The End Of David Irving

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#76

Post by michael mills » 30 Mar 2005, 02:18

To Michael Mills: I don't for the life of me see how the existence of other lurid and unsuported claims - and of those there are indeed an over abundance - in any way cleanses or validates those of David Irving.
Indeed it does not.

But the point I was making is that the same standard should be applied to all lurid and unsupported claims.

While certain lurid and unsubstantiated claims made by Irving (and I would agree that that is a valid description of some of his statements, judging by the ematerial posted by Mr Kaschner) are held to disqualify him as a writer of history, there is a tendency in the media and in certain political groups, and among some members of this Forum, to give unqualified acceptance to other lurid and unsupported claims, as for example to the sensationalist descriptions of the system of military brothels run by the Japanese Army.

It would be a good thing if the sort of thorough examination from a profoundly hostile viewpoint applied to Irving's works were applied more generally to all historiography. Who knows what distortions we would find.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#77

Post by David Thompson » 30 Mar 2005, 03:32

Michael -- You said:
While certain lurid and unsubstantiated claims made by Irving (and I would agree that that is a valid description of some of his statements, judging by the ematerial posted by Mr Kaschner) are held to disqualify him as a writer of history, there is a tendency in the media and in certain political groups, and among some members of this Forum, to give unqualified acceptance to other lurid and unsupported claims, as for example to the sensationalist descriptions of the system of military brothels run by the Japanese Army.
If you have any evidence that "the sensationalist descriptions of the system of military brothels run by the Japanese Army" are false, please post it to the thread at:

Japan's crimes against women
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=37660

Our readers would welcome a detailed rebuttal from you of the "the sensationalist descriptions of the system of military brothels run by the Japanese Army," using the meticulously crafted, fact-based analysis walterkaschner provided for Irving's lurid and unsupported claims as a model.


michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

#78

Post by michael mills » 30 Mar 2005, 09:00

One of the faults ascribed to Irving is his making contentious claims without citing a clear source.

But that is not unheard of in other historians.

At the moment I am reading a book by Hans Rogger, "Jewish Policies and Right-Wing Politics in Imperial Russia" (Macmillan 1986).

On page 227, in the chapter "Was There a Russian Fascism? The Union of Russian People", we read:
It was unfortunate for the radicals of the Right that anti-Semitism, their chief stock-in-trade, had largely been pre-empted by the government. There was not much that they could ask be done against the Jews, except (besides expulsion) internal exile or extermination.
Suggesting that the URP had asked for the internal exile or extermination of Russian Jewry is certainly a contentious claim that requires thorough proof. However, when we check the relevant note 55, on page 270, we find this:
Stephan, The Russian Fascists, p. 17, states (without identifying a source) that Purishkevich wanted all Jews resettled in Kolyma (in north-eastern Siberia) and that Dubrovin and Markov called for their physical extermination.
Thus, Rogger appears to accept the serious allegation made by J J Stephan in the book "The Russian Fascists: Tragedy and Farce in Exile, 1925-1945" (New York, 1978), that the three most senior leaders of the URP called for the internal exile or extermination of the Russian Jews, both genocidal measures, even though Stephan gave no source for that allegation.

Obviously Rogger was prepared to give credibility to the allegation, even though it was not proved.

Perhaps the book by Stephan should be analysed by Evans and co, to see what other naughty things might be in it.

User avatar
lisset
Member
Posts: 339
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 00:13
Location: U.K

Irving

#79

Post by lisset » 05 Jul 2005, 15:15

I don't think irving actually wanted to have to go to Court - I do believe he thoguht that the publisher would settle and he would come away with a headline and a feather in his cap.
Irving the master of self publicity.

An interesting thread with some good points end product is unchanged Irving did distort and write history according to his own agenda , Evans book does provide illustratrions of this .

Irving never really reckoned on discovery and the surrender of his papers to expert examination- he made much of the 40 assistants and the process of examination which he under went and how he was a man alone.

He brought this on himself and must surely have sen what he had taken on - conducting his "own defence" does describe Irvings mindset , he started the action.

Evans in his book made mention of Irvings milking the media at the end of the trial - headlines cost and irving paid for everyone of them.
When Paxman interviewed irving he put it to him that on the basis of this judgement he would stop denying the Holocaust , " Good Lord no" was Irvings reply.
This really says it all.

Enjoyed reading the thread after some time away. Thank you gentlemen.

2shelbys
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 23:40
Location: Baltimore, Maryland

#80

Post by 2shelbys » 06 Jul 2005, 01:04

I will be the first to admit that I did not follow the trial very closely. One thing I do know is that the biggest mistake Mr. Irving made was his attempt to represent himself against an opponent with staggering monetary support. I believe there was something on the order of 6-7 Million dollars from Steven Spielberg alone.

One thing that does seem telling is that for decades Mr. Irving was looked upon by his fellow historians as one of the best, if not the best in the field of Third Reich history. His knowledge of documents was considered unequalled. I found this excerpt from the trial which casts some doubt on the conclusive nature of the decision:

"13.7 My assessment is that, as a military historian, Irving has
much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving
has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the
archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and
others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have
remained unnoticed for years. 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
favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan
of the calibre of Irving's military history (mentioned in paragraph
3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative
assessment of Evans. (quoted in paragraph 3.5)."

He also registered surprise about the evidence against Auschwitz:

"13.71 I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most
other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination
of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling.
I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing
the evidence adduced by the parties in these proceedings."

He also found that Mr. Irving was unjustly defamed:

"13.166 But there are certain defamatory imputations which I
have found to be defamatory of Irving but which have not been
proved to be true...Furthermore the Defendants have, as I have held,
failed in their attempt to justify the defamatory imputations
made against Irving... The question which I have to ask myself is
whether the consequence of the Defendants' failure to prove
the truth of these matters is that the defence of justification fails
in its entirety."

This is in direct opposition to other comments made in the decision. What does bother me is that since his involvement in "denial" issues it is as though all of the earlier praise of his work never happened. Mr. Irving has never even published a work on the holocaust. It would not be impossible that the attacks on him were a direct result of the fact that he was the most respected historian to become involved in "denial" and as such had to be discredited to avoid any possible legitimization of "denial". I can definitely see him being attacked as bogus specifically because he was not bogus. If he was, it would not have been necessary to make it appear so, it would have been common knowledge. This is especially true in light of the fact that there are people out there making far more shocking claims about the subject who are essentially ignored because they do not have the stature that Irving did. I wish I had more time to look into it.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#81

Post by David Thompson » 06 Jul 2005, 03:00

2shelbys -- You remarked:
It would not be impossible that the attacks on him were a direct result of the fact that he was the most respected historian to become involved in "denial" and as such had to be discredited to avoid any possible legitimization of "denial". I can definitely see him being attacked as bogus specifically because he was not bogus. If he was, it would not have been necessary to make it appear so, it would have been common knowledge. This is especially true in light of the fact that there are people out there making far more shocking claims about the subject who are essentially ignored because they do not have the stature that Irving did. I wish I had more time to look into it.
We have had a large number of discussions about Irving's historiography in the H&WC section of the forum, in which it appeared that Mr. Irving deliberately or reckless distorted several historical events unrelated to the holocaust -- four examples which come to mind immediately are his statements about the bombing of Dresden in February 1945 (ably discussed in this thread by walterkaschner), about the executions of the 20 July conspirators (see http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=80680 ), about Convoy PQ 17 (also discussed in this thread), and about the International Military Tribunal proceedings immediately after WWII ( http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=55352 ).

Another example we've discussed here, tangentially related to the holocaust, involved Mr. Irving grossly mischaracterizing the proceedings of a meeting between Hitler, von Ribbentrop and the Regent of Hungary, Admiral Horthy, in 1943 ( http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=17408 ). Besides the celebrated libel trial, he lost two other cases, in which he was accused of libel, which had nothing to do with the holocaust. As a result, Mr. Irving doesn't have a lot of credibility here.

2shelbys
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 23:40
Location: Baltimore, Maryland

#82

Post by 2shelbys » 06 Jul 2005, 06:20

David,
Thank you for the links. I went over some of them briefly but it will take me some time to read them in detail. I must admit though, that I take any older account or testimony from German sources, especially those from the 1950's, with a grain of salt. Any German who spoke well of the Nazis was doing so at their own peril. They had heard of the things the De-nazification courts were doing in terms of stripping people of everything they owned, etc. Rightfully or not, they knew how they needed to speak to avoid the retribution they feared. I also take much of what Richard Evans says with a grain of salt. I have seen some very unfavorable reviews of his work in various publications (which I cannot cite because I was never very interested in this trial and therefore did not record anything I read regarding it) and his distaste of Mr. Irving appears to have been well known. I will however read the information you have given me with interest.

Thank you again.

User avatar
WalterS
Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: 22 Feb 2004, 21:54
Location: Arlington, TX

#83

Post by WalterS » 06 Jul 2005, 06:52

2shelbys wrote:
I will be the first to admit that I did not follow the trial very closely. One thing I do know is that the biggest mistake Mr. Irving made was his attempt to represent himself against an opponent with staggering monetary support. I believe there was something on the order of 6-7 Million dollars from Steven Spielberg alone.

Perhaps 2shelbys, because he didn't follow the trial very closely, doesn't realize that it was Irving who initiated the action by filing suit for defamation against Prof Lipstadt and Penguin Books. It was Irving who sought to silence his critics, not the other way around. This must be clearly understood because Irving, in the aftermath of his total defeat, sought to paint himself as a victim. Surely 2shelbys would agree that if one has been sued, one is entitled to defend oneself.

I would like 2shelbys to give us his source for the "6-7 million dollars from Steven Spielberg alone." Professor Lipstadt states:
Soon a collaboration developed between [Les] Wexner and Steven Spielberg, whose own Shoah Foundation was deeply engaged in taking survivors' testimonies. This collaboration resulted in the effective solicitation of a number of $100,000 dollar contributors.
Lipstadt "History on Trial," p. 38

So, while Mr Spielberg certainly assisted in raising funds for Prof Lipstadt's defense, there is no indication from Prof Lipstadt that Speilberg personally donated so large a sum.

It should also be noted that Lipstadt's publisher, Penguin Books UK, agreed to bear most of the cost:
By May, 1998, the date of my next visit to London, Anthony [Julius, Lipstadt's lawyer] and Penguin had hammered out the terms of a joint defense. Penguin would carry all the "shared costs" and pay for any expenditure relating to both parties, including experts, barristers, and researchers. I still faced substantial expenses, but this agreement lifted a major burden from me. Their insurer would pay the bills.
ibid p.44


2shelbys wrote:
I found this excerpt from the trial which casts some doubt on the conclusive nature of the decision:

"13.7 My assessment is that, as a military historian, Irving has
much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving
has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the
archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and
others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have
remained unnoticed for years. 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
favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan
of the calibre of Irving's military history (mentioned in paragraph
3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative
assessment of Evans. (quoted in paragraph 3.5)."
This paragraph casts no doubt on anything, as shown by the following paragraph:
13.8 But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving's military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime.
(emphasis added)

Thus Judge Gray understood exactly what the case was about, and focused his decision on the salient questions.

Having framed the case and the key issues involved, Judge Gray goes on:
13.9 As appears from section V above, the Defendants have selected nineteen instances where they contend that Irving has in one way or another distorted the evidence. Having considered the arguments, which I have summarised at some length, I have come to the conclusion that the criticisms advanced by the Defendants are almost invariably well-founded. For whatever reason (and I shall consider later the question of Irving's motivation), I am satisfied that in most of the instances cited by the Defendants Irving has significantly misrepresented what the evidence, objectively examined, reveals.
13.15 Readers of the account in Goebbels of the events of 9 and 10 November 1938 were given by Irving to understand that Hitler bore no responsibility for the starting of the pogrom and that, once he learned of it, he reacted angrily and thereafter intervened to call a halt to the violence. I accept the evidence of Evans and Longerich that this picture seriously misrepresents the available contemporaneous evidence.
13.16 Irving's endeavour to cast sole blame for the pogrom (Krystallnacht) onto Goebbels is at odds with the documentary evidence
13.18 In my judgment the account given by Irving of the interventions by Nazi leaders during the night of 9/10 November distorts the evidence.
Hitler's views on the Jewish question (paragraphs 5.123-150 above)
13.26 Irving's submissions on this topic appear to me to have a distinct air of unreality about them. It is common ground between the parties that, until the latter part of 1941, the solution to the Jewish question which Hitler preferred was their mass deportation. On the Defendants' case, however, from the end of 1941 onwards the policy of which Hitler knew and approved was the extermination of Jews in huge numbers. Irving on the other hand argued that Hitler continued to be the Jews' friend at least until October 1943. The unreality of Irving's stance, as I see it, derives from his persistence in that claim, despite his acceptance in the course of this trial that the evidence shows that Hitler knew about and approved of the wholesale shooting of Jews in the East and, later, was complicit in the gassing of hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Reinhard and other death camps.
13.31 It is my conclusion that the Defendants are justified in their assertion that Irving has seriously misrepresented Hitler's views on the Jewish question.
Findings in relation to the instances of Irving's historiography cited by the Defendants
13.51 For the reasons which I have given, I find that in most of the instances which they cite the Defendants' criticisms are justified. In those instances it is my conclusion that, judged objectively, Irving treated the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian. Irving in those respects misrepresented and distorted the evidence which was available to him.
13.58 It inexorably follows that Irving was misrepresenting the historical evidence when he told audiences in Australia, Canada and the US (as he accepted he did) that the shooting of Jews in the East was arbitrary, unauthorised and undertaken by individual groups or commanders.

(emphasis added)
all quotes from Judge Gray's decision which can be read in its entirety at:

http://www.hdot.org/ieindex.html

2 shelbys goes on to say:

He [Judge Gray] also found that Mr. Irving was unjustly defamed:

"13.166 But there are certain defamatory imputations which I
have found to be defamatory of Irving but which have not been
proved to be true...Furthermore the Defendants have, as I have held,
failed in their attempt to justify the defamatory imputations
made against Irving... The question which I have to ask myself is
whether the consequence of the Defendants' failure to prove
the truth of these matters is that the defence of justification fails
in its entirety."


This is in direct opposition to other comments made in the decision .
This comment is not in any way in "direct opposition" to other comments made. First, let's quote the entire paragraph:
13.166 But there are certain defamatory imputations which I have found to be defamatory of Irving but which have not been proved to be true. The Defendants made no attempt to prove the truth of Lipstadt's claim that Irving was scheduled to speak at an anti-Zionist conference in Sweden in 1992, which was also to be attended by various representatives of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hammas. Nor did they seek to justify Lipstadt's claim that Irving has a self-portrait by Hitler hanging over his desk. Furthermore the Defendants have, as I have held, failed in their attempt to justify the defamatory imputations made against Irving in relation to the Goebbels diaries in the Moscow archive. The question which I have to ask myself is whether the consequence of the Defendants' failure to prove the truth of these matters is that the defence of justification fails in its entirety.
Judge Gray addressed three specific issues that Irving had cited in his suit. They were: 1. the claim that Irving was scheduled to speak at an anti-Zionist conference in Sweden in 1992, which was also to be attended by Hezbollah and Hamas reps; 2. That Irving had a portrait of Hitler hanging over his desk, and 3. that Irving had misused and potentially damaged the original plates of the Goebbels diaries which were discovered in Moscow. The Judge ends this paragraph with a question to himself as to how much weight he should give those failures of the Defense to prove their case on those three issues.


As can be seen quite readily, 2shelbys omitted the most salient parts of that paragraph in an effort to represent it as saying something that it didn't. In 2shelbys's selective quote, none of those three issues is mentioned and the reader is given the impression that Judge Gray was commenting on the Defense's case as a whole. This is a deliberate misrepresentation that is, well, Irvinguesque.

Judge Gray answers his own question in the very next paragraph which 2shelbys neglected to mention:
13.167 The answer to that question requires me to decide whether (I am paraphrasing section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952) the failure on the part of the Defendants to prove the truth of those charges materially injures the reputation of Irving, in view of the fact that the other defamatory charges made against him have been proved to be justified. 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 associates 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 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.

13.168 In the result therefore the defence of justification succeeds.
So, as can be seen clearly, Judge Gray's decision was thorough, complete and decisive.

2shelbys also states:
Mr. Irving has never even published a work on the holocaust.
Another misrepresentation. The bulk of Mr Irving's work, from his first book on Dresden to "Hitler's War" (including the revised version where Irving specifically deleted all references to the holocaust because he says it didn't happen), and the books on Goebbels and Göring and the Nuremberg trials all share the same theme: distorting and misrepresenting the facts in order to argue that there was no "Holocaust," and if there was, it was all the Allies' fault.

2shelbys's post is a blatant attempt to distort the record and mislead the reader, much like the works of David Irving are.

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

#84

Post by tonyh » 06 Jul 2005, 11:55

and the books on Goebbels and Göring and the Nuremberg trials all share the same theme: distorting and misrepresenting the facts in order to argue that there was no "Holocaust," and if there was, it was all the Allies' fault.
Walt, only someone who hasn't read these books could come up with something like that.

You are constantly vocal in damning Irving on this website, but what books by Irving have YOU actually read?

Tony

ihoyos
Member
Posts: 603
Joined: 27 Feb 2004, 18:20
Location: USA

#85

Post by ihoyos » 06 Jul 2005, 15:34

In my opinion two persons are lying about the holocaust, but different reasons;
David irving and Simon Wiesenthal.

Karl
Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 03:55
Location: S. E. Asia

#86

Post by Karl » 06 Jul 2005, 15:40

Case in point: did you know that bbc quoted Elie Wiesel's 'Night' as fact yesterday? 8O

User avatar
lisset
Member
Posts: 339
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 00:13
Location: U.K

#87

Post by lisset » 06 Jul 2005, 17:20

Mr. Irving has never even published a work on the holocaust.

There are folks who make much of Mr. Irving not being a " Holocaust Historian" or not having "written a book about the Holocaust" all of which has little impact on the action he took , his decision to conduct his own case and the outcome.

Mr. Irving - whilst I have no reason to doubt his intelligence and his ability as a researcher - I have grave doubts regarding his ability as a historian who can be relied upon to interpret facts correctly.

Certainly there is no love lost between Irving and Evans but its case of Irving falling on his own sword rather than Evans doing anything other than he was paid to do - as has been illustrated in this thread by way of example which I do not have to repeat.

The money which came from Mr. Speilberg is not a major factor - the publisher was never going to let the case go - I think Irving bite of more than he could chew .

Irving would have known pretty quickly that the action was going to be expensive , hard fought and that a win by him would be highly unlikely.

Why did he fight his own case , ego and damage control seem the most likely answers.
Irving might look on his case as one man against the odds but it was he who elected to take the action knowing what the outcome would be.

2shelbys
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 23:40
Location: Baltimore, Maryland

#88

Post by 2shelbys » 06 Jul 2005, 18:06

2shelbys's post is a blatant attempt to distort the record and mislead the reader, much like the works of David Irving are.
Walter,
I do not know why you take this issue so personally but it is very unprofessional and down right rude to acuse someone of this when you know nothing of them. I stated right off the bat that I did not follow the trial because I did not particularly care about it. The section of trial transcript I posted was as I found it on the internet, I did not omit anything. Your assertion that Mr. Irving's entire body of work was intended to debunk the Holocaust is just silly and shows that you have most likely read none of it. Supporting your position is fine but keep your personal attacks to yourself, they make you look pretty bad.
Last edited by 2shelbys on 06 Jul 2005, 23:38, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Exxley
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 08 Feb 2005, 02:17
Location: Lyon, France

#89

Post by Exxley » 06 Jul 2005, 20:44

The section of trial transcript I posted was as I found it on the internet, I did not omit anything.
All that Walters proved was that your conclusions, based on incomplete transcripts, were also doomed from the start.

2shelbys
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 20 Jun 2005, 23:40
Location: Baltimore, Maryland

#90

Post by 2shelbys » 06 Jul 2005, 23:37

All that Walters proved was that your conclusions, based on incomplete transcripts, were also doomed from the start.
What conclusions? All my post was saying is that I haven't looked at this much before and that I have seen much from both sides. I came to no conclusions. If you had read the earlier posts you would have seen that David gave me some great links to explore and I said I would do so. I'm certainly not going to come to any conclusions at the beginning of my research into this subject. It is amazing how many people on this forum presume to know what everyone else is thinking and assume that everyone has an agenda. It's really quite sad.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”