David Irving

[jilldragon]

I've heard some interesting things about this guy, that he used to be a well-known historian who published many books (including one on Rommel) but according to Wiki he was recently sent to jail for being a Holocaust denier and that the content of his books was twisted to forward his own right-wing views. Now I haven't read anything by him, although I did read an excerpt of "Trail of the Fox' online. Apparently he doesn't like Hans Speidel very much. So I can't really judge.

So what do you guys think? Have you read any of his books? What's your take on the authenticity of what he's written?

[Qualerei]

Ah, David Irving ! I've read quite a few things about him (though none of his books). If you want my opinion :

- Beyond doubt, the man is a good writer, and he knows history pretty well. I've read a page he's written about Goebbels' diary, and it was actually quite amusing. His writing style is pleasant.

- However, I've also read things that make it indubitable he is a denier. Here's a quote : "I couldn't believe what I was seeing, the fact there were no documents whatsoever showing that a Holocaust had ever happened. I'm using the word 'Holocaust' in the modern sense that the newspapers tell us to use it. And certainly there was no evidence that Hitler had ever known such a thing was going on, whatever it was." (http://www.zundelsite.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd35irving.html)

- That being said, I've also read that he knows more than most historians about the war. Here's another quote :


"To keep Irving silent [...] would be too high a price to pay to free us of the disgust he inspires. The fact is that the aforementioned author knows more about National-Socialism than most of the other specialists in that field, and the searchers of the 1933-45 era are more indebted than they want to admit to his energy and to the extent of his publications. His first book, "The Destruction of Dresden", included some excessive judgments, but it encouraged without a doubt historians to adopt a more critical view about Allied bombing in the last part of the second world war, and it included some important data to support an investigation. In the same way, his book "Hitler's War", in spite of his attempts to deny Hitler's responsibility in the Holocaust and his implied thesis according to which the Führer would have indeed won the war if his generals had been clever enough to appreciate and exploit his military genius, remains the best study we have on the German point of view in WW2 and is an indispensable tool for all those who study this conflict. Likewise his discovery, after long researches, in the National Archive in Washington, of the notebooks of Professor Theo Morell, who was Adolf Hitler's private doctor from 1941 to 1945, supplied useful information to all the people interested in Hitler's health issues and their possible effect on his politics. Irving was otherwise generous by making his personal files accessible to other specialists, personal files which contain other unpublished discoveries."

Here's the source of the quote (but beware, it's in French, I translated it) : www.republique-des-lettres.fr/229-joseph-goebbels.php

My conclusion is, by all means do read his book, they should prove interesting, but treat everything he says (and in particular about Hitler) with the utmost caution (double cross with other sources when you want to be sure).

[Qualerei]

Just found the page I was talking about, the one where Irving speaks of Goebbels' diary :

www.codoh.com/irving/irvrevgoebb.html

[jilldragon]

I read the link and dug up some more excepts from his writing and frankly I was discusted by Irving's gloating tone over being the one to dig up the information about Goebbles and the blantant way he uses his writing to push his beliefs on everyone. He's distorted some of the facts quite significantly with no historical information to back him up which is a definate no-no in my books.

How can I be expected to take him seriously and believe a word he says if I can't be sure if it's truth or a 'rewoking' of the facts? Irving has made it clear that he's not an impartial observer which a credible historian is expected to be. So for now I think I'll steer clear of his books.

[ErwinRommie]

I wouldn't avoid his books because you disagree with his "methods". Sometimes you can find a deeper understanding of a subject even in the most twisted and biased writings (thats why we read Mein Kampf in order to better understand Hitler and his hatred of Jews rather than just read what everyone else writes on the subject). Mainly because you begin to understand "that" point of view and combined with the status quo point of view you understand the subject a little better.

Just so you know I'm not defending Irving, I'm just pointing out that it is a critical error for someone to ignore content because they disagree with it. Especially if you are a historian buff. You don't have to believe what is being written though, just read it and try to understand it.

[machiavelli-imp]

<I>the Fuehrer would have indeed won the war if his generals had been clever enough to appreciate and exploit his military genius,</I>
That's interesting - I was just reading a book that said the complete opposite. ("The German Army: 1935-1945" by Matthew Cooper, who includes a small but highly pro-Rommel chapter in his book.
On the other hand Cooper cites Halder's quote about Rommel needing "a further two armoured corps" to conquer Egypt whereas Irving picks up on the fact that Rommel really said "two more armoured divisions" and Halder lied about it afterwards.

<I>In the same way, his book "Hitler's War"...remains the best study we have on the German point of view in WW2 and is an indispensable tool for all those who study this conflict.</I>
I only had a flick through those books (unfortunately my mother returned them to her friend about two months before I became interested in Rommel) but the major impression I got from Irving's writing is the detail. Every little event is noted in meticulous detail, from differences between the 1942 and 1945 war diaries of some of the divisions in Russia to the various Party badges worn by different members of Hitler's inncer circle, for want of a better term.

<I>he used to be a well-known historian who published many books (including one on Rommel)</I>
"The Trail of the Fox" is critical of Rommel - far more than David Fraiser and certainly more than Desmond Young's book - but I think Irving was purposefully writing to dispel (as he calls it) "the myth-Marshal" into which the British had made Rommel. So if there was a pro-Rommel argument for something (e.g. that breaking off the attack at Kasserine for example because Monty was approaching the Mareth line was sensible) then Irving took the anti-Rommel one as long as he could back it up with evidence (that Rommel should have continued at Kasserine because he was so close to overrunning the Allied air bases and could have puyshed the Americans out of Tunis). I don't think Irving writes biased history on purpose, I think he prefers to air the points of view that most other historians gloss over, which is why he takes so much time with his sources - and uses so many first-hand ones (General Streich is the first that comes to mind) - because if he wants to put forward anything that contradicts "accepted" history then he needs enormous amounts of evidence.
If you kept going with that reasoning too far then I think you'd probably end up as a Holocaust denier if only because somewhere if you look hard enough you would always find a source that supports your POV.

Oh dear - I thought Quantum Mechanics was subjective, but history is worse!