"Göring a biography" by David Irving

[Andrew Arthy]

Hi,

I would highly recommend this section of the website Nick included in his post: http://www.hdot.org/evidence/evans.asp

Richard J. Evans is a highly respected and very knowledgeable historian of Germany in the 19th and 20th centuries. The case he makes for Irving being a very poor historian is damning.

Evans demonstrates that Irving was making questionable statements based on non-existant or unreliable evidence from his very earliest works.

To quote Evans: "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."

Cheers,
Andrew A.

"You'll never silence the voice of the voiceless" - Rage Against The Machine

[Jukka Juutinen]

Dick Evans highly respected by whom? B'nai B'rith?

[Kurt Braatz]

People like Irving think it makes a difference for the reputation of a political system whether it emprisoned and slaughtered 6 million or merely six people for their origins and beliefs. In fact, even one would be evidence enough for absolutely intolerable barbarism. There is NO denying the fact that many jews, people regarded as racially or mentally inferior fell victim to Nazi terror. That's one side of the coin.

The other is that Irving's Goering biography displays many sources only he had access to (e. g. his close friendship to Erhard Milch). That makes it worthwile reading for unbiased historians. As of now, I could not find a serious mistake or misinterpretation in that book. In other words: the book cannot be blamed for the insanity of its author.

[Andrew Arthy]

"Dick Evans highly respected by whom? B'nai B'rith?"

Jukka,

Are you kidding? He is a Professor of History at Cambridge, and has written more than 20 books on many aspects of German history. Many of these books are used by universities for their European and German history courses.

Did you actually read the article referred to in my post? Evans has carefully analysed the works of Irving, and came to what seem, to me at least, to be very reasonable conclusions.

Cheers,
Andrew A.

"You'll never silence the voice of the voiceless" - Rage Against The Machine

[Ruy Horta]

Jukka,

(Still) friendly reminder that although I welcome a free discussion on the topic, it must still be conducted with restraint. You must be careful not to cross a certain line, beyond which doubt must make room for hard accusation.

[Franek Grabowski]

There was also a famous Cambridge five.
I can comment only on Mare's Nest, and the book is not bad, but as he did not contact any Poles engaged in spying of the weapons (living in England at the time), the overall view is seriously distorted. In my opinion, this has nothing to Irving's political views, just quality of his work. That said, I have seen several worser books, even nonsenses written by renowned professors, so the scientific title means nothing for me, at least in regard of history.
The real problem with Irving is that he has chosen wrong socialist to defend. There are hundreds on similar books about communism, but they do not cause any concern, being politically correct.

[CJE]

Irving is the one who propagated the myth of Dresden, stating bluntly and with no evidence available that US escort fighters strafed the population. He also gave a wantonly distorted number of casualties among civilians.
He sort of wanted to prove that the Western Allies were as savage as the Germans.
His writings must be read with great caution. Caveat emptor, as English-speaking people use to say.

He is not welcome in France where laws are very drastic against the negationists.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

The real problem with Irving is that he has chosen wrong socialist to defend. There are hundreds on similar books about communism, but they do not cause any concern, being politically correct.

Franek, if you'll please read the Holocaust Denial on Trial site you'll see that being "politically correct" is NOT what the problem was or is. The issue is entirely about Irving's treatment of historical source material and the History on Trial site gives numerous specific and readily checkable examples of how his books have departed from evidence on which he claimed to have been relying.

Deborah Lipstadt criticised Irving's scholarship. He sued her for libel. In the court case the he initiated, his methods were taken apart in great detail by people whose record of scholarship suggests they should be listened to.

I say it again, read the evidence on the HDOT site. The examples given there go back to "The Destruction of Dresden" and "The Destruction of Convoy PQ 17" (the latter led to court case brought by a former Royal Navy officer - Irving lost that one too), so the questions over his methods were never just related to the Nazi extermination programme.

[Jukka Juutinen]

Mr. Braatz put it well. However, I hope he extends the same standards to American capitalism that in relatively short (historically speaking) time annihilated hundreds of unique peoples, stole their land and continues to benefit from that genocide. The criminals (e.g. Andrew Jackson) who perpetrated the Indian genocide are still national heroes.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jukka Juutinen

Mr. Braatz put it well. However, I hope he extends the same standards to American capitalism that in relatively short (historically speaking) time annihilated hundreds of unique peoples, stole their land and continues to benefit from that genocide. The criminals (e.g. Andrew Jackson) who perpetrated the Indian genocide are still national heroes.

Jukka, what on earth has this to do with the original point of the discussion: can Irving be relied on as a historian?