Books By David Irving?

[Engländer]

A work by an author who it has been proven in court manipulates information for his own prejudices. Ever stop to wonder how that 'refreshing...work' you're reading is in reality agenda driven and full of twisted facts?

I'm sure he has twisted some facts, I've never stated that he hasn't. But will you accept that there are also truths in much of his work? I doubt it.

The profession of an historian is largely based upon their reputation. The field of scholarly literature is hard enough to get into and once your reputation has been demolished, as Irving's has, I doubt he will ever be taken seriously again, or cited, by those who publish serious scholarly research. The reason I, and I will not speak for others, see 'red' is because I am disappointed in the fact that Irving has pretty much stolen people's hard earned money and given them tainted trash in return.

Reputation can be made or broken by worldwide powerful people. I don't care one way or the other about reputation, I refuse to be told which authors/historians are the reputable ones and which aren't. Your final statement there is fascinating. Please explain to me how Irving has stolen peoples hard earned money? Love him or loathe him, you can't deny surely the incredible amount of man hours he has put in researching for his books?

[Kunikov]

A work by an author who it has been proven in court manipulates information for his own prejudices. Ever stop to wonder how that 'refreshing...work' you're reading is in reality agenda driven and full of twisted facts?

I'm sure he has twisted some facts, I've never stated that he hasn't. But will you accept that there are also truths in much of his work? I doubt it.

The problem is not the question of whether there are 'also truths' but how is the reader to distinguish one from the other. If I purchase a book, I do so because I am interested in the research. I am not interested in guessing what is fact and what is manipulation of sources on the part of the author. The reason there is a field of literature entitled 'non-fiction' is because it is expected that what is written under such a heading will be the facts, as best known to the author. Undoubtedly he/she will make mistakes or their ideas will be overturned in the future, but Irving blatantly discredited his work by twisting facts and manipulating information. That is what separates him from other, respectable, scholars.

The profession of an historian is largely based upon their reputation. The field of scholarly literature is hard enough to get into and once your reputation has been demolished, as Irving's has, I doubt he will ever be taken seriously again, or cited, by those who publish serious scholarly research. The reason I, and I will not speak for others, see 'red' is because I am disappointed in the fact that Irving has pretty much stolen people's hard earned money and given them tainted trash in return.

Reputation can be made or broken by worldwide powerful people. I don't care one way or the other about reputation, I refuse to be told which authors/historians are the reputable ones and which aren't. Your final statement there is fascinating. Please explain to me how Irving has stolen peoples hard earned money? Love him or loathe him, you can't deny surely the incredible amount of man hours he has put in researching for his books?

I also can't deny the amount of agenda driven trash that's made it into his narratives. Lying to the public by saying this is high quality research, on the scholarly level, and then being shown for the liar he is excludes any hard work on his part. His research is tainted and, in turn, so is the final product of that research.

[DrG]

Qvist,

frankly, I haven't seen any reasoned justification for your support of Justice Gray's judgment, either...

Anyway, I stopped to write a decent reply to you when I read this sentence of your post "But so far all we have is crap[/] about how it is all due to conformism and politics."

If you are accostumed to use this kind of words with other people, well, you can go on talking to the same scum to which you clearly belong, I haven't the habit of wasting my time with yokels like you.

Guido

[Kim Sung]

The British Empire was built, basically, on same principles of Hitler's Germany. When they buried the Reich they buried the Empire as well. I am just astonished why such a clever people as Churchill cannot realize this.

I agree to your point. Except a genocidal factor, the British Empire and other European imperialist nations in the 17th~20th centuries were built, basically, on same principles of Hitler's Germany, which was just an extreme form of imperialism. Paradoxically, as you implied above, Adolf Hitler decisively contributed to ending the age of European imperialism.

[Qvist]

Qvist,

frankly, I haven't seen any reasoned justification for your support of Justice Gray's judgment, either...

Why should I give one? This is a verdict in a court of law, not a loose opinion. When someone is convicted of murder I assume he has killed someone without going through the court transcripts, and with every justification. It's up to anyone who believes it is false to provide reasons for it.

Anyway, I stopped to write a decent reply to you when I read this sentence of your post "But so far all we have is crap[/] about how it is all due to conformism and politics."

Well, sorry to offend your sensibilities, but that's what it is, as long as it stays on the slogan level, which it has. If it makes you happier, I'll substitute it for something else. Would "nonsense" do? "worthless conjecture"? "empty assumption unbacked by any proof or argument"? I really don't care because whatever I call it, it is what it is, but do let us know what you prefer because clearly this is the key issue here.

If you are accostumed to use this kind of words with other people, well, you can go on talking to the same scum to which you clearly belong, I haven't the habit of wasting my time with yokels like you.

Oh really? Well, in that case I suppose there won't be any critique from you of the judgment you so are so convinced is mere politics? We'll just have to take your word for it then, shall we?

[Engländer]

Why should I give one? This is a verdict in a court of law, not a loose opinion. When someone is convicted of murder I assume he has killed someone without going through the court transcripts, and with every justification. It's up to anyone who believes it is false to provide reasons for it.

But isn't history littered with people wrongfully imprisoned? The 'Birmingham 6', the Irish lads who were set up for the bombing which left 160 injured and 21 dead, is a prime example of it. 16 years served in prison for a murder they did not commit.

So the verdict in a court of law isn't as valid a point as you make out.

Of course, this doesn't mean all convictions are false, but it just shows that the system is flawed, and deserves to be questioned.

[Qvist]

I never said that the Soviet Union was Germanic, stop misquoting me, it gives your argument no credibility. I said that there was no question of Hitler wanting to ocupy lands to the east as he stated that in Mein Kamf......I then went on to say that his claims to certain territories were right and proper, land taken from Germany after WW1. Two seperate issues, not one.

I have not misquoted you. In fact, I defy anyone to manage to read that meaning out of this sentence: "Lets not forget also that in many peoples eyes, his claims to those lands which were rightly Germanic and probably in all fairness correct for him to do so, to claim back, was in no way a threat to Britain or her Empire, and that it was France and England who declared war on Germany, NOT the other way around!"

But very well, I am pleased to hear you don't subscribe to such a monumental misconception.

You're buying into the "zionists and Brits persecuting Germany" hullaballoo that was a mainstay of German propaganda then and now and that has never had any reality beyond that, as anyone with an ounce of sense knows.

What a ridiculus thing to say. The debate raged in the house of commons throughout the 1930's, with members of parliment such as Churchill constantly raising issues against Germany. THAT is reality.

And that constitutes Zionists and Brits persecuting Germany, does it? You don't think there was reason to regard the development of GErmany in the thirties as a legitimate threat? And Parliament was dominiated by the Zionists?

How is that a misconception? Using archival reference is no different to a court of law using evidence covered with a defendants fingerprints. One thing you don't seem to comprehend is Irving bases his work on either written evidence or eyewitness accounts. Now, if a court of law can prosecute someone based on the same criteria, then surely an author can write about his findings in a book using the same methods.

It is a complete and utter misconception because a work of history does not consist of archival fact. The only thing that does so is an anthology of documents. Rather, the historian uses archival facts when writing it. This introduces the rather essential points of how he uses them, which ones he use, how he interprets the ones he use and which ones he doesn't use. And that's where all the issues with Irving crops up and why the fact that he has drawn on wide sources is no absolutely no guarantee for him writing viable history. That's the misconception bit. The rest of this paragraph I am unable to give a reply to, as it is literally meaningless to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[Qvist]

But isn't history littered with people wrongfully imprisoned? The 'Birmingham 6', the Irish lads who were set up for the bombing which left 160 injured and 21 dead, is a prime example of it. 16 years served in prison for a murder they did not commit.

So the verdict in a court of law isn't as valid a point as you make out.

Of course, this doesn't mean all convictions are false, but it just shows that the system is flawed, and deserves to be questioned.

And it is. By people who take the trouble to have a factual basis for their objkections. The Brimingham Six verdict wasn't reversed by people who confined themselves to mouthing off in the newspapers about how it was all due to police incompetence and anti-irishness. And the public accepted the innocence of the convicts because they were given solid argumentation in support of it, and, ultimately, because they were cleared in a court of law.

[Engländer]

And that's where all the issues with Irving crops up and why the fact that he has drawn on wide sources is no absolutely no guarantee for him writing viable history. That's the misconception bit. The rest of this paragraph I am unable to give a reply to, as it is literally meaningless to me. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

But that's the point, he uses the vast resources of documented archives all around the world, he uses eye witness testimony, he uses personal diaries and correspondence.....and comes to a conclusion. It's then down to you as the reader to decide whether you believe there to be any credibility in his work. Thats why he calls himself a revisionist, as opposed to a legitimate historian in the true sense of the word.

Did you know he spent a year working in a German steel mill (I believe it was a steel mill?), for the intention of perfecting his understanding of the German language, with the sole purpose of being able to read German written archives, and understand them better. I find that incredible work in the name of research.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I believe the world needs people like Irving as it makes people talk about the possibilities, even if they are outragous and extreme, of events in our past that may have occured differently to how we have been taught. Just my opinion you understand?

The Brimingham Six verdict wasn't reversed by people who confined themselves to mouthing off in the newspapers about how it was all due to police incompetence and anti-irishness. And the public accepted the innocence of the convicts because they were given solid argumentation in support of it, and, ultimately, because they were cleared in a court of law

Yet the public also accepted that they were guilty based on evidence provided (which was falsified) and subsequently convicted of the crime, despite their innocence. The legal findings and judgement were wrong.
I quote you, "When someone is convicted of murder I assume he has killed someone without going through the court transcripts" end quote....So in this case, you would have presumed, becouse the legal findings pointed to their guilt, that they were guilty, however, you would have been proved wrong 16 years later. In the same context, could you not also be wrong with the legal findings of David Irvings work? Is it not possible that all you know is wrong? Or at least part of it?

I have the feeling we will not agree on this subject....

[Zebedee]

Irving has now lost two libel trials. One about a specific book, one about his works in a more general fashion. One was brought against him, one he brought himself.

The second trial is actually the most damning libel verdict I've seen against a plaintiff. Irving's defence rested on him claiming incompetence. I'll let that settle in - Irving took Lipstadt to court and tried to persuade the judge that he was incompetent and not dishonest. The judge ruled that he was dishonest and these were not incompetent mistakes but ones which were premeditated and dishonestly made.

Irving's use of sources has been criticised since his first book. Claiming that you have done lots of archival research is all well and good, deliberately shoddy referencing for key points (which when examined in detail fall down as the archival source is unfaithful to Irving's translation) makes it a very futile exercise. If you go through the reviews and place the comments Irving likes within the context of the overall review, you'll see just how much was evident even from the beginning without the need for a libel trial.

We do need people who are willing to take a fresh look at things. Tooze did a remarkable job of doing that with the German economy. He meticulously and forensically built up a case and presented it. Irving has never done this - his most infamous works of revisionism are based upon either incompetent readings of sources (his defence) or by deliberately mistranslating those sources and then making up sources to further buttress his arguments (the findings of the courts).

Two libel trials. Any number of reviews of his works highlighting the same issues. This is not the odd mistake by Irving, nor I feel is it a political witch-hunt against him, nor yet a mistake by the British legal system. Irving is, by his own admission, at best incompetent in the field he claims is his profession and at worst dishonest.

[LWD]

But that's the point, he uses the vast resources of documented archives all around the world, he uses eye witness testimony, he uses personal diaries and correspondence.....and comes to a conclusion. It's then down to you as the reader to decide whether you believe there to be any credibility in his work. Thats why he calls himself a revisionist, as opposed to a legitimate historian in the true sense of the word. ...

The problem is he's willing to use numbers and accounts he knows are wrong and discards those he knows are right that do not support his position. This places him in the ranks of liers and propagandist rather than historians. It also means that on their own his works are worthless as histories because a casual reader will not know what is truth and what is fiction.

[tonyh]

The problem is he's willing to use numbers and accounts he knows are wrong and discards those he knows are right that do not support his position. This places him in the ranks of liers and propagandist rather than historians. It also means that on their own his works are worthless as histories because a casual reader will not know what is truth and what is fiction.

Well then, by that standpoint, one must also call into question the books written by Martin Gilbert, who peddled the 4 million Auschwitz figure in his works and god knows how many authors have distorted facts to suit what they believed to be the correct assessment of the historical record.

The bottom line is this. ALL authors must be cross referenced with other sources, especially when such a hot political potato such as WWII is concerned.

In addition, few authors work would be able to stand up to the intense and rigorous dissection that David Irving's books were subject to. In fact, given all the nonsense spread about him by Lipstadt and Co. it's remarkable that so few points of falsification could be found.

But why does nobody call Gilbert into question? Is it because he is what is commonly called an "establishment historian"? Is he writing about the "correct" things re: the Second World War? Is is because he writes from a generally pro-Allied / Anti-nazi standpoint, therefore and little falsehoods, mistakes, fabrications etc can be let go.

Irving is vilified by certain groups, not because his books are filled with "holocaust denial" or lies etc, but because they don't like what he has to say.

As despicable a person as David Irving is, I'll take him over that smug little rat Richard Evans any day of the week.

Beside, does ANYONE really believe that Judge Grey would have jeopardised his own position by ruling in favor of an author who was already a conspicuous figure over the globally financed witch-hunters he drew the libel case against? Of course not. One can only imagine the trouble he would have caused himself and the misery he would have had to endure for the remainder of his career if he had done so.

[LWD]

The problem is he's willing to use numbers and accounts he knows are wrong and discards those he knows are right that do not support his position. This places him in the ranks of liers and propagandist rather than historians. It also means that on their own his works are worthless as histories because a casual reader will not know what is truth and what is fiction.

Well then, by that standpoint, one must also call into question the books written by Martin Gilbert, who peddled the 4 million Auschwitz figure in his works and god knows how many authors have distorted facts to suit what they believed to be the correct assessment of the historical record.

Indeed they should but before we put them in the same league I'd ask a few questions (I am unfamiliar with Gilber).
Did he have incontrovertable proof that the numbers were not what he published at the time he published them?
Did the errors have any profound impact on his conclusions?

...
Beside, does ANYONE really believe that Judge Grey would have jeopardised his own position by ruling in favor of an author who was already a conspicuous figure over the globally financed witch-hunters he drew the libel case against? Of course not. One can only imagine the trouble he would have caused himself and the misery he would have had to endure for the remainder of his career if he had done so.

In the US this would be considered a very serious charge vs a Judge. I'm unsure how the judical system works in the UK. Was his postion really at risk? Even so I would not expect that to be a consideration. Note that US judges even those where there are significant numbers of Jewish voters have upheld the rights of NeoNazis to conduct demonstrations.

[Zebedee]

In the US this would be considered a very serious charge vs a Judge. I'm unsure how the judical system works in the UK. Was his postion really at risk? Even so I would not expect that to be a consideration. Note that US judges even those where there are significant numbers of Jewish voters have upheld the rights of NeoNazis to conduct demonstrations.

Judges in Britain are appointed from senior barristers who may or may not choose to accept the call as to become a judge represents a pay cut for most. The selection is explicitly done to avoid any political interference. Their position is immune from political pressure, considerations of 'popular opinion' and other factors. They are answerable only to their peers and Her Majesty the Queen. They are sworn to uphold the law even against Her Majesty's government, and do so fairly regularly.

Arguing that Irving got a bad deal at court is, as you seem to hint, rather an odd line of argument to take. It was Irving after all who wanted his day in court and prosecuted Lipstadt, trusting to the British judiciary (as ever, as he is rather litigious, or at least fond of inviting people to come to Britain to be tried for libel against him) to uphold his position.

Hope that clarifies the position of British judges a little for the next time someone suggests 'establishment conspiracy',

All the best,

Zeb

[Urmel]

When you run out of argument, there's always a conspiracy theory.

As for Martin Gilbert, well, I guess it depends on where he got the 4 million from, doesn't it? Was it the accepted number at the time? What was his source?

http://www.martingilbert.com/