David Irving Thread

Wouldn't you if you get thrown in jail until you do?

i didnt realise this was /soc/

There's no evidence that he was actually sent to jail.

The fuck? Something like that is easy to look up. If there's no record of it then it didn't happen.

kek

Not much, to be honest. He did have some entirely valid questions, and was trashed as a Holocaust denier simply for presenting these questions. Now, in terms of historiography, I think he's a fucking mess. But at least at first, he wasn't some weird-ass Nazi sympathizer.

The difficulty is, his research turned out to be untenable, inaccurate, and failing to conform even to the most liberal of standards for historical academics.

Do I think he should have been plastered as some kind of horrible neo-Nazi? Do I think he ought to have been prosecuted for Holocaust denial? No. He was wrong. Very wrong. And he may very well be a racist. But his primary sins were manipulating statistics and historical data, and misrepresenting the data and sources that he actually had.

I completely oppose the rewriting of history in almost Manichean dualistic terms of good and evil, but David Irving is just a bad historian. I don't think he should have been plastered for the questions he raised. Just for his shoddy workmanship.

>his primary sins were manipulating statistics and historical data, and misrepresenting the data and sources that he actually had.
Sounds more like a fraud than a bad historian.

Where did he get thrown in jail?

bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/115.html#13

>13.140 Historians are human: they make mistakes, misread and misconstrue documents and overlook material evidence. I have found that, in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence. It appears to me that an analysis of those instances may shed light on the question whether Irving's misrepresentation of the historical evidence was deliberate.\

>13.141 I have found that most of the Defendants' historiographical criticisms of Irving set out in section V of this judgement are justified. In the vast majority of those instances the effect of what Irving has written has been to portray Hitler in a favourable light and to divert blame from him onto others. I have held that this is unjustified by the evidence. Examples include Irving's portrayal of Hitler's conduct and attitude towards the events of Kristallnacht and the importance attached by Irving to Hitler's attitude towards the Jewish question as he claims is evidenced by the Schlegelberger note. I have seen no instance where Irving has misinterpreted the evidence or misstated the facts in a manner which is detrimental to Hitler. Irving appears to take every opportunity to exculpate Hitler.

1/2

>13.141 cont The same is true of the broader criticism made by the Defendants' of Irving's unwarrantedly favourable depiction of Hitler in regard to his attitude towards the Jews, which criticism I have found in section VI above to be justified. Irving sought in his writings to distance Hitler from the programme of shooting Jews in the East and from the later genocide in the death camps in a manner which the evidence did not warrant. Irving has argued, unjustifiably as I have found, that the evidence indicates that Hitler was unaware of any programme for the extermination of Jews at Auschwitz. In his account of the bombing of Dresden Irving (as I have found in section X1 above) persistently exaggerates the number of casualties, so enabling him to make comparisons between the number of civilians killed in Allied bombing raids with the number of Jews killed in the camps.

>13.142 In my opinion there is force in the opinion expressed by Evans that all Irving's historiographical "errors" converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler and to reflect Irving's partisanship for the Nazi leader. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency. I accept the Defendants' contention that this convergence is a cogent reason for supposing that the evidence has been deliberately slanted by Irving.

Who purposefully scowls unless they want to come off as some hardnose motherfucker? What a fucking tryhard. Dumped.

>I completely oppose the rewriting of history in almost Manichean dualistic terms of good and evil,

found the nazi

As tribute to the user who helped de radicalize me, have this, and read it well. Completely destroys Holocaust deniers.

Missed link.
nizkor.org/qar-complete.cgi

>What a fucking tryhard. Dumped.
I was wrong, this board is worse than /soc/

He made up blatantly false casualty statistics regarding Dresden. That should tell you all you need to know.

Not believing gas chambers is no crime. Actively publicly denying the holocaust is one

I second this.
Also check out:
imgur.com/a/725A7
imgur.com/gallery/tq9IF
holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.ie/
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Zero information about any new buildings in 1948 other than the fact that there are photos from that year of ruins of the krematorium.
I also know that elements of the building were taken down in July of 1943 while they were expanding Birkenau. After the war the museum restored the previous look.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

He completly discredited himself when he got caught red handed lying and deliberately ignoring history in order to shill neo-nazism psuedo-history. Hes not just a bad historian, hes actively anti-history

Isn't he just a Scholar?