Historical Perspectives in the New Europe

[Cott Tiger]

The ONE thing that I would take exception with is that he "falsified" the historical record. He intepreted according to his views - ALL historians do this some to their credit some to their discredit. He made skewed conclusions from material - not distorted the material. He had a view, and selctively quoted and used material to promote that view, not falsified. ANY reader can and is supposed to take his books and either...

You are categorically wrong Phylo.

Irving falsifies statistics

Irving deliberately misquotes. He is guilty of quoting historical documents in an accurate manner. Such misquotation has included suppression of vital parts of such documents as well as false and inaccurate quotations from the documents themselves

Irving deliberately misstates. He gives a false account of historical fact.

Irving falsely attributes conclusions to reliable sources

Irving relies on books that directly contradict his arguments, quoting in a manner that completely distorts the authors' objectives

Irving distorts evidence and manipulates documents to suit his own purposes.

Irving skews documents and misrepresents data in order to reach historically untenable conclusions.

Irving bends historical evidence until it conforms to his own ideological leanings and political purposes

Irving takes accurate information and shapes it to confirm his conclusions.

Source: http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html

I can supply details and examples of the above if you wish Phylo. There are reams and reams of painstaking researched evidence to back up all the above points.

Anyway you look at, Irving does not reach the standards of a reputable and professional historian. He is unscrupulous and bogus.

Regards,

Andre

[phylo_roadking]

The problem is there's a ruling in a court of law that says otherwise, and which does specifically find that he has not only distorted but FALSIFIED his source material. That has with finality and completeness demolished Irving's credibility as a historian, much more crushingly than right-wing sympathies in themselves.

Um, thats usually what the appeal system is for? As for example, the Polish statement about building the gaschambers at Auschwitz IF Irving had the ability to appeal that earlier decision against him. He was found categorically and legally WRONG there - then it was declared publically that he was right. But in legal terms the earlier now-incorrect judgement stands.

Yes, all historians have a perspective. Yes, all historians make interpretations and advance arguments that support of them. But historians do not falsify evidence, which the Lipstadt case ruling found Irving had done. If they do, they forfeit their credibility

Historians do. They "interpret", they cite sources that agree with them and leave aside and unreferenced those that contradict. They selectively quote. They change statistics. They put the words of one person in the mouth of another. HABITUALLY. Thats what makes the whole area of history such a bloody minefield. Not every one of them is stupid enough to go to court on it - because they'd ALL loose!

Example? - WINSTON CHURCHILL! Look at his "wonderful" history of the Second World War, for so long regarded as the definite work on so many aspects of the period...but...NOW having to be reinterpreted SO much or just rejected out of hand because of even just "Ultra" and its contribution to the war being recognised. SO many of his accounts of the decision-making processes are now shown to be so much rubbish.

Yes, that is exactly what you can, if you can't trust his use of it and that he has rendered it accurately

No, you go and check it for yourself. Are any of us here INcapable of doing that?

What complete nonsense. On the contrary it is the perfectly appropriate place to decide whether a given claim publicly made can be shown to possess enough truth to be warranted

In answer to that, that ANY court is the perfect place to determine about truth and lies right or wrong - as opposed to lawful or unlawful...

American plea-bargaining? Or perhaps....the career of Prosecutor Roland Freisler, as we're concerned with WWII history here? Truth has got nothing to do with courts. It SHOULD have but doesn't.

Historical interpretation isn't ice cream, where it's up to each to choose the brand you like best.

REALLY? Well, just take a good look round Feldgrau as the perfect example - isn't that EXACTLY what people do??? And by the way yhe secret is in the word...interpretation. If it didn't need interpreted then it would be historical fact.

***

[TimoWr]

Historians do. They "interpret", they cite sources that agree with them and leave aside and unreferenced those that contradict. They selectively quote. They change statistics. They put the words of one person in the mouth of another. HABITUALLY. Thats what makes the whole area of history such a bloody minefield. Not every one of them is stupid enough to go to court on it - because they'd ALL loose!

Complete nonsense.

Despite the efforts of some good people, this topic once again proves why Feldgrau goes downhill fast.

[phylo_roadking]

....which is of course why you can name any subject and find a dozen works on it from every extreme of the political spectrum. Lucky are the "stock" writers who get approached to write on a subject and get their parameters given to them by publishing companies. And if you think WWII is bad, you should try ancient, Dark Age or Medieval History....!

But what I will say - is that so far the published authors I've read here and who contribute to on Feldgrau are historical writers rather than political "historians" in the Irving sense, so please - let none who contributes here take umbrage from that perspective or what I've said. Its a very fine dividing line, but vital. People who write about their favourite service/unit/battle/campaign/theatre/aircraft/ship etc. - whether as amateurs with a desire to make their area known about or to improve knowledge about it OR professional writerswho are researching or publishing all the history of something - are doing so to MAKE the facts known and improve the general and specialised knowledge of the period. Its "historians" like Irving who take a political position first and then use the material that suits them who cast a shadow over the whole word historian. Because they're more concerned with making their interpretation of history known about...

And therefore people who have something to say first and facts second are not really historians. They're advocates/analysts/interpreters/pundits...philosphers even!....but NOT historians. Which is why I've always been very ambivalent about referring to Irving as a Historian.

IF Irving had chased down and used his sources to support the normal run-of-the-mill historical interpretation, then he would have been lost in the crowd. But instead he built his agenda on it, and used his agenda to control what he used. THAT is the class of historian I'm talking about here. Not truly interested people who WANT the whole canon of knowledge made public, warts and all. Because its knowledge thats important - not someone else's opinions.

Opinions we are supposed to make and have ourselves...

[pzrmeyer2]

Despite the efforts of some good people, this topic once again proves why Feldgrau goes downhill fast.

oh right, I see. can't have calm, reasoned debate about a controverisal topic. no sir. cant have that, especially one that deviates from the sanitized, spoon-fed, dogma that all are suppossed to adhere to ohne frage, without question. Now we know who the real nazis are here.

[pzrmeyer2]

so one question: i thought we're told that anti-Semitic prejudice and belief in Nazism stems from utter ignorance. How do you then explain Mr Irving, who allegedly became so after amassing about as much research and knowledge as one can possibly have on the subject?

Wonder what he learned in his research that made him risk everything to make his views open?

[Qvist]

so one question: i thought we're told that anti-Semitic prejudice and belief in Nazism stems from utter ignorance. How do you then explain Mr Irving, who allegedly became so after amassing about as much research and knowledge as one can possibly have on the subject?

Wonder what he learned in his research that made him risk everything to make his views open?

It stems from ignorance as long as it is based on a simple belief that the nazis didn't actually exterminate millions of people as a matter of choice and didn't actually wage aggressive war to enslave most of the european continent. Most people are so constructed that they find it hard to affirm these facts and yet remain favorably disposed to nazism. But there are of course those who are capable of doing so, and they suffer from something far worse than mere ignorance.

cheers

[pzrmeyer2]

But there are of course those who are capable of doing so, and they suffer from something far worse than mere ignorance.

and what exactly is that? and how do you propose they should be "dealt with"?

and you din't directly address my question as pertaining to Irving.

[Cott Tiger]

PM2,

While you are on the subject of not directly addressing questions:

Hi pzrmeyer,

Let us be sure we got this right.

Are you saying the "the Jews" are amongst "the scum of humanity"?

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

Cheers,

Sid.

Regards,

Andre

[pzrmeyer2]

Hardy Har Har. Draw your own conclusions, Andre.

[Qvist]

and what exactly is that?

Bigotry, racism and contempt of humanity.

and how do you propose they should be "dealt with"?

I don't. For my own part, I regard them with contempt.

and you din't directly address my question as pertaining to Irving.

I can only assume that he chooses to share the Hitlerian view of the world.

[pzrmeyer2]

I can only assume that he chooses to share the Hitlerian view of the world.

lets assume you're right. Did this man, one of the most pre-eminent researchers and scholars on the Third Reich, arrive at this opinion out of ignorance, or after amassing knowledge?

[Rajin Cajun]

pzrmeyer I think that is the problem with the Elites that question right there hence the need to shut him up.

[sid guttridge]

Hi RC,

Irving hasn't been "shut up". He has complete freedom within his own and many other countries to say and write what he likes. He researches, and publishes still today. You can go to his website this very second. You can buy his books from him within minutes.

Irving's problem is that he has been very publicly found out as a falsifier of the historical record and no respectable publisher will now touch his work.

This is to a great degree self-inflicted. It was he who brought the law case that ruined his reputation. It was he who chose to go to a country where he already knew he was wanted on previous charges. The Austrians didn't extradite or kidnap him.

Much of Irving's victimhood is self inflicted or invention.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Qvist]

Hardy Har Har. Draw your own conclusions, Andre.

Jesus, are we down to having to deal with direct expressions of racial hatred here now?

lets assume you're right. Did this man, one of the most pre-eminent
researchers and scholars on the Third Reich, arrive at this opinion out of ignorance, or after amassing knowledge?

Well, if you need me to spell out the answer to 1+1, in bold: Presumably the latter, which puts him in the despicable category of someone who has every reason to know the nature of National Socialism and still chooses to affirm it. For someone who knows a great deal about the third Reich to hold the opinions Irving does is far less forgivable than for an ignorant man to do so. Which one is it for you then?