Exposing David Irving

Is Irving a Thief? Forger? Pedophile? Liar? Incompetent Historian? Jewish Agent?

Here Is the Birdman's Best Evidence -- You Decide


By John "Birdman" Bryant




David Irving is perhaps the most famous historian of the present day, tho some would regard him as less famous than infamous. He is acknowledged even by his enemies to be probably the foremost historian of the Third Reich, and his books have been popular with the reading public. He is also widely regarded among certain groups as a great fighter for truth in history, particularly as a result of the libel suit which he instituted against Deborah Lipstadt which drew much public attention to the scholastic shoddiness which is used to support what I have long referred to in my own writings as the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust.

But if Irving has notable virtues -- or at least appears to -- it also seems clear that he has some notable vices. To explain, let me begin by quoting two recent letters which I wrote to Irving.


[First letter to Irving]

To: David Irving Date: 30 March 2003

Dear Mr Irving:

As of yesterday we are in receipt of your March 9 letter datelined Key West, whose purpose we take to be to soften the blow that you are not planning to send out interest checks to your investors this quarter. Perhaps this is not the case, but if it is, we find it strange that:

1) You seem to have sufficient means to maintain one home in London and another in Key West

2) Your website is soliciting investors at "ten percent and up", yet you are not paying interest to those who have already invested

3) I appreciate that you have been thru some difficult times as a result of the Lipstadt suit and the judgment against you which has resulted in confiscation of your property, but I have to wonder why this property was not transferred to your wife or other trusted persons before you initiated your lawsuit. (You seem to have transferred at least some property, since according to your website, Parforce UK is handling the investors' money).

These things bother me. I am not going to ask you to explain, but I am going to ask you to get the interest check to us on time from now on. If at any time you cannot do so, then we will put in a request at that time for you to return our principal, since you have required that we give you 6 months' notice. That includes next month's check.

Please do not misunderstand. You are a fabulous historian, and a great fighter, and we want you to survive and prosper. But we ourselves also wish to survive and prosper. We have indulged several late payments before, but that indulgence is now at an end. As they say, Nothing personal, just business.


[Second letter to Irving]

To: David Irving ( focalp@aol.com & info@fpp.co.uk ) From: John Bryant Date: April 18, 2003

Mr Irving:

I sent you a letter more than 2 weeks ago. In case you didn't receive it, you will find it at the end of this one. I am also taking the precaution of sending this letter to both of your email addresses, as well as to two persons that are known to -- and friendly to -- both of us.

In my last letter, I tried to be gentle. Since you did not answer me, I shall now be blunt.

It appears that you are not being quite ethical in your dealings with your 'investors', as you call them -- or at least with my wife, who has loaned you a fair chunk of money. In particular, as of this date you are still soliciting investors at 'ten percent and up', yet you aren't paying interest to your current investors (with my wife you are now behind two payments), AND you are maintaining a home on two continents, with a secretary yet. So tell me, Mr Irving, is there any other possible conclusion besides that you are being just plain irresponsible, or maybe just ripping your investors off? These are the people who have trusted you. In my book there isn't anything much worse than violating a trust. If I am somehow wrong, then by all means correct me. But it is going to be very hard to convince me that fulfilling your promised obligations should be less a priority than having a gay old time in Key West.

The bottom line, then, is this: If we can't make some private arrangement about settling this within the next few days, then I will make this correspondence public on my website -- a site almost as popular as yours [actually, quite a bit MORE popular according to ranking.com, using the hit counts measure], and one which is read by many of the same people who read yours. Besides the correspondence I will also post a discussion of some other matters relevant to the present situation which I am not sure you will find entirely pleasant. If this still does not produce the desired result, I have several further options, including bill collectors, civil suits and public prosecutors (You may recall that David Duke is going to prison for gambling away contributors' money). These things may have the effect of keeping you from returning to the US and making it difficult for you to attract further 'investors', and may even impact your book sales. Beyond this, I am sure I don't have to remind you that there are powerful people in both Britain and America who would like to see you take a fall, and that thievery and running a Ponzi scheme are serious offenses which, via extradition treaties, could make it difficult for you to do any further serious writing, even if your behavior toward your investors is only the lesser sin of negligence.

I am not your enemy, Mr Irving. My wife and I certainly have no desire to hurt you -- in fact, the reason my wife loaned you the money was to help you -- to do well by doing good, you might say. In this context I might point out that my admiration for your work is reflected in the fact that I patterned my website somewhat after yours, using the same background color, and contrasting your 'Website of Real History' with my 'Website of Real Free Speech'. I am fully in favor of 'truth in history', but I think it needs to be accompanied by 'truth in lending'.

Let me propose the following as a more-than-fair settlement. By the end of the next quarter you pay my wife the interest you owe for three quarters, and at each new quarter thereafter you pay her the interest you owe for that quarter without fail. Also, you set a date by which you agree to return the principal amount (you agreed to a 6 months' notice; we will allow you more time than that if you wish.)

Let me say as I said before that we would like to see you survive and prosper, but not at the expense of violating our trust.

Again, I urge you to settle this privately and as amicably as possible -- it is very much in your interest as well as ours that you do so. If we don't hear from you fairly promptly -- say, by the 25th -- well, let me just say that we don't plan to be wronged and let it pass.

John Bryant

PS: I am sending a copy of this letter to Fredrick Toben of the Adelaide Institute, and Donald E Pauly, who helped to host you at a Nevada function a year or so ago. I wish them to be witnesses to this correspondence, and to act as friendly parties whom I am inviting to offer their own input to help settle this matter if they feel it is appropriate. I am requesting that they keep this matter confidential for now.

PPS: It surprised me today to realize that this is Good Friday, the crucifixion date of a certain Christian, or Jew, or half'n'half, depending on your interpretation. It is also the date of Paul Revere's ride to warn his countrymen to be up and to arms against a British assault. Beyond that, it is but a temporal stone's throw from the Spring rebirthing celebrations of which Easter and Passover are but modern variants. I am sure that the aficionados of synchronicity could cite various parallels between the situations just cited and that of this letter, whose date I hasten to add is purely accidental.

[End of 2 letters to Irving]


If readers were to call me foolish for writing these letters, perhaps they would not be entirely wrong. Maybe I would have been better off by saying nothing, and hoping that Irving would come into better times and start making his interest payments again. I admit that this might have been a more likely way to get my wife's investment back, and would have had the additional virtue of keeping me from having to expend time and effort on this matter. But on the other hand, it angers me when I think I am being taken advantage of, and I have now acquired enuf information about Irving apart from my own experiences to make me highly suspicious of him. In particular, lest the reader think that Irving's misbehavior as described in the above letters is just a freak occurrence, let me point out that a number of serious charges against Irving have been made by others. As isolated accusations, they might not necessarily deserve great weight; but taken together within the context of Irving's behavior toward me, they reinforce each other and 'connect the dots' to paint an entirely different picture -- a picture of Dorian Gray, one might surmise. These charges -- which we shall discuss in detail shortly -- come from the following documents:

(1) An essay posted on the Net which indicates that Irving is suppressing the Jewish connection to 911

(2) A 1994 book published in the UK by Alexander Baron which says that

(a) Irving is a homosexual pedophile

(b) Irving is literally mad

(c) Irving is sexually fixated with nazism and Jews

(d) Irving maintains a Hitler shrine in a house in London where he has bizarre homosexual encounters

(e) Irving has (or had) a German mistress

(f) Irving's scholarship is questionable

(g) Irving is guilty of numerous documented lies

(h) Irving is controlled by Organized Jewry via his sex life

(i) Irving is protected by Organized Jewry

(j) Irving lives high on the hog (limousines, $5000 suits) in spite of financial problems

(3) Allegations by others which state directly or by implication that Irving is guilty of serious crimes or ethical breaches -- an interpretation reinforced by Irving's often-disingenuous responses to these charges

(4) My own investigations which suggest that

(a) Baron is probably right about at least some of the sexual charges

(b) Baron is right to raise questions about Irving's scholarship

(c) Irving is apparently covering up the intimate involvement of nazism with the occult, thus throwing into doubt his claim of writing 'real history'

(d) Irving is probably half-Jewish (not a 'charge', but obviously relevant to Irving's motives)

I discuss these items in the correspondingly-numbered sections below:



Salvador Astucia is the author of a book, Opium Lords, which contains a chapter supporting the theory that 911 was in part the work of Jewish conspirators. Astucia was first invited by Irving to speak at one of his 'Real History' conferences, but later disinvited, apparently because Irving did not like the idea of blaming Jews for 911. Specifically, Irving disinvited him "on the basis that he can't have "anti-Zionism" or "anti- Semitism" at the conference" -- an interesting statement that makes one wonder why Irving is so determined to tread so lightly on those who have supposedly tread so heavily on him. For the complete story, see "David Irving: Another False Prophet?" at


or click the following durable link


I myself asked Irving about why he seemed to shy away from questioning the 'official' 911 story, and he told me that it was due to his fear that American authorities might hassle him or make it impossible for him to return to the US. And that, my friends, is a very strange response coming from someone whose whole life and work is devoted to 'Real History' that "can't be bought off". That is, Irving seems to be saying that he is quite content to abandon 'Real History' as long as he can avoid hassle from the authorities and get back to Key West. I haven't heard such a heart-warming story of devotion to principle since the time of that other famous British devotee, Benedict Arnold.



I shall only briefly comment on Baron's charges in his 1994 book The Churchill Papers: Revising the Revisionists, Unmasking Irving. Those who want more information will find ample detail in his book. I should say, however, that Baron is not motivated -- as are most critics of Irving -- by distaste for Irving's views on the Holocaust, since Baron is also a Holocaust revisionist. This, then, makes it far more likely that Baron's motives are what he says they are, namely, a desire for exposing the truth.

The most sensational charge which Baron makes against Irving -- tho hardly the most serious -- is that Irving lured Baron, whom he believed to be a Jew, to his 'Hitler shrine' on the pretext of giving him an interview, and then attempted to sodomize him while arrayed in full nazi uniform; and then, when Baron declined, masturbated to orgasm in Baron's presence, carefully wiping his penis with a swastika-embroidered handkerchief. This incident is memorialized by a drawing of Irving which appears on the cover of Baron's book, posted below:


While his work strikes me as generally credible, Baron's major problem is that he has made some strikingly bizarre charges with little or no independent corroboration. In Baron's favor, however, is the fact that lawsuit-happy Irving, who made so much public noise about protecting his reputation in the Lipstadt trial, has never sued Baron for libel, thereby suggesting that he (Irving) would lose such a suit. This is reinforced by the following quotes from Irving on his reputation:

* Irving told The Independent, "I regard my payment from the Sunday Times as being in two forms; as payment in the form of cash and payment in the form of prestige. My reputation is, oddly enough, more important than money." -- http://www.adl.org/presrele/ASUS_12/2753_121352.asp

* Irving said that Lipstadt's use of the phrase "Holocaust denier" to describe him has been deeply damaging. "It is a poison to which there is virtually no antidote," he said. "It is like being called a wife-beater or a pedophile. It is enough for the label to be attached, for the attachee to find himself designated as a pariah, an outcast from normal society. It is a verbal Yellow Star." -- http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial/AtlantaConst120100.html

[The latter quote is doubly ironic, since Irving has indeed been accused of being a pedophile, and since -- as Irving surely knows -- the 'yellow star' that Jews were required to wear in the Third Reich, and about which Irving evinces so much horror, was proposed by the Jews themselves, namely, by the Chief Rabbi of Berlin!]

One of the important features of Baron's book is a 5-page catalog of errors which were found in Irving's book Churchill's War, something which is notable in view of the observation that others have accused Irving of shoddy scholarship. For example, John Lukacs wrote in the philo-semitic National Review that Irving's book Hitler's War contained "hundreds of errors: wrong names, wrong dates, and...statements about events...that did not really take place. These errors, however, are not the result of inadequate research; they are not technical mistakes or oversights. They are the result of the dominant tendency of the author's mind." --http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/2753_121352.asp

In my view, the most important charge which Baron makes is that Irving is both controlled and protected by Organized Jewry. Baron gives a very long and detailed account of this matter in his book, and I can add nothing to it.

For those who wish to judge the credibility of Baron's book for themselves, I suggest they buy and read it. It can be obtained directly from Baron himself, whose email address is A_Baron@abaron.demon.co.uk . Baron also maintains three websites where further information about him can be obtained. The URLs are:




In addition, all his sites can be accessed from http://www.abaron.demon.co.uk/



Irving has a section of his website called "Dredged up from the cesspit" in which he has posted a number of articles attacking him, along with his responses, and which is located at


Posted as a logo for this section, as well as on each of the postings it contains, is the following histrionic and rather silly statement:

"There is a vast Cyber-Cesspit into which the enemies of Free Speech toss their filthy smears. Then they fish them out, wipe off the slime, and offer them as hard truths to those who know no better. --David Irving"

Most of the posted articles seem to have to do with Irving's Holocaust denial (or whatever you want to call it) and are thus of no special interest here. A few, however, are deserving of attention. One of these is an exchange between Alexander Baron and another individual regarding Baron's charge that Irving likes black boys for sexual purposes -- a situation which -- if true -- is most curious in view of Irving's near-worship of all things Aryan. What is even more important here, however, is that Irving treats the Baron correspondence as an 'attack', whereas in reality it is just Baron's response to an inquiry about one of the charges in his book, which Irving carefully avoids mentioning. That is, this seems to be a disingenuous attempt by Irving to deal with Baron's charges by denying them and calling them 'filthy' while effectively avoiding exposure of any substantive information on which they are based. This material will be found at:


Another posting from the 'Cyber-Cesspit' is the following article


which can also be found at

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/NetLoss/Irving/Irving-TheBroomeLawsuit&OtherAllegations.htm (durable link)

Irving partially responds to these allegations in footnotes. What is interesting here, however, is not that there are apparent falsehoods which Irving points out, but rather that there are a number of other important allegations that Irving DOESN'T answer. The incomplete way in which Irving responds strongly suggests that there is much which Irving does not wish to tell (For example, what did Irving say to turn Broome from one who had agreed to read his manuscript and make corrections to one who was so appalled at Irving's 'history' that he felt he had to sue? Again, why was Irving the object of a libel suit on the Convoy book in the first place? Since Irving claims superiority to other historians by supposedly writing history based only on original documents and interviews, it would seem that he would be the LAST person to be sued, yet he seems to get sued left, right and center.)

One of the most interesting of Irving's critics is Gregory Douglas. Douglas evidently disturbs Irving a great deal, as measured by the time which Irving spends responding to him; yet Irving is again disingenuous because he never bothers to link the articles in which Douglas makes his charges. Thus for the reader's edification we post below two of these articles (Douglas's website has disappeared, but happily we retained two of the three major articles which deal with Irving).

http://www.peterstahl.com/douglas/Irving.html (original URL - no longer valid)

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/NetLoss/Irving/Irving-GregoryDouglasSkewersIrving-Fakes&FraudsII.htm (durable link)

This longish and slow-starting but must-read article by Douglas is a very detailed and often quite funny debunking of Irving. Tho it is marred by some unfairness, it nonetheless gives the appearance of both deep knowledge and essential credibility. This information reinforces many of the allegations I have discussed by citing additional material. Note that this file cites a case where Irving declined to return a BP50,000 advance for a book he failed to write.

Another of Douglas's articles is the following, in which he discusses Irving's dealing in faked and stolen nazi documents, and why Irving has confounded him with Stahl:

http://www.peterstahl.com/douglas/FourthReich.html (Original URL - no longer valid)

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/NetLoss/Irving/Irving-GregoryDouglasSkewersIrvingOnDocuments.htm (durable link)

An article written by Douglas gives more information on Irving's dirty dealings, with a new take on the St Martin's refusal to publish the Goebbels bio and the allegation that the Moscow Goebbels diary was a fake. When compiling this essay I found that I had failed to save a copy of this document, but Gary was kind enuf to supply me with a (slightly modified) copy whose URL is below:

http://www.peterstahl.com/douglas/IrvingCP.html (Original URL - not now valid)


In fairness I post below the URL of an Irving article attempting to debunk Douglas. Irving's credibility turns on whether Stahl and Douglas are the same person or different (unfortunately, I have no independent information on this) but one detail that does hurt Irving's credibility in this document is a statement of his which reads as follows:

"A policeman I used to know in Stuttgart was a typewriter expert; he kept a collection of 30,000 of them in his home for comparison purposes -- the Heavens only know what his wife thought about his keeping those nasty, dusty, greasy machines."

And what kind of house is large enuf to keep 30,000 typewriters? An imaginary one perhaps?




(a) Baron is probably right about at least some of the sexual charges:

If we keep in mind that Britain's 'public' school system is notorious for encouraging homosexuality, and if we recall that nazism involved a cult of homosexuality centering around Ernst Roehm, then homosexual behavior in David Irving does not seem so unexpected. But the following sequence of facts, when taken together, seem strongly to indicate that Irving is indeed a practitioner of the ars homoerotica:

* Irving spends several months of each year away from his London home

* This period of time is also spent away from his live-in female companion

* He spends a great deal of this time in Key West, Florida

* He has made Key West his pied a Angleterre for 15 or more years

* Key West is only a small town with absolutely no 'great library' which might attract the attention of academic researchers like Irving

* Key West is expensive

* Key West is a mecca for the gay set

The last point seems to be a gross understatement. In particular, to find out how much of a gay mecca Key West is, I did a Google search for "Key West gay" (310,000 entries) in order to compare it with "San Francisco gay" (813,000 entries), which makes sense if you know that San Francisco is perhaps the best-known American center for the gay life. Then I obtained the population for Key West (25,000) and San Francisco (732,000), and noted that the number of SF entries is close to the number of the population, but the number of Key West entries is almost thirteen times that of the population, from which we might reasonably conclude that homosexual activity per capita in Key West is about 13 times (ie, 1300 percent) greater than that in San Francisco. That, I think the reader would grant, is one hell of a difference. And very possibly an explanation of why Irving -- in spite of the additional strain on his budget -- is so eager to spend time there.

(b) Baron is right to raise questions about Irving's scholarship:

We have already noted Baron's catalogue of errors for Churchill's War. Another matter which raises questions about Irving's scholarship -- or his honesty -- is the matter of the so-called Hitler Diaries. Here are two quotes taken from the Net on this subject:

* Irving initially denounced the notorious fake "Hitler Diaries" and then, seeing that they were being accepted by the British media, reversed himself and proclaimed them to be absolutely genuine. It has been said that Irving was the first person to call these documents fake and the last to authenticate them. --Zackery Mehlis -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1872197159/103-0909497-9907868?vi=glance

* The defining act in the Hitler Diaries story was David Irving's decision to change his mind about the diaries' authenticity. As the first person to declare them a fraud, the British journalist and sometime historian fought long and hard against the diaries, only to change his mind and declare them genuine just days before they were definitively shown to be fake. Hard cheese on him! -- http://www.simpleton.com/19971021.html

(c) Irving is apparently covering up the intimate involvement of nazism with the occult, thus throwing into doubt his claim of writing 'real history':

There have been several books written on the role of occultism in nazism, a good one currently in print being Peter Levenda's 1995 book Unholy Alliance. What these books say is that occultism was at the root of nazism and that occult practices were rife among the top nazis, particularly Himmler. Knowing this, but having found no discussion of occultism in Irving's books, I asked him about it. His response was (approximately) "I don't know anything about it." Now coming from the premier historian of the Third Reich, that is an answer which is beyond bizarre. The Thule Society, Hess's astrologically-timed flight, and Himmler's castle and Round Table are just three well-known aspects of nazi occultism; yet Irving claims to be a 'know-nothing' on this subject. It is of course barely possible that nazi occultism -- much like the 'gas chambers' of the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust -- was a myth or greatly exaggerated; but with so many authors having written on the subject and at such length, it would seem more reasonable to conclude that Irving's 'ignorance' is actually a deliberate omission, the possible reasons for which we shall discuss in a moment. It seems to me that this matter raises serious doubts about Irving's honesty as a historian, and suggests that Irving's much-touted 'real history' is no more real than that of the Establishment's 'court historians'.

For those doubting the relation of nazism and the occult, several months ago I posted a collection of quotes on this subject. The URL for this file is:



Here are some excerpts from Levenda's book, mentioned above, showing that Irving has left huge holes in his historical writing, either as a result of incompetence or occult coverup:


(d) Irving is probably half-Jewish (not a 'charge', but obviously relevant to Irving's motives):

David Irving has suggested publicly that he is half-Jewish. He did so in an interview with two reporters from Haaretz during the Lipstadt trial, and he posted the article on his website where I originally read it. Here are the last two paragraphs of that article, which contain Irving's suggestion of his Jewishness:

"According to the daily report provided for his Internet admirers, David Irving had a hard day. He had worked the previous night until 4 a.m., and was already up at 7:50 to take Jessica to school. However, he reported to visitors to his website, he came home from the court that afternoon, at which point two Ha'aretz correspondents showed up. He found us "considerably more fun than Eric Silver [an editor of the Jerusalem Report, with whom he had spoken the evening before], though their final report will undoubtedly express the same line. He continued: pre-empting their inevitable accusations, I said, like Dr. Samuel Johnson: "The charge of anti-Semitism is the last resort of the Jewish scoundrel." "Which is indeed what he told us, but he did not tell his readers how our meeting ended. When we were already in the hall, ready to leave, he suddenly said to us, "Maybe write that I'm half Jewish. That would be quite the story for you. I can already see the headline. David Irving Circumcised. What a story." I got the feeling that he was highly amused by that comment." -- http://www.abbc.com/aaargh/fran/polpen/dirving/segev000204.html

From the above account it is unclear as to whether Irving might have meant his statement as a joke, but in reading it over I have the strong feeling that this was Irving's way of saying that he is in fact half-Jewish, and that what he was doing by saying so was playing to the Haaretz audience. ('Irving' is, after all, a common Jewish name, and would be his father's, which would lead to the conclusion that it was his father that was Jewish, since 'full' Jewishness is technically conferred only by a Jewish mother.) It is significant in this regard that, (a) when I finally got around to asking Irving about it, he never responded; and (b) the article apparently no longer appears on his website.

When I read the above interview, I thought nothing of Irving's being Jewish, since there are a number of people in the pro-white movement who are Jewish, and are more than welcome as far as I am concerned. But if Irving is indeed half-Jewish, this could conceivably mean that Irving's intentions are different from what they are usually imagined to be, namely, upholding the glory of the white race and its crucified Savior, Adolf Hitler.



There are two factors which suggest the possibility of hidden motives in Irving's behavior. One of these is Irving's being half-Jewish, if indeed he is; the other is the fact -- if it is a fact -- that Irving is being controlled by Organized Jewry, according to Baron via blackmail over Irving's sex life. But if we are to believe that Irving is being controlled by Organized Jewry, we have to ask two questions:

1) What functions could Irving be performing for Organized Jewry?

2) Is there anything in Irving's behavior to indicate that he is performing such functions?

The following is a list of four possible functions. It would be virtually impossible to cite evidence for the first three, since such evidence could be found only in private conversations or memos. As to the fourth, however, there is in fact evidence that Irving has performed this function, and this is confirmed by the fact that this evidence has emerged since Baron's book was written. Here is the list of functions:

(a) To win the confidence of former nazis in order to ferret out the 'war criminals' or perhaps discover where they hid the Third Reich's gold.

(b) To attract and keep track of Hitler enthusiasts, lest any become dangerous to Jewry, and to attract money and contributions which thereby become unavailable for efforts against Jews or Organized Jewry (This is not as far-fetched as it may sound: This was what Prof Revilo Oliver discovered was the function of the in-fact-Jew-controlled John Birch Society, of which he was one of the founding members. Oliver's lengthy article on this subject may be found on my website, www.thebirdman.org, in the Net Losses section.)

(c) To glorify the almost-certainly-quarter-Jew Adolf Hitler, grandson of a Rothschild and proponent of a New World Order (the words are Hitler's), who has been called 'the father of Israel' because of his policy (established by the 'Transfer Agreement') which trained Germany's Zionist Jews for resettlement in Israel, and whose policies of racism, lebensraum, socialism and militarism are now the policies of the Israeli state. (Hitler's Jewishness is discussed by several authors, including Ralph Epperson (The Unseen Hand), M Hirsh Goldberg (The Jewish Connection), and Norman Livergood (in a long and interesting article whose title I forget, and which was formerly posted on the Net, but appears to have been taken down. Livergood has not responded to my queries in search of a copy.)

(d) Another important function which Irving might be performing for Organized Jewry is discussed by Baron on the last page of his book:

"Why should Zionists want Irving to deny the Holocaust, the reader might ask? They don't, but they can read the writing on the wall, and they are desperate men. Not only is their wire-pulling becoming increasingly obvious, even to the people who cannot be any conceivable stretch of the imagination be branded anti-Semitic, including ordinary Jews, but their wailing and whining is finally beginning to piss people off as well. It's no longer sufficient for them to pull out the photographs of the mass graves at Belsen and scream 'Isn't six million Jews enough?' every time their murdering co-racialists perpetrate another Sabra and Shatilla, or gun down a young Palestinian girl on her way to buy milk. They know their lie is crumbling, and with it both their ill-deserved sympathy and the stranglehold they have over both the Western media and the minds of their own people, so what they have done is build up Irving into some kind of super-Holocaust Denier, the Godfather of Holocaust Revisionism ... And, when he announces that he was wrong, as he did, pragmatically, with the Hitler diaries (he [first declared them false, then later] claimed that they were genuine, knowing them to be false, but hoping to stay in the limelight and pocket a few more bucks), that he has been led up the garden path, conned, or even that he has been a willing tool of the mythical international Nazi conspiracy, Irving will say the Holocaust is true, and, whatever the academics think, whatever the laws of physics [that render the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust impossible], the public, gullible goyim and paranoid Jews alike, will believe."

The facts which have emerged since the publication of Baron's book which offer at least some support for his theory are the following:

* In the 2002 edition of Hitler's War (pp 447-58), Irving states that there was some mass killing of Jews by the nazis 'in the east', mostly by shooting, but in some cases accomplished by 'gas vans', in part as a preemptive effort against the eastern (Soviet) Jews, who were notorious for turning into 'partisans'. In addition, Irving argues that Hitler had no responsibility for these killings, which were in the hands of Goebbels, Himmler and other lesser figures; and in fact he quotes Hitler as saying that he did not wish to deal further with the Jewish Question till after the end of the war. This is apparently as close as Irving gets to embracing the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust which alleges the killing of 'six million Jews' in 'gas chambers', but it does represent a certain degree of backtracking on revisionism's claims, and thus could be seen as support of sorts for the Orthodox Jewish Version. It also opens the possibility that Irving will make 'further discoveries' which will confirm the OJV.

* The fact that Irving seems to have suppressed the nazi-occult link reinforces Baron's theory in the sense that Irving's suppression offers the possibility of his 'discovering' it at some time in the future, thereby giving him another means of discrediting nazism, if that is his purpose. On the other hand, however, if Irving's motive is as a partisan of nazism, then suppression of the nazi-occult link would serve this purpose also, by means of sanitizing what the public would likely take to be an evil feature of Hitler's regime.



The one thing which is certain in all this is that David Irving has acted unethically in his dealings with my wife regarding the money she loaned him; tho the fact that many others have made charges of a serious nature against Irving strongly suggests that there are far more problems with Irving than are reflected in his apparent attempt to steal my wife's investment. My purpose in writing this is to induce Irving to pay her the money he owes in exchange for not making this document public, and to pursue other means of collection if he does not.

If Irving cares to respond to these charges, I invite him to do so, and I volunteer in advance to post his response on my website or link to it. I do, however, reserve the right to respond to any response, but I will be happy to post or link any further response or responses of his. My guess, however, is that Irving will not respond, most likely because there is nothing credible he could say. If he does respond, however, I predict that he will not dare to link this essay. All of which goes to demonstrate my own honesty and Irving's lack of it.

Upon reflection, while this matter obviously has a great deal to do with money, it also may have quite a bit to do with Irving's ego. In particular, I have been told that Irving is a popinjay who insists on being the center of attention at all times. My charge that he has behaved improperly has no doubt hurt his ego, and his response has been a childish silence. He could have nipped all this in the bud if he had simply responded to my letters in a decent and proper manner, but he chose not to. It seems a foolish choice for him to risk sinking "Battleship Irving" on the reef of a Humongous Ego; however, this kind of choice is not unknown among homo sapiens -- or perhaps we should say homo stupidens.

In closing, it has occurred to me that perhaps the explanation of Irving's behavior involves the peculiar psychological pattern averred by another Britisher with a reputation for dabbling in homosexuality (and, BTW, the author of 'A Portrait of Dorian Gray', referred to earlier), Oscar Wilde, in his poem "The Ballad of Reading Gaol":

Now each man kills the thing he loves --

Let this by all be heard;

Some do it with a withering look,

Some with a flattering word;

The coward does it with a kiss;

The brave man with a sword.


Irving, so it is said, loves himself quite exceedingly, so whether the hara-kiri is quick or slow, only time will tell.


Other documents of interest:

* Letter from the Birdman to Irving on nazi occultism


* Three letters written to Irving during the Lipstadt trial - Irving would probably have been much better off if he had followed this advice




Criticisms of the Irving Essay and Birdman's Responses


For such a comparatively 'hot' piece as the Irving essay, I have received relatively little criticism. All that I have received so far is reproduced below, with my responses. All was courteous, but not all was carefully thought-out.

[Birdman comments on a letter from John M, also reproduced below:]

Thanks for writing. Of the small amount of feedback I have received, yours is the only basically negative reaction. I have made a few comments interspersed in your text, and marked with ******** I have to say that I think your letter reflects careless reading and a serious prejudice in Irving's favor, and I am not happy about responding. In fact, I have to admit that I am angry, and it almost never happens that I receive letters that make me angry. I took a great deal of time to write the essay, which I believe is much more than fair, and I gave Irving an opportunity to respond well before I posted it, but he chose not to. Now you read it carelessly and make me respond. I am not happy about it, but I will give a response.

Dear John,

Your attack on Irving is unfair.

I understand your annoyance at his failure to make timely interest payments and his failure to respond to your letters, however your attack is over the top.

***** My wife has been a major supporter/investor of Irving. In my view, his behavior gives every earmark of attempting to steal my wife's money. I can forgive lapses, but not an attempt to steal.

Baron's "book" is nonsense.

******** What in the dickens do you know about Baron's book? You haven't even read it, yet you call it nonsense. Now THAT is nonsense.

Irving has good reason not to sue the guy.

Libel lawsuits in the US are very difficult, due to NY Times vs. Sullivan . That was why he sued Lipstadt and Penguin Press in Britain. The book was printed in Britain. Was Baron's?

******* Baron's is an English book. Libel would be much easier for Irving to prove in England. So the failure to sue, in combo with the quotes I cited about Irving's sensitivity about his reputation, gives him EVERY MOTIVE to sue. Yet he did not. This point totally escaped you.

Another very good reason not to sue is the cost/benefit analysis. Is the possible return from a lawsuit worth the cost, including the negative publicity - especially the negative publicity? Prior to your article today I had never heard of the guy. Does Baron have deep pockets? Penguin Press did.

****** Irving says his reputation is more important than money (see quote). So with an easy suit -- unlike the difficult one he undertook against Lipstadt -- he should have won, and with no financial problem. But again, he didn't sue. Conclusion: HE WOULD HAVE LOST AND HE KNOWS IT!

In regard to the occult origins of Nazism you should be aware of the fact that Irving has written biographies of the Nazi leadership, and not a comprehensive history of the Nazi movement. His book on Himmler, the one leader most associated with the occult, is incomplete. Have any other Hitler biographers found evidence of meaningful linkages between him and the occult?

******** Read Lavenda. There is a TON of info out there on the relation of nazism and the occult. The nazi movement was MADE by the people that Irving bioed. If he were legit, this material would be there in profusion. But Irving doesn't even MENTION it, and tells me he knows nothing about it. It seems to me your comment is willful ignorance.

As far as your comments about Key West are concerned I understand the following. The Florida Keys are one of the nicest places on earth to live. Key West especially and a lot of people live there. Half are homosexual and half straight. Your argument that this means that the Irving is therefore queer is bad logic.

****** You missed the logic. Homos are only a tiny percent of the population, not half. So if there is a profusion of homos in Key West, that means it is a homo watering hole. And if Irving choses this place to live in for half of every year for the last 15 or 20, and with all the other stuff about his homosexuality, what conclusion is virtually FORCED on you? What part of 'obvious' don't you understand?

Finally, I also understand that he lives as a guest in a house owned by a wealthy supporter. If a friend let me live in a house in Key West, once winter rolled in I would go there instantly. Where would you rather live in the winter, London?

****** If my family were in London I would rather be there. Unless I were a homo (ok, bisexual).

I think that Irving is a very interesting and very special person. The strength and intelligence that he showed during his trial was impressive.

******* That may be true, but it is irrelevant. And don't forget the old aphorism "False in one thing, false in all", ie, if Irving shows major dishonesty, how can we trust his books? Brilliant he may be, but that doesn't give him a pass in this case.

I am not surprised that he may have some personality quirks or financial difficulties, or that he may be overstretched. It is unfortunate that he cannot make his interest payments. Maybe that will change someday.

Irving is a genius, and geniuses, including you Birdman, tend to be a little bit different from mere mortals.

I will not be at his Real History Conference over the Labor Day weekend. I have other commitments. However I hope that it is a success. In the past the IHR used to run these things on a regular basis. They haven't in years. Only Irving puts them on now. They breath life into the real history/revisionist movement. Joseph Sobran will be there this year.

Please omit my name if you intend to print this.

****** I will not post this unless you request it. I DO appreciate your input even if I think it is wrong. I apologize for seeming harsh -- it is not the way I am or the way I wish to be seen, at least to folks on this side of the fence.

[end John M correspondence]


dear birdman bryant,

as a devoted reader of your website i was really stunned about your roughcasts, slanderous remarks etc. pp. about d a v i d i r v i n g. as a "remote viewer" of the more intelligent us-libertarians (i.e. antiwar, v- dare, what really happened, joe sobran, the man of steele e tutti quanti) i've read n o t h i n g comparable to your raid. why that blitz out of the blue? you've posted several links to d. irving on your website. you've quoted him again and again. and now this.....(5 days from the beginning of "real history day", Cincinnaty....hmmmmm....). i know you as a hard-hitting but intellectually honest guy. i'm eager to read more about your invectives - and p r o o f if possible. mr. irving in my opinion is a somewhat shadowy scholar - but at least we've got not so many frieds of germany in the english-speaking world - especially today in the us. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" - no? by the way: the self-laceration of the "right- libertarian" is common in germany. for that reason the nationalists are of no relevance here - politically. in the us too?

regards from germany


[Birdman responds:]

Dear Michael:

Thank you for your letter.

I did not say anything 'slanderous' about Irving. (A slander is a deliberate untruth.) I simply told the truth as far as I am able to understand it. Most of the assertions against Irving were actually made by OTHER PEOPLE -- I simply assembled them, and added my own experience, which in my view clearly shows Irving's improper behavior. Don't look to me for 'proof' beyond what I posted. This is what I've got. I'd say it's pretty impressive, but you may not agree. That's why the title says 'You Decide'.

Why the blitz? That's explained in my post. I suggest you reread.

[I should have added that I posted my essay prior to Irving's conference because Irving had said that he was sending the interest checks, but did not send them, and this gave the appearance of trying to avoid having me post my essay prior to the conference without actually making his payments.]

I will post articles from Irving's site if they are good -- 'good' is the only criterion. I try not to be petty and cut people off just because I have a beef with them.

Perhaps Irving is a 'friend of Germany', perhaps not. My essay raised that issue: If he is controlled by Organized Jewry, he may not be as friendly as you think. 'False flag' operations are not unknown to the Foreskinner community.

Thanks again for writing. -j

[end Michael correspondence]


[Letter from DB:]

In my judgement character assassination is not the way to recover civil debt in any circumstances, as it smacks of blackmail. To use it before all the legal avenues have been exhausted is even worse, and, when the character under attack is one of our own people, it harms the movement more than the targeted individual, and provides comfort to our enemy. "Neither a borrower nor a lender be, for borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry"

[Birdman responds:]

Thanks for writing. You raised some issues that should be addressed.

(1) 'Character assassination' is a negative term of which a positive term would be 'exposure of a bad character' or 'deserved criticism'. 'Character assassination' also implies that character is irrelevant to evaluating whether someone speaks truthfully or whether he is guilty of a breach of ethics or a crime. In fact, a person's character is OBVIOUSLY relevant to evaluating whether he speaks the truth: We are disinclined to believe known liars. Again, a person's character is OBVIOUSLY relevant to the question of whether he has committed a crime or a breach of ethics: Someone of bad character is much more likely to have behaved improperly. To this I might add that liberals have argued the opposite viewpoint by saying that a person should not be judged guilty for one crime just because he has committed others. There is a point to that, but when we are trying to make a probability judgment, a person's character is going to play a major role in our judgment, however 'irrelevant' it may be to a particular allegation.

(2) You assert that my essay 'smacks of blackmail'. There are at least two objections to that charge. The first is that one could argue that there is nothing at all the matter with blackmail -- if you don't want to get blackmailed, don't behave so you can BE blackmailed. But regardless of your position on that matter, what I did was most certainly not blackmail, because it is not 'blackmail' to ask someone to pay his debts, and to threaten him with legal punishment if he does not. As to whether it 'smacks' of blackmail, here again you are using a term intended to wrongly put a negative spin on something which does not deserve such a spin.

(3) It is facile for you to talk about 'harming the movement' when it is EYE who is being harmed, and is trying to rectify that harm. It is easy for you to toss me overboard because it is ME that is suffering from Irving, not you. But if you insist on talking in terms of 'harming the movement', just let me say that it does the movement no good to have someone in a leadership position whose character reeks of a septic tank. Beyond that, has Irving really been a help to the movement? There are undoubtedly some ways he has had a positive effect, such as exposing the bombing of Dresden. But my understanding is that he has not really been a revisionist in any major way that has affected the movement. I am not really knowledgeable about this, but none of the important revisionist material on WW2 which I have seen has had an Irving byline. Furthermore, I consider the Lipstadt trial to have been a very dubious contribution to revisionism at best. For one thing, Irving was whining over being called a 'Holocaust denier' (So what? It's not an unreasonable assertion -- he does in fact deny the Orthodox Jewish version. It might be inaccurate, but again, so what?) For another, he ended up 'admitting' the gas vans story. For another, his suit was intended to suppress speech (Lipstadt's) -- not very freedom-loving of him. For another, he jumped thru hoops trying to prove how non-racist he was -- something not only useless, and not only contradictory to the position of pro-whites, but guaranteed to make a person look foolish (Irving got himself smeared as 'racist' by the judge, yet). (On these matters, see the letters I wrote to Irving during the trial - links are at the end of my essay.) Maybe my memory is bad, but I just can't remember anything particularly positive that came out of the trial.

In conclusion, re your citing of Polonius' advice to Laertes, you should look it up again, for it ends with some advice you (and Irving) need to take to heart in this matter (I'm quoting from memory; this may not be the exact words): "To thine own self be true ... thou canst not then be false to any man."

You and Irving stick that in your bongs and smoke it.

[end of DB correspondence]


[Letter from A to Fredrick:]

I can only comment on one of the allegations raised by Mr Baron and Mr Bryant.

When David Irving was last in Australia he simply couldn't keep his eyes off my friend R's breasts. She had to tell him in no uncertain terms to stop looking. This doesn't seem consistent with the allegation that Irving is now homosexual. Although I suppose perhaps some people can change their orientation, Irving was so obsessed with R's breasts that I think it unlikely for him to have switched.

More importantly, though, I don't see what is to be gained by airing these sordid allegations. Even if they turn out to be largely true, the fact remains that a person's achievements can far outweigh weaknesses in their private lives. I think of Henry Lawson, Oscar Wilde, Caravaggio, and many others. The world would have more beauty in it today if Wilde had not been jailed - and probably the same goes for Lawson. The world has more truth in it today because of Irving, even if he turns out to be the worst bounder imaginable - in addition to being an offensive perver on women's breasts!

If the purpose is to "expose" Messrs B & B, I still don't see the point. If they are basically right, it doesn't matter in the long run. If they are basically wrong, B & B's claims are such that Irving can't really deny them without giving them more currency than they deserve.

You wanted comments. In my view it would be best to drop this issue.

[Birdman comments:]

As already noted, the point of airing these 'sordid allegations' is that they are relevant to Baron's charge of Irving's being controlled by Organized Jewry, among other points cited in my essay. Another important point is that if Irving is a liar, forger, etc, what faith can anyone place in his historical writings?

Evidently A does not read carefully enuf -- or wishes to cover up for Irving irrespective of what he has done.

The breast story may well be true. Irving may well be bisexual. And for that matter, hypersexual. Which is all the more reason to believe that Organized Jewry may have gotten its hooks into Irving.

[end of 'A' correspondence]


[Another letter forwarded by Fredrick:]

I got the impression from the Bryant memo, (which you endorsed by forwarding to me) that Baron's accusations leveled against David Irving were bona fide. If Baron's accusations are NOT true, you must promptly dispel any notions that you support Baron. Many, many of us couldn't sleep last night. Like him personally or not, whatever his fallibilities may be, Irving is a HERO. He deserves the Knights Cross to the Iron Cross. Bryant is a totally separate issue. High regards to you ...

[Birdman reacts:]

I do not know of anything for which Irving should be regarded as a hero. I have already discussed the Lipstadt trial. It is true that Irving has been banned from several countries, and has had some encounters with authorities as a result, but this hardly makes him a hero. But I think I can name a few things for which Irving should be regarded as a HEEL. Indeed, I think I already have. Hello? Hello?


[Birdman to Fredrick:]

You seem to be saying you discount Baron's charges, and the basis seems to be that he didn't meet you at the airport [to take you to Irving's 'tryst house'.] I would have to say that is a pretty weak reed.

[Fredrick responds:]

I could augment but have been asked to retain confidentiality, not by Baron, but by another person.

[Birdman reacts:]

I have not yet heard anything bad about Baron, tho I asked a London friend to inquire for me. I hope anyone who has information on this subject will write.


James B writes:

It is dejecting to learn of Irving's fallibilities. The revelations will be devastating to the Revisionist cause. No doubt Jews are dancing around the gutted tower. Lipsett probably vomited with joy.

Nevertheless, Irving's financial indiscretions must be addressed. For this I applaud you.

But why go into his alleged homo-sexuality, his alleged pedophilia ? Alexander the Great, Lawrence, the famous far and wide enjoyed such dalliances and more. It's a matter of degree, and Culture. Except for Irving's alleged Jewish blood I couldn't care less...

No doubt Irving is an arrogant s.o.b. but he earned the right to be. So have you.

[Birdman responds:]

First let me say that I am not and have never been 'against' homosexuality. If you are born that way, what the hell. (No normal person could possibly CHOOSE to be gay.) ... But I do treat it lightly, and I am not enamored of either pedophilia or of the 'Gay Agenda', tho I am no Crusader Rabbit on the subject.

To answer why I brought it up, that's because Baron said that this was how Organized Jewry was controlling Irving. That's pretty relevant. Also it's an integral part of Baron's story. And the fact that Irving likes BLACK boys, well ... (OK, maybe it's just as well.)

[To the above I should have added: I do not think all this will be devastating to revisionism. Irving has not really been much of a revisionist (see my remarks elsewhere), at least as far as the Holocaust is concerned. In the long term it is best to be rid of people whose association can harm us. And certainly it is best to be rid of Irving if - - as Baron alleges -- he is controlled by the Uno Hooze.]





Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *