David Irving masterthread

Morlar

David Irving masterthread

This discussion arose from this thread here :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056357770

My view on this is outlined here:

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Free= good.

I wonder when is the Times comment on front page from? The book is 1996 after much of the controversy over Irving.

Has anyone read this?

You have to realise that before the campaign against him he was the premier TR era historian. I went through it years ago. I am more familiar with some other of his works than this one. He also translated the Keitel diaries for example and his 'Hitler's War' is a key book on this era. So much so that West point military academy had it on it's required reading list until jewish advocacy groups pressured for it's removal.

You can buy also this book if you prefer :

http://www.amazon.com/Nuremberg-Last-Battle-David-Irving/dp/1872197167

In fact that amazon page has some interesting reviews :

It was the writer/author Montgomery Belgion, I believe, who first doubted the wisdom and juridical standing of the Nuremburg Trials after World War II (1946/7). Others, including prominent American and British leaders--the jurist F. J. P. Veale (in his ADVANCE TO BARBARISM) and Senator Robert H. Taft--objected to the trials and to the made-up ex post facto categories used to convict the defendants (after all most of the Allied leaders would have been guilty of the same crimes, if not in the same measure). To those who would disagree with the verdict these early critics reached, let me state right away that none of them were "Nazis"--the term that for some seems the best way to counter criticism of the trials. David Irving is a controversial writer, indeed. But that should not blind readers to the material he carefully analyzes in NUREMBERG: THE LAST BATTLE. As noted historians Sir John Keegan, Gordon Craig, and Hugh Trevor Roper have stated, in referring to any number of Irving's books, they are "meticulously researched and very valuable." Dislike the writer or his supposed politics, if you will, but if you plan to comment on this or other Irving books, be prepared to test his notes and scholarly apparatus first (as I have done). Yes, I know, historian John Lukacs in his broadside against 'revisionist' history, THE HISTORY OF HITLER, claims to have found various quotations that aren't quite right or are taken out of context. I have examined almost all of them, and Lukacs is the one who should be checked for accuracy. In almost every case, Irving's citations are correct; additionally, Irving has offered detailed commentary on these pseudo-historical red herrings (on his web site, for instance). Again, I think we can disagree strenously with a person's politics, but simply to dismiss him because of that is wrong and not worthy of a society that supposedly prides itself on "openness" and "free speech." NUREMBERG: THE LAST BATTLE is an significant thrust against the encrusted myths surrounding the Nuremberg Trials. It's high time we looked anew at that painful portion of history....

Highly readable and troubling work - exposing the hypocrisy of the Allied leaders in their "noble" quest to exact justice at Nuremburg. The deep hate vengeful nature of Allied leaders Morgenthau, Churchill, Eisenhower and even Roosevelt are exposed in their full reality. From documented meeting discussions at Yalta, Tehran, Quebec and Washington - Irving reveals the underlying personal agendas of these men. From the Germanophobic vindictiveness of Henry Morganthau (who's infamous "Morganthau Plan " was finally smashed by a more cool headed and straight thinking Truman) - to the historically documented (and long supressed) distastful and disgusting political discussions between Churchill and Stalin ---- Churchill's coziness with "Uncle Joe" and the jocular amnner in which he agreed to the partitioning of Eastern Europe, repatriation of Russian defectors, and the deprotation 5,000,000 Germans as reparation slave laborers is particularly dispicable --- and completely ignored by the current "candy-store" history establishment bent on painting a completely one-sided account of WWII. War is ugly - plain and simple --- and both sides will do whatever it takes to win.
The "establishment" will criticize Irving and this book because it doesn't like the mirror he holds to their faces. I fail to see how publishing verbatim transcripts of meetings and words spoken by these leaders (Irving fully footnotes and sources his quotes) - in which they fully reveal their true feelings and ambitions - is regarded as "garbage analysis." We don't always like the truth - but that never erases it.
My family personnally experienced the repurcussions of Churchill's and Roosevelt's monumental failures at Tehran and Yalta - in which they handed Stalin the easten half of Poland he originally negotiated and waged aggressive war for after the Ribbentop-Molotov pact. While the Nuremburg judgements were justified -- they were also SELECTIVE --- Regardless of what establishement "feel-good" historians want us to believe. At the very least Iving' book makes us think deeper about the command "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Interesting how it was the Stalin's Soviet Union who was most eager to begin flinging the rocks - and the declining British Empire ---- who colonized most of the globe though millitary aggression --- which claimed "moral authority."

Nuremberg, the Last Battle by David Irving is truly the "last" World War II History Book. It sums up current knowledge about Nazi atrocities far more accurately and using far more original sources than anyone else's work. The incredible thing, in this day and age when the world is once again pursuing "world courts" to punish crimes against humanity, is how many of the charges even against the Nazis could not be easily proven, or were crimes also committed by the victors.

This is not a picture of triumph, or of anything a rational person would ever want to see imitated.

Irving, as always, footnotes to an extent unheard of by any other historian, and his footnotes are always where the "juicy", controversial stuff is. That's for you to discover!

I can think of no other Third reich era historian who has had their work so intensely analysed, globally for errors and ommissions than Irving.

If you held others to that high a standard then you would find that multiple more errors and omissions would arise.

I have to say that in general I agree with the points about footnotes. That is something that annoys the hell out of me, historians/authors throwing out pieces of information without footnotes, even in books without indexes. Oftentimes picked up and then used as sources in other works. I'd also share the view that a lot of ww2 books are simply regurgitated from other books with absolutely no reference to the original documents whatsoever. The thing with Irving is that he bases his works on documents, if it's not supported by original documents - then it's generally left out. Whereas other historians will simply repeat conclusions not (seemingly) supported by documents. This is primarily what leaves him vulnerable to most criticism in my view. It's also worth pointing out that the majority of people who dismiss him and offer criticism are totally unfamiliar with any of his work, nor do they apply the same stringent standards & obsessive over analysis to ANY other authors whose conclusions they agree with.

Any other thoughts on this subject?

If responding please clarify if you have actually read any of his works, and if so what were the strenghts/Weaknesses.

Morlar

If the moderator of the WW2 Forum would like to merge the two threads on this subject - fire away.

I would definitely suggest leaving this one intact and also leaving the poll in place.

One key aspect of this discussion is whether or not those with an opinion have actually read any of the works.

Otherwise it could turn into an exercise in regurgitating criticism/praise with no direct viewpoint being expressed.

hinault

I read Irving's book about Rudolf Hess and I'm about to start his book "Nuremburg - the last battle".
I think he's a good writer and his books contain considerable detail referenced to documentation/bibliography (Nuremburg for example has 99 pages of notes/sourced document references).

In my view Irving offers a viewpoint which definitely merits consideration on topics concerning WWII.
Yes his viewpoint is at odds with other writers and we all know that after losing the libel case that his views have been judged as being a holocaust revisionist.

Regardless of the courts verdict, I think his point of view offers a different take on historical events.

Morlar

For those unfamiliar with this author - these clips may shed some light, this is from rté's Pat Kenny show from a couple of years ago, it's David Irving and UCD historian Dr. Robert Gerwarth

Part A)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFoFcikCi-o

Part

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw3VuE6wB8w

Also the Christopher Hitchens interview about the withdrawn book (st Martins Press controversy).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_u71P0an58

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMxleCC5VVg

Fuinseog

UCC stopped him coming because the intolerant anti fa or anti Nazi league threatened a violent disturbance.

despite what people may say about the man he has had contact with senior party members, ergo he works close to his sources.

his opinions are dangerous in the sense that he challenges may to measure views of history. I am surprised mossad has not dealt with him, but its easier to destroy his career and label his a right wing loon.

R.Dub.Fusilier

i have a couple of his books, i read the Dresden and the Trail of the Fox, i have the Rudolf Hess one and the 2nd Churchill one and hope to read them in the future. his books are good imo. but like most of history you have to read a few books on the same subject to fully understand it. his work only realy started to be discredited when he said anything about the holocaust. the afa etc stoped him from talking in Cork but Irving won in the end when he appeared on the LL show , speaking to 100s of thousands instead of a couple of hundered.

hinault

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

i have a couple of his books, i read the Dresden and the Trail of the Fox, i have the Rudolf Hess one and the 2nd Churchill one and hope to read them in the future. his books are good imo. but like most of history you have to read a few books on the same subject to fully understand it. his work only realy started to be discredited when he said anything about the holocaust. the afa etc stoped him from talking in Cork but Irving won in the end when he appeared on the LL show , speaking to 100s of thousands instead of a couple of hundered.

I've read several historians who stated that Irvings work is credible in terms of his research and the fact that he cites all his references.
I think the problem is that the conclusions that he derives based on the material is the issue.

He is perfectly correct to say that no piece of paper anywhere has been found that shows Hitler ordered the execution of Jews/Slavs/Homosexuals etc.
Whether one can extend this to say that there was never a policy to exterminate these people is open to debate.

I said it earlier, Irving offers a different view of events/policies and he offers an insight in to the background to those events/policies which other historians chose to either ignore or dismiss depending on their viewpoint.

xflyer

Oh God here we go again the bitter defenders of the Reich out again fighting the last battle to rehabilitate the Nazi regime that plunged most of the world into war and massacred millions of innocents.

Jesus Christ, what does it take for you people to eff off and take your particular version of history to Stormfront or wherever and talk amongst your own kind.

You have constantly hijacked this forum with your own version of history to the point that only the most dedicated person can be bothered to debate with you.

I contribute to various WW2 and military forums and have never come across one so distorted by neo Nazi types. Maybe it's because we Irish were not in the war officially.

Most people know exactly what Irvine is and it's not a seeker or the truth.

I've no illusions about allied actions in WW2 but it's clear that there are plenty here who have serious illusions about the Nazi cause to the point that they try to find every excuses for their actions.

This is a sick forum.

Morlar

xflyer wrote: »

Oh God here we go ...This is a sick forum.

Would you be in the category of 'Have not read him - totally unreliable ' ?

You are free to offer an opinion on the author whether or not you have read him.

However it's better if you refrain from criticising those who have read an author you seem to have no actual first hand knowledge of.

BlaasForRafa

xflyer wrote: »

Oh God here we go again the bitter defenders of the Reich out again fighting the last battle to rehabilitate the Nazi regime that plunged most of the world into war and massacred millions of innocents.

Jesus Christ, what does it take for you people to eff off and take your particular version of history to Stormfront or wherever and talk amongst your own kind.

You have constantly hijacked this forum with your own version of history to the point that only the most dedicated person can be bothered to debate with you.

I contribute to various WW2 and military forums and have never come across one so distorted by neo Nazi types. Maybe it's because we Irish were not in the war officially.

Most people know exactly what Irvine is and it's not a seeker or the truth.

I've no illusions about allied actions in WW2 but it's clear that there are plenty here who have serious illusions about the Nazi cause to the point that they try to find every excuses for their actions.

This is a sick forum.

Can you link to any posts where someone is seeking to "rehabilitate the nazi regime"?

Because otherwise it just seems like you have your panties in a twist over nothing.

Morlar

There is an interesting thread on this subject here (this one also links to the judgement and to a collection of other threads on the subject of Irving)

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=179837

It's more or less split in it's breakdown - rougly 50/50 for and against.

With some ardent readers and some who express the view that no one should ever read anything of his.

I think he is a talented and capable researcher, good writer and more or less a worthwhile historian. Certainly there is room on the bookshelves for his work alongside others.

I'd have to say in fairness that there are some sentences here and there where you would think the choice of words is intentionally unflattering to certain people. You could wonder whether or not this is a reaction to, or side effect, of the organised campaigns against him. Either way unnecessary in my view (both his sometimes questionable turn of phrase and the campaigns against him).

Having said that he is surely not the only historian with that habit & on the bright side he does his own (considerable) research and references a huge amount of what he says (in comparison to other historians).

I think one interesting aspect of this author is the reaction he provokes in people who have not read his work. If there was no outrage and over-reaction, no campaigns against his works being published or sold in bookshops then he'd be pretty much swamped by the volume of more 'conformist' work coming out anyway.

I think his upcoming Himmler biography will be interesting. Considering for decades the role he (Irving) assigned to Himmler, how exactly this is all fleshed out and tied together (if it will at all or if it willl be a departure) - it'll probably cause fireworks when it's released.

For anyone who has the time to spare there is another interesting discussion here :

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=17408

basically it's an indepth analysis of one single meeting as covered in one of his books (the 1943 Klessheim conference) which was also raised during the libel trial

There is also this link here to Irving's site where he has made available some of his ongoing Himmler research, including family letters and the Police decodes and other bits and pieces ;

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/index.html

R.Dub.Fusilier

xflyer wrote: »

Oh God here we go again the bitter defenders of the Reich out again fighting the last battle to rehabilitate the Nazi regime that plunged most of the world into war and massacred millions of innocents.

Jesus Christ, what does it take for you people to eff off and take your particular version of history to Stormfront or wherever and talk amongst your own kind.

You have constantly hijacked this forum with your own version of history to the point that only the most dedicated person can be bothered to debate with you.

I contribute to various WW2 and military forums and have never come across one so distorted by neo Nazi types. Maybe it's because we Irish were not in the war officially.

Most people know exactly what Irvine is and it's not a seeker or the truth.

I've no illusions about allied actions in WW2 but it's clear that there are plenty here who have serious illusions about the Nazi cause to the point that they try to find every excuses for their actions.

This is a sick forum.

i am not trying to defend the 3rd reich the question was about David Irving and what people thought about his books.

if the content of the thread is a problem and causes offence you can ask the mods to close it down , or if you disagree with the content you can post a reply , which you did.

i always find that people who are quick to attack germany and the 3rd reich are slow to attack the russians in ww2 and the massacres that communists commited before and after ww2, millions more suffered at the hands of communists .

hinault

xflyer wrote: »

Oh God here we go again the bitter defenders of the Reich out again fighting the last battle to rehabilitate the Nazi regime that plunged most of the world into war and massacred millions of innocents.

Jesus Christ, what does it take for you people to eff off and take your particular version of history to Stormfront or wherever and talk amongst your own kind.

You have constantly hijacked this forum with your own version of history to the point that only the most dedicated person can be bothered to debate with you.

I contribute to various WW2 and military forums and have never come across one so distorted by neo Nazi types. Maybe it's because we Irish were not in the war officially.

Most people know exactly what Irvine is and it's not a seeker or the truth.

I've no illusions about allied actions in WW2 but it's clear that there are plenty here who have serious illusions about the Nazi cause to the point that they try to find every excuses for their actions.

This is a sick forum.

Where has anyone tried to rehabilitate the Nazi's/NSDAP/Hitler?

This is a discussion about David Irving's books.

I don't know about you but the more information brought to subjects like WW2, the better in my opinion.
Irving does unearth huge amounts of data from source documentation.

I've just started reading his book "Nuremberg - the last battle" and reading the preface/introduction Irving goes in to great detail about gaining access to the public and private papers of the main prosecution lawyer and all of the other characters mentioned throughout the book.

Fuinseog

Morlar wrote: »

For those unfamiliar with this author - these clips may shed some light, this is from rté's Pat Kenny show from a couple of years ago, it's David Irving and UCD historian Dr. Robert Gerwarth

Part A)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFoFcikCi-o

Part

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw3VuE6wB8w

Also the Christopher Hitchens interview about the withdrawn book (st Martins Press controversy).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_u71P0an58

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMxleCC5VVg

interesting clips. I see in the first one PK states that between 5 and 6 million people died in the holocaust, thereby unwittingly challenging the made to measure figure of six million. I hereby accuse PK of heresy and condemn him as a holocaust denier.

Dannyboy83

Usually when people have a very extreme reaction to him, it's a good sign they haven't bothered read his work.

I think he is a bit like our Kevin Myers - I don't always necessarily agree with what he says (sometimes I do), but there is no doubt that he is interesting and thought provoking.

Fuinseog

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Usually when people have a very extreme reaction to him, it's a good sign they haven't bothered read his work.

I think he is a bit like our Kevin Myers - I don't always necessarily agree with what he says (sometimes I do), but there is no doubt that he is interesting and thought provoking.

He risked his career to become thought provoking and became a social pariah like someone from the Middle Ages claiming that the world was round.

its obvious from his appearance on PK that his opponent is not familiar with his work.

Manic Moran

I contribute to several websites and forums discussing WW2. Never have I come across so distorted a site in favour of the Nazis

I do not believe that this site has a position one way or the other where the Nazis are concerned. Posters may have their own opinions.

It seems to me that the discussion should not be on the merits of Mr Irving, but on the merits of his work. Are the sources credible? Are they independently verified at point of origin, or are they simply referencing other works? Are the conclusions or inferences that he draws from the facts he references of such a nature that they are the only possible conclusion, only probable conclusion, or just the conclusion that he happens to choose? If his conclusions are contrary to that of 'conventional historical wisdom', why is he in a minority (I presume)? I can't imagine that the majority of other historians have 'sold their souls' to political correctness and retained their own reputations.

This seems to be a simple topic of discussion, but one which actually requires quite a bit of research to be discussed correctly. "Yes, I've read him, he makes sense" is inadequate. "Yes, I've read him and I disagree with him" is similarly inadequate.

I suggest that people step back a bit, cease fire for a few minutes, and have another crack.

NTM

Fuinseog

I see his books are still on sale at amazon. Not sure about Easons and other big Irish book stores.

In my view his books are a must for any student of the Third Reich.

I read his biographies on Rommel and Göring and found them to be well researched, easy to read and containing no trace of any political fanaticism.

Dades

I'm TEMP locking this thread until a WWII Moderator is available to sort this mess out.

Otherwise I'll clean it up myself and that won't be pretty.

---

EDIT - Have reopened this after a wholesale cleanup.
xflyer's first post remains (as do the replies) as a conscientious objection.
What followed that was just dragging the thread off-topic.

Nobody has been sanctioned so let's see if there is a possibility this thread can work.

hinault

Dades : thanks for re-opening this thread.

Thanks Hinault

hinault

Thanks to Dades reopening this thread, I can post this which might be of interest.

BBC radio did an interesting programme on the Irving/Lipstadt libel case.
The programme interviewed all the main players in the case, the judge, the defendants and the plaintiffs in the trial.

You can listen to the programme (in 5 sections) on Youtube here.

The first part is here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKjnYKQZsTM&feature=related

Tony EH

I approach Irving like I do all historians. I try to back up what he says with other opinions and draw my own conclusions.

His past opinions on the nature of the holocaust (seeing as that's where the controversy lies) would differ from mine in many areas, but they're his views on the matter and I don't care. He has revised his own opinions over the years, though, as new material comes his way.

As far as I am concerned, he has several books that are essential to anyone interested in WWII. 'The Trail of the Fox', 'Nuremburg-The Final Battle', 'Churchill's War Vols 1 and 2' and 'The Mare's Nest'. His biographies on Hess, Goring, Goebbels, Keitel and Milch are worth checking out too.

I also think he's his own worst enemy to a very large degree.

Morlar

I was in a discussion about this subject the other evening and that was basically the point I was making, that he is his own worst enemy. If he would ever shut the hell up and let his research finds and books do all the talking he would have 50% less problems than he currently does (in terms of reputation and distribution). There would however, still be organised efforts to blacken his name and destroy his livlihood etc.

I think there is a lot of underhand provocation thrown his direction, and generally historians are no stranger to an overdeveloped ego, so some kind of reaction is always inevitable, but even still he tends to throw gasoline on the flames rather than try to put them out.

That has been the tendency in the past, not sure if this has matured on that front in recent years. I think his next book (Himmler) will be significant in terms of how it fits with the rest of his lifes work, or, the possibility that it could be a departure in terms of what is expected of him by readers and detractors alike.

Tony EH

I think he should have just left the holocaust alone. After all, it was only his public appearances on the matter that caught the attention of the ADL, JDL, WJC, et al. Until that point in the mid 90's, there wasn't any real controversy over David Irving and his name was only really known among people who studied the period. Sure, he was iconoclastic, but if there's ever a period in history that needed iconoclasts, it's WWII.

Although I wouldn't share many of Hitchens' opinions, I agree with his assessment in the video above, in that Irving has the ability to make one question past assertions and often draw different conclusions on the matter. His work on Churchill and Roosevelt's relationship had indeed cast a very different iron into the fire and that relationship is today viewed in very different manner than it originally was. Not that that was entirely down to Irving, of course. He certainly altered my view on Rommel with his work in 'The Trail of the Fox' and I welcome Irving's books, if only for that.

I'm happy that he's publishing his Himmler biography, but I'm forced to wonder how in depth it's going to be, seeing as he's been (stupidly) banned by nearly every archive on the planet.

Fuinseog

the truth is found through searching and maintained by disputation.

The holocaust is a unique historical event in the sense that it may never be debated and the made to measure version of events, that change over time, must be blindly accepted. To question anything regarding it is not tolerated and this is not healthy for society.
Irving has challenged this, which took some courage and was destroyed as a result.

jonniebgood1

Fuinseog wrote: »

the truth is found through searching and maintained by disputation.

The holocaust is a unique historical event in the sense that it may never be debated and the made to measure version of events, that change over time, must be blindly accepted. To question anything regarding it is not tolerated and this is not healthy for society.
Irving has challenged this, which took some courage and was destroyed as a result.

Your view is very much in line with Irvings own view:

"I inevitably investigated the extent to which Hitler participated in or had cognizance of the Holocaust. … To my utmost distaste it has become evident that it is no longer possible to write pure history, untrammeled and uninfluenced by politics, once one ventures into this unpleasant field."
— 2000 statement in libel trial against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt

. This ignores that his problems began more with statements of a more outspoken nature:

"I don't think there was any overall Reich policy to kill the Jews. If there was, they would have been killed and there would not be now so many millions of survivors. And believe me, I am glad for every survivor that there was."
— 1988 comment disputing the Final Solution

"Until the end of this tragic century there will always be incorrigible historians, statesmen, and publicists who are content to believe, or have no economically viable alternative but to believe, that the Nazis used ‘gas chambers' at Auschwitz to kill human beings. But it is now up to them to explain to me as an intelligent and critical student of modern history why there is no significant trace of any cyanide compound in the building which they have always identified as the former gas chambers."
— 1989 comment questioning the gas chambers

"I'm going to form an association of Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust and Other Liars — or the ASSHOLs."
— 1991 speech to a Canadian audience

Questioning history is a healthy past time and people are not imprisoned for 'questioning' history. It is perverse to say he is was 'destroyed' for this.
If you are referring to his credibility as a historian being destroyed then you are correct, his credibility has been destroyed. This happened because of the conclusions he came to following his research, not for questioning. When he does his research and then makes a conclusion that is very clearly incorrect, it renders his wider volume of work worthless (in terms of recognised history) despite the value it may have.

Tony EH

Wrong. It came about because of his opinions on a certain matter and because he chose to be outspoken on that certain matter.

Pre his "holocaust period", there were few who had any problem with Irving, except in the usual way that some quarters have when their own historical sacred cows are being challenged. But, such things happen to most WWII historians from time to time. Even Antony Beevor came under fire for his opinions re: Allied conduct in his latest book on D-Day. Opinions which were fairly harmless.

Also, aside from the rather tasteless "Asshols" remark, uttered in conjunction to a recently "outted" holocaust survivor fraud IIRC, there's nothing THAT bad in his opinions quoted above.

There's TONS of room for debate on how much planning went into the Endlosung. Irving’s 1988 statement is that he doesn't believe that there was a meticulous plan drawn up and executed and, frankly, that opinion is borne out by the extreme lack of documentary evidence to support it. Even Lawrence Rees' fairly recent 'Auschwitz, The Nazi's and the Final Solution' seems to suggest that it was more of a case of "working out that way", than a fully documented business plan. More haphazard, than efficient nazi cliché.

OS119

xflyer wrote: »

...This is a sick forum.

indeed - there's more than a whiff of tight black trousers lingering in this corner of the forum.

they can dress it up as much as they like - 'just addressing this particular technical issue', 'shouldn't all be judged to the same standard?' - but the direction of travel, and the intended destination is blindingly obvious.

i know what these people are, and fearless servants of truth they ain't....

jonniebgood1

Tony EH wrote: »

Wrong. It came about because of his opinions on a certain matter and because he chose to be outspoken on that certain matter.

Wrong how?

I said it was due to his conclusions- are his opinions not his conclusions?

Also was he not completely wrong on his Dresden death toll (i.e. not Holocaust)?

Tony EH

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Wrong how?

I said it was due to his conclusions- are his opinions not his conclusions?

Also was he not completely wrong on his Dresden death toll (i.e. not Holocaust)?

He has been pilloried for his outbursts on the holocaust, not for his "conclusions" per se.

As I stated, few had any real issue with Irving until he chose to open his mouth on the holocaust. His books were standard reading in both Sandhurst and West Point and his peer reviews were very good, even if opinions differed on occasion.

Sure, IMO, he's been wrong over the issue on the Dresden death toll, but I'm not interested in the numbers game and there are MANY variations on the Dresden death toll. We also have to bare in mind that he wrote 'The Destruction of Dresden' at a time when nobody even wanted to address the issue. He was literally researching it himself entirely. Anyway, figures are bunkum.

But, the issue we all need to honest about here, regardless of where one stands on Irving, revisionism or the holocaust, is that the orchestrated campaign against him did NOT come about because of his opinions on Dresden, PQ 17, Hitler or the tooth fairy. It began after he started to question the standard holocaust story.

jonniebgood1

Tony EH wrote: »

But, the issue we all need to honest about here, regardless of where one stands on Irving, revisionism or the holocaust, is that the orchestrated campaign against him did NOT come about because of his opinions on Dresden, PQ 17, Hitler or the tooth fairy. It began after he started to question the standard holocaust story.

No argument in general on this. There was attention on him from the inaccuracies in 'Hitlers war' but what we are discussing here is his reputation which withsttod that (I am mid way through it and it is an interesting read although knowing there are problems with its accuracy is devaluing it for me).

Tony EH wrote: »

As I stated, few had any real issue with Irving until he chose to open his mouth on the holocaust. His books were standard reading in both Sandhurst and West Point and his peer reviews were very good, even if opinions differed on occasion.

Sure, IMO, he's been wrong over the issue on the Dresden death toll, but I'm not interested in the numbers game and there are MANY variations on the Dresden death toll. We also have to bare in mind that he wrote 'The Destruction of Dresden' at a time when nobody even wanted to address the issue. He was literally researching it himself entirely. Anyway, figures are bunkum.

Again I would agree with most of this. The main issue then is his opinions on the different issues about the holocaust. He has made various claims about this that seem to be against all evidence. In any case he put his reputation as a historian on the line with his libel trial against lipstadt. He lost and his reputation was ruined. He will always have fans in the same way as there will always be extremists of all persuasions. I think this is reasonable to most people.
So I suppose the debate could be is it fair that a historian (WWII historian in this case) can be totally disregarded because they are wrong about one issue?

On a side note can anyone tell me what Irvings current view on Auschwitz or the Holocaust is? I know he revised it at the end of Lipstadt trial (or other recent trial) but have not seen any confirmation of this revision since?