cheap dogshit to smear every glowing aspect that shines from Irving's character, an to remain indifferent an unchanged is simply projectile vomit worthy.b I wonder if I've the interviewer is of Jewish ethnicity (not religion simple boy, ETH knee city) as are what about 95% of those masquerading as White people on TV, an also 2, would a character like Bibi Netinyaho have this same diabolical apparently unbiased questioning over something like the sick wicked actions over decades that are committed on defenceless poor Palestinian Women & Children without the faintest concern of being exposed for what appears to be, pure unadulterated enjoyment no matter how wicked the new game they dream up to inflict upon them might seem to any human that God filled with his spirit who might just simply look on in pure shock as natural for one to do,
David Irving has written many books (50+?), some of them considered the standard reference for events during WWII, such as _"The Destruction of Dresden"_. All the other historians of his generation and younger rarely leave their studies and just quote and blurb each other's publications. They hate David Irving because he does the work in sourcing original documents and interviewing key people from the events in question; this makes them look like the stagnant, pseudo-intellectuals that they really are. So, when Irving walks all over one of the Jewish sacred cows, suddenly it's a feeding frenzy; everyone wants to put the boot in. This excuse for a critique is the same; no questions asked about Irving's many other achievements, but just an obsessive focus on one book that dares to question the legally protected version of history.
+Valelacerte It would be hard to find a more succinct, a truer or a more observant posting than yours, that interviewer, as Mel Gibson once so cleverly observed, had a 'Dog in the race', what a prick, his brain must be wired and controlled by the Board of Jewish Deputies, [maybe he is a pal of Jenner?, who knows, ] Irving has sacrificed all on the altar of truth, but, unfortunately, no one ever wins against the circumcised ones.
+Valelacerte He's one of the most biased historian I had the unpleasant chance to read. If something doesn't fit his picture he simply doesn't write about. Like his works and comments on Hitler, in Irving's eyes a true philanthropist. Besides, the Leuchter report is a fraud. But one need some intellectual rigor that lacks within denial's community
Yes I can, but it may take time, I will try to make it as brief as possible, pre-modern currency days a person's wealth was calculated by what, or how much he owned. not how much paper money he had, you following me? So, pursuing this policy, gold becomes the standard by which all wealth is quantified.Now here we get to the contentious part of the scenario, enter the Jews, enter usuary, these people, who are referred to, for sake of political correctness, as Goldsmiths, Oh dear me, how obvious, realise that they can get people to deposit money with them, say £5000, they then loan this amount, via a paper transaction to a third party but it is now £50,000, A 10% increase on the original holding, the poor debtor knows nothing of this and keeps up his repayments, thus, we or they, have created the modern banking system, worthless money, monopoly money, paper lies, now do you understand?
***** Well, since you are obviously ignorant of the machinations the led up to WW2, I will try, albeit briefly, to enlighten you, Churchill, in his 'Wilderness years' as a backbencher, still managed to run Blenheim Palace, with its servants, grooms, footmen, servants gardeners and uncle Tom Cobbley and all, all this on a pittance, NO HE DIDN'T!!!!, He was, if you read real history, bankrolled by a cabal of mostly Jewish businessmen to enter into a war in which they had a vested interest, the making of big money, [the group by the way operated under the name of 'The Focus'], once he was in power The pipers called the tune, thus, WW11, Do you really think world events occur by chance? They are all engineered, all manipulated by a Masonic hierarchy, [delve into the Bilderberg group], get all the media fed shit out of your head and start to think, I will help you all I can.
That reporter doesn't know he is validating everything David says by using elementary level emotional attacks. This is a truth I never considered before, and wow, it really puts a lot, if not everything I've been taught into question.
Whatever you think of David Irving and his views, this was a disgusting 'interview'. It wasn't so much an interview as an all out attack. Irving was far too polite.
In Veritate Gloria Hmmmm, I think moral integrity might be going a bit far. It's good debating technique to not get triggered. Something he will have learned over the years.
lame interview. if there's a problem with irvings facts, challenge them. attacking the man himself suggests either the interviewer is lazy, incompetent or irvings on to something
Svenbjorn how about the court of popular opinion, how did he do then, how is he doing now? if what he says is so persuasive why is it 99.99999% of historians and public consider Irving an isolated fringe nut? spare me the "sheople" comments, the information is abundant, widely disseminated, has been available for decades - and if we have any intelligence at all, impossible to maintain a wacky-conspiracy-theory position
lancsFrogger of course you would delete it, you are easily swayed by peer pressure to have the right opinion. ok mensa, succinctly, how is it the entire world was duped into believing the holocaust? Make a persuasive argument for your position. You have to overcome millions of eye-witnesses, tens of millions of documented accounts, from every country in Europe occupied by nazi's. That scope includes more non-jews than jews, by an overwhelming majority - from all ends of the political spectrum, both friendly and hostile to the allies who won the war. are you going to suggest, with a straight face, that a few high-powered Jews in hollywood faked the whole thing? and that that secret has been meticulously kept since 1945? Kept my millions of people? And that in an era of modern media, not one person, from one county, has come forward with the truth? in seventy years? leaving on the table millions in publishing and appearance royalties? please, please - don't come back with the usual conspiracy stupidity
lancsFrogger that is a hell of a lot of words to not make a point, or to come up with any evidence at all why i should consider your views to be worthwhile All that you have presented, is what any conspiracy nut ever presents. it's as if you all have to take a an oath to get into the dumb-club. "if any of the mainstream media, can be faulted, then it is all unreliable - all of it, from all sides of the political spectrum, from all countries, for the last 100 years, right? if you find some marginal nut, that every sensible person rightfully ignores, then he is being "censored" by the mainstream media (read: the zionist jews) - right? to be a conspiracy lunatic,you don't have to think - just follow the above template. Because, you are not seeking the truth, you are seeking that feeling of being superior and "in the know", to your dad, to the rest of the tv watching society, - truth be damned! right?
Can David Irving make a statement to the survivors of Auschwitz Dachau and Belsen camps, and tell them they are lying about the men women and children who in overcrowded shower rooms had their lungs ripped out by Pesticide gas by Nazi guards from 1940-45 until the Allied Armies stopped them doing this in May 1945. They are lying? Yes tell them that.
@@neilaspin008 He is one of the lousiest so called Historians who knows he is a talentless shit and is sour about this. No ONE (except feeble minded pro Nazis ) deny that Nazi Genocide happened in the late 30s to 1945 in Germany and Europe. He is a Feeble minded Moron
I think your mental balance should be investigated fully. The Holocaust is the subject of a huge amount of research and historical writing. It has been investigated as thoroughly as any subject. Those who deny the Holocaust simply ignore all this research and keep claiming that more research is needed. They are not really interested in research at all. They want another Holocaust, but they are too shy to say it out loud. So they pretend that the Holocaust never really happened, that Hitler wasn't really anti Semitic, and that Nazis are nice folks like you and me.
@@tommorgan7599 You've done forensic tests on the alleged gas chambers and questioned authority on the lack of evidence supporting the official narrative?
BBC controlled completely by the Zionist elite pure biased I never give that peodo protector channel time of day I don't watch or pay the Jewish tv licence
He, the Jewish interviewer speaks like a Pharisee, venom ready at all times. Is the Talmud racist??….freaking hypocrites...Jesus was right when he said "'your father is the devil", the prince of this world...so your father has delivered you to this mega power that your religion has lusted after since it began.....I think you jews know the rest of the story. Time is ticking on down...enjoy your glory while it last.....Jesus is going to return and destroy the anti-Christ. Bible says many Jews will repent and be saved... I hope that's true.....and anyone that has been to or seen hell would tell you the same. God gave you his finest created fallen Angel for your cabal ...Lucifer.
He is so articulate and gentlemanly in his approach to defending himself. Quite a remarkable man and one with whom I uphold the greatest amount of respect.
@@worldwithoutwar8622 No they didn't. There's no evidence for that. And using a pesticide to kill humans is a laughable assertion. There are plenty of other, far more deadly gases they would've used instead. Zyklon-B would've given them a headache and a cough (and maybe cancer a couple decades later). That's it.
@hendrikVerwoerd88 Don't you think questioning January 6th is kind of rude to the republicans who did it? Republicans put their lives on the line just for you to call them democrats.
“Anti semetic” “racist” “Holocaust denier” What other historical event is treated this way????? Why do they need to destroy his career for asking a question that was a red flag to me especially for someone who had been esteemed as one of the most prolific world war 2 historians of our time.
Ok. Question away. But when you get the answers you don't think exist, you have to change your mind. Which we both know that you won't. Hence why you aren't deserving of debate.
"Don't believe everything you hear." Exactly quit believing garbage from websites that look like Heaven's Gate. Don't take a few accounts about the Holocaust. If you care to know pick a hundred out of millions.
But he does have that good quality which the world now needs so urgently. If every man and woman on this earth acted with such spiritual strength this world will turn around for the better in no time at all.
This interview is a perfect example of why, even if you believe that you're completely in the right and believe the person you're interviewing is the devil himself, you should not give in to your emotions and attack them like a rabid zealot. Time will wash off the emotional charge you felt at that moment and all that will be left on the recording is you acting irrationally and insecurely, giving much extra credence to the words of the person you wished to strike down.
Oh, poor David Irving, being interviewed by that mean Mr. Sebastian! Irving didn't have to do the interview. It was voluntary. If he didn't like it, he could have walked out. He knew Sebastian would be a tough questioner, but he thought he could fast talk his way past Sebastian and rally his supporters. in your case he was right. Irving had just lost his lawsuit. That was why he was in the news. The judge said Irving repeatedly made stuff up, lied, distorted and falsified the evidence. This decision was a disaster for Irving, involving his having to pay millions f pounds in damages and costs. It ruined his reputation as a historian and exposed him as nothing but a Nazi propagandist. Sebastian was tough with Irving because of these facts. You do realize that Hitler was an enemy of Britain and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Britons, soldiers and civilians alike. And you should realize that Hitler and his gang committed the worst single crime in human history, the murder of millions of innocent people, 25% of them children, simply because they were Jews.
This interviewer's behaviour wasn't emotion, but a common tactic in a hit-piece. You can see the exact same strategy at play in the infamous interview between Kathy Newman and Jordan Peterson, or in interviews of David Rees-Mogg by the BBC to name a few (not to imply that I endorse either of these). Here, the interviewer's every statement was designed to unnerve and overwhelm David Irving with a barrage of loaded questions or slanderous accusations in hopes that he would say something rash in anger or become flustered and appear discredited. This is often used in conjunction (as it was here) with constantly interrupting the responses so that the interviewee is associated with the smear while never actually being given an opportunity to present his position or any counter-arguments. Notice that David, at first presuming the interview to be in good faith, stopped every time he was cut off, but he eventually just continued talking when he realized that he was being talked over any time he started to make a valid point. Ironically, the interviewer had no intention to give David Irving a platform to voice his opinions or defend himself; he had predetermined who David was and only had him on to condemn, dismiss, and discredit him. This isn't a case of a good-willed man letting his emotions get the better of him, but of a bad-willed one carrying out an agenda. The interviewer had no intention of actually conducting an interview (not even a controversial one), but only to further cement the destruction of David's reputation---even at the cost of journalistic integrity (something certainly dead today, if ever it existed). All the best.
The style of Hard Talk is tough questions and pushing for answers. That's why it's called HARD Talk. Get it? Irving knew what Hard Talk is like when he agreed to appear. As usual, he thought he could outfox the interviewer -- as he thought he could outfox the court where he had just lost his case. Tim Sebastian, the interviewer, was an experienced, well respected interviewer. He is not prone to giving way to his emotions. However it is understandable that a decent human being would be disgusted and outraged by the filthy Nazi liar Sebastian faced. Sebastian was hardly "insecure". You seem to think he was new at the job. He was not. I don't think Irving gained credence by talking fast, lying, bragging, and doing his best to fill the time so Sebastian had to interrupt to put his questions. I think he came across as a lying, bullshitting con man, and Sebastian came across as a decent man tasked with getting some sense out of this fraudster. Some people arrive at their opinions solely by rating the performances of people on TV. Biden is not good on TV, so lots of people think he must be senile. Trump is better at TV performance, and many people find him very impressive. Irving is like that -- a fraud, a liar, a Nazi, a racist, an anti Semite. But he knows how to perform on TV.
@@leezaslofsky4438 Sebastian came across as an imbecile. I don't agree with a lot of Irving's arguments (e.g., Hitler could have plenty of knowledge 'not' documented, etc) but this interview was clearly controlled academically by Irving.
@@louislemire6691 When faced with a vicious racist anti Semitic Nazi who a court has just found to be a liar, a Holocaust Denier, and a fraud, how would you react? With perfect calm, letting him talk all he wants, letting him lie and distort and slander, just to show how calm you can be? Sebastian was an experienced interviewer. Hard Talk is well known for asking tough questions and insisting on answers. Irving knew that when he agreed to come on. You want to be the referee, the judge, who watches the fight from a distance and comments on the way the fighters behave, deducting points for "too much emotion", "interruption" and "lraising the voice". But you are NOT the referee. You are part of the show. You have a stake in what you're watching. You see before you a vicious, proven liar and fraud who loves Hitler and hates Jews and non-whites. And instead of expressing revulsion at this scumbag, you praise his calm demeanour when he is interrupted. Is your beef with Hitler that he shouted too much? Would you have liked him better if he spoke in quiet tones, using minimal gestures, was polite and said "You have a point there" every so often? Irving's tactic was to keep calm at all costs -- a shouting Nazi is not popular -- and keep talking fast, making Sebastian interrupt when he wanted to ask something. Irving knows that if you tell filthy lies in a quiet voice, many people will fall fr it. So when he attacked the Jews for spending a lot of money on the trial, and insulted Judge Gray by insinuating that he had pretty much been bought by Jewish money -- vicious accusation based on vile anti Semitism -- you found him impressive because look how calm he is. Life is a TV show and you are the viewer, free of any involvement except as a critic -- "I didn't like that show" or "That was a good show". The fact that you are watching a sly, cynical liar spreading Nazi propaganda and race hatred -- well, that's neither here nor there. The crucial thing is how he performs on TV. Shallow? You bet. Cowardly? Yes, sir. Amateur TV critic? That's you! Decent human being? Well, that's not the issue.
I aspire to have Mr. Irving's patience. It's astounding how abrasive and provocative the interviewer is. He could have done the interview without Mr. Irving's presence.
@@Betterthantelly indeed. Don't worry about my words. Because I'm a Jew and millions of my innocent people unnecessary died, and for you and your buddies in the comments section to say that this is a great man . In my eyes you are lower than sewer rats
FALSE. Anyone who wishes to may speak about Holocaust Denial in the UK. There is no law against it. You will certainly run into strong criticism, but Nazis aren't afraid of that, are they?
If you don't get down on one knee or accept the gender agenda . Or compliancy . You're completely castigated beyond any reason of doubt . They don't give anybody a choice or an opinion . Its simply a mandatory arbitrary Draconian attack on our civil rights .
@@HooDie-Trench-GoTh2022 Freedom of speech gives everyone the right to criticize what others say or write. Criticism can be hurtful, of course. No author who spends years writing a book is happy when a critic says it stinks. But the critic has the right to say that. You want everybody to be polite when you make racist comments, spew hatred at drag queens or transsexuals, or threaten feminists, gay rights advocates, and other people you don't like. You have the right to say such things, but you don't have the right to say them without facing criticism. In the US, freedom of speech is very broad, and people can say many things that in some countries would be considered hate speech and liable to be punished by law. But you d NOT have the right to say hateful, vicious, threatening things to people and not face criticism. You can say it, they can criticize you for saying it -- that's what freedom of speech is. And some of the things you say may give people the impression that you are a lowlife scumbag, a Nazi hatemonger, a vicious homophobe or transphobe, etc. And they may react with anger and disgust. That is their right under freedom of speech. Nazi rats and their fellow right wing rats like to mock the compassion and kindness of other people, calling them "snowflakes", "cucks" or "SWPs". But when those people react angrily or contemptuously to outbursts of hate from the Nazis and their pals, the Nazis whine that they are being "cancelled" and "silenced" and getting their feelings hurt. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you don't want to make people angry and face criticism, keep your hate speech to yourself or to your hate speaking pals.
@@Mantis_Toboggan_MD. You are posing as a physician. That is illegal. You are not a physician, but a Nazi scumbag. Nazis deserve foulmouthed abuse. There is no other way of discussing them appropriately. They have chosen to join the most disgusting, immoral, filthy section of humanity, the section that most resembles the sewer rats. Do we speak respectfully of sewer rats? We do not. We speak of them as a disease bearing species that needs to be eradicated, as they are now doing in New York City. Human sewer rats need not be eradicated, just treated as the foul vermin they have chosen to be. In short: fuck off back into your sewer, rat.
@@Mantis_Toboggan_MD. I guess you need short soundbites with short words that are easy for a fifth grader to understand. Fuck off, you filthy Nazi scumbag. Get back into your sewer and feat on what you find there.
You don’t like the interviewer, so he must be Jewish it working for the Jews? Yeah, that’s the only sensible, educated response to something you don’t like.
@@mattmunroe9901 it was a hit-piece, not a professional interview. Any idiot can see that. If I interview you and ask you questions like "how do you feel about your reputation being horrible," you're going to feel like something is up, no? Have you been brainwashed by zionism for so long that you can't think properly anymore?
BillyJack85 yeah, definitely a “hit-piece”...I mean, there is clearly a “Zionist” agenda behind both the interview, the interviewer and the BBC. That is the only, plausible explanation. Irving himself has admit that his reputation has been ruined, so someone asking a question along similar lines isn’t really going to do much to his feelings of anything. Yes, I have been brainwashed by Zionism, again, it is the ONLY plausible explanation for someone not giving two hoots about the interviewer, not claiming his was Jewish and seeing the Irving is far from perfect.
He questioned it plenty, and he's been routinely proven wrong but he still insists he's right. Almost like spreading misinformation is the point or something...
He has a thick hide . Man of steel. That bald headed gammon interviewer is a tripe annoying , in fact infuriatingly so. Needs a punch on nose. The interviewer is a nobody who makes a name for himself by slandering , insulting and questioning a persons integrity or motives.
@@robertmanfredthurrigl9424 Stalin and Hitler could e polite also. I hope you have a great day. It is important to for out to hate others. Your wanting violence against the interviewer is not civilized. It is criminal.
In the late 1990's he was banned I think, from Australia/NZ. I read a couple of his books as a result and found them really interesting. He was one of the first people outside of family that I emailed, who actually responded.
I always wondered about the population increase of 6 million in Boston during the war period, which turned out to be predominately Jewish. We still do not have a reason for the sudden population explosion, yet the government acknowledges the population increase.
Exactly. It's easy for a liar like Irving to push his false narratives on TV. But in the court of law, where they took apart his lies point by point, fact by fact, there was nowhere for him to hide. Irving is a proven liar.
Irving was the one who sued Lipstadt? And he was allowed to make his case, it just so happens that lies don't hold up and his pseudointellectual nazi apologia fell on its face with a little bit of you guessed it: investigation!
The court decision dismissing his lawsuit shows how Irving not only distorts the evidence, but invents things that never happened. He has no credibility as a historian. He is a Nazi propagandist who has devoted his life to cleaning up Hitler's reputation and slandering Jews. You are easily impressed by a con artist.
Irving might honestly believe some of his bizarre opinions such as the gassing of Jews in Auschwitz-Birkenau is a fiction but that does not mean he is to be believed.
@@jean6872 Putting "honestly" and "Irving" in the same sentence is a contradiction. Irving is a Holocaust supporter,as are all Denialists. Their strategy is to attack "the Jews" for playing a trick on the rest of us by 'hoaxing" us about a nonexistent Holocaust. They do this, according to this strategy, in order to get billions and billions of dollars out of the Germans and everybody else, so they can live like kings in Israel on other people's money. This kind of attack is designed to incite hatred of Jews and a lust for revenge on them for using their "cunning" and "dishonesty" to suck money out of us. And then for using their fully owned "mainstream media" to amplify the hoax, and for using their limitless money and power to "fix" historians so they all chime in on the "hoax". When this strategy is successful, and non-Jews agree that the Jews should be punished, it will be time to initiate a new Holocaust, this time using nuclear weapons, to achieve the "final solution" that eluded the farseeing prophet and hero, Hitler. That is what Holocaust Denial is all about. None of the Denialists doubt that the Holocaust happened. They can see as well as anyone how ridiculous their Denial is. But Denialism DOES work as a vicious attack on Jews, using their most painful experience to ridicule them and to make people hate them and want to harm them. And that's what anti Semites like Irving want most of all to do: harm Jews and, eventually, kill them.
@@leezaslofsky4438 The best strategy to handle people like Irving is to present the evidence for the Final Solution then not waste time discussing undeniable historical facts. The more air time they get, so the more danger they might persuade young teens that their ludicrous nonsense has merit. I'm only shocked that some real historians praise Irving.
@@jean6872 The evidence for the Holocaust is readily available to anyone who is interested. I agree that trying to convince anti Semites and Nazis that their Holocaust Denial propaganda is false is a waste of time. But I believe it is necessary to push back against the Nazis and their admirers. It is a mistake to let them dominate the discussion. That mistake, summed up in the phrase "Don't feed the trolls" gave an advantage to conspiracy nuts, Nazis, racists and others who are too crude for nice people to reply to. I do reply to them, with the facts and with some good old fashioned crudity too. They should understand that they are not simply expressing n "opinion", but that, like disease bearing rats, they are spreading poison, and decent people regard them with disgust. I think that if this kind of pushback had been widespread early on in the conspiracy fad, it could have restrained it. But too many people thought it was all so stupid that it would just go away by itself, so it was wasting time to pay attention to it. This has not worked. Fascism needs to be resisted, not ignored.
- Dont you mean that illegal tax enforced on the population by an organization that defends paedophiles, supports terrorists, applauds and encourages, in fact IMPOSES far left political viewpoints and reports made-up news that support their propaganda. -And brainwashes children with their left-wing, man-hating childrens t.v. programmes (haven't they been abused by this organization enough?)
Whoa. Hearing that this man was a holocaust denier made me think he was going to be an ignorant man, but he is FAR from it. He more than held his own in this exchange, and honestly, he makes me reconsider my own views.
My views on this have drastically. It's upsetting and I'm still getting my head round it, but the truth sets you free and we have nothing to be afraid of. Watch a brave priest on a site that starts with r and ends with umble (and some of his videos are on here) called Fr James Maudsley. His channel is called Scripture and Tradition. He has a wealth of knowledge on the matter.
If the truth is self-evident why does it need to be protected by law?
Because the people who own the law are the criminals!
+Kurt Daluege Please feel free to expand your succulent argument
Max Cady
What?
+Kurt Daluege Denial legislation covers denial and/or trivialisation of any event under Third Reich rule, including, but not limited to: Oradour, Lidice, the Sagan murders, and Dresden. But for some reason, we only seem to get complaints about the Holocaust bit. Now why is that, I wonder?
These laws are primarily intended to prevent extreme right-wing ideologies from becoming bona fide political thinking. And it has to be said, it is immensely satisfying to see deniers, Neo-Nazis, White Supremecists and other worthless non-entities getting their just deserts for exploiting their liberties to champion an ideology whose principle aim - above all else - is to deprive everyone else of theirs.
If lesbians, coloured people, foetuses, rivers, air, rare frogs, and plastic can have laws, then why not Holocaust victims? And frankly, if being barred from publicly denying the Holocaust blights your life - then it must be a pretty shit one to begin with. Get over it.
Kurt Daluege aahhh bbb
The blatent hostility of this reporter is remarkable.
Maybe half he’s family got killed by nazis
It's called Hardtalk
Do you know the program Hardtalk?
Yeah, it's trash.
@@mattgrant9479 So then "Hard" means hostile? Then why not say "Hostile". Why the verbal weasling?
BBC hit job. Irving seems more convincing than the interviewer.
Absolutely. I'm shocked that they can't reason with him. Oh well, the BBC. Don't you know.
It's called Hardtalk for a reason. Why reason with a racist and a holocaust denier which he absolutely was.
@@TheRENigma1990 I guess the truth doesn't matter if you label somone a racist and full of antisemitism. Sounds like a good system, if the catholics want to burn you alive for being a sinner I guess we would just have to support them doing that to you as well.
You are incredibly dumb.
Yep. I met David in London before the bolloxdemic; he's as straight as a new nail. Not an ounce of BS.
Irving is a shifty, dishonest man and proven to be so. He has only reinforced that here.
When someone not only forbids you to question a past event but makes it illegal and threatens you with a costly lawsuit and imprisonment, you have to ask yourself what is being hidden.
Watch 'the greatest story never told' and you will get all your answers!
I absolutely agree. Absolutely. This is the most Taboo event in modern human history, that no one is allowed to question the veracity of, and get accurately to what actually occurred. Considering the exposure, even in greatest length, of the lies and deceit of the Western media in recent weeks, I think a serious person, that is a truth seeker, may ask themselves, reasonably, is it possibly that the so called official history of the Holocaust is in fact accurately depicted, and why is it that freedom of speech is curtailed and punishable. That to me is almost a complete give away that there is misinformation and disinformation involved. I may be wrong on this, but the very fact that free research is not allowed is to me a sign that there is deliberate deception.
Well, the issue is, when you directly misrepresent information to fit a narrative. David got caught, no more no less.
@@jacobwatson3781 how do you explain it being illegal to deny the holocaust ??? if we are free and have free speech, then why cant we say certain words ???
@@garygranato9164 It is not illegal to deny the Holocaust in the UK. Where do you people get these ridiculous ideas from?
There's a strange similarity with this journalist and piers morgan, interrupting attacking the guest.
Whether right or wrong let the guest talk and let the viewer hear them, whether right or wrong. it's called respect
Its called Neuro Linguistic Programming and they use it in the media to discredit the people they interview - good example here - th-cam.com/video/N9BeXEvdcpo/w-d-xo.html
The programme is called "Hard Talk" not "Soft Ball".
I call them
presstitutes
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize,”
God blessed David Irving with reasoning.
@@nicknolte8671 How can he be a nazi if he was born in 1950s?
i cant see the 2 other comments ???
I cant see why you're not allowed to investigate the holocaust? I dont question the cruelty of the Gestapo and the SS but I doubt 11 million were killed between the Wansee conference in 1941 and it was done in 3 years? Im Polish Jewish on my fathers side by the way!
@@garygranato9164 Cuz TH-cam hid my comment.
Google the quote and you'll see who said it.
It was said by Kevin Alfred Strom
I as a black man rather respect an honest man like irving than a friendly racist behind my back
The Jews hate all of us behind our backs
Id bet you a million dollars that he doesn't care about race at all. I bet you would get along swimmingly.
I just watched a video where he said the only reason a white woman would marry a black man was because she is a reject and can't get a white man and that asians are smarter than everyone. ..so he seems pretty racist to be fair@8elionadvancing884
Waw this is honest comment, thank you
Same I respect racist blacks who are open about it as well😅
This interviewer interrupts Mr, Irving within
12 seconds of EVERY response to asked question.
Ever so slighty biased telejournalism, I would say. All in all, they are proving his allegations by their offensive questioning.
This is the craziest rabbit hole I’ve ever gone down. What an incredible man.
I always knew something was fishy about it
I never believed it even during my school time
Same, I'm very much enjoying it
im about to get started....wish me luck
Craziest (((rabbi hole)))
Watch the greatest story never told
Even a Pro-Israel, Anti-Nazi like myself am horrified by this pathetic, biased line of questioning with constant interruptions. In fact, the interviewer now makes me want to explore Irving’s evidence for his opinions, since he’s so defensive against any thing he says. Maybe, I wouldn’t agree with Irving, but a plane crash interview like this won’t hurt his reputation at all. Irving would be clever enough to know he’d win over many after this.
It’s like the forbidden fruit.
Welcome to the rabbit hole of the truth, that it's all been lies
Shouldn’t we all seek the truth -
Welcome to the end of the rabbit hole. JFK figured it out and referred to them as “secret societies”, tried getting in their way and they whacked him. Extremely powerful and influential people. Learning the lies and brainwashing they got away with left me with many sleepless nights and genuine terror. People warn about 1984 happening in America, it already did during and after WW2.
Being pro israel is no different to defending the third reich.
This interview was the last time the BBC dared to give Irving a hearing. He proved so popular and ignited so much interest they would never risk it now.
No, it's because this man has been proven to be such a psycho lunatic, that nobody would give him the time of day. It's why holocaust denial isn't taken seriously, ever
@@Jordblitz “it’s why holocaust denial isn’t taken seriously, ever” haha, isn’t taken seriously 🤪🤪 people in some countries are put in PRISON for even questioning anything to do with the holocaust - the lack of the basic right of freedom of speech shows what a communist mindset your ilk have. Silencing someone either by threat or imprisonment only proves to rational thinking people that there is some truth in what the person being silenced has to say.
Israel 🇮🇱 has all the power
Poopular maybe. Popular not so much.
@@brianwarden7250 I see what you did there, very clever.
he was 20 years ahead of his time
I’m amazed at the courage these people had to speak out against a grave atrocity that’s being committed against the world
Al nakba took place in 1948
@@saifalam2030 I think they mean the western sentiment towards the situation. Most people to this don’t even know what the Nakba is in America
Definately ahead of his time.
Nah it's been the same since the Romans conquered jerusalem. They aren't jews. Theyre edomites.
Ask a question give no more than eight seconds before interrupting
Maybe because the shit coming from his grotesque mouth is so ridiculous the interviewer is left with no choice but to interrupt. The backing of Irving on this thread is so unreal, us it happening or are you all just pure cunts. The allied soldiers were the first to liberate the camps and it was they who reported the monstrous sight they saw. Are they all telling lies. Sheesh, sad fuckers defending Irving sickens me.
@@terryatkinson2264 is just a blind brainwashed idiot.
sad fuckers like this idiot sickens me.
You believe the Soviet’s? Lol. The western Allie’s liberated no camps that your side claims were death camps.
A list of all the historical events it's illegal to question.
1- The Hulacaust.
you cant even spell the holocaust right, why would we trust you at all?
2- the holodomor
@@Nolant.Not illegal in any country
@@Nolant.not illegal just not taught
@@CB13212illegal in Russia
Irving was a darling of the Historian world until he took on the 2nd World War and uncovered some uncomfortable facts. History is written by the winners and truth is the first casualty of war. Well done David, we need brave people like you.
You need lithium
He was never a darling, and he has thus far not uncovered any facts. In fact, when put in a position where he had to prove what he was saying, he could not.
@@matthewharris8819 The politicized legal battle against Lipstadt in which she had superior economic and legal protection you mean?
Amen
@jeannedarc7533 I mean the time he decided to bring legal action to prove he wasn't a racist sack of shit and failed miserably.
What a man!!! Thank you for exposing the Evil Lies
this is an infamous quote: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." A quote by Voltaire.
A debunked quote.
@@uioplkhj Oke philosemite! How was your trip to Israel?
@@ioanonissimo Voltaire didn't say that, Boris Johnson is the PM and I can criticise him, so not even a good debunked quote
@@robbaker8297 think about the quote for a few minutes, you obviously missed the whole point.
@@filiplofgren8023 it's used by neo-nazis, not interested in ideology that led to millions of civilians deaths
If being skeptical makes a judge call you names... there is something wrong with the judge.
The only thing wrong with the judge is that he likes his pockets full more than he likes justice.
One thing I learned from this is how the media cleverly cherry picks phrases out of context to smear your character, discredit and break and demolish your creditibility
Less of an interview, more of an interrogation.
This interview has aged like fine wine.
It sure has
It what way?
Kanye was right
What creepy nonsense! "Fine wine"? I guess you think shit smells like roses.
It hasn't even aged, it was an embarrassment for Irving then and it's an embarrassment for Irving now. They put his misinformation on the big screen, for everybody to see and laugh at him.
What an appalling interviewer.
For real, it's disgusting.
paul morgan your a fucking disgrace
It's called HardTalk for a reason, you know. I also despise racists.
Your = possessive pronoun. You're = You are. "You're a fucking disgrace."
@@voodoohamster86 Marxist trash fuck off
George Orwell: "Telling the truth during a period of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
The attitude of this interviewer is the most telling aspect. I am now suspicious. Before, I was not.
Jeez this interviewer is a creep
A real Sleichkorn!
I love nice unbiased interviewers. Lol
the show is called Hard Talk , the idea is that the interviewer always gives the interviewee a Hard time
@@garyinspain Exactly.
@@garyinspain That's the only point of the show?
BBC.....what would you expect
You havent watrched Hardtalk then have you - this is how it works
Nobody faces the music anymore. They’d rather hide from their views. Whatever you think of this man, he at least didn’t run and hide. He faced his accusers.
He tried to silence his accuser, Deborah Lipstadt, by filing a lawsuit against her. He hoped to get her book withdrawn and to get paid damages.
Lipstadt and Penguin Publishers, which Irving also sued, decided to fight the lawsuit. Irving decided to be his own lawyer, cross examine witnesses himself, and present his own arguments.
In court, Irving did not do very well. He was exposed as a liar who falsified historical records, invented historical events, deliberately mistranslated historical documents, and did it all with the aim of making Hitler look good.
A writer who does those things cannot be considered a historian. Irving does not adhere to the standards of the profession. Rather he manipulates the appearance of historical research in order to promote his political views, which are all about Hitler being a big hero.
The Judge in the case wrote a detailed decision, and found that Irving had failed to prove his case. In a lawsuit, the loser is required to pay damages and costs. The Judge ordered Irving to pay about 2 million pounds, since his lawsuit had cost his opponents a great deal of money to pay for their defense.
Irving has always been greedy for publicity. He loves to be on TV and in other media. His strategy is not to "run and hide", but to take center stage and talk forever about his pet subject: Hitler and the Nazis, and how great they were, despite occasional "mistakes".
He is a rabid anti Semite like Hitler, and like Hitler, he would no doubt like to kill all the Jews. In this interview he attacks Jews, claiming that when he filed his lawsuit, he never dreamed that his opponents would fight back, and spend what was necessary to put on a winning defense. How mean of the Jews to hire experts to go through Irving's books and find the lies, distortions, inventions and propaganda! How unfair to present evidence that totally destroyed irving's reputation as a historian!
The fact is that Irving, by filing his lawsuit, asked for all that. No one forced him to sue Ms. Lipstadt and Penguin, her publisher. It wa shis own idea. No one stopped him from hiring a lawyer to make his case. He decided he was smarter than any lawyer. No one stopped him from raising money to finance his case (he raised a lot of money from his Nazi pals).
The whole disaster was of Irving's own making. But, like the Nazi that he is, he blames "the Jews" for his defeat, and claims that he was the victim of a Jewish conspiracy. But the question arises: which Jew told him to file the lawsuit? Which Jew told him to be his own lawyer? Which Jew told him to lie and distort and invent instead of being truthful in his writing?
Nazis are sewer rats who belong down in the sewer. Get your ass back down in the sewer, Nazi.
His "accusers"? You mean, basically any historian worth their salt absolutely DESTROYING this man's ridiculous, pathetic lies?
he just disappeared into oblivion. Sociopath and constant liar.
@@Xyzabc998 all of the "people" like that have to be somewhat mentally ill.
@Casual Noticer Too bad Irving did NOT have the truth and has made a lot of money peddling his pro-Hitler lies. You're not a "Casual Noticer", you're a Fucking Nazi. Back down your sewer, rat.
He’s written some really good books, from first hand sources. He worked in a steel works to learn German. The interviewer is a bully.
The honesty of the man in spite of being harassed by a biased interviewer is clear to anyone. Disgusting lack of journalism from BBC.
@@shanemacnee The BBC is a tool of fascism - and they are very adept at disguising the fact
This was a Cathy Newman interview- pretty disgusting.
"Hard Talk" is a show that asks the hard questions and tries hard to get answers from the person. Appearance on the show is voluntary. Tim Sebastian is highly regarded as one of the best interviewers in the UK. He was fair and polite throughout the show. But he did ask tough questions and he did push Irving to answer those questions.
Irving knew what he was getting into when he agreed to appear on the show. But in his arrogance he thought he could talk his way out of everything Sebastian asked. He failed, coming across as a fast talking bullshit artist.
Irving thought he could fast talk his way to winning his lawsuit. Once again, he was revealed to be a liar and a fraud, a pro Nazi propagandist who loves Hitler because Hitler killed Jews. So he lost the lawsuit he initiated, and was ordered to pay millions in damages and costs.
@@BernieHollandMusicagreed
He was asked hard direct questions, he knew he would be asked them, just as Jeremy Paxman asked him on "Newsnight". Mr. Irving was not used to being asked questions by people who had prepared their groundwork before interviewing him.
The very concept of it being illegal to question a historical event is an abomination.
Go ahead, question away. But when you get the answers you think don't exist, you have to change your mind.
@@matthewharris8819 David Irving was sentenced to three years in an austrian jail because of the books he wrote. History is complex, people are able and should be able to disagree about what happened in the past without being punnished for it.
@@amund8821 The facts of the Holocaust are established. Some acts are known to have happened. Mr. Irving, like all Holocaust deniers and revisionists, aren't good faith actors merely asking questions. All their questions have been answered, repeatedly. They are partisans trying to clear the name of the worst people in history. He knew when he went to Austria that the people of Austria aren't interested in his nonsense, and that there would be consequences for his actions. He went there anyway. Thats on him.
He lied about the holocaust. He knew it was a crime yet he continued to claim to thousands of school children it was false. That's what got him locked up. @@amund8821
@@matthewharris8819the Russians admitted to building suppose a Chambers 3 years after the war. The amount of coke it would take to burn millions.
Several decades before the they were already using the 6 million figure.
Google censors any real discussion because their Brazilian.
Only those who fear the truth obsessively work to silence you
Anyone advocating 100% truth based on his honest conviction has no reason to fear open debate. If you imprison someone dissenting from a generally accepted but untested/undebated theory, you may well be imprisoning the truth, thus precluding advances in civilisation. Judging from the lecture he gave on TH-cam, he is an extremely well-learned man on the subject he talked about with impeccable scholastic conscience and incredible powers of memory.
I'm thankful I'm not the only one to have noticed how horrible this reporter is
There's a special place in hell for you, you disgusting anti-Semitic piece of garbage
@Daniel hosking It's spelled Zionist, Einstein.
Yes, he's very childish, asking uneducated questions. The KKK funding question is ridiculous. An American hate group that is struggling to exist. Where would they even get the money?
@@rottweilertom If you wanna debate, let's discuss facts. Or are you scared??? 👻👻👻 An anti-Semite is someone a Jew hates. Besides, most Jews aren't even semites...😂
@@rottweilertom How is noticing how biased and dishonest the BBC reporter is, anti-semitism ? This statement makes no sense
The Arrogant attitude of BBC !
The BBC has always thought it was the worlds' moral spokespeople ..the interviewer was extremely offensive and by no means neutral .
@@anthonybowers7571 you actually don’t need to be neutral to racists and anti semites
@@SuperDecdog
Or gentiles in general, so says the Talmud.
Well then, you now know who controls the BBC, don't you?
That is utter rubbish no you're not supposed to interrupt , be aggressive and bias like this so called interviewer was . What a lefty idiot you are no he's not racist in the slightest and unless you can prove that he is shut up and do some research of your own ! .
Its a fundamental right to question events. Any country thst jails someone for their opinion and makes free speech illegal must be condemned.
I don't know enough about Irving and his writings, to pass any judgement whatsoever. However, if anything history has shown us over the last 25 years it is that when people go against the consensus and / or the narrative, they are routinely mocked, silenced, sacked, pilloried and threatened.
@TheNobullman I have plenty of excuse because I've never read them in much the same way I've never read any Margaret Atwood.
One only has to look at the double speak from all governments around Co(n)vid over the last 2.5 years, the truth was spoken very briefly, then a narrative had to be followed,.and those doctors,.professors etc that spoke the truth were shut down, silenced, their words became the next buzz phrase, misinformation,.then the stronger, disinformation and anybody speaking this way was called a conspiracy theorist. History is written by the victors, and should be looked at with a sceptical eye. Not a disbelieving eye, but heroes are often tyrants themselves, it's just that they are wearing the winning colours. Notice, winning, not correct.
Irving's beliefs, his contentions,.may well be in bad taste to many,.but to brand hin a Holocaust Denier, when he has never denied that millions of Jews were killed, is wrong. People don't like what they find under rocks, when they are overturned, the little bugs and creepy crawlies scare them, so they don't turn over the rock.
@TheNobullman His footnotes are often false or distorted. His books are aimed at cleaning up Hitler's reputation, and he doesn't hesitate to ignore evidence and falsify information to make Hitler look good.
Really? How about Donald Trump? He got to be president -- and he's a tax evading fraudster who convinced many people to pay tuition for his "university", which never existed. He had to pay them $25 million. Yet he occupied the White House for four years, he got to meet the Queen, he went to international conferences, and he has millions of worshipers.
Many who oppose the conventional view of thing go on to be highly successful and admired for their courage.
You must be referring to people like Martin Luther King, who stood up for civil rights and justice, and got killed for it. Or like Navalny, the opponent of Putin who is now slowly being killed in prison. Or Noam Chomsky, who can never get on TV because he's too left wing. Or Harvey Milk, a gay activist and elected official who was assassinated.
That's who you're talking about, right?
@TheNobullman Which is cool cause when you actually check those references you discover what they say is completely different to what Irvine claims.
One thing is for certain. That is the best I've ever seen someone handle being on the hot seat and not becoming unglued. Irving was professional and reserved, however he matched this incredibly hard interviewer who hammered him for all 24 minutes relentlessly, word for word and gave back just as hard as he got without ever losing his cool.
next century he will be the hero of the taught
@@ms9771 lol
@@chickenandksivideoreviewer9739 BBC and the evil merchants who make it up will not be judged kindly in hindsight. Same saga as the Bolsheviks whose ethnic crimes are now coming to light.
2022 Nov 16, I wonder has it occurred to very many that truth, and being dedicated to such grasp of mo0st likely truth and reading so much over time that rather tones one's brain to see through the untruths more readily, it's curious. Irving can still be a racist and write what he can see or show what's true, can't he?
So many pretentious dumbfucks in these comments
Nice to see the BBC displaying it's usual lack of bias.
How couldn't people see the clear malicious intentions of the "interviwer"?
>Historians universally agree David Irving is one of the greatest historians of our time.
>Sent to jail for it
don't talk so foolish, he was not sent to jail for being an historian, honestly. He was caught falisfying documents.
@christinefougere that statement is false.
Historians acknowledge that Irving's Holocaust Denial can only occur/persist due to willful ignoring mountains of historical evidence.
"If the truth was there it shouldn't have taken 10 million pounds to prove me wrong"!
BADASS!
But there is no fucking truth to what he is saying
How dare you say that! Never forget the 400 billion!!!!
haha brilliant
Interesting.,,,,wow trump will be elected again u people are hard core. , not going to work forever ur reign is over face it and cry victim
@@xanlysphynx8839 this aged well. Cope and seeth loser
How could any person stay so polite, in the face of such a vitriolic attack, Irving is more of a gentleman than i.
Good observation. Because he knows he is in the right and doesn't need bombast to bully us into believing him.
I think if he were foaming at the mouth publicly about his racism, anti-semitism or homophobia he would look like the kook he is in private.
If he stays calm and measured it makes his awful take on history more digestible, even to the worst among his delusional fans.
do you notice how the host keeps trying to ridicule his facts and chanting the Narrative... they still do it today
I hate it when an interviewer attempts to debate and smear the individual they are interviewing. Irving responded well and held his own. Regardless of him being correct or incorrect, we shouldn’t police people’s opinions.
But you can’t have an opinion on whether he Holocaust happened it’s a fact that it happened
@@wicket8748 why not, why is this so sacred to you?
@@johanlaidoner122never forget the holocaust
I despise the bbc
Do you depise the Nazis?
@@calum66 I would like to know the truth of what they did, why and who was funding them. Germany was a small nation who was flat broke and I'd like to know who paid for WW2 so I could at least know all the perpetrators to despise.
John Finnerty:The BBC is the first original communist electronic media beginning with radio in the 1920s. Its offspring is PBS.
kal 61 Nazis are just soldiers for a man many believed to be evil. Do you despise Americans soldiers because they went into Vietnam and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Vietnamese? raped and murdered women and children?
@@calum66 I despise communism. Whatever label was attached to his regime, Hitler and his cronies were Marxists, his regime a Marxist one. I also despise the BBC. Propaganda outlet aside, they bully and criminalise people for ownership of a piece of technology, turn a blind eye to pedophiles and, even after the Jimmy Saville thing hit the news (after he was dead, naturally, at which point it turned out that everyone knew but were afraid their snout might lose trough-privileges if they said anything, which is a criminal offence) they went on to do a piece on the Rolling Stones, the presenter of which was convicted child rapist Johnathan King.
Notice how the interviewer immediately changes the subject when david holds his ground and proves his point right
This is not interviewing this is keeping someone in the hot seat to torture and punish for this thought, why interview, he knows he has time and will have a lot of money when Ervin will be in jail if he talks or try insult his science and research, this is like the story, Socrates has been convicted of corrupting the youth of Athens and introducing strange gods, and has been sentenced to die by drinking poison hemlock.
The interviewer is obviously biased.
@@Gpcavana819 Interviewer is an evil merchant... doing the typical Paxman tricks.
@@shivahuggins1276 truth never is sweet
@@shivahuggins1276
Dont trust anyone who cant lookyou in the eye. He cant even lift his head most of the time.
David Irvine is one of the greatest historians of our time - His meticulous research reveals the truth ! He is a man of the greatest integrity fighting pure evil
he literally makes his sources up, hes a conman
@@isaacmcareavey237 Then you must be Jewish
Agreed. His sources are unmatched, all complete primary sources.
He's to Hilter what Tacitus or Josephus was to Jesus
@@isaacmcareavey237Expand or you're talking shite
@@WakaWaka2468they literally went to trial to investigate his sources and he lost.
Why lock him up if he’s wrong??? That part fucks me up everytime. Then goes to court gives evidence and judge says he doesn’t believe em 🤣😭
that what jews do. that is why.
Mate, your country is one big masonic lodge at the top. Cops, lawyers, judges, magistrates...most of Whitehall. Masonry is basically one major intelligence gathering and networking operation for zyonism. Here's a quote from the father of zyonism, Theo Herzl:
'Masonic lodges have been established all over the world to help us achieve our independence. Those pigs, the non-Jewish masons, will never understand the final objects of Masonry.'
Yeah it's insane that this was aired in Britain. Surely the real issue here is that a man has been dragged through the courts for publishing a book?
@@CR-og5ho and he was known world wide as the foremost expert on German ww2 history. Plus they jailed him for saying what he found. Unbelievable, do there people have no shame or sense of forgiveness?
@@everythingisalllies2141No, they have no shame.
Look at the discipline david irving has knowing what this interviewer is doing mocking him. That should be a good judgement in character. He stays calm and never shows aggression unlike the interviewer. He is very condescending towards irving.
What a good character, I bet he doesn’t judge people on the color of his skin
No one is perfect i don’t agree with all his views just on this subject I do.
@@MrBlingBling04 no one is perfect is slightly downplaying the fact that he’s a racist and a nazi
@@zeophyistalentless8287 black people like Muhammad Ali, Malcom X, Tupac, Mike Tyson etc judge people by the colour of their skin, but if a white person does it they’re racist?
Irving’s composure is remarkable. He doesn’t even flinch.
A real British gentleman!
just like dr. Mengele right
Because he's monumentally arrogant.
@@mikiafu Mengele wasn't British. 😆
@@lysanderofsparta3708 I know , I responded to the original comment about his 'remarkable ' composure lol.
The interviewer seems to be so well informed, it is almost like he is wearing David’s star in 1943.
a very, very brave man, at last someone telling the truth.
A very very duplicitous man. Irving is a proven liar.
Are you joking
@@jasonjames6870 I wish Mike Johnson were joking but I doubt he is. To be a holocaust denier you have to be a) ignorant enough to not know of the extensive historical record, or b) stupid enough to be taken in by liars like Irving, or c) a bad enough person that the deaths of millions of innocent children, women and men don't bother you.
Or some combination of ignorant, stupid or bad, of course.
This person interviewing David is obviously an employee of the people financing his character assassination. Total hit piece.
Tell that done of the simpletons who watched an took away an ENTIRELY different interpretation than was blatantly clear for all I would've thought.... But not. Not even close
@@dontmention5283 Are you trying to say something?
@@stevemeszaros5132 just that oots of you tube comments from people are apparently, not seeing what to us both I'd say was unavoidable and obvious as you stated yourself also
@@dontmention5283 I kind of thought that was the gist of what you were saying. Wasn't sure though, I've lost my sense for nuance in language perhaps.
What a load of crap!! It's called Hardtalk for a reason
typical david irving interview. irving answers every question its intelligence and truth and the interviewer gets shut down then interrupts with the next question
Have you read the judgment ?
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 Have you read The Leuchter Reports?
@@santhanaraj5863 Yes, actually. In the report Leuchter claimed that samples of concrete taken from the surviving walls at Auschwitz's gas chambers contained quantities of hydrogen cyanide that were too low to kill human beings, and thus suggested the chambers were for delousing.
But the truth was quite the reverse. The real amount of hydrogen cyanide needed to kill humans is 22 times lower than that needed to kill lice.
Irving wrote the foreword to the Leuchter report.
During the trial he was forced to admit it was riddled with errors.
You can see all this in the judgment, together with the 30 or so examples where Irving fabricated or misrepresented the meaning of sources, to exonerate Hitler, because he plainly hero worshipped him.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 Ervin did not hero worship or attempted to exonerate Hitler or distort the facts! That's your personal opinion! That's totally incorrect and no proof of that! His research over 40 years specifically corrected the mistakes and disinformation in the official narrative! He was treated very unfairly by court and media. No proof the so called "evidence" provided by the defence was all true! Ofcourse the judgement was expected as no UK court would dare go against the official narrative! Its a Red Line! Had he won the case, it would lead to floodgate of litigation and courts will never allow that. Its the same all over Europe!
@@santhanaraj5863 his name isn’t “Ervin” it’s Irving. It’s not a UK court it’s an English court. You clearly haven’t read the judgment or even tried to. You will see that Irving himself made various admissions about the errors in his work, he accepted this in his own words, and he changed his position on a number of subjects during the course of the trial, which you would know if you had bothered to look at this subject. The only issue was whether he did it deliberately or not.
You’re obviously not interested in engaging with the issues.
As for accusing the court of being biased, that clearly wasn’t Irving’s view given he was the one who sought the court’s assistance as he was the claimant! The judgment is detailed and makes extensive reference to the facts and evidence heard. Which of those in particular do you say the judge got wrong?
This is not an interview, it's a hostile attack on the victim.
This shows who the BBC have always worked for
Be specific! Say what you mean. Which people are you talking about. Have the balls to say it!
@@leezaslofsky4438 Jordan suggests the BBC is controlled media. I and many others absolutely agree (see e.g., their coverage of 9-11).
@@louislemire6691 Jordan, as usual, is full of shit. The BBC has high standards of fairness developed over its 80 years of existence. It is universally regarded as a reliable source of information on current events.
The BBC's coverage of 9/11 was done in accordance with those high standards. Only conspiracy nuts pretend that it was "controlled".
There are plenty of conspiracy nuts around. Those are the people who think everything is "controlled" by shadowy forces they are too coy to identify.
But the targets of the conspiracy nuts are well known to rational people who are not fooled by the conspiracy nuts' tactic of making allusions and giving hints, but never actually saying what they mean.
I have repeatedly challenged such people to say out loud who they are blaming for "controlling" everything, and all I ever get is vague references to "they" or "the elites" or other meaningless bullshit.
The real question to conspiracy nuts is: if these forces are powerful enough to control the media, the government, the banks, etc, How come they can't "control" the comments made by the conspiracy nuts?
If "the elites" are so all powerful, how come the conspiracy nuts can find plenty of propaganda against those "elites"? If "the elites" are so ruthless, how come the conspiracy nuts are still around to fill the internet with their bullshit?
If you really believe what you are saying, how come you say it publicly? Aren't you afraid "the elites" will destroy you? Why aren't David Icke or Alex Jones hiding from the dread "elites"; how come people like Jordan get rich and famous instead of getting arrested for criticizing "the elites"?
Your whole pile of bullshit about the "elites" is worthless, stupid, and wrong. Or -- you'd be dead or in jail by now.
@@leezaslofsky4438 F=ma. End of discussion.
@@louislemire6691 I have always admired the work of FEMA. But I don't see why it is relevant to this discussion.
I've heard that you can tell a lot about a man by who his enemies are.
I've heard that you can tell a lot about a man who spreads Nazi hate propaganda and then lies about it.
Oh so 99% of the world in Irving's case? Yeah, dude must suck I guess.
@@BeansofBringlesNo only in your mind the vast bulk of the world do not believe the official story of what they said happened and would like to know the truth . Even in western Europe with all the new evidence that's come out on this and other things that we have been taught about . Far more as is clear from this comment section do not believe most or all of this event we were told happened . Either way it is also clear that you are a brain dead lefty who believes that your fake news like CNN is actual journalism when clearly it is not ! .
@@BeansofBringlesIn your dreams actually most of the world knows that most or all of the official story put out on this event that supposedly happened is rubbish .
I think that one of David Irvings biggest problems is that he's brutally honest...
Yeah I realised that a while back. Especially in the issue of race, his brutal honesty when he says “I’m probably a bit racist like most people” which is perfectly true but most people wouldn’t say that and therefore it puts the average mule who goes back and forward to work right off and they then think his research is all discredited which isn’t true, I’ve studied what is called the holocaust and he’s right on the money, it’s the greatest piece of propaganda in history
The truth hurts for sure.
All races are racist to a degree.
He's also bullet proof and stoic.
no. just brutally idiotic. He was clearly made a fool of by Sebastian here.
David Irving was correct. Some of the photos said to be the German act are about how the Allies treated the German prisoners of war in the Rhine basin camps.😢
Stop lying
@@snowflakemelter1172 He's not.
@@snowflakemelter1172they created the term "unarmed combatants" so they didn't have to treat them as POWs, which is a protected class under international law (which we now know is a farce, the allies were never trialled for multiple war crimes). The Germans followed the rules, if they hadn't my grandfather wouldn't have come home.
Yes csomana, and the German POW's were starved to death in these fenced off fields. All this happened when the war was already over.
@willowwoods7343 poor nazis 😢
Don't agree with him in many things but his book Hitler's War is one of the best written and most thoroughly researched history books I've ever read. He shouldn't have gone to jail and his commitment to the métier of historian has few parallels.
So basically you admit you don't agree with facts and historical truth
@@tommykarate9397 History and truth don't go together very well.
Nailed it, Hitlers War and Churchills War are fantastic WWII biographies.
Really what you should learn from all of it, maybe you do know is that Democracy is a sham - and there will not be free discussion on any matters which endanger "the state" in the west.
Germany - Japan - Italy are still countries which are not free (occupied) and cannot make decisions for themselves - their laws and "constitutions" still are written by the victors of WW2 - democracy can only be spread through the knife the bullet and the bomb. Liberal democracy is slavery and its the biggest lie going. We are paying the price and the next generation are paying the price.
It's the victors of war that control the narrative. Now imagine if those who crafted WW2 and the media at that time were of the same entity? Oi vey!
I never believed Irving but watching how brutal the interviewer was it made me think why did he need to be so aggressive if he had all the aces...
Now I'm not so sure..
Maybe look into the trial they had on the matter?
The truth is impossible to defeat...in the long run. We are nearing the end of a very long run right now.
It's "hardtalk" that's the whole point. The interviewer does this with all interviewees.
@@BertBobRobert You desperately STUPID Muppet.. desperate reasoning an desperate excuse (to up-hold you're delirious shoddy world view I'd hazard a guess ?) If you can't see the deceiving snake-like motive and nature of the interviewer in this attempt to pour shit on good truth which is absolutely par for the course with this outfit and broadcaster, then you are lost and don't deserve the cost incurred of the headlight of the train you have the demented head on your shoulders makes first contact with when you deliver justice to yourself through your subconscious making the decision that is the only graceful action left for you to bestow this good Earth, which no doubt it will be ashamed to co inhabit with such a vaporous insult to the human experience we call life ,.. you know you see that being done to a man ( even in that 24 minutes of this shite program as a stand alone) an to not be aroused by such wicked evil tactics that are completely unbridled and are clear for all to see being used as cheap dogshit to smear every glowing aspect that shines from Irving's character, an to remain indifferent an unchanged is simply projectile vomit worthy.b I wonder if I've the interviewer is of Jewish ethnicity (not religion simple boy, ETH knee city) as are what about 95% of those masquerading as White people on TV, an also 2, would a character like Bibi Netinyaho have this same diabolical apparently unbiased questioning over something like the sick wicked actions over decades that are committed on defenceless poor Palestinian Women & Children without the faintest concern of being exposed for what appears to be, pure unadulterated enjoyment no matter how wicked the new game they dream up to inflict upon them might seem to any human that God filled with his spirit who might just simply look on in pure shock as natural for one to do,
@@dontmention5283 You need to urgently seek help, and an English tutor.
David Irving has written many books (50+?), some of them considered the standard reference for events during WWII, such as _"The Destruction of Dresden"_. All the other historians of his generation and younger rarely leave their studies and just quote and blurb each other's publications. They hate David Irving because he does the work in sourcing original documents and interviewing key people from the events in question; this makes them look like the stagnant, pseudo-intellectuals that they really are.
So, when Irving walks all over one of the Jewish sacred cows, suddenly it's a feeding frenzy; everyone wants to put the boot in. This excuse for a critique is the same; no questions asked about Irving's many other achievements, but just an obsessive focus on one book that dares to question the legally protected version of history.
+Valelacerte It would be hard to find a more succinct, a truer or a more observant posting than yours, that interviewer, as Mel Gibson once so cleverly observed, had a 'Dog in the race', what a prick, his brain must be wired and controlled by the Board of Jewish Deputies, [maybe he is a pal of Jenner?, who knows, ] Irving has sacrificed all on the altar of truth, but, unfortunately, no one ever wins against the circumcised ones.
+Valelacerte He's one of the most biased historian I had the unpleasant chance to read. If something doesn't fit his picture he simply doesn't write about. Like his works and comments on Hitler, in Irving's eyes a true philanthropist.
Besides, the Leuchter report is a fraud. But one need some intellectual rigor that lacks within denial's community
Hey, sorry, I think I am right here.
Yes I can, but it may take time, I will try to make it as brief as possible, pre-modern currency days a person's wealth was calculated by what, or how much he owned. not how much paper money he had, you following me? So, pursuing this policy, gold becomes the standard by which all wealth is quantified.Now here we get to the contentious part of the scenario, enter the Jews, enter usuary, these people, who are referred to, for sake of political correctness, as Goldsmiths, Oh dear me, how obvious, realise that they can get people to deposit money with them, say £5000, they then loan this amount, via a paper transaction to a third party but it is now £50,000, A 10% increase on the original holding, the poor debtor knows nothing of this and keeps up his repayments, thus, we or they, have created the modern banking system, worthless money, monopoly money, paper lies, now do you understand?
***** Well, since you are obviously ignorant of the machinations the led up to WW2, I will try, albeit briefly, to enlighten you, Churchill, in his 'Wilderness years' as a backbencher, still managed to run Blenheim Palace, with its servants, grooms, footmen, servants gardeners and uncle Tom Cobbley and all, all this on a pittance, NO HE DIDN'T!!!!, He was, if you read real history, bankrolled by a cabal of mostly Jewish businessmen to enter into a war in which they had a vested interest, the making of big money, [the group by the way operated under the name of 'The Focus'], once he was in power The pipers called the tune, thus, WW11, Do you really think world events occur by chance? They are all engineered, all manipulated by a Masonic hierarchy, [delve into the Bilderberg group], get all the media fed shit out of your head and start to think, I will help you all I can.
That reporter doesn't know he is validating everything David says by using elementary level emotional attacks. This is a truth I never considered before, and wow, it really puts a lot, if not everything I've been taught into question.
Yes, a lot of people now have been sentenced to prison for simply questioning history. It's not really representative of a free world
"To learn who rules over you, find out who you are not allowed to criticize." ~Voltaire
That wasn't voltaire it was a convicted sex offender Kevin Alfred strom if I recall who coined that
How’s that relevant to this video? You strange little man
Jews
@@GlossaME Remember that many of the observant jews deplore Israel.
@@salfordguy399 Not that many. Otherwise there would be a movement
Whatever you think of David Irving and his views, this was a disgusting 'interview'. It wasn't so much an interview as an all out attack. Irving was far too polite.
Exactly ... I would've left the set after 5min, but I guess after that trial Mr. Irving was prepared for a marathon of lies and stupidity.
taz24787
It’s a program called Hard Talk. They always interview like this.
He demonstrates his moral integrity by refraining from counterattack.
In Veritate Gloria
Hmmmm, I think moral integrity might be going a bit far. It's good debating technique to not get triggered. Something he will have learned over the years.
Brilliant coment
lame interview.
if there's a problem with irvings facts, challenge them. attacking the man himself suggests either the interviewer is lazy, incompetent or irvings on to something
+lancsFrogger his "facts" were challenged in court, how did that turn out for him?
+mollkatless Like every other Kangaroo Court.
Svenbjorn how about the court of popular opinion, how did he do then, how is he doing now?
if what he says is so persuasive why is it 99.99999% of historians and public consider Irving an isolated fringe nut?
spare me the "sheople" comments, the information is abundant, widely disseminated, has been available for decades - and if we have any intelligence at all, impossible to maintain a wacky-conspiracy-theory position
lancsFrogger of course you would delete it, you are easily swayed by peer pressure to have the right opinion.
ok mensa, succinctly, how is it the entire world was duped into believing the holocaust? Make a persuasive argument for your position. You have to overcome millions of eye-witnesses, tens of millions of documented accounts, from every country in Europe occupied by nazi's. That scope includes more non-jews than jews, by an overwhelming majority - from all ends of the political spectrum, both friendly and hostile to the allies who won the war.
are you going to suggest, with a straight face, that a few high-powered Jews in hollywood faked the whole thing? and that that secret has been meticulously kept since 1945? Kept my millions of people? And that in an era of modern media, not one person, from one county, has come forward with the truth? in seventy years? leaving on the table millions in publishing and appearance royalties?
please, please - don't come back with the usual conspiracy stupidity
lancsFrogger that is a hell of a lot of words to not make a point, or to come up with any evidence at all why i should consider your views to be worthwhile
All that you have presented, is what any conspiracy nut ever presents. it's as if you all have to take a an oath to get into the dumb-club. "if any of the mainstream media, can be faulted, then it is all unreliable - all of it, from all sides of the political spectrum, from all countries, for the last 100 years, right? if you find some marginal nut, that every sensible person rightfully ignores, then he is being "censored" by the mainstream media (read: the zionist jews) - right?
to be a conspiracy lunatic,you don't have to think - just follow the above template. Because, you are not seeking the truth, you are seeking that feeling of being superior and "in the know", to your dad, to the rest of the tv watching society, - truth be damned! right?
Irving really handled himself well, not giving into emotion or a defensive tone. Well done!
Can David Irving make a statement to the survivors of Auschwitz Dachau and Belsen
camps, and tell them they are lying about the men women and children who in overcrowded shower rooms had their lungs ripped out by Pesticide gas by Nazi guards from 1940-45
until the Allied Armies stopped them doing this in May 1945.
They are lying? Yes tell them that.
He does nothing but whinge and moan (like a child) about people who gave evidence against him. He doesn't handle himself well at all.
@@neilaspin008 He is one of the lousiest so called Historians who knows he is a talentless shit and is sour about this. No ONE (except feeble minded pro Nazis ) deny that Nazi Genocide happened in the late 30s to 1945 in Germany and Europe.
He is a Feeble minded Moron
@@neilaspin008 Did you even watch the video?
@@PaulOutsidetheWalls What are you on about? Why would I comment on something I've not watched? This is the second time I've watched the video.
Everything needs to be questioned & investigated fully.
I think your mental balance should be investigated fully.
The Holocaust is the subject of a huge amount of research and historical writing. It has been investigated as thoroughly as any subject. Those who deny the Holocaust simply ignore all this research and keep claiming that more research is needed.
They are not really interested in research at all. They want another Holocaust, but they are too shy to say it out loud. So they pretend that the Holocaust never really happened, that Hitler wasn't really anti Semitic, and that Nazis are nice folks like you and me.
You think it didn't happen?
@@tommorgan7599 No one is allowed to investigate or question it so no it did not happen
@@masso392 I've investigated or questioned it. Who do you think is stopping me?
@@tommorgan7599 You've done forensic tests on the alleged gas chambers and questioned authority on the lack of evidence supporting the official narrative?
An interviewer who has earned his Star of David
daveyork0 He is Jewish anyway.
daveyork0
But what a wanker he is. BBC my arse. He looks Jewish and is biased. Sad.
BBC controlled completely by the Zionist elite pure biased I never give that peodo protector channel time of day I don't watch or pay the Jewish tv licence
He, the Jewish interviewer speaks like a Pharisee, venom ready at all times. Is the Talmud racist??….freaking hypocrites...Jesus was right when he said "'your father is the devil", the prince of this world...so your father has delivered you to this mega power that your religion has lusted after since it began.....I think you jews know the rest of the story. Time is ticking on down...enjoy your glory while it last.....Jesus is going to return and destroy the anti-Christ. Bible says many Jews will repent and be saved... I hope that's true.....and anyone that has been to or seen hell would tell you the same. God gave you his finest created fallen Angel for your cabal ...Lucifer.
James Cheek you my dude are a complete MORON
David is right money wins over facts
yes...
Explains why selling books is more important than historical accuracy as far as hes concerned.
@@katrinapaton5283
What parts are not accurate…..
You made the claim, now let’s see you back it up with some of your evidence
Another great man that gave his life for the truth and had to sit and put up with a fool interviewer and the worlds ignorance....
He is so articulate and gentlemanly in his approach to defending himself. Quite a remarkable man and one with whom I uphold the greatest amount of respect.
As if the courts are about "the truth", as if a mature man actually thinks such a childish thing. We all know how money buys "justice".
This is like a scene from 1984, where the interviewer is demanding the citizen stop his badthink.
It's not his "bad think" . . .it is his False Truths. The Gas chambers DID exist, did kill a multitude . . .
@@worldwithoutwar8622 No they didn't. There's no evidence for that. And using a pesticide to kill humans is a laughable assertion. There are plenty of other, far more deadly gases they would've used instead. Zyklon-B would've given them a headache and a cough (and maybe cancer a couple decades later). That's it.
Why is the Holocaust the only historical event we are not allowed to ask questions of?
@hendrikVerwoerd88 Don't you think questioning January 6th is kind of rude to the republicans who did it?
Republicans put their lives on the line just for you to call them democrats.
Piss off wehraboo
Dont forget the holodomor, dont compare that to the holocaust!
And 9/11
At the time I write this it is now pretty obvious why...
what an absolute boss. speaking facts and truth
What an absolute tool Irving is, speaking lies and hatred. Irving is a proven liar.
“Anti semetic” “racist” “Holocaust denier” What other historical event is treated this way????? Why do they need to destroy his career for asking a question that was a red flag to me especially for someone who had been esteemed as one of the most prolific world war 2 historians of our time.
Everything should be questioned including the holocaust!
Ok. Question away. But when you get the answers you don't think exist, you have to change your mind. Which we both know that you won't. Hence why you aren't deserving of debate.
@@matthewharris8819 You may be a moron.
"Don't believe everything you hear."
Exactly quit believing garbage from websites that look like Heaven's Gate. Don't take a few accounts about the Holocaust. If you care to know pick a hundred out of millions.
Irving is too honest for his own good.
@@azteacher26 So true.
But he does have that good quality which the world now needs so urgently. If every man and woman on this earth acted with such spiritual strength this world will turn around for the better in no time at all.
he's a two-bit, lying fraud
This interview is a perfect example of why, even if you believe that you're completely in the right and believe the person you're interviewing is the devil himself, you should not give in to your emotions and attack them like a rabid zealot. Time will wash off the emotional charge you felt at that moment and all that will be left on the recording is you acting irrationally and insecurely, giving much extra credence to the words of the person you wished to strike down.
Oh, poor David Irving, being interviewed by that mean Mr. Sebastian!
Irving didn't have to do the interview. It was voluntary. If he didn't like it, he could have walked out. He knew Sebastian would be a tough questioner, but he thought he could fast talk his way past Sebastian and rally his supporters. in your case he was right.
Irving had just lost his lawsuit. That was why he was in the news. The judge said Irving repeatedly made stuff up, lied, distorted and falsified the evidence. This decision was a disaster for Irving, involving his having to pay millions f pounds in damages and costs. It ruined his reputation as a historian and exposed him as nothing but a Nazi propagandist. Sebastian was tough with Irving because of these facts.
You do realize that Hitler was an enemy of Britain and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Britons, soldiers and civilians alike. And you should realize that Hitler and his gang committed the worst single crime in human history, the murder of millions of innocent people, 25% of them children, simply because they were Jews.
This interviewer's behaviour wasn't emotion, but a common tactic in a hit-piece. You can see the exact same strategy at play in the infamous interview between Kathy Newman and Jordan Peterson, or in interviews of David Rees-Mogg by the BBC to name a few (not to imply that I endorse either of these).
Here, the interviewer's every statement was designed to unnerve and overwhelm David Irving with a barrage of loaded questions or slanderous accusations in hopes that he would say something rash in anger or become flustered and appear discredited.
This is often used in conjunction (as it was here) with constantly interrupting the responses so that the interviewee is associated with the smear while never actually being given an opportunity to present his position or any counter-arguments. Notice that David, at first presuming the interview to be in good faith, stopped every time he was cut off, but he eventually just continued talking when he realized that he was being talked over any time he started to make a valid point.
Ironically, the interviewer had no intention to give David Irving a platform to voice his opinions or defend himself; he had predetermined who David was and only had him on to condemn, dismiss, and discredit him.
This isn't a case of a good-willed man letting his emotions get the better of him, but of a bad-willed one carrying out an agenda. The interviewer had no intention of actually conducting an interview (not even a controversial one), but only to further cement the destruction of David's reputation---even at the cost of journalistic integrity (something certainly dead today, if ever it existed).
All the best.
The style of Hard Talk is tough questions and pushing for answers. That's why it's called HARD Talk. Get it? Irving knew what Hard Talk is like when he agreed to appear. As usual, he thought he could outfox the interviewer -- as he thought he could outfox the court where he had just lost his case.
Tim Sebastian, the interviewer, was an experienced, well respected interviewer. He is not prone to giving way to his emotions. However it is understandable that a decent human being would be disgusted and outraged by the filthy Nazi liar Sebastian faced.
Sebastian was hardly "insecure". You seem to think he was new at the job. He was not.
I don't think Irving gained credence by talking fast, lying, bragging, and doing his best to fill the time so Sebastian had to interrupt to put his questions. I think he came across as a lying, bullshitting con man, and Sebastian came across as a decent man tasked with getting some sense out of this
fraudster.
Some people arrive at their opinions solely by rating the performances of people on TV. Biden is not good on TV, so lots of people think he must be senile. Trump is better at TV performance, and many people find him very impressive. Irving is like that -- a fraud, a liar, a Nazi, a racist, an anti Semite. But he knows how to perform on TV.
@@leezaslofsky4438 Sebastian came across as an imbecile. I don't agree with a lot of Irving's arguments (e.g., Hitler could have plenty of knowledge 'not' documented, etc) but this interview was clearly controlled academically by Irving.
@@louislemire6691 When faced with a vicious racist anti Semitic Nazi who a court has just found to be a liar, a Holocaust Denier, and a fraud, how would you react? With perfect calm, letting him talk all he wants, letting him lie and distort and slander, just to show how calm you can be?
Sebastian was an experienced interviewer. Hard Talk is well known for asking tough questions and insisting on answers. Irving knew that when he agreed to come on.
You want to be the referee, the judge, who watches the fight from a distance and comments on the way the fighters behave, deducting points for "too much emotion", "interruption" and "lraising the voice".
But you are NOT the referee. You are part of the show. You have a stake in what you're watching. You see before you a vicious, proven liar and fraud who loves Hitler and hates Jews and non-whites. And instead of expressing revulsion at this scumbag, you praise his calm demeanour when he is interrupted.
Is your beef with Hitler that he shouted too much? Would you have liked him better if he spoke in quiet tones, using minimal gestures, was polite and said "You have a point there" every so often?
Irving's tactic was to keep calm at all costs -- a shouting Nazi is not popular -- and keep talking fast, making Sebastian interrupt when he wanted to ask something. Irving knows that if you tell filthy lies in a quiet voice, many people will fall fr it.
So when he attacked the Jews for spending a lot of money on the trial, and insulted Judge Gray by insinuating that he had pretty much been bought by Jewish money -- vicious accusation based on vile anti Semitism -- you found him impressive because look how calm he is.
Life is a TV show and you are the viewer, free of any involvement except as a critic -- "I didn't like that show" or "That was a good show". The fact that you are watching a sly, cynical liar spreading Nazi propaganda and race hatred -- well, that's neither here nor there. The crucial thing is how he performs on TV.
Shallow? You bet. Cowardly? Yes, sir. Amateur TV critic? That's you! Decent human being? Well, that's not the issue.
I aspire to have Mr. Irving's patience.
It's astounding how abrasive and provocative the interviewer is. He could have done the interview without Mr. Irving's presence.
Ive met David Irving and we spoke about the trial and he said, "it was great fun, I would love to do it all again,"
So did you have fun talking about the great Hitler and denying the holocaust?
@@spinespindle9872 Yeah, it was like being at Disney land.
@@spinespindle9872 do you have fun being so patronising?
@@Betterthantelly indeed. Don't worry about my words. Because I'm a Jew and millions of my innocent people unnecessary died, and for you and your buddies in the comments section to say that this is a great man . In my eyes you are lower than sewer rats
Today in Britain not only is Irving not able to speak freely about this, but you cannot either.
You cannot speak freely in any western country, and that includes the USA.
Hate speech stops free speech
FALSE. Anyone who wishes to may speak about Holocaust Denial in the UK. There is no law against it. You will certainly run into strong criticism, but Nazis aren't afraid of that, are they?
If you don't get down on one knee or accept the gender agenda . Or compliancy . You're completely castigated beyond any reason of doubt . They don't give anybody a choice or an opinion . Its simply a mandatory arbitrary Draconian attack on our civil rights .
@@HooDie-Trench-GoTh2022 Freedom of speech gives everyone the right to criticize what others say or write. Criticism can be hurtful, of course. No author who spends years writing a book is happy when a critic says it stinks. But the critic has the right to say that.
You want everybody to be polite when you make racist comments, spew hatred at drag queens or transsexuals, or threaten feminists, gay rights advocates, and other people you don't like.
You have the right to say such things, but you don't have the right to say them without facing criticism. In the US, freedom of speech is very broad, and people can say many things that in some countries would be considered hate speech and liable to be punished by law.
But you d NOT have the right to say hateful, vicious, threatening things to people and not face criticism. You can say it, they can criticize you for saying it -- that's what freedom of speech is.
And some of the things you say may give people the impression that you are a lowlife scumbag, a Nazi hatemonger, a vicious homophobe or transphobe, etc. And they may react with anger and disgust. That is their right under freedom of speech.
Nazi rats and their fellow right wing rats like to mock the compassion and kindness of other people, calling them "snowflakes", "cucks" or "SWPs".
But when those people react angrily or contemptuously to outbursts of hate from the Nazis and their pals, the Nazis whine that they are being "cancelled" and "silenced" and getting their feelings hurt.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you don't want to make people angry and face criticism, keep your hate speech to yourself or to your hate speaking pals.
What a sense of dignity this man has!
And I'm not referring to the reporter.
The "dignity" of a lying Nazi propagandist. That is, no dignity at all. He came across as a bullshit artist, talking fast, lying fast.
The man is a charlatan - a wolf in sheep's clothing
David Irving's biggest problem was/is he's an honest man who knows the truth about something that we're not supposed to tell the truth about.
You are a Holocaust denier. You have no right to be on TH-cam. Fuck off.
@@leezaslofsky4438 You are a foulmouthed Antiwhite scumbag.
@@Mantis_Toboggan_MD. You are posing as a physician. That is illegal. You are not a physician, but a Nazi scumbag.
Nazis deserve foulmouthed abuse. There is no other way of discussing them appropriately. They have chosen to join the most disgusting, immoral, filthy section of humanity, the section that most resembles the sewer rats.
Do we speak respectfully of sewer rats? We do not. We speak of them as a disease bearing species that needs to be eradicated, as they are now doing in New York City.
Human sewer rats need not be eradicated, just treated as the foul vermin they have chosen to be.
In short: fuck off back into your sewer, rat.
@@leezaslofsky4438 Too long. didn't read.
I'm sure it was more Antiwhite drivel though.
@@Mantis_Toboggan_MD. I guess you need short soundbites with short words that are easy for a fifth grader to understand.
Fuck off, you filthy Nazi scumbag. Get back into your sewer and feat on what you find there.
Does “Hardtalk” basically mean “don’t ever let your guest talk”. What a shill this interviewer is
“Hardtotalk” lol
You don’t like the interviewer, so he must be Jewish it working for the Jews? Yeah, that’s the only sensible, educated response to something you don’t like.
@@mattmunroe9901 it was a hit-piece, not a professional interview. Any idiot can see that. If I interview you and ask you questions like "how do you feel about your reputation being horrible," you're going to feel like something is up, no?
Have you been brainwashed by zionism for so long that you can't think properly anymore?
@@mattmunroe9901 you hipster dolt.
BillyJack85 yeah, definitely a “hit-piece”...I mean, there is clearly a “Zionist” agenda behind both the interview, the interviewer and the BBC. That is the only, plausible explanation.
Irving himself has admit that his reputation has been ruined, so someone asking a question along similar lines isn’t really going to do much to his feelings of anything.
Yes, I have been brainwashed by Zionism, again, it is the ONLY plausible explanation for someone not giving two hoots about the interviewer, not claiming his was Jewish and seeing the Irving is far from perfect.
David Irving is an absolute champion and history will prove him right.
So all those dying Jews in auschwiz, sobibor, treblinka ect were not systematically murdered ? Were they actors?
YES.
Already has my friend
Declaring truth requires no effort. Proving truth at least requires reading a few books. Why don't y'all try that you lazy worthless turds?
In a truly free country every and all things can be questioned and examined.
He questioned it plenty, and he's been routinely proven wrong but he still insists he's right. Almost like spreading misinformation is the point or something...
The treatment of people like Irving gives rise to suspicions more than allays any such suspicions
Mr Irving was polite and very patient with this interviewer
To historians is granted a talent that even the gods are denied - to alter what has already happened
A quote by David Irving.
@@sidneyharris3686 And? You've clearly taken that out of context.
Sociopaths are calm. This is nothing new.
He has a thick hide . Man of steel. That bald headed gammon interviewer is a tripe annoying , in fact infuriatingly so. Needs a punch on nose. The interviewer is a nobody who makes a name for himself by slandering , insulting and questioning a persons integrity or motives.
@@robertmanfredthurrigl9424 Stalin and Hitler could e polite also. I hope you have a great day. It is important to for out to hate others. Your wanting violence against the interviewer is not civilized. It is criminal.
interviewer got rekt, by himself 😂
“Anti semite”…
Check oneself before one is recked by oneself
There has to be a special place in Hell for reporters of this kind.
In the late 1990's he was banned I think, from Australia/NZ. I read a couple of his books as a result and found them really interesting. He was one of the first people outside of family that I emailed, who actually responded.
The truth will always prevail. No matter how hard this evil system works to suppress and punish truth speakers, the truth will win.
I always wondered about the population increase of 6 million in Boston during the war period, which turned out to be predominately Jewish. We still do not have a reason for the sudden population explosion, yet the government acknowledges the population increase.
@@aristotle7687 Who cares?
@@lukaz3336 I don't think we need any more evidence of "spike induced progressive neurodegenerative decline" thank you Luka.
@@lukaz3336 Clearly you do.
Exactly. It's easy for a liar like Irving to push his false narratives on TV. But in the court of law, where they took apart his lies point by point, fact by fact, there was nowhere for him to hide. Irving is a proven liar.
David Irving is a international treasure, all he says is that the truth does not fear investigation.
Irving was the one who sued Lipstadt? And he was allowed to make his case, it just so happens that lies don't hold up and his pseudointellectual nazi apologia fell on its face with a little bit of you guessed it: investigation!
No, he's a piece of trash.
Truth 14 Million men women and children shot, gassed brutalized worked and starved to death in Nazi Camps. OK
It never did and we should not fear truth also. It is hard to accept it, but that is the only way to live a life.
@@Zodroo_Tint What never did?
Why can't people ask questions? I don't necessarily agree with Irvine but you should always question everything. The last 3 years epitomises that.
Irving is a brutally honest man in the face of withering criticism delivered in bad faith.
The court decision dismissing his lawsuit shows how Irving not only distorts the evidence, but invents things that never happened. He has no credibility as a historian. He is a Nazi propagandist who has devoted his life to cleaning up Hitler's reputation and slandering Jews. You are easily impressed by a con artist.
Irving might honestly believe some of his bizarre opinions such as the gassing of Jews in Auschwitz-Birkenau is a fiction but that does not mean he is to be believed.
@@jean6872 Putting "honestly" and "Irving" in the same sentence is a contradiction.
Irving is a Holocaust supporter,as are all Denialists. Their strategy is to attack "the Jews" for playing a trick on the rest of us by 'hoaxing" us about a nonexistent Holocaust. They do this, according to this strategy, in order to get billions and billions of dollars out of the Germans and everybody else, so they can live like kings in Israel on other people's money.
This kind of attack is designed to incite hatred of Jews and a lust for revenge on them for using their "cunning" and "dishonesty" to suck money out of us. And then for using their fully owned "mainstream media" to amplify the hoax, and for using their limitless money and power to "fix" historians so they all chime in on the "hoax".
When this strategy is successful, and non-Jews agree that the Jews should be punished, it will be time to initiate a new Holocaust, this time using nuclear weapons, to achieve the "final solution" that eluded the farseeing prophet and hero, Hitler.
That is what Holocaust Denial is all about. None of the Denialists doubt that the Holocaust happened. They can see as well as anyone how ridiculous their Denial is.
But Denialism DOES work as a vicious attack on Jews, using their most painful experience to ridicule them and to make people hate them and want to harm them.
And that's what anti Semites like Irving want most of all to do: harm Jews and, eventually, kill them.
@@leezaslofsky4438 The best strategy to handle people like Irving is to present the evidence for the Final Solution then not waste time discussing undeniable historical facts. The more air time they get, so the more danger they might persuade young teens that their ludicrous nonsense has merit. I'm only shocked that some real historians praise Irving.
@@jean6872 The evidence for the Holocaust is readily available to anyone who is interested. I agree that trying to convince anti Semites and Nazis that their Holocaust Denial propaganda is false is a waste of time.
But I believe it is necessary to push back against the Nazis and their admirers. It is a mistake to let them dominate the discussion. That mistake, summed up in the phrase "Don't feed the trolls" gave an advantage to conspiracy nuts, Nazis, racists and others who are too crude for nice people to reply to.
I do reply to them, with the facts and with some good old fashioned crudity too. They should understand that they are not simply expressing n "opinion", but that, like disease bearing rats, they are spreading poison, and decent people regard them with disgust.
I think that if this kind of pushback had been widespread early on in the conspiracy fad, it could have restrained it. But too many people thought it was all so stupid that it would just go away by itself, so it was wasting time to pay attention to it. This has not worked. Fascism needs to be resisted, not ignored.
I believe Irving. Hardtalk is tasteless.
Judge doesn’t agree with you
@@SuperDecdog what a non-argument. As if to say judges are without bias or manipulation; that their jidgements are always pure and perfect.
@@R34L157 lol gotta defend those anti semites eh
@@SuperDecdog how are they anti semetic? Lol
@@MoonIsFlat69 are you asking how Irving is anti Semitic?
Stop paying the Licence Fee at once.
- Dont you mean that illegal tax enforced on the population by an organization that defends paedophiles, supports terrorists, applauds and encourages, in fact IMPOSES far left political viewpoints and reports made-up news that support their propaganda.
-And brainwashes children with their left-wing, man-hating childrens t.v. programmes (haven't they been abused by this organization enough?)
I call it the zio fee
Whoa. Hearing that this man was a holocaust denier made me think he was going to be an ignorant man, but he is FAR from it. He more than held his own in this exchange, and honestly, he makes me reconsider my own views.
My views on this have drastically. It's upsetting and I'm still getting my head round it, but the truth sets you free and we have nothing to be afraid of. Watch a brave priest on a site that starts with r and ends with umble (and some of his videos are on here) called Fr James Maudsley. His channel is called Scripture and Tradition. He has a wealth of knowledge on the matter.
A great historian... Happy 84th birthday David.
A Nazi propagandist, unmasked as a liar in the trial HE initiated.
Nice troll 🧌