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.
Forum rules
You can support AHF when buying books etc from Amazon, Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.de by using these links.
It costs you nothing extra but it helps keep the forum up and running.
tonyh
Member
Posts: 2909
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by tonyh » 26 Mar 2009 21:29

LWD wrote:
tonyh wrote:
LWD wrote: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?

When the uncomfortable figure of 4 million arises in the subject of Auschwitz, post the 1990's revision downwards to 1.1 million, the standard reply is usually along the lines of "well, nobody believed that figure and it was made up by the Soviets / Poles, but this figure 1.1 is the correct one this time...honestly."

But you see, there is no "incontrovertable proof" when dealing with figures, not just with the holocaust, but with many tallies and in many circumstances and authors (not just Irving) will tend to pick the figure they believe at the time, even if there is alternative figures available.

One thing I will say for David Irving, is when he's been confronted with alternative figures that are of more substantial worth to his own, he usually tends to update his own work. That cannot be said of many authors in this sphere of study.

By the way, how can you read about the Second World War for so long and be unaware of Martin Gilbert?


...
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.


I don't care what would be considered a "serious charge" against a judge in the US, England or Ireland for that matter. They are not infallible and will subject to the same questioning eye everybody else is and I have little doubt that Grey took the soft option in his final judgment. I followed the trial closely when it was on and I felt that Grey gave Irving quite a bit of ground to play with during the events. But his final judgment, in my opinion, certainly did not tally with the events in court. I was actually quite surprised at how vitriolic it was considering the trial that had proceeded it.

And while there may not yet be as large a Jewish lobby in Britain as there is in America, I have no doubt in my mind that Grey would have been subject to some sort of bad press from certain quarters.

I'm sure when he looks back at the circumstances that befell Norman Finkelstein for daring to go against the grain, he will be sure he made the "right" decision.


Tony

User avatar
Zebedee
Member
Posts: 341
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 05:21
Location: Manchester UK

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by Zebedee » 26 Mar 2009 21:49

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


Irving has been throwing around his Jewish conspiracy theory for a long time. Yet he still chose to take his case against Lipstadt to court. Rather bizarre really. Perhaps someone slipped something into Irving's water during the court case too? Perhaps he wasn't really arguing he was incompetent but those darned Jewish conspirers gave him a mind-altering chemical which made him say it? ;)

One does despair at times.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by LWD » 26 Mar 2009 23:55

tonyh wrote: ...
When the uncomfortable figure of 4 million arises in the subject of Auschwitz, post the 1990's revision downwards to 1.1 million, the standard reply is usually along the lines of "well, nobody believed that figure and it was made up by the Soviets / Poles, but this figure 1.1 is the correct one this time...honestly."

So he's off by less than an order of magnitude. And did he have a good idea at the time the the numbers were wrong, indeed did he have good evidence the numbers were wrong?
But you see, there is no "incontrovertable proof" when dealing with figures, not just with the holocaust, but with many tallies and in many circumstances and authors (not just Irving) will tend to pick the figure they believe at the time, even if there is alternative figures available.

One thing I will say for David Irving, is when he's been confronted with alternative figures that are of more substantial worth to his own, he usually tends to update his own work. That cannot be said of many authors in this sphere of study.

My understanding is that he acknowledged the ~25K number for Dresden was correct or at least very close then used a number on the order of 200K. What's more his whole thesis was/is dependent on that order of magnitude difference. Aushwitz on the other hand is a abomination whether the number is 4,000,000 or 4,000.
By the way, how can you read about the Second World War for so long and be unaware of Martin Gilbert? [/color]
It's easy.
...
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.


[b]I don't care what would be considered a "serious charge" against a judge in the US, England or Ireland for that matter. They are not infallible and will subject to the same questioning eye everybody else is and I have little doubt that Grey took the soft option in his final judgment. I followed the trial closely when it was on and I felt that Grey gave Irving quite a bit of ground to play with during the events. But his final judgment, in my opinion, certainly did not tally with the events in court. I was actually quite surprised at how vitriolic it was considering the trial that had proceeded it.

Sorry but assuming malfeasance on the part of a judge whose opinion is subject to review and indeed who if found guilty of such malfeasance would be subject to even greater penalties just doesn't make sense especially with nothing to back it up.
And while there may not yet be as large a Jewish lobby in Britain as there is in America, I have no doubt in my mind that Grey would have been subject to some sort of bad press from certain quarters.

So what. Judges are subject to bad press all the time. You are suggesting he commit an act that at the very least is a gross dereliction of duty and maybe a felony. Ie you are accusing him of being the judicial equivalent of Irving.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2909
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by tonyh » 27 Mar 2009 01:36

So he's off by less than an order of magnitude. And did he have a good idea at the time the the numbers were wrong, indeed did he have good evidence the numbers were wrong?


When Gilbert wrote "Auschwitz and the Allies" in the 80's, he stated that after the first gas chamber went into operation two million Jews were killed and two million "others" were killed as well. According to some, when confronted with the question of "If the six million figure was conjoured up with the idea that 2 (of 4) million Jews died in Auschwitz, then surely the 6 million figure is in error now that the death toll has been revised down to 1.1 million". The general reply to such a question is was that nobody really believed the 4 million figure in the first place, thereby retaining the "validity" of the oft repeated 6 million.

If we are to believe this, then there were plenty of people around who poo-pooed the 4 million figure, but Gilbert CBE (an "establishment" historian if there ever was one) chose to ignore that and go ahead with his 4 million, because it suited him at the time. Besides, 4 million sounds better than 1.1. The dispute over the 4 million figure didn't just arise in recent years, it's been around since the end of the war.

My understanding is that he acknowledged the ~25K number for Dresden was correct or at least very close then used a number on the order of 200K. What's more his whole thesis was/is dependent on that order of magnitude difference. Aushwitz on the other hand is a abomination whether the number is 4,000,000 or 4,000.


The 25.000 number is a recent invention and I honestly don't know where it's come from. Perhaps, that figure is the identifed dead. Either way, some people want to latch onto the 25.000 figure because it suits them, not because it's any more valid than 35.000 or 45.000. 25.000 sounds nicer and after all, that gallant boys of Bomber Command couldn't possibly have killed more than that, they were the good guys.

But again I say, figures are bullshit at the end of the day and people will chose to believe what they want to believe.

Back to Irving, He believed in the 60's when he first wrote "The Destruction of Dresden" that the Soviets had simply struck of the 1 from the figure 135,000. But even so, he gave a range of figures and then his best estimate based on what he belived to be the most accurate accounts. That figure has been revised substantially by Irving in the light of other evidence. But, I think in all versions of that particular book, Irving never says that he had the definative figure and to not believe his figure would be tantamount to heresy.

In addition, Irving's "thesis" behind "The Destruction of Dresden" was to show the horror and aftermath of a bombing attack and the utter destructive force of nature that Bomber Command had become in 1945 and in that respect, his book is a success.

And Dresden, whether the death toll is 25.000 or ? 000 is also an "abomination".

Sorry but assuming malfeasance on the part of a judge whose opinion is subject to review and indeed who if found guilty of such malfeasance would be subject to even greater penalties just doesn't make sense especially with nothing to back it up.


No-one mentioned "malfeasance", on behalf of grey or anyone else.

So what. Judges are subject to bad press all the time...


Bad press, of the likes that Lord Longford recieved over his association with Myra Hindley is something that must be faced if one choses to enter into that sphere. However, bad press when the holocaust and / or so called holocaust denial is envoked is something of a different nature altogether.

To understand the potential abyss one faces the "wrong" choice, one only has to look at the finger pointing the Vatican was on the end of after Bishop Richard Williamson stated that, in his opinon, he didn't believe that there were gas chambers in Auschwitz and that the 6 million figure was in error.

That kind of press and the resulting ramifications is something that most people aren't willing to endure.


Tony

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by LWD » 27 Mar 2009 02:30

tonyh wrote: ...
And Dresden, whether the death toll is 25.000 or ? 000 is also an "abomination".

Sorry but loosing 25,000 out of a population of over a million is not an unreasonable casualty rate when a city is bombed. That's war. Death camps are an entirely different matter.
So what. Judges are subject to bad press all the time...


Bad press, of the likes that Lord Longford recieved over his association with Myra Hindley is something that must be faced if one choses to enter into that sphere. However, bad press when the holocaust and / or so called holocaust denial is envoked is something of a different nature altogether.

To understand the potential abyss one faces the "wrong" choice, one only has to look at the finger pointing the Vatican was on the end of after Bishop Richard Williamson stated that, in his opinon, he didn't believe that there were gas chambers in Auschwitz and that the 6 million figure was in error.

That kind of press and the resulting ramifications is something that most people aren't willing to endure.

But are most judges and would he have had to? Sorry attacking a judge just because you don't like his ruling is weak.

User avatar
Engländer
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 11 Apr 2008 10:44
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by Engländer » 27 Mar 2009 07:27

LWD wrote:Sorry but loosing 25,000 out of a population of over a million is not an unreasonable casualty rate when a city is bombed. That's war. Death camps are an entirely different matter.


That is without doubt the most sickening comment I've read in this thread.

Dresden was a city of refugees, civilians man!!!

Loss of civilian life whilst attacking bonafide military installations/targets, is, on the one hand unfortunate but never 'unreasonable', however, intentionally firebombing Dresden is a war crime of the highest order, and is NO DIFFERENT to the deliberate killing of countless numbers in concentration camps.

I really do find this comment quite sick. 'Thats war'???? No it is not. Thats murder.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2909
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by tonyh » 27 Mar 2009 11:21

LWD wrote:
tonyh wrote: ...
And Dresden, whether the death toll is 25.000 or ? 000 is also an "abomination".

Sorry but loosing 25,000 out of a population of over a million is not an unreasonable casualty rate when a city is bombed. That's war. Death camps are an entirely different matter.


Sure they were only German, after all. :wink:

User avatar
Steen Ammentorp
Member
Posts: 3156
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 12:48
Location: Denmark

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by Steen Ammentorp » 27 Mar 2009 11:26

I am putting a temporary lock on this thread until I have had a chance to go through it. It is now running off course.

/Steen Ammentorp

User avatar
Steen Ammentorp
Member
Posts: 3156
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 12:48
Location: Denmark

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by Steen Ammentorp » 06 Apr 2009 09:14

Okay – having read this thread thoroughly concentrating on the later part after Engländer resurrected it after nearly two years slumber I must confess that I am not at least impressed with some of the posts and arguments.

Throughout this thread there are numerous posts addressing the flaws of David Irvings books and showing that the methodology is wrong in his use of sources and way of reaching his conclusions.

This has been left unanswered by Engländer, who uses Irving as a support for his own point of view:

Engländer wrote:
Misguided by the Focus group, the British and International zioinist industriasts whose rage and contempt for the Germans treatment and persecution of the German Jews, which ultimately led Britain into world war, and cost hundreds of thousands of lives, indeed, millions, thousands of beautiful cities across europe destroyed...starvation and economic depression, Britain bankrupt and the start of the fall of the Empire....


This is irrelevant, undocumented and unsupported. Actually I see it as merely as agitation, which is prohibited by the forum rules:

Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources do not promote the purposes of the forum.


The only defense that has been offered for Irving’s books can be summed up in these points:

1. He has a point of view which contradicts the established understanding of the historical events.
How this excuses the well documented flaws remains unanswered!
2. He has found new material.
How this excuses deliberate misuse and ignoring well known facts remains unanswered!
3. That other authors have made mistakes also – deliberately or not.
How unearth this excuse Inving’s many faults and him deliberately ignoring well known facts remain unanswered and is irrelevant!

In order for this thread to continue I expect that that point 1 and 2 is addressed and not only by an opinion but by arguments that are supported.

/Steen Ammentorp

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8584
Joined: 21 Sep 2005 21:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by LWD » 06 Apr 2009 14:05

Engländer wrote:
LWD wrote:Sorry but loosing 25,000 out of a population of over a million is not an unreasonable casualty rate when a city is bombed. That's war. Death camps are an entirely different matter.

...
Loss of civilian life whilst attacking bonafide military installations/targets, is, on the one hand unfortunate but never 'unreasonable', however, intentionally firebombing Dresden is a war crime of the highest order, and is NO DIFFERENT to the deliberate killing of countless numbers in concentration camps.

This has been discused in considerable detail in several threads in the appropriate forum. It's OT here. But to summarise. Dresden was a legitimate target. So it was not a war crime. Even if it was there is a difference between a war crime and a crime against humanity.

In the interest of not drawing this further OT I'll refrain from answering any of the other comments here. If you wish to continue this PLS do so in the proper threads.

vszulc
Member
Posts: 262
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 05:27

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by vszulc » 21 Jul 2009 11:33

Irving is very good at manipulating his readers, even without resorting to fabrications.
Just take Hitlers War. By being very picky with his sources, and using any chance he gets to portray Hitler in the most flattering of ways, the reader is left with an impression of Hitler that I suspect is very far from reality.

That's one thing which I don't appreciate in Irvings books (Besides the fact that they're, at least partly, the result of fabrications and dishonesty) A reader deserves better, than to constantly be on guard for the authors manipulation.

He is a good writer though. So if you don't mind being spun a tall tale, go for it. Though there are plenty fiction writers who are more entertaining.

Linoxilos
Member
Posts: 58
Joined: 19 Jan 2009 13:07
Location: Athens, Hellas

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by Linoxilos » 23 Aug 2009 05:17

I 've read the book Irving wrote for Rommel. Later, i learnt who Irvin is.

In a few posts (of this thread) it is said that the book for Rommel is not something very very good. Perhaps i should buy another book for Rommel and compare them.
My ID card says Tsioudakis George.

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2909
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by tonyh » 26 Aug 2009 23:46

IIRC, 'The Trail fo the Fox' is one of the better books written about the Field Marshal. It does a lot to break down the many myths that surrounded him, both during and after the war. It far outweigh's Desmond Young's 'Rommel, the Desert Fox', as a document about the man.


Tony

Boby
Member
Posts: 2384
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 17:22
Location: Spain

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by Boby » 27 Aug 2009 12:36

As I said many times, the problem with Irving is his poor or inexistent footnoting: Trail of the Fox have 0 footnotes, so is impossible to know from what documents exactly he drawn his evidence; but in the field of archival research, Irving is impressive.

Boby,

User avatar
Zebedee
Member
Posts: 341
Joined: 24 Feb 2005 05:21
Location: Manchester UK

Re: Books By David Irving?

Post by Zebedee » 02 Dec 2009 22:54

Boby wrote:As I said many times, the problem with Irving is his poor or inexistent footnoting: Trail of the Fox have 0 footnotes, so is impossible to know from what documents exactly he drawn his evidence; but in the field of archival research, Irving is impressive.

Boby,


Hi Boby,

I'm somewhat dubious about why Irving's footnotes are poor or non-existant. The libel trial showed that even those primary sources which could be tracked down frequently were unfaithful to Irving's translations of them. I'm sceptical about the quality of his archival research with his reputation being based on radical claims which then prove to be less impressive on close inspection.

He can be an interesting writer and he certainly has had access to information and former Nazi party members which other historians have not perhaps had. Whether one can then trust what he reports back is the problematic part.

All the best,

Zeb

Return to “Books & other Reference Material”