"Göring a biography" by David Irving

[Franek Grabowski]

Nick, I only mean that such controversial and unfounded views are widely accepted and cause no concern if they concern communism or even several "pro-Holocaust" researchers. Whatever bad Irving is, we have double standards present, that's all.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Nick, I only mean that such controversial and unfounded views are widely accepted and cause no concern if they concern communism or even several "pro-Holocaust" researchers. Whatever bad Irving is, we have double standards present, that's all.

Quite possibly but the original question was Irving's reliability as a historian. I can only repeat that the HDOT website is well worth reading in detail.

[CJE]

How can you trust a negationnist?
If he distorts one reality, why wouldn't he distort others?
The Dresden raid being one big case of not trusting him.

But it's up to you. You are a big boy.

[Ruy Horta]

Originally Posted by CJE

If he distorts one reality, why wouldn't he distort others?

CJ, for the sake of argument I'd like to pretend for a while that this discussion is not about Irving. Historical writing is much influenced by modern culture, as such it is per definition a distorted reality - we cannot but distort one past reality to fit our present day way of thinking about said reality. This cultural bias goes beyond the standard objective versus subjective argument.

The question remains if an author has an agenda, beyond what we consider to be innocent subjectivity. Many authors start with an agenda, they want to (dis)proof something, hence they will attempt to present (distort) any evidence in their favor. If an author writes about Cuisine, the impact is small, but once they enter politically or culturally sensitive areas, even politicians enter the game (certainly lobbyists).

Even if Irving can be accused of being a true Holocaust denier, that still leaves the question if the topic itself can be discussed at all in a critical manner in our current western society.

What if a scholar has proof that instead of 6 million there were 4 million Jews killed in world war two. Is he allowed to present his case or denounced ASAP. Somehow I don't think that increasing the number will carry the same risks. The less politically correct, the easier it is to find support denouncing heretic ideas.

Back to David Irving, his books on Milch and Goering deserve a read if you are interested in the Luftwaffe at a higher level, if you are interested in operational and technical subjects you can skip this author altogether.

[Uncle Sam]

Irving is an idiot, (in terms of interpretation of historical evidence), but his books contain interesting information. IMHO Mr Evans has gone over the edge with

"Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about."

What about a sentence in his biography of Milch saying that he passed away? LOL!!!

An unbiased analysis would be that this would be true in some cases and not true in others.

K