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.

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:)

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.

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:)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

http://www.nafcash.com/

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!

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.

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:

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?