| Revision as of 08:08, 17 February 2003 view sourceGretchen (talk | contribs)95 edits tried to write critical, yet NPOV article← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:13, 17 February 2003 view source Nevilley (talk | contribs)3,605 editsmNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| Among the Holocaust revisionists, Irving was perhaps the only one who for some time managed to keep up the reputation of a serious, if controversial, historian. Today, few share that view of him. | Among the Holocaust revisionists, Irving was perhaps the only one who for some time managed to keep up the reputation of a serious, if controversial, historian. Today, few share that view of him. | ||
| After working in a steel mill in the Ruhr and learning German, Irving wrote his first book, ''The Destruction of Dresden'' (1961). Here he claimed to examine the allied bombing of Dresden during the final months of World War II. At this time, a debate about the morality of the war time bombing of German cities and civilian population had already begun, especially in the |
After working in a steel mill in the Ruhr and learning German, Irving wrote his first book, ''The Destruction of Dresden'' (1961). Here he claimed to examine the allied bombing of Dresden during the final months of World War II. At this time, a debate about the morality of the war time bombing of German cities and civilian population had already begun, especially in the UK. Hence, the public was receptive to Irving's persuasively written book, illustrated with gruesome pictures. The book became a best seller and Irving earned a fair sum of money. | ||
| Although many historians agreed that the fire bombing of Dresden was clearly open to criticism, the pro-German tone of Irving's book appeared unnecessary. Yet, at this time, Irving's democratic credentials were not generally challenged. | Although many historians agreed that the fire bombing of Dresden was clearly open to criticism, the pro-German tone of Irving's book appeared unnecessary. Yet, at this time, Irving's democratic credentials were not generally challenged. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| A good example of Irving's writing style is the biography of Goering. The book tends to ignore Goering's role in the Holocaust and his greedy theft of art treasures. Instead a wealth of information is given about Goering's jovial personality and brighter aspects, such as his outlawing of vivsection and promotion of reforestation. Various incidents are presented as proof that he always disliked the persecution of Jews and other Nazi crimes. Flow of language and a wealth of entertaining anecodotes made it yet another good seller. | A good example of Irving's writing style is the biography of Goering. The book tends to ignore Goering's role in the Holocaust and his greedy theft of art treasures. Instead a wealth of information is given about Goering's jovial personality and brighter aspects, such as his outlawing of vivsection and promotion of reforestation. Various incidents are presented as proof that he always disliked the persecution of Jews and other Nazi crimes. Flow of language and a wealth of entertaining anecodotes made it yet another good seller. | ||
| Later, David Irving earned extra money by lecturing to far right wing groups. In addition, statements about the suposed non existence of gas chambers moved him from murky to clearly revisionist territory. As a result, organized Jewry and others became openly hostile to Irving and managed to persuade major book houses to refuse to publish Irving's work. Irving's response was to engage in a libel suit against Deborah Lipstedt, who had criticized him as fraudulent and a Nazi |
Later, David Irving earned extra money by lecturing to far right wing groups. In addition, statements about the suposed non existence of gas chambers moved him from murky to clearly revisionist territory. As a result, organized Jewry and others became openly hostile to Irving and managed to persuade major book houses to refuse to publish Irving's work. Irving's response was to engage in a libel suit against Deborah Lipstedt, who had criticized him as fraudulent and a Nazi apologist. Not surprisingly, Irving lost the suit and is liable to pay the substantial costs of the trial, which is likely to ruin him. In addition, many felt that Lipstedt's counsellors were able to show that Irving's supposed scholarship was severly flawed. Irving remains an icon of the holocaust revisionst camp, but fights an increasingly lonely battle. | ||
| Irving's homepage: ] | Irving's homepage: ] | ||
Revision as of 08:13, 17 February 2003
David Irving (born 1938) is a historian well known for his Holocaust revisionism. Among other things, he has denied that the Germans exterminated Jews in gas chambers during World War II.
Among the Holocaust revisionists, Irving was perhaps the only one who for some time managed to keep up the reputation of a serious, if controversial, historian. Today, few share that view of him.
After working in a steel mill in the Ruhr and learning German, Irving wrote his first book, The Destruction of Dresden (1961). Here he claimed to examine the allied bombing of Dresden during the final months of World War II. At this time, a debate about the morality of the war time bombing of German cities and civilian population had already begun, especially in the UK. Hence, the public was receptive to Irving's persuasively written book, illustrated with gruesome pictures. The book became a best seller and Irving earned a fair sum of money.
Although many historians agreed that the fire bombing of Dresden was clearly open to criticism, the pro-German tone of Irving's book appeared unnecessary. Yet, at this time, Irving's democratic credentials were not generally challenged.
After this, Irving shifted to writing biographies, demonstrating a flair for a writing style that appealed to amateur historians. He tended to be at pains to find positive aspects of Nazi officials, although not openly endorsing them. Aging formerly mid-ranked Nazis saw a potential friend in Irving, and donated diaries and other material. This enabled Irving to claim he was a serious historian, publishing original material.
A good example of Irving's writing style is the biography of Goering. The book tends to ignore Goering's role in the Holocaust and his greedy theft of art treasures. Instead a wealth of information is given about Goering's jovial personality and brighter aspects, such as his outlawing of vivsection and promotion of reforestation. Various incidents are presented as proof that he always disliked the persecution of Jews and other Nazi crimes. Flow of language and a wealth of entertaining anecodotes made it yet another good seller.
Later, David Irving earned extra money by lecturing to far right wing groups. In addition, statements about the suposed non existence of gas chambers moved him from murky to clearly revisionist territory. As a result, organized Jewry and others became openly hostile to Irving and managed to persuade major book houses to refuse to publish Irving's work. Irving's response was to engage in a libel suit against Deborah Lipstedt, who had criticized him as fraudulent and a Nazi apologist. Not surprisingly, Irving lost the suit and is liable to pay the substantial costs of the trial, which is likely to ruin him. In addition, many felt that Lipstedt's counsellors were able to show that Irving's supposed scholarship was severly flawed. Irving remains an icon of the holocaust revisionst camp, but fights an increasingly lonely battle.
Irving's homepage: www.fpp.co.uk ADL homepage: www.adl.org