Books By David Irving?

Discussions on books and other reference material on the WW1, Inter-War or WW2 as well as the authors. Hosted by Andy H.
Post Reply
User avatar
Panzer Leader
Member
Posts: 472
Joined: 26 Feb 2006, 03:42
Location: VA

#31

Post by Panzer Leader » 18 Apr 2006, 03:11

I hear he is a good writer despite his disturbing ,and highly misguided views on the Holocaust.

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

#32

Post by fredleander » 18 Apr 2006, 13:02

Panzer Leader wrote:I hear he is a good writer despite his disturbing ,and highly misguided views on the Holocaust.
That is my "problem" with Irving. I have only read a few of his books but nowhere have I seen any views at all on the holocaust as such. Just plain information as brought on to him. What is wrong with him asking, and offering payment for, any written documentation on Hitler's "final" intentions for the jews? I find it rather strange if no such exists, given the status of the history.

I understand Irving is critical to the hysteria around the Nuremberg trials but that I find rather justified.


snookie
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 15 Mar 2005, 18:59
Location: US-Fing-A

#33

Post by snookie » 18 Apr 2006, 13:13

leandros wrote:
Panzer Leader wrote:I hear he is a good writer despite his disturbing ,and highly misguided views on the Holocaust.
That is my "problem" with Irving. I have only read a few of his books but nowhere have I seen any views at all on the holocaust as such. Just plain information as brought on to him. What is wrong with him asking, and offering payment for, any written documentation on Hitler's "final" intentions for the jews? I find it rather strange if no such exists, given the status of the history.

I understand Irving is critical to the hysteria around the Nuremberg trials but that I find rather justified.
I think most people who are critical of Irving (like some above) never read any of his work.

User avatar
Bjørn from Norway
In memoriam
Posts: 1091
Joined: 29 Apr 2002, 21:38
Location: Bodø¸, Northern Norway
Contact:

#34

Post by Bjørn from Norway » 18 Apr 2006, 14:14

"...and what? Is my statement not clear enough for you?"

Not really, is there any other statement than that his political wievs are expressed in the books?

B

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002, 13:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Books By David Irving?

#35

Post by tonyh » 18 Apr 2006, 18:15

Panzer Leader wrote:How are books by David Irving?
If you are interested in Rommel, then get "The trail of the fox". A very good read and THE book on Rommel AFAIC.

His Churchill biography is very interesting too and is both admiring and severely critical of the man.

"Nuremburg" too is worth the read.

As an approach, try to cross reference everything.

Tony

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

#36

Post by fredleander » 18 Apr 2006, 21:34

I am quite surprised by his book on Rommel. I haven't finished it yet but the first half was much less flattering for Rommel than I had expected. Apart from that I find the book very instructive. His books on Keitel and Jodl also - very down-to-earth and illustrative about the conditions in the German leadership.

Next book by him shall be the "Morgenthau Plan". If time allows.

Potsdamerplatz
Member
Posts: 2688
Joined: 04 Nov 2005, 06:06
Location: Scotland

#37

Post by Potsdamerplatz » 19 Apr 2006, 00:17

I downloaded his biography of Field Marshal Rommel but haven't got around to reading it yet. In fact, I have to admit that I had completely forgotten all about it! :o

I have to agree with the comments by leandros and a few others in this thread. I read "Hitler's War" and "Goebbels: Mastermind Of The Third Reich" way back in 1996 and 1998 respectively before all the current controversy came to light. I can honestly say I can't remember reading any disturbing "political views" which set alarm bells ringing at the time.

Best regards,

David

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#38

Post by Qvist » 19 Apr 2006, 10:55

For my part, I must say that the Lipstadt trial fundamentally changed my perception of Irving. I used to consider him a politically misguided, but essentially legitimate historian whose unconventional perspectives were interesting to read despite the fact that I often disagreed with them. He had a clearly visible bias of course, which occasionally marred his interpretations. For example, in Hitler's war, he pretty consistently presents Hitler's reality perceptions without any critical attitude whatsoever, which is not good historical writing. For instance, he puts up Hitler's views on the development of the Me-262 as if there was no question that they were fact. In the Rommel book, I simply lost interest in what he had to say about Hofacker and Speidel because his feeling of personal enmity towards them was so obvious and radiant that I had no faith that he was presenting the case objectively. But nonetheless, thus far I considered him as basically a useful historian to read - biased, often with interpretations I disagreed with, but interesting and somewhat refreshing. And, he did dig up a good few hitherto unknown sources.

But - the key point with the Lipstadt trial is that the court found that he had willfully manipulated and misrepresented his sources. That is an unforgiveable sin for any historian, and especially for one with such a strong bias to begin with. Any time you read a book about a subject you do not know well enough to independently assess all the issues in it (which is practically every book you read), you implicitly have to trust the author to an extent. With someone like Irving, that's a tough burden to assume as a reader. And if he can't be trusted not to consciously falsify sources, I see little point anymore in wasting time on reading him. And with this problem, it actually becomes a drawback that he is using sources nobody else have had access to.

cheers

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

#39

Post by fredleander » 19 Apr 2006, 14:01

Qvist wrote:For my part, I must say that the Lipstadt trial fundamentally changed my perception of Irving. I used to consider him a politically misguided, but essentially legitimate historian whose unconventional perspectives were interesting to read despite the fact that I often disagreed with them.
For those not informed it was mrs. Lipstadt that was on trial in this case. Looking around for information on this one cannot but see similarities to another trial - 55 years earlier.

But what should be essential to what we discuss here - whether mr. Irving is a good writer and historian - is the judge's description on mr. Irving - as a historian:

"Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives.... It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War Two is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover, he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favorable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the caliber of Irving's military history ..."
Qvist wrote:For instance, he puts up Hitler's views on the development of the Me-262 as if there was no question that they were fact.
So much is written on this that what is fact or fiction is very difficult to ascertain. In his book on Erhard Milch this question is gone through in detail as the story unfolds - and the picture is changing all the time as Hitler is advised, and informed, differently. In the larger picture I would consider this item (the Me262) as a mere detail. Even if it could have mattered in the end game.
Qvist wrote:In the Rommel book, I simply lost interest in what he had to say about Hofacker and Speidel because his feeling of personal enmity towards them was so obvious and radiant that I had no faith that he was presenting the case objectively.
This is quite strange - my impression of Irving on this point is that what he writes about Hofacker and Speidel rather justifies their actions - as Rommel is described in a less than flattering light.
Qvist wrote:But - the key point with the Lipstadt trial is that the court found that he had willfully manipulated and misrepresented his sources. That is an unforgiveable sin for any historian, and especially for one with such a strong bias to begin with. Any time you read a book about a subject you do not know well enough to independently assess all the issues in it (which is practically every book you read), you implicitly have to trust the author to an extent. With someone like Irving, that's a tough burden to assume as a reader. And if he can't be trusted not to consciously falsify sources, I see little point anymore in wasting time on reading him. And with this problem, it actually becomes a drawback that he is using sources nobody else have had access to.
This is not what the court found. The court found that Lipstadts accusations on Irving could not be rejected. While the judge professed not to be a specialist on the holocaust matter, and that the holocaust was not what was on trial - the world's general consent on the holocaust was for a large part used to substantiate Lipstadt's accusations on Irving as an historian. Mrs. Lipstadt refused to take the stand for cross-examination.

And - do mr. Irving really have such a "strong bias". Where exactly is that shown?

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 17:59
Location: Europe

#40

Post by Qvist » 19 Apr 2006, 14:25

Hi Leandros
For those not informed it was mrs. Lipstadt that was on trial in this case. Looking around for information on this one cannot but see similarities to another trial - 55 years earlier.

But what should be essential to what we discuss here - whether mr. Irving is a good writer and historian - is the judge's description on mr. Irving - as a historian:

"Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives.... It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War Two is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover, he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favorable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the caliber of Irving's military history ..."
Well, while I have not in any way studied the trial in detail, the fact is that despite the above, Mrs Lipstadt was acquitted, and an explicit basis for that verdict was that the court found it could be proven that Irving did falsify and misrepresent sources in his possession. The above judgment doesn't change that, if anything, it makes it worse because it means that Irving was in a position to know better.
So much is written on this that what is fact or fiction is very difficult to ascertain. In his book on Erhard Milch this question is gone through in detail as the story unfolds - and the picture is changing all the time as Hitler is advised, and informed, differently. In the larger picture I would consider this item (the Me262) as a mere detail. Even if it could have mattered in the end game.
Sure, it's a detail. but I mention it as an example of what I found to be a consistent problem with HW despite the fact that overall I found the book interesting. Again and again, Irving simply makes no attempt at any distinction between reality and Hitler's perception of it, and that simply is not good historical writing in my opinion.
This is quite strange - my impression of Irving on this point is that what he writes about Hofacker and Speidel rather justifies their actions - as Rommel is described in a less than flattering light.
It is many years since I read the book, but my impression at the time was that Irving heavily implied that Speidel and Hofacker (whom he plainly despises) implicated Rommel more or less by trickery, and then lied about it (in Speidel's case) after the war. In any event, I found it detracted from the book that he gave such free rein to his evident personal feelings about the two. Not that I found it a bad bok though, and it certainly challenged some assumptions I had about Rommel. But again, if he can't be trusted not to falsify his sources....
This is not what the court found. The court found that Lipstadts accusations on Irving could not be rejected. While the judge professed not to be a specialist on the holocaust matter, and that the holocaust was not what was on trial - the world's general consent on the holocaust was for a large part used to substantiate Lipstadt's accusations on Irving as an historian. Mrs. Lipstadt refused to take the stand for cross-examination.
That is not my understanding of the verdict - unless I have misunderstood something fundamental, a part of the basis for that verdict was that it was considered proven that Irving had falsified and misrepresented historical sources, not neccessarily specifically on the holocaust.
And - do mr. Irving really have such a "strong bias". Where exactly is that shown?
I appreciate that you react against something that is often claimed without being argued for, but in this case I think the reason is that it isn't really very neccessary to do so. If you're still in doubt about where Irving stands after reading his books, there are also his public statements to clarify that matter. But his bias does not IMO neccessarily in itself disqualify him from being considered a serious historian, as long as it is clear and can be taken into account (it certainly does however cause a number of questionable judgments). I take it you remember the furious Irving debate in Norway between Fure and Dahl prior to the trial? At that time, I sympathised very strongly with Dahl's position, but I was never in any doubt about Irving's bias for all that. But falsification of sources is another matter entirely, and the Lipstadt verdict changed that as far as I'm concerned. As far as Dahl was concerned too, if I remember correctly.

cheers

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

#41

Post by fredleander » 19 Apr 2006, 16:11

Below are the concluding phrases in the Lipstadt case. The word "falsifying" is not used - which I feel is of some importance. While Irving's case against Lipstadt was to justify himself as a serious and truthful historian - he instead was "condemned" as an active holocaust-denier, anti-semitic, racist - and associated with right-wing extremists and neo-nazists.

The judge wrote:

"The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associated with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism. In my judgment the charges against Irving which have been proved to be true are of sufficient gravity for it to be clear that the failure to prove the truth of the matters set out in paragraph 13.165 above does not have any material effect on Irving's reputation."

Here is the response of the Appeal Court - which denied the appeal:

1. We agree with the judge. While the attack on the applicant's historiography was central and fundamental to the case, it was proved in the context described by the judge which involved anti-semitism and racism and association with right-wing extremists. In that context, the allegation that on one occasion he agreed to participate in a conference at which representatives of terrorist organisations were due to speak did not materially injure his reputation having regard to the truth of the charges proved.

User avatar
fredleander
Member
Posts: 2175
Joined: 03 Dec 2004, 21:49
Location: Stockholm
Contact:

#42

Post by fredleander » 19 Apr 2006, 16:41

Sorry, Qvist - I mistook Speidel and Hofacker for two others. He could still be right about them.

User avatar
JeroenPollentier
Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 25 Aug 2006, 17:30
Location: Flanders

#43

Post by JeroenPollentier » 20 May 2007, 18:43

Sorry to bring back this "sensitive" topic, but I just noticed that Irving's Keitel book is a mere translation of the man's memoirs.
Would it hence be quite 'safe', or shouldn't I waste my time reading it?

User avatar
Zebedee
Member
Posts: 341
Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 06:21
Location: Manchester UK

#44

Post by Zebedee » 26 May 2007, 10:47

Kunikov wrote:
Evan's job was to prove the man was a holocaust denier, his speeches proved and showed that. As for his works, Evans never expected to find so many omissions, twisted facts, and outright lies, when he did he delved further and further into Irving's works. Evan's work is not at all flawed, the denial of the holocaust is an opinion, Irving's opinion was on trial..
May I just clarify something (although I appreciate that it may well be out of date to reply now)? The role of 'expert witness' in a British court is to state the truth as far as that expert witness is concerned. Evan's job was to establish the truth of whether or not Irving was unreliable as a historian. His research into Irving's works and methodology put his own reputation as a historian at stake. His duty was to the court not to the defence.

-------

JeroenPollentier - I personally would look for another source and translator. Irving has a past record for 'misreading' key passages when translating them. As such, I'd feel very unsure about whether to take what he writes as being actually what he read.

Andreas
Member
Posts: 6938
Joined: 10 Nov 2002, 15:12
Location: Europe

#45

Post by Andreas » 26 May 2007, 14:58

Has anyone got info on the reaction by Keegan to Evans' findings?

All the best

Andreas

Post Reply

Return to “Books & other Reference Material”