Help w/ David Irving book opinions

[PaulW]

The comments in this thread about the anti-Hitler German resistance hindering German efforts in Normandy are interesting. I spoke to a (now deceased) 9th SS Frundsberg veteran in the 1990's called Rudi Splinter. He recalled that during Normandy it was felt that their efforts against the Allies were hindered by ammunition shortages. He recalled a story that a company of men were sent to the rear to some ammunition storage bunkers to requisition some ammunition. The ammunition supply there was allegedly almost unlimited. A "fat army Colonel" tried to turn the Frundsberg men away saying that they would need to go to Paris as their paperwork was not satisfactory. The SS officer in charge, drew out his pistol and immediately shot the Colonel dead, announcing that he was "clearly a traitor" and that the men should fill their trucks with as much ammunition as they could carry and return to the front. Perhaps the story was embellished, perhaps not.


As for David Irving books, I have several - they're excellent reads. I think even his 'enemies' have admitted in the past that he is a brilliant researcher, that he goes for source material (rather than re-gurgitating other's material as so many other historians do) and has interviewed many first-hand witnesses of the period. Contrary to popular opinion his books are sometimes critical of the Third Reich, and not some kind of 'Neo-Nazi white-wash'. If they were they would not have been published by mainstream publishers, as they were until his fall from grace...

[Vivelefrance]

I think after a certain book his views start taking a certain leaning. Many pre-shift volumes are good though.

[general1900]

I have read just the "Trail of the Fox" and the "Bombardment of Dresden" and i found them excellent and well documented. I dont know about his others books since i havent read them but these 2 had nothing neo-nazi in them. Maybe some times what history authors write is difficult for us to accept but history is history.

Regards,
Fotis

[Mil-Archive]

I wonder how many people there are out there who criticize him till the cows come home, yet have never read one of his books.

I'd say the majority of people who criticise him have not read him. Reading them I think most critics would be genuinely surprised. It's worth noting that his books are available for free in .pdf from his website, though if you buy one you get a signed copy.

[nick-j]

i have read almost all his books and as has been said by others find them really well researched at the end of the day given all the facts by an author its up to us to reach a decision and im not sure that any book could swing me one way or another towards a political persausion.
in responce to another part of this thread i always felt steven ambrose although a good author was a definate anglophobe

[VtwinVince]

I have also read numerous books by Irving, and I have liked them all. I think the witch hunt to which he was subjected is typical of this day and age, where alternative points of view are stifled by mainstream media interests.

[JG 51]

Just a thought that I think is very important in this matter. How can a holocaust denier be a good researcher and historian? He is denying an enormously big event in history that has very strong evidence.

[nick-j]

i am unsure on this point as i have never seen where he denies the holocaust happens(and would hold a changed opinion if someone could show me!) there are some who deny it out of pure ignorance of the facts but i wonder if he has been tarred with the same brush for saying things didnt happen as they are often written,as i understood it his argument was that there was not a direct link proveable by orders written by hitler to his immediate involvement.this makes no difference as far as i can see as his guilt is undeniable.if i read one of his books that denied the holocaust i wouldnt read another!!i would be interested to know the facts as i am not that informed about what actually he said that ruined his career

[Gesundheit]

Just a thought that I think is very important in this matter. How can a holocaust denier be a good researcher and historian? He is denying an enormously big event in history that has very strong evidence.

Kindly reference where he denies the holocaust.
Or perhaps that is just what you have heard ?

[JG 51]

Kindly reference where he denies the holocaust.
Or perhaps that is just what you have heard ?

Nope, I would never base an argument of "something I heard".

I saw a spech in which he states that "only" a couple of hundred thousand jews were murdered and not 6 millions in nazi Germany and that no jews were killed in gas chambers.

As soon as I find a link to that speech I´ll post it here.

[Gesundheit]

Well, its impossible to go into much debate in this area without getting the thread locked.
Suffice it to say that I don't classify someone as a "denier" simply because they don't accept the 6,000,000 figure without reservation.
Clearly, he has gotten into some controversial areas, has been labeled by the usual suspects, and has cost him "mainstream" credibility.
I think his delving into sales of alleged AH personal items was a poor choice, but he probably figured he had nothing left to lose at that point.

[behblc]

With reference to Mr Irving's denial of the Holocaust - he has said this in public time out of number in addresses to the pseudo historical organisation "IHR".
Did he not say that more people died in the back of a car at Chappaquiddick than died in gas chambers at Auschwitz .

I would remind you of the libel action which he fought against Penguin Publishers and Lipstadt which he lost , he certainly was not asserting that genocide took place when he fought that case.
I would also refer you to an interview with Jeremy Paxman on BBC-2's "Newsnight" in the wake of his defeat when Paxman asked him if he would now cease denying the Holocaust on the basis of the judgement made against him ?
Irving's answer "Good God no" .
I think this answers the question of when has he denied a well proven act of Genocide.

Of interest "Telling Lies About Hitler" Professor Richard Evans., also see
"The Case For Auschwitz" Robert Van Pelt and "The Unwritten Order" Professor Richard Longerich.

Evans demonstrated that Irving had been less than objective in his findings for a very long time time , throughout his career to cut to the chase.

[JG 51]

Well, its impossible to go into much debate in this area without getting the thread locked.
Suffice it to say that I don't classify someone as a "denier" simply because they don't accept the 6,000,000 figure without reservation.

It´s a big difference between a couple of hundred thousands and 6 million, it is not even close to the genocide we refer to as the Holocaust.

[behblc]

Mr.Irving's view of the Holocaust pales into the background when you consider the lack of objective thinking in some of his works , that is his benchmark as a historian.

As far as his views on the Holocaust go reviewing history is not something which is new historians have been doing it for years and if Mr.Irving's service to history is to have caused a review of the historical record he should be thanked for this .
Historians have not asked that "6,000,000" be accepted out of hand , without reservation they have presented the facts and their views are evidence based upon them - and to date there is no case to support Mr. Irving's view's or any of the other so called "revisionist scholars" .

As far as his enemies go this is something of a figment of Mr.Irving's imagination that "they are out to get me" , it all ties in with his own version of history , that which he regards as being "Real History".
A brilliant researcher he is , but it how he used the evidence , selectively quotes it and ignores that which does not please him or accommodate his views.


If anything Mr Irving is a wasted talent , as far as a fall from grace goes - this has everything to do with David Irving and nothing to do with other histroians , publishers or "his traditional enemies".

[Gesundheit]

It´s a big difference between a couple of hundred thousands and 6 million, it is not even close to the genocide we refer to as the Holocaust.

Yes, that is out of line if in fact he said that.
My point is, I would prefer not to see history legally regulated as it is in some states of Europe, I think if one thinks 2 were killed or 10,000,000, it should be their perfect right to think & argue either.

As it stands, no contrary arguments can be made in Europe, no arguments can be made here, so this aspect of this subject might as well drop.