"Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them...

>"Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian".

is this the biggest dis from one historian to another?

Evans is an absolute lad. One of the best mainstream historians out there hands down, all his works are class.

What do Germans feel when the most popular/highly respected Third Reich historians are all non-german, mostly eternal anglos?

Something is really fucked up about this

i dunno but bump for interest. historiography wars are fun.

It's only "fucked up" if you are a mouthbreathing /int/ard more concerned with shitposting than history. What does the nationality of the historian matter? What matters is their work.

Reminder that if you don't have his trilogy sitting on your shelf you shouldn't even be on this board

Whenever someone mocks tribalism, remember they are merely masking their own.

>justice4germans.wordpress

Why did we let people over 30 on the internet

Anglos are lying subhumans. It was a weird feeling when I tried getting literature about Austria-Hungary and vast majority of recommended books were from Anglos.

And the worst history book I've ever read, about baron von Ungern-Sternberg, was also written by some stupid Anglo.

I ask the same about people under 25.

>David Irving shouldn't be trusted because, despite amassing one of the greatest and well sourced collections on Nazi Germany in academic history, he deliberately lied about the nature and scope of the holocaust.
Hebrew politics, everybody! Doesn't matter if you built up 30-40 years of credentials as an impartial historian, start lying about the Holocaust and Steven Spieldberg will sick his gross bitch-dog on you to ruin your career.

At least you'll get to be portrayed by Timothy Spall when the movie comes out.

What credibility? His first published historical work, The Destruction of Dresden, is full of bullshit, and has nothing to do with "Hebrew politics"

Well, you would imagine that at less things would be more balanced. Imagine if the best British History books would be written by some Colombian writer? Even though there's nothing wrong with it, you would ask yourself why the absence of British writers who writes about...their own fucking history?

Because, you would think that every countries history or event has some intricasies more perceptible to natives. I'm not shitposting, it was just a question with no intention to raise up the trolls from the depths. Sorry if I gave you this impression .

>start lying about a major historical event
>people don't trust you as a historian

That actually sounds perfectly reasonable honestly.

He acted like an idiot and got rekt.

It should be extremely obvious to anyone with even the most minuscule amount of brain cells why Germans do not want to touch that part of their history and instead stick to WWI and Weimar for contemporary history.

they built it.

>JUST BECAUSE HE DELIBERATELY LIED DOESNT MEAN HES A SHIT HISTORIAN!

yes it does you idiot.

>adds like one or two extra zeros to the total number killed as Dresden
>full of bullshit
Should we dismiss the whole Tanakh just because its creation story isn't accurate, Jacob?

>According to Richard J. Evans, an expert witness for the defence at the 2000 libel trial of Deborah Lipstadt,[9] Irving based his estimates of the dead at Dresden on the word of one individual, Hans Voigt, who provided no supporting documentation,[10] used forged documents,[11] and described one witness named Max Funfack as Dresden's Deputy Chief Medical Officer.[12] Funfack had made it clear by letter to Irving on 19 January 1965 that he had not been either the Chief or Deputy Chief Medical Officer in Dresden, that he had no knowledge of any documentation about the number of people who were killed in the bombing, and during the war he had only heard rumours, which varied greatly, over the number of people who were killed in the raids.[12][13]

he didnt just "add a few zeros"


> start lying about the Holocaust and Steven Spieldberg will sick his gross bitch-dog on you to ruin your career.

Irving sued her jackass

>Germans do not want to touch that part of their history

Well is it really this or they are afraid of coming up with a different narrative from the rest of English speaking world and get obliterated by their media, govs and academics? Is it shame of looking to this specific chapter of history or fear of disagreeing with Englishmen?

Would like to have an answer from a German. Maybe there are within Germany some highly respected WW II writer that i just don't know.

>le eternal Anglo
You said you weren't shitposting, but now you're shitposting.

He had to sue her for libel. What's he going to do, get called a liar and Neo-Nazi and back down saying, "well you exposed me, guess I'll just bugger off now..."?

She literally put him into a no win situation, if he didn't sue his credibility would be eroded.

>Look up Max Funfack
>German Wikipedia page translation-

>In the Second World War, Funfack was Chief Medical Officer in the Ortlazarett in Dresden, most recently as the Superior Staff of the Reserve. [5] He supported the corps Misnia (IV), who had been educated in medicine students from the Leipzig student corporations, and supervised the scales as a physician. [5] He later became lord of this Corps and the Corps Lusatia Leipzig. [6] During the air attack on Dresden on February 13, 1945 his apartment and the practice in Christianstraße 28 were destroyed. [7] Funfack had a document ("Tagesbefehl 47") with tenfold inflated victim numbers of the air raids that his friend Walter Hahn copied without his knowledge and left 1964 to the British publicist and later Holocaust deniers David Irving. When Irving Funfack named Dresden in his historical revisionist book "Die Untergang Dresden" and in the press as a primary source of the victims of the air raids on Dresden, the latter wrote to Irving in 1965 that he had only received oral and widely differing figures from third parties No local physician and not the victim. This did not prevent Irving from continuing to mislead Funfack. [8]

>Look up the source for the claim regarding the supposed inflated figures

>Richard J. Evans: Der Geschichtsfälscher – Holocaust und historische Wahrheit im David-Irving-Prozess. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main/New York 2001, ISBN 3-593-36770-X, S. 201; englische Ausgabe S. 155. Funfacks Richtigstellung trug 2000 in London zur erfolgreichen Verteidigung Deborah Lipstadt gegen eine Verleumdungsklage Irvings bei. Irving wollte auf dem Klageweg verhindern in Lipstadts Buch Denying the Holocaust als Holocaustleugner dargestellt zu werden. Prozessdokumentation hdot.org.

>Richard Evans

Loving Every Laugh.

I thought it was a funny meme, so I used it jokingly. But since its hard to translate this kind of humour into text I guess you may have a point in thinking this.

She proved he was a liar and a neo-Nazi, by kicking his ass in court.

So we should just dismiss Josephus, Edward Gibbon, and Eusebius of Caesarea; just because they twisted parts of the historical record to meet their personal biases?

Every historian lies, from Jared Diamond to Rodney Stark; but not everyone gets thrown in an Austrian prison for lying.

>we should just dismiss Josephus, Edward Gibbon, and Eusebius of Caesarea

As an actual scholarly source, yes, definitely.

It's almost like there's an entire field of study about exactly how much you should believe what a given primary source tells you, or something...

>be a neo nazi

>get called a neo nazi

>sue that person and not only lose, but get exposed to the world as a lying piece of shit

>"THIS IS ALL A GRAND CONSPIRACY BY THE JEWS!"

>"IM NOT A CRAZY NEO-NAZI BTW!"

lol

Not to mention that Irving isn't a primary source to anything except perhaps something about getting archival material.

David Irving isn't a Neo Nazi though, but he is an old school racist. When asked if he wanted Germany to have Nazi government he said no and he does believe that Heinrich Himmler should have been punished for war crimes. I do believe that he was more radical in the 90s before the trial.