"Göring a biography" by David Irving

[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?

[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.