Holocaust denier David Irving & Himmler Vol 2

[steve248]

I understand from colleagues in the US that Irving has finished (or just finishing) his second volume on Himmler.
To detract from Himmler's role in the Final Solution he makes the accusation that the British killed Himmler following his capture.
I know for a fact that Irving visiting the son of Captain Whittaker who was the officer in charge of the detention unit at Uelvenstrasse, Lüneburg in May 1945. Capt Whittaker kept a a mainly handwritten diary of events that took place there including all the steps taken to avoid Himmler attempting suicide. When a British army doctor tried to inspect his mouth Himmler bit hard on the doctor's fingers who removed them. Himmler then bit on his cyanide capsule hidden between his teeth. All the steps in the world could not save him despite their best efforts.
Irving as usual suggests a different scenario.
Capt Whittaker's diary really can not be judged as other than an honest account of Himmler's suicide and Irving knows this.
I know that Irving has complete contempt for material not "discovered by Irving".
20 years ago he asked the UK National Archives to forensically test the paper on which a German Police decode (the "Hoefle Telegram") was typed. The fact that the two messages were on a page with 8 or 9 others and the page sewn and bound into a volume with 500 other pages of the same type did not matter to Irving. He had not "discovered" it therefore was suspect.

[Boby]

Did Irving in any of his multiple books for the past 50 years denied there was a genocide against jews? To my knowledge, no.

So starting a thread with the title "Holocaust denier David Irving" about a book that has not been published so far, (thus we can't judge his content), is very unfortunate.

[wm]

Irving is a (useful) travesty of a historian, but he's not a Holocaust denier.

[Boby]

Irving is a (useful) travesty of a historian, but he's not a Holocaust denier.

Perhaps because he has never been an historian, only an independent writer.

[steve248]

Boby, my post was simply an heads' up.

wm, you are quite wrong about Irving not being a holocaust denier.
At the libel case he (Irving) brought against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt 23 years ago (I had to look it up) the judge in his ruling stated that Irving was a holocaust denier, an anti-Semite, a racist and associates with right-wing Nazi sympathisers.

I have met and had conversations with Irving about 20 years ago at UK National Archives.
He was trying to dispute the provenance of the "Hoefle Telegram". A forlorn request.

I have never cared much for Irving's books based on material "discovered" by Irving. Anyone else's research and writing do not count for much.

[Boby]

Mostly of Irving sources came from public archives and microfilm rolls: files and boxes of documents waiting researchers to exploit them (and they did countless times in countless books). For example, during the research for HW he came up with the private papers of Ernst von Weizsaecker. Irving lamented no one bothered before to pay a visit to his wife, when in fact the diary was published a few years later by Leonidas E. Hill.

Of course he amassed a considerable number of private papers, testimonies, etc but i don't think there was anything revelatory at all, if we compare them with what was available to researchers in the 60s-90s.

[wm]

Of course he amassed a considerable number of private papers, testimonies, etc but i don't think there was anything revelatory at all, if we compare them with what was available to researchers in the 60s-90s.

However this was glorious:

Irving was amongst the first to identify the [Hitler] diaries as forgeries, and to draw media attention. He went so far as to crash the press conference held by Hugh Trevor-Roper at the Hamburg offices of Stern magazine on 25 April 1983 to denounce the diaries as a forgery and Trevor-Roper for endorsing the diaries as genuine.
Irving's performance at the Stern press conference where he violently harangued Trevor-Roper until ejected by security led him to be featured prominently on the news: the next day, Irving appeared on the Today television show as a featured guest.

Perhaps because he has never been an historian, only an independent writer.

In 1982, Irving described himself as an "untrained historian" and argued that his lack of academic qualifications did not mean that he could not be considered a historian. He listed Pliny the Elder and Tacitus as examples of historians without university training.

[wm]

He was trying to dispute the provenance of the "Hoefle Telegram." A forlorn request.

Although disputing the provenance of the telegram or advancing the idea that Hitler initially didn't know isn't Holocaust denialism.
An opinion of a (apparently hostile) judge can't change that.

[steve248]

wm, it was not the opinion of an 'apparently hostile judge' - it was a judge judging the evidence of both sides.
This was not a criminal trial where there is a jury. This was a civil trial for libel where the judge decides in the face of evidence from both side and makes a decision. The fact is that Irving was completely unable to refute the evidence provided by his opponents. Irving rambled on and went off the point about the evidence he was trying to refute.

[Biber]

Given the extreme politicization of the judicial system, and increased activism from the bench, and from what I've read (not studied, mind you) of the trial mentioned, I would be inclined to give Irving the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, I prefer to to reserve judgement for myself.

As for him being a historian. Credentials do not define or make a historian. Just as many of the names whose books grace the shelves of libraries and book stores and those who frequent sites like this, it is more than enough that he explores, researches, analyses, translates, formulates ideas, interpretations, and opinions, writes, talks and presents history and historical topics for those who have an interest or otherwise pursue or consume knowledge in such things. The value in what he does and whether he is convincing in his interpretations, analysis and presentation of history must be judged by the individual not by the public arena. As i see it, applying a characterization to something, especially a person, only makes me question the credibility of the one offering it (and that includes peer review AND judges). Just state the facts. I'll supply my own adjectives.

[steve248]

Biber, I believe your opening sentence above refers to the US system of justice.
Over here in the UK, judges pay scant regard to politicians or their views.
In the last few weeks the Home Office ( = Ministry of the Interior) have been trying to get their plan to deport people who have just landed illegally on these shores via rubber boats from France deported to Rwanda in Africa. The courts (a judge) has so far decided this plan is illegal and the Govt cannot deport these people.
Echoes of central Americans crossing the Rio Grande into Texas. What can legally be done to remove them from the country. Politicians state their views, the courts do not back them.
All a long way from the topic of Irving and your second paragraph.
Over here in the UK at least, public libraries do not stock his books. And if you check the sources quoted by researchers, scholars and historians they do not quote Irving's works. This goes back to what I quoted in my post #9 above. Irving was unable to refute the evidence the defence provided on every point he chose. I will go further. The defence also revealed how Irving had falsified his sources, had mis-quoted his sources, and deliberately did not use evidence that showed the opposite of his "interpretation" of historical facts. Why would you want to accept what Irving writes. Forget the adjectives, read the facts.

[Biber]

Whether or not I accept anything he writes (and Im not saying I do or don't, and do not infer that I am defending
or indicting him or his work. Suffice it to say, Irving is rarely if ever on my radar.) is wholly my prerogative and need not be justified to anyone. And I certainly don't give a flip what others think about it. I just find myself as skeptical of those who condemn him and his work as they are in damning him and his work. If that seems a defence of him then so be it. I cannot control what others think. Again, I reserve the right to judge for myself.

[Boby]

. And if you check the sources quoted by researchers, scholars and historians they do not quote Irving's works.

Steve, you must know this is wrong! There are many examples of historians who continued to use Irving books after his trial.

[steve248]

None that I have.

[Boby]

None that I have.

There are thousands of nazi era books published since 2000. I doubt you have all of them.

Kershaw used Irving in his books "Fateful Choices" and "The End". Tooze in Wages of Destruction mentioned his early Milch biography. Schmider's in "Hitler's fatal miscalculation" or Ullrich's Hitler bio. And apart from his books, the document collection at the Institut für Zeitgeschichte (ED 100) is widely used by historians.

Boby,