david_irving

British Holocaust revisionist and pseudo-historian David Irving, originally invited to the Lillehammer literature festival, arrived in Oslo on Monday, in spite of the festival’s cancellation last autumn, according to Norwegian news site ABC Nyheter (in Norwegian).

The initial festival programme contained an Irving lecture on the concept of truth, later to be withdrawn on account of massive protests.

It’s been rumoured later that Mr. Irving intended to attend regardless. He is currently confirmed present in Oslo, on his way to Lillehammer.

“Yes, I’m in Oslo, saying ‘tusen takk’ [thank you] wherever I go,” he says, trying to keep a low profile for security reasons.

His presence during the literature festival has been uncertain for some time, as none of the Lillehammer hotels have been willing to accommodate him, but he now claims having friends in the area who are prepared to house him.

David Irving is scheduled to hold a speech alongside the official festival programme.

A brief update on Tuesday 26 May: Up until now there’s been precious little mentioning of Mr. Irving’s visit in Norwegian news, save for these two nationals yesterday (both in Norwegian):

Granted several regional and local newspapers picked up on the news, too, but the above two remained alone on the national arena.

Recent news however has it that Mr. Irving was met by a number of protesters in Oslo today, which is always of a certain interest for a sensation-driven press. I’ll try to keep the list as up to date as possible (all still in Norwegian):

It’s been argued that Irving’s cause gains less by a silent press, with which I have to agree. Personally I’m more curious as to whom his Norwegian cohorts might be, which is something that further press coverage may indeed unearth.

For a peek into David Irving’s repulsive, however irrelevant, mindset, please have a look at this, recorded last summer:

Tagged with →  
Share →

29 Responses to David Irving en route to literature festival

  1. Bjørn E. Vatten says:

    Jeg synes Irving er en knakende kjekk kar og ønsker ham velkommen til Norge. At noen vil stoppe ytringsfriheten tar jeg som et tegn på at islamiseringen er i full gang. Hva blir det neste?

    At en håndfull demonstranter får slik presseomtale skaper et feilt bilde. Nordmenn flest har ingen ting i mot at Irving kommer.

  2. bob says:

    Helt enig med deg Bjørn!

    Det er stortsett bare rasistene i “SOS rasisme” som prøver å hindre ytringsfriheten til David Irving og så klart så kommer median og gjør så mye ut av det sslik at verden får sett at “norge” er i mot ham.

    Jeg fordømmer de feigingene i Lillehammer som ikke gir ham noe opphold i hotellene der. Plus de som ikke tør å høre på hva David har å si!

  3. Jarle Petterson says:

    I’m full aware that a growing number of Norwegian citizens share David Irving’s views on Islam and Muslims, Bjørn E. Vatten. They would be well advised, though, to remember that Mr. Irving’s prime target are the Muslims’ current chief counterpart; The Jews and, therefore, the Israeli state.

    Not that I support antagonism towards either, as I’ve demonstrated through this blog on several occasions, but you have to appreciate the irony therein.

  4. s.vercoe says:

    There is a significant tendency in our little country to prevent people we don’t like the opinions of, to speak out.

    If Max Blumenthal allows himself an interview, why can’t Norwegian mainstream-media?

    Let him defend his weird and outrageous interpretation of history-telling..
    There are limits to what extent we need to protect ourselves from each others’ views. Jaysuz Hot Dog and Morning Glory!

  5. Bjørn E. Vatten says:

    Hadde det ikke vært for at SOS-Rasime er en kriminell organisasjon skulle jeg kanskje trodd deg.

  6. Jarle Petterson says:

    s.vercoe: First of all: Good to see you here — as always!

    Certainly! Mr. Irving should enjoy every bit as much right to voice his opinion as anyone else. The alternative; blatant censorship, so long as he doesn’t overstep the boundaries of what is considered outright racism, is worthy of no country branding itself a democracy.

    My sole intention with mention Irving’s arrival was that, up until the point of publishing, there were no references to the visit in English whatsoever, whereas only two nationals found him worthy of their attention, which, in my opinion is a negligence of the press’ duty to inform, however irrelevant, misinformed or misleading we consider him to be.

    The ensuing pandemonium taking place in the streets of Oslo this afternoon, however, provided a “welcomed” awakening, if ever so rude.

    Bjørn E. Vatten: Unsure whether you address me or some of the other debaters, I’ll restrict myself to say only this: You can’t possibly be serious.

    Also, I’m sorry for responding in English, but you’ve entered an English-spoken domain, as you may well have noticed.

  7. Steve says:

    s.vercoe says:Let him defend his weird and outrageous interpretation of history-telling..

    There is actually nothing weird or outrageous in David Irving’s interpretation of history, but you actually have to read his books to find out. Far too many people express an opinion of his works without every having read anything by him – relying solely on the poisonous bile of this enemies. If his historical theories were so easily dismissed, why would he be banned from speaking so often? Would it not be far easier to let him be hoist by his own petard? If what he has to say is so ridiculous then it would be easy.

    As for being a “pseudo historian” (what a fantastic term that is), my own experience after 30 years of reading his books is that he is the most thorough, well researched historian of World War II alive today.

  8. Rob of East Anglia says:

    David Irving has been persecuted all over the world for his opinions and research findings. Presumably, he must be right, otherwise his detractors would debate with or or show by detailed argument – not abuse – that he is wrong.

    Truth cannot be defeated by persecution, as the famous experiences of Galileo in the Middle Ages shows so clearly.

  9. LGM says:

    As an American who’s heard a lifetime of platitudes about European liberality and enlightenment, I was stunned to see the use of violence and other suppression against historian David Irving, and equally stunned that supposedly liberal and enlightened people defend it. Free speech and history belong to everyone, not just to Jews. People have as much right to disagree with Jews as they have to disagree with Protestants and Catholics. The enforcement of a “gag rule” against people who disagree with the official Jewish version of WWII is plainly and simply a form of racial supremacy whereby members of the supreme ethnic group receive legal protection (i.e. protection from dissent) that is not granted to people outside the group. The enforcement of a gag rule against David Irving is nothing but Jewish supremacism.

  10. Balder says:

    –> Steve: “There is actually nothing weird or outrageous in David Irving’s interpretation of history, but you actually have to read his books to find out. Far too many people express an opinion of his works without every having read anything by him – relying solely on the poisonous bile of this enemies.”

    Quotes about David Irving and his books, before Judea Declared War on Irving, for being a threat to Jewish, Zionist and politically correct beliefs, convictions, and agendas.

    1: On Hitler’s War: “It was thoroughly researched and employed a variety of themes. . . It also confirmed Irving’s reputation as one of the world’s most thorough researchers and an exciting and readable historian.”

    - Board of Deputies of British Jews, 1992, secret report

    2: On Churchill’s War: “Enormous mastery of the sources and ability to maintain a sweep of narrative and command of detail that carry the reader along.”

    - Professor Donald Cameron Watt

    3: On Hitler’s War: “No praise can be too high for Irving’s indefatigable scholarly industry. He has sought and found scores of new sources, including many private diaries. Mr Irving’s craftsmanship as a writer has improved immensely, and I have enjoyed reading his long work from beginning to end.”

    - Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper

    4: On Hitler’s War: “This ground is traversed with a sense of immediacy and grasp of detail lacking in many of the recent Führer biographies . . . Mr Irving’s mastery of the German sources is superb.”

    - Professor Donald Cameron Watt

    5: On Hitler’s War: “DAVID IRVING has ransacked the world’s archives; he has discovered eye-witness accounts; he has unearthed diaries and correspondence which were thought to have been destroyed. . . a narrative which is, for all its inevitable complexities, remarkably comprehensible and, surprisingly readable.”

    - Professor J.E. Molpurgo,
    The Yorkshire Post

    6: “British historian, David Irving, perhaps the greatest living authority on the Nazi era”

    - Professor Stephen Spender,
    The New York Times review of books

    7: On Goebbels: “Irving does not deny that Jews were horribly butchered or just kept in such conditions as to die in their millions. Nevertheless, the book has received execration in some American pre-publication reviews for its alleged denials of the Holocaust and exculpations of Hitler. . . . There is no truth in these accusations.”

    - Professor Norman Stone,
    The Sunday Times

    8: On Goebbels: “David Irving knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War. He discovers archives unknown to official historians … His greatest achievement is Hitler’s War … indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round. Irving as usual, knows more than anyone of the details [of the death of the Goebbels family in 1945]. He does not spare us.”

    - Professor Sir John Keegan,
    The Daily Telegraph

    9: On Goebbels: “Some critics, including Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University, have accused Irving of ‘trying to destroy the memory of those who . . . perished at the hands of tyrants.’ Even a cursory inspection of this new, 700-page plus account [Goebbels] does not support that assertion.”

    - Professor Francis L. Loewenheim

    10: On Goebbels: “Silencing Mr Irving would be a high price to pay for freedom from the annoyance that he causes us. The fact is that he knows more about National Socialism than most professional scholars in his field, and students of the years 1933 1945 owe more than they are always willing to admit to his energy as a researcher and to the scope and vigor of his publications.

    - Professor Gordon A Craig

    11: “On Göring: “Irving’s research effort is awesome.”

    - Professor Larry Thompson,
    The Chicago Tribune

    12: On Göring: “At the Nuremberg trials he defended himself with vigour and rebutted some of the charges that had wrongfully been made against him. It also came out in matters of art, on which David Irving is rather good.”

    - Professor Norman Stone
    The New Statesman

    13: On Göring: “A very readable book, for Irving has always written with verve and energy. . . It tells us a great deal that we did not know. . . Highly interesting. . . Marvellous stuff.… An absorbing account. . . Most intriguing.”

    - Professor Gordon A Craig

    14: On Churchill’s War: “A vivid portrait accompanied by much striking and original analysis. It is certainly no mere repeat of the usual hagiography. Once again David Irving shows himself a master of documentation.”

    - Professor John Erickson
    University of Edinburgh

    15: “On Göring: “Irving’s research effort is awesome.”

    - Professor Larry Thompson,
    The Chicago Tribune

    16: On The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe: “… deserves a warm welcome … Mr. Irving has made splendid use of the Milch papers and other German records which he has been able to study.”

    - Stephen Roskill
    British official historian

    17: On Rommel: “Most of Irving’s books are big, solid works like this. All are well written, exciting, fun to read, and all contain new information based on sensational discoveries.”

    - Professor Stephen Ambrose
    Washington Post

    18: On PQ.17: “David Irving knows how to appraise the unassuming heroism of the ordinary man. From both points of view, his present book on the destruction of convoy PQ.17 is even better than the one which made his name on the bombing of Dresden. It is a melancholy story, with many separate strands leading to disaster.”

    - Professor A. J. P. Taylor
    The Observer

    19: On Rommel: “”I am tremendously impressed. . . A superb character study and a fine work.”

    - Matthew B. Ridgway
    General, U.S. Army

    20: On The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe: “The result is a biography of Milch, slanted as it were towards the Luftwaffe. . . This one is scholarly, fair and highly informative.”

    - Professor A. J. P. Taylor
    The Observer

    21: On Rommel: “”A fascinating study of the brilliant Rommel. It enables the reader to experience the emotions of a warrior in battle.”

    - Mark W. Clark
    General, U.S. Army (retired)

    22: Rommel: David Irving has been so successful in building up a reputation as The Man You Love To Hate that his merits as an historian are too easily forgotten. . . Professional historians have always envied him his immense capacity for work and his astonishing luck in finding new documents; and they should be grateful to him … But his fellow historians can take nothing but pleasure in [this] work

    - Professor Michael Howard
    The Times

    ************************************************
    Were all these people complete nuts, or are Irvings books not that outrageous after all?

  11. Jarle Petterson says:

    Thanks a million to one and all for the response.

    The blog post’s intention, however, was not to spark discussions over David Irving’s credibility, but to deliver a brief report on an event as it unfurled, since, in part, our own press at the time failed to do so — up until protesters began marching the streets, that is (which, by the way, they’re entitled to, just as Mr. Irving is entitled to voice his opinion). Plus, first and foremost, accounts of the event in English were nowhere to be found.

    Steve: My use of the term “pseudo-historian” relates to David Irving’s lack of approved history training/education. He does however, hold a degree in physics, I think it was, which by no means excludes him from the right to express his layman’s views, like the rest of us, but I do reserve the right to consider the man irrelevant.

    Balder: An interesting, if not impressive, list of testimonials. Titles or professions serve as no guarantee for a sound mind, though:

  12. Jarle Petterson says:

    It would seem that I’m seriously mistaken, for which I apologise profusely.

    I was right in claiming that David Irving holds no degree in history, but it would appear that is the case in phsysics, too.

    I’m sorry. My bad entirely, but no degree, in other words. Whatsoever.

    Which isn’t necessarily such a bad thing, but I would hesitate to call him a historian.

  13. Joseph Romanov says:

    “Pseudo-Historian,” what a nerve! And Hitler and Stalin were “pseudo-dictators!” Right! The bias, immaturity, and utter untrustworthiness of the writer (and, by extension, the publication) are completely clear from this disingenuous phrase. Mr. Irving’s meticulously-researched books have sold countless copies, and they are fantastic reading. He is a real historian — in fact, that’s his problem — certain interest groups want history to be used as a tool to serve their own political, social, and ideological ends, whereas Mr. Irving calls them more or less as he sees them. It’s humorous, to those in the know, how Mr. Irving’s enemies are guilty of the very same sins which they accuse him of — just as the Jews are guilty of practicing eugenics, just like their arch-enemies (can you say, flip side of the same coin?), the Nazis.

  14. Balder says:

    “Titles or professions serve as no guarantee for a sound mind, though”

    You are absolutely right. But I guess that’s not what the discussion is about either, is it?

    What is important is that free speech is under attack world wide.

    Did you know that a large number of Norwegian politicians have spoken out against Zionist crimes in Gaza recently? And the Zionists cannot easily forget Jostein Gaarder who said Israel had lost its right to exist.

    Ok, now I realize this is a Norwegian blog, so you know all about that.

    Stirring up hatred against the evil David Irving could be used to once more turn the attention to ‘the holocaust’, away from Israeli atrocities. I suppose some ‘anti-Semitic incidents’ would be very welcome too.

    These protests against David Irving seem orchestrated in some way, and that would be perfectly in line with the publication of Gerstenfeld and Zvi Mazels book about the terribly anti-Semitic Scandinavians. These people are not stupid.

    More ‘hate speech legislation’ would be welcomed very much in certain circles, especially if ‘holocaust denial’ would be included. There are not that many places left in Europe where free speech on the subjects still remains.

    In the US they are even trying to pass legislation which would criminalize criticism of Israel! (They already have more or less)

    I hope you don’t feel I’ve hijacked your blog, but I feel that there is a serious danger to free speech, which I feel justifies going slightly off topic.

    I’ll stop here though!

  15. Dave says:

    David Irving. The UKs greatest Historian.

  16. Beate says:

    Det er utlovet en belønning på US $ 100 000 til den som kan bevise at folkemordet ved Treblinka fant sted.

    http://www.nafcash.com/

  17. Jarle Petterson says:

    Joseph Romanov: I never intended to engage in discussions on David Irving’s credibility. As stated in a previous comment, the blog post’s sole purpose was to give an unbiased account of a developing news story. I fail to see how that could be seen as an invitation to debate.

    I do suppose being branded as biased, immature and utterly untrustworthy by an Irving supporter is the greatest honour ever to be bestowed upon me, though. Seeing as the entire “publication” (in truth a regular blog, maintained by an average citizen) is my doing, I’m not surprised to find that the above mentioned qualities encompass the blog in general.

    But I find it hard to believe Mr. Irving has enemies at all. That assumption would imply that he’s taken seriously, which, obviously, he very rarely is.

    Balder: True; the Israeli state and the Zionist idea is held in very low esteem hereabouts, as you will see from some of these posts — which is very much to do with the Israeli government’s misconduct with respect to the Palestinians. I personally reacted very strongly to their campaign in the Gaza strip last winter, for instance.

    That said, I think it’s time I revert to the blog post’s initial intention: Some of you may have noticed that Mr. Irving’s Lillehammer lecture, scheduled to be given this week, probably never really was to be. His brief visit followed commercial TV station TV 2′s publicity stunt, inviting and paying Irving to air his views on prime time TV on Tuesday night, upon which he speedily returned to London.

    The interview, split in two YouTube clips, can be viewed here, in its entirety (I don’t very much care to be accused of censorship). You will of course forgive the Norwegian introduction:

  18. orion1497 says:

    I hope before you carry out your threat to find the ones who offer Mr. Irving accommodations, they or some patriot finds you first. You really need to be tracked down and sucking on a .45 barrel. It’s coming sooner than you think.

  19. To all that may concern:

    I seem to recall what took place in Russia several decades ago namely in the 70-ies under bosheviks: ” I have not read them but I do not approve of them.” These were “collective indignation letters” sent to the newspaper(s) by the same those “outraged Soviet citizens” on the occasion of Soljenytsin books. Yeah, history repeats itself, this time these are the Irving’s books being disliked by other “outraged EUSSR citizens” who are told what to read and what not to read by the same guys as with Soljenytsin case.

  20. Inostrum says:

    Mr. Petterson several times writes: …”pseudo-historian David Irving…”

    I was wondering if he has read any of the books of Mr. Irving.
    And what would be his criteria of a “serious historian”?
    Or who needs facts, as long as one has opinions.

  21. Jarle Petterson says:

    orion 1497: I’ve always been intrigued by advocates of free speech, in this instance for Mr. David Irving, threatening to silence those who champion same in a wider perspective, including his adversaries (although I consider myself an impartial observer).

    I feel that I should inform you, though, that making threats on other people’s lives is just as much a crime in Oslo as in St. Louis, which is why I’ve provided your email address (if correct), your IP address with Charter Communications and your blog’s URL to the Norwegian Police Security Service, whose cooperation with U.S. federal law enforcement agencies in these matters will grant you a place among the particularly observed.

    Also, it would alleviate the investigation considerably, should I per chance be found with a bullet through my head. Therefore, as you can imagine, I’m grateful for the information you’ve provided, despite the obviously gristly nature of your threat.

    Inostrum: I’m in no position to judge whether or not Mr. Irving is a serious historian (even if it is my personal impression that he’s not). I do, however, know that he holds no degree in history — or in any academic discipline, for that matter. Which, in my opinion, qualifies for the term “pseudo-historian”.

    I’m sure that Mr. Irving is quite capable of making a persuasive case for those prone to read his books, which, nevertheless, doesn’t make any of it true. Believing his version of the WW2 “proceedings” provides a rejection of history, as confirmed by the vast majority of legitimate historians.

    I hope that answers your question.

  22. Vinxent says:

    Jarle, you say you dont want to spark discussions but you keep throwing nonsenses which are invitation to expose your biased thinking.

    For example, Irving is as much pseudo-historian for his lack of credentials as happened to be former Raul Hilberg, one of his more respected counterpart. Many brilliant and outstanding people without specific title (choose Pressac, Faurisson, Van Pelt, Rudolf) could contribute to the knowledge we have about historical data, and indeed much, but much more than any of those book-keepers who present themselves as licensed professors (Evans for once) could do.

    Most of all ordinary readears would properly assess truth without yours, Irvings or Ms Lipstadts advise. Let everyone free to exercise the right to hear all bells.

    regards.

  23. Jarle Petterson says:

    As repeatedly mentioned, Vinxent, I’m in no position to judge whether or not Mr. Irving is serious. That is to say: To publicly claim that he isn’t, even if I’ve divulged my conviction that it is so. A completely different matter altogether, of course.

    As Dr. Hilberg holds an academic degree (in political science, wasn’t it?), I’d personally choose my words more carefully, but even so: As he holds no degree in history, the term “pseudo-historian” probably would apply in his case, too, regardless his credibility — or lack thereof.

    Same thing goes for Pressac, Faurisson, van Pelt and Rudolf, of course, who, for all I know, are all outstanding in their respective fields of expertise, but please don’t call them historians if they aren’t (historians) — per se or otherwise.

    I think that pretty much sums up my take on the matter. Let me just add, for the record, that I’d hesitate equally to style any medical practician sans medical degree an M.D.

    All the best from
    J.P.

  24. Steve says:

    David Irving has been studying primary source documents and interviewing key players in historical events since the late 1950′s – that’s fifty years spent contemplating and writing about history. If that doesn’t qualify him as a historian then nothing does. Are you saying that a 22 year old history graduate who has not published a single book but who has a degree in history is more qualified than Irving?
    For someone who has no opinion on him, you have a lot to say. Please try reading at least one of his books. The Destruction of Dresden is a fine place to start.

  25. Michael says:

    I have read quite a bit about David Irving and watched the interview with in at Tabloid. One thing that struck me is how skilled he really is at propagating his arguments when first given the possibility. Every argument of his, including his assertion that he somehow is more objective and reliable than his colleagues, seemed reasonable, well-formulated and wise.

    That was until I did a more thorough check on the so-called facts he presented, and read an extremely extensive refutation of every single Holocaust/Hitler-related argument I heard from him. That was when I realised that Irving really is skilled in what he is doing, which in my eyes is giving those wishing to “stone-clean” Hitler a “valid” and clean face.

    Although Mr. Irving certainly has done considerable studies and findings that he deserves credits for, he violates some important principles in the process of interpreting them. He does not use his considerable talent to realise his potential as a truly great historian, simply because he – far from being neutral and objective – allows personal opinions to hamper his work.

    That is my opinion anyway. Feel free to revile my idiotic ignorance if the need arises:)

  26. Jarle Petterson says:

    I think Michael here sums it all up very elegantly, Steve. We can all agree that the allied Dresden bombing was nothing short of a tragedy. I shan’t go into whether or not the “collateral damage” (if indeed the term applies) was crucial to the outcome of the war, except to establish that Mr. Irving definitely strikes gold every now and then.

    He’d be ill advised not to, as every charlatan needs an irrefutable proof or two to substantiate or support the bulk portion of his questionable findings, as, I believe, is the case here.

    In other words; should I ever be tempted to read The Destruction of Dresden — and maybe a few more of his less controversial works, I might just be convinced of Mr. Irving’s academic legitimacy.

    He does, however, have numerous books to answer for, quite literally.

  27. [...] Utrikespolitiska föreningen bjöd in “antisemiten” Ahmed Rami till en debatt, och när David Irving bjuds in till litteraturfestivaler och Aftonbladets Åsa Linderborg försvarar hans yttrandefrihet. Exemplen är flera, och visar att [...]

  28. Bruce says:

    I have read quite a bit about David Irving and watched the interview with in at Tabloid. One thing that struck me is how skilled he really is at propagating his arguments when first given the possibility. Every argument of his, including his assertion that he somehow is more objective and reliable than his colleagues, seemed reasonable, well-formulated and wise.

    That was until I did a more thorough check on the so-called facts he presented, and read an extremely extensive refutation of every single Holocaust/Hitler-related argument I heard from him. That was when I realised that Irving really is skilled in what he is doing, which in my eyes is giving those wishing to “stone-clean” Hitler a “valid” and clean face.

    Although Mr. Irving certainly has done considerable studies and findings that he deserves credits for, he violates some important principles in the process of interpreting them. He does not use his considerable talent to realise his potential as a truly great historian, simply because he – far from being neutral and objective – allows personal opinions to hamper his work.

    That is my opinion anyway. Feel free to revile my idiotic ignorance if the need arises:)

  29. Steve says:

    “That was until I did a more thorough check on the so-called facts he presented, and read an extremely extensive refutation of every single Holocaust/Hitler-related argument I heard from him”.

    That is a little wooly if you don’t mind me saying. Please provide a little more information as to David Irving’s Holocaust/Hitler arguments and possibly a link to the “extensive refutation” – a list of the credentials of the person behind the refutation would also be useful. Don’t forget that those wishing to destroy David Irving’s credibility are not doing so out of the interest of historical truth or any such noble cause, they all have their particular axes to grind and usually have a self interest in History being portrayed in a particular (acceptable) way.

    Personally I don’t believe that David Irving says anything that could be considered controversial in print. For instance, the “outlandish” figures he provides for the Dresden death toll are found in wartime documentation available for anyone to read – both on the German side and in documents of the Allies. The “official” figures given a few years ago by the German Government ignore vast amounts of conflicting information and the result was clearly a foregone conclusion, more political than historical – as much of the WWII history taught in schools obviously is. His works are created only from primary sources, not regurgitating the same material found in other history books as is the style of many other historical writers that I could mention.

%d bloggers like this: