Talk:David Irving

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Daveydweeb has pledged a bounty of $20 AUD in donation to the Wikimedia Foundation contingent on David Irving's improvement to featured status. Please check out the Wikipedia Bounty Board for more information on how you can help collect for Wikipedia!


Archive 1

Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Summary of Gray's judgment

Two pars have been quoted in the section on the ruling in this article. One is effectively the conclusion (par 13.167). The other however was in the introductory part of the final summary section, which reads:

"13.7 My assessment is that, as a military historian, Irving has much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War 2 is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving’s military history (mentioned in paragraph 3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative assessment of Evans (quoted in paragraph 3.5)."

See [1]. Now, assuming good faith, what seems to have happened is that someone has tried to be NPOV by coupling the conclusion -- which is very negative towards Irving -- with a paragraph that presents his good points. I don't think that's the right way to do it. Even that "positive" par is immediately followed, for example, by

"13.8 But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving’s military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime."

... and the judge goes on to say, eg, that "falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence" (par 13.163), which rather limits how much Irving might have to commend him as any kind of historian.

Even more oddly, the version I read said that the judge said par 13.167 and "then" said par 13.7 - which is incorrect and VERY misleading.

The correct, NPOV, thing to do is not to try to give a superficially balanced version of Irving in this section by cherry-picking statements from the judge, but instead to give a balanced version of the judgment by quoting its conclusion and if necessary, relevant quotes which explain how the conclusion was reached.

The former option is the one I've gone for, since it's simpler and the least controversial, by simply cutting the second quote. 16:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is David Irving Anti-semitic?

This is a simple poll: Is David Irving Anti-Semitic? In particular, should we list David Irving under the category "Anti-semitic people". Samboy 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. Judge Gray says that he is anti-semitic. Samboy 22:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. We surely don't need a poll for something as well-established as this? --Guinnog 22:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the few people who we can label as such and cite legal precedent stating that it is correct to do so. Gzuckier 23:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is surprising to see that he is not.--Lance talk 00:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This poll is a waste of time. He's in the category Holocaust deniers, which means he is in the category Anti-Semitic people. Why can't anyone respond to my technical statements, instead of bringing up strawmen?--Prosfilaes 07:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I already brought this up; a number of pages have people under both categories. Sigh. You complained that it was wrong to have people be under both the "Holocaust denier" and "Anti-Semitic" category, so I pointed out two other articles where people are under both categories. You then complained, in an edit summary, that there was no consensus to keep David Irving in the "Anti-semitic" category, so I have set up a poll to see how people feel about it. We very quickly got consensus (see above). You have been playing revert wars with no less than two different editors over this issue, to the point where you will get blocked if you revert again today. Wikipedia is about consensus. There are many articles that I disagree over the consensus over, but I do not attempt to edit those articles against consensus. In fact, to minimize my Wikistress, I don't edit those articles at all. I'm not making these edits to win some stupid pissing contest. I'm making these edits because I feel that keeping David in that category is what is best for the Wikipedia; it is the most accurate assessment. Samboy 09:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
You didn't set up any poll to see how people felt about it. This poll asks a question that wasn't being debated: Is David Irving anti-Semitic? That's a strawman. If you honestly wanted to give a poll, you would have pointed out that Holocaust deniers is a subcategory of Anti-Semitic people and that the disagreement is over whether that means that the category ASP should be removed as redundant.--Prosfilaes 10:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be anything in Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories_and_subcategories which goes against having David Irvine in both categories. It states "Wikipedia's categorization scheme allows for multiple taxonomies. This is a good thing and a powerful feature.". Samboy 11:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Tentative Support, why does somebody not call/email him and ask? There are lists in Wikipedia (eg. [2]) where simple rule applies "...list of persons who self-identify as X". If used widely, it would actually make WP more reliable. When reader sees some "loaded word" type category under article about individual, he/she has to sort out if this is individuals own view or POV push by some biased contributor. Why not maka a distinction and in the same time get rid of overcategorization? --Magabund 18:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
As being a bigot is now not politically correct, I doubt Irving would say "oh yes, I'm anti Semitic". However, in court he went on and on about having minority help around the house, in an attempt to show how he wasn't a bigot. I don't think the arguement here is about if he is or isn't -- but rather if he should be in a category and a subcategory of the main category. Cantankrus 20:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Jammy Simpson | Talk | 22:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd also say that he's a lying bastard, but that's my POV. Darkmind1970 09:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. He's one of the few people who have been declared anti-Semitic by a court. (It's theoretically possible for an honest Holocaust denier not to be anti-Semitic, but it's hard to imagine that there really is anyone in that category.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Not Support - he appears to read archives and write interesting - footnoted - books and let the chips fall where they will. I hope pro-truth hasn't come to mean anti-semtic.

[edit] Misrepresentation of historical evidence?

Irving's credentials as a historian have been discredited as a result of controversy surrounding his Holocaust denial and misrepresentation of historical evidence - surely, under WP:NPOV, this should read alleged misrepresentation of historical evidence? I am not supporting Irving's viewpoint, but it isn't the job of Wikipedia to make judgements or to dismiss minority views. This is an established principle. Walton monarchist89 11:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that after a number of lawsuits under various rules of evidence (all finding against Irving), we are beyond the "alleged" state.--Stephan Schulz 12:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; see (again) Irving's suit against Lipstadt et al, where the judge ruled that there were numerous significant instances where Irving had misrepresented historical evidence, and detailed them in his summary. Gzuckier 15:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - Reading Hitler's War brings it all crashing home. The man misrepresents and yes, lies. Darkmind1970 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I repeatedly hear about the significant instances where Irving misrepresented historical evidence but I never see these instances listed. Since you want to slam Irving so badly why not list ( or link to a list) of these instances. I have seen some details of his work that Irving has revised on his own but I can't remeber any serious errors - I would think his Zionist friends would have published a book of all his significant errors by now, maybe they have and I missed it, but anyway give us a link.

(Sigh) A good example of Irving's misrepresentation is in his writings on the destruction of dresden. For years he tried to claim that the death toll was in the region of 250,000 people, basing this on a completely unsourced historical document - which later turned out to be a forgery. Another example is in Hitler's War, where he mentions the explosion of HMS Cambelltown on the day after the St Nazaire raid, and claims that there were French workmen on board at the time. Complete rubbish. Darkmind1970 13:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh - I believe Irving revised that number. The current desire seems to revise the Dresden number to less than the number of bodies recovered so I guess Irving didn't revise it downward enough. I doubt anyone has ever heard of the HMS Cambelltown - but I will soon. Sigh That's it for Irving's misrepresentations? Found it quickly - St Nazaire raid - wiki. I noticed that French civilians were killed in the explosion ( is the complaint about Irving is that they were French, killed, on board,workmen, ..what?). If he made a mistake that they were n the dock getting ready to go on board then I can see the problem but others might think it was a pretty small error.

Well, another journey into [psuedoskepticism]] begins, I see. Since you apparently don't have the will to investigate your own beliefs given enough pointers, we shall have to spoon feed the data to you. Let's being with, as referenced so many many times in your presence, the judge's decision in Irving's attempt to gag Lipstadt et al.
Assessment of Irving as an historian
The convergence of the historiographical misrepresentations
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. 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.
The nature of some of Irving’s errors
13.143 As I have already indicated it is material to take account of the nature or quality of what Irving claims to have been mistakes or misapprehensions on his part. Certain of Irving’s misrepresentations of the historical evidence might appear to be simple mistakes on his part, for instance the misreading of haben as Juden in Himmler’s telephone log for 1 December 1941. But there are other occasions where Irving’s treatment of the historical evidence is so perverse and egregious that it is difficult to accept that it is inadvertence on his part. Examples include Irving’s rejection of the evidence for the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz; his claim that Hitler lost interest in anti-semitism on coming to power; his account of Hitler’s meeting with Horthy in April 1943; his wholesale dismissal of the testimony of Marie Vaillant-Couturier and his continued reliance on the forged Tagesbefehl No. 47 which purportedly gave the number of casualties in Dresden. I have referred in the course of this judgment to other instances where Irving’s account flies in the face of the available evidence.
13.144 Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to me by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on Irving’s part knowingly to misrepresent or manipulate or put a “spin” on the evidence so as to make it conform with his own preconceptions. In my judgment the nature of these misstatements and misjudgments by Irving is a further pointer towards the conclusion that he has deliberately skewed the evidence to bring it into line with his political beliefs.
Irving’s explanations for his errors
13.145 In the course of his cross-examination Irving was asked on numerous occasions to provide explanations for what he had written or said. Thus he was asked why he had omitted to make reference to apparently significant events; why he had relied on sources whose reliability there was good reason to doubt; what was the source of evidence for particular assertions. It seems to me that one way of testing whether Irving’s errors were the product of innocent mistakes on his part is to look at his explanations.
13.146 In his answers Irving offered various explanations for his omission of apparently significant evidence. He gave as the reason why he did not refer to the evidence of Hofmann when dealing with the trial of Hitler in 1924 that it was too long to be included. But the records of Hofmann’s testimony ran to no more than five pages. He sought to excuse his omission to include in his account of the shooting of Berlin Jews in Riga the claim made by Bruns that there had been a Hitler order by saying that it “would bore the pants off an audience”. Asked to explain why he omitted to refer in the 1991 edition of Hitler’s War to the sinister fate awaiting the 600,000 French Jews who were not well-to-do and so not to kept healthy and alive, Irving answered that the 1991 edition was an abridged version and the omission had to be made for editorial reasons. His explanation for not informing his readers of the reasons for supposing that the Schlegelberger note may have been concerned with the problem of the mischlinge was that he was writing a book which had to be kept within the confines of a single volume. Irving gave a similar explanation for his suppression (as the Defendants claim that it was) of material parts of Goebbels’s diary entry of 27 March 1942. Irving excused his inability to answers certain questions about Auschwitz (for example about cremations there and his reason for not having visited Auschwitz) by saying that he is not an expert on Auschwitz. Irving balmed his editor for the retention of his mistranslation of haben zu bleiben as “Jews are to stay” after he had been informed of his error. When he was asked to identify the eye-witness who told him about the telephone box-cum-gas chamber story, Irving replied that he could not recall but that he read about it or seen it some ten years ago. Earlier in this judgment I have cited other examples of Irving’s explanations for his lapses.
13.147 I recognise that it is not always easy for Irving to cast his mind back over the years so as to explain why and how his mistakes were made. In my view, however, in many instances, including those set out in the preceding paragraph, the explanations which he offered were unconvincing. The absence of credible explanations lends further support to the Defendants’ argument that Irving’s misrepresentation of the historical record was not inadvertent.
Irving’s readiness to challenge the authenticity of inconvenient documents and the credibility of apparently credible witnesses
13.148 I accept that it is necessary for historians, not least historians of the Nazi era, to be on their guard against documents which are forged or otherwise unauthentic. But it appeared to me that in the course of these proceedings Irving challenged the authenticity of certain documents, not because there was any substantial reason for doubting their genuineness but because they did not fit in with his thesis.
13.149 The prime example of this is Irving’s dismissal of Bischoff letter of 28 June 1943 dealing with the incineration capacity of the ovens at Auschwitz (to which I have referred at paragraph 7.106 and 7.120).As already stated at paragraph 13.76 I agree with the assessment of van Pelt that there is little reason to doubt the authenticity of this document. Yet Irving argued strenuously that it should be dismissed as a forgery. In my judgment he did so because it does not conform to his ideological agenda. Similarly Irving devoted much time to challenging the authenticity of Muller’s instruction to furnish Hitler with reports of the shooting. I believe that he did so because this was for him an inconvenient document and not because there were real doubts about it genuineness. (Irving ultimately accepted its bona fides). There were other occasions when Irving sought to cast doubt on the authenticity of documents relied on by the Defendants (for example the Anne Frank diaries and the report of the gassing of 97,000 Jews at Chelmno referred to at paragraph 6.71 above). In neither case did Irving’s doubts appear to me to have any real substance. His attitude to these documents was in stark contrast to his treatment of other documents which were more obviously open to question. One example is Irving’s unquestioning acceptance of the Schlegelberger memorandum despite the uncertainty of its provenance. Another is his reliance on Tagesbefehl No. 47 in the teeth of mounting evidence that it was a forgery. In my judgment there is force in the Defendants’ contention that Irving on occasion applies double standards to the documentary evidence, accepting documents which fit in with his thesis and rejecting those which do not.
13.150 As I have already observed in the course of dealing with the historiographical criticism of Irving, there is a comparable lack of even-handedness when it comes to Irving’s treatment of eye-witnesses. He takes a highly sceptical approach towards the evidence of the survivors and camp officials at Auschwitz and elsewhere who confirm the genocidal operation of gas chambers at the camp (Tauber, Olere, Wisliceny, Hoss and Miller). But in relation to other witnesses (such as Hitler’s adjutants, Christa Schroder and Voigt), where there is greater reason for caution about their testimony, Irving appears to adopt it uncritically. I accept that Irving had interviewed personally many of the witnesses in the latter category and so could form his own assessment. Even so, the contrast in approach is remarkable.
13.151 The double standards which Irving adopts to some of the documents and to some of the witnesses appears to me to be further evidence that Irving is seeking to manipulate the evidence rather than approaching it as a dispassionate, if sometimes mistaken, historian.
Irving’s concessions
13.152 It was a striking feature of the case that in the course of it Irving made, or appeared to make, concessions about major issues. In doing so he resiled from the stance adopted by him in relation to those issues before trial. Such concessions were made by Irving in relation to the shooting of Jews in the East; the use of gas vans at Chelmno and in Yugoslavia; the gassing of Jews at the Action Reinhard camps; the existence and genocidal use of gas chambers at Auschwitz and the Leuchter report.
13.153 Thus the Defendants contend that, having previously asserted that the shooting of Jews in the East was generally unauthorised and carried out by small bands of criminals with Hitler’s partial knowledge but without any order from him, Irving accepted at trial that perhaps as many as 1.5 million Jews were killed on the authority of Heydrich and on a systematic basis. He conceded also that Hitler not only knew of the shooting of the Jews in the East but also sanctioned their murder. He agreed that Hitler had taken the initiative in ridding the Altreich of Jews. Irving’s concessions on these issues were in stark contrast to his case as it stood before trial.
13. 154 At a later stage in the trial, however, Irving retracted, as least in part, the concessions he had made. He partially withdrew his acceptance of Hitler’s responsibility for the shooting. In a written submission Irving argued that the treatment of deported Jews suggested a lack of system and co-ordination and that there was no clear and unambiguous evidence of Hitler’s awareness of the mass murder in the East of European Jews. Irving claimed that he had adopted the position before trial that the killing of the Jews in the East had been largely systematic and much of it had been carried out under orders. He claimed that there was no significant shift of position on his part. But it appears to me that Irving did shift his ground in a significant way in the course of the trial, especially in regard to Hitler’s authorisation of the killing.
13.155 In regard to the use of gas vans, Irving was prepared before trial to accept no more than that there had been an “alleged liquidation” of 152,000 Jews at Chelmno and that gas vans had been used on an experimental basis and on very limited scale. At trial he accepted that there had been a systematic use of gas vans at the camp; that in one relatively short period 97,000 Jews had been murdered there and that he had been wrong to say that the use of the vans was experimental. He also accepted that the Nazis used gas vans to kill Jews in Yugoslavia instead of shooting them. Irving’s explanation for these changes in his case was that he was making admissions in order to deal with the issues expeditiously.
13.156 In relation to the Reinhard camps, having claimed before the trial that there were no gas chambers at Treblinka, Sobibor or Belzec, Irving accepted at trial that he could not challenge the accepted figures for the numbers of Jews killed at those camps which were 700-950,000,200,000 and 550,000 respectively. He again later explained his concessions as having been made “formally” in order to speed the trial along, adding later that he had seen no documentary evidence to support the figures for those killed. I have already given my reaction to that response.
13.157 I have earlier summarised the manner in which Irving altered his position in relation to the number of Jews killed there by gas but also to the existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. On both these issues there was in my view a radical shift of ground. Irving says that he has always accepted that many Jews were killed at Auschwitz. So he has, but not by gassing.
13.158 I have also described Irving’s concessions in relation to the Leuchter report: see paragraph 7.89. Irving had previously expressed the view that the conclusions of the report were irrefutable. At trial, as has been seen, he agreed without any great protest that the vast majority of Leuchter’s findings were wrong and the report was fundamentally flawed.
13.159 What is the significance of these alterations in Irving’s stance in realtion to the issue with which I am at present concerned with, namely Irving’s motivation? It seems to me that the Defendants are justified in their contention that Irving’s readiness to resile from positions he had adopted in what he has written and said about important aspects of the Holocaust demonstrates his willingness to make assertions about the Nazi era which, as he must appreciate, are irreconcilable with the available evidence. I also consider that there is force in the Defendants’ contention that Irving’s retraction of some of his concessions, made when he was confronted with the evidence relied on by the Defendants, manifests a determination to adhere to his preferred version of history, even if the evidence does not support it.
Extraneous circumstances: Irving’s denials of the Holocaust, his racism, anti-semitism and association with right-wing extremists
13.160 I pointed out in paragraph 13.139 above that there may be circumstances extraneous to Irving’s practice of his profession as an historian from which it may be the legitimate to draw inferences as to whether his misrepresentation of the historical evidence has been deliberate. If the evidence supports the view that Irving is a dispassionate objective student and chronicler of the Nazi era, that would militate powerfully against the conclusion that he is working to agenda of his own. Conversely, if the extraneous evidence indicates that Irving holds views which are pro-Nazi and anti-semitic and that he is an active protagonist and supporter of extreme right-wing policies, that would support the inference that he perverts the historical evidence so as to make it conform with his ideological beliefs.
13.161 I have already set out in section VIII above my conclusion that Irving displays all the characteristics of a Holocaust denier. He repeatedly makes assertions about the Holocaust which are offensive to Jews in their terms and unsupported by or contrary to the historical record. I have also given at section IX above the reasons for my findings that Irving is an anti-semite and a racist. As I have found in section X above, Irving associates regularly with extremist and neo-Nazi organisations and individuals. The conclusion which I draw from the evidence is that Irving is sympathetic towards and on occasion promotes the views held by those individuals and organisations.
13.162 It is not difficult to discern a pattern to the activities and attitudes to which I have alluded in the preceding paragraph. Over the past fifteen years or so, Irving appears to have become more active politically than was previously the case. He speaks regularly at political or quasi-political meetings in Germany, the United States, Canada and the New World. The content of his speeches and interviews often displays a distinctly pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish bias. He makes surprising and often unfounded assertions about the Nazi regime which tend to exonerate the Nazis for the appalling atrocities which they inflicted on the Jews. He is content to mix with neo-fascists and appears to share many of their racist and anti-semitic prejudices. The picture of Irving which emerges from the evidence of his extra-curricular activities reveals him to be a right-wing pro-Nazi polemicist. In my view the Defendants have established that Irving has a political agenda. It is one which, it is legitimate to infer, disposes him, where he deems it necessary, to manipulate the historical record in order to make it conform with his political beliefs.
Finding as to Irving’s motivation
13.163 Having reviewed what appear to me to be the relevant considerations, I return to the issue which I defined in paragraph 13.138 above. I find myself unable to accept Irving’s contention that his falsification of the historical record is the product of innocent error or misinterpretation or incompetence on his part. When account is taken of all the considerations set out in paragraphs 13.140 to 13.161 above, it appears to me that the correct and inevitable inference must be that for the most part the falsification of the historical record was deliberate and that Irving was motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence.
Now, you inform us that unless and until somebody stuffs the documents referred to under your nose and props your eyelids open, you assume they do not actually exist, right? Gzuckier 19:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the examples I gave above (by the way, please sign your posts, as otherwise this can get very confusing) were just examples of Irvings misrepresentation of historical facts. Gzuckier has done a far better job of showing up Irving's failure to show all the facts. Oh and the St Nazaire Raid - no French workmen were killed on the ship. It was the day after the raid, the ship was wedged in the docks and there were still unsecured munitions everywhere. It was covered in German soldiers and sailors investigating it, when the timed charges below (and this, by the way, is a very famous raid) exploded, badly damaging the dock as planned. Now in the aftermath of the explosion there was complete confusion, with German soldiers in a state of confusion and many thinking that they were under attack again. Fire fights between German units started up and French civilians were killed in the crossfire. Darkmind1970 08:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Easy one first - St Nazaire - wiki, maybe an unreliable source - has the crossfire instance at another time I believe. The explosion of the ship killed English commandos( 2 ) , Germans and civilians ( French I assume ). I traced down one of the emminent judge's statements ( the one on Bischoff caught my eye). Bischoff appears to have been a contractor who was working on a hot water boiler. Unless we conclude that contractor Bischoff was prevy to the dictionary of Nazi code words his memo about the intricacies of plumbing is hard to reconcile with the emminent judge's concerns with Mr Irving's honesty. Most of the rest of the judge's concerns appear too vague to actually pin down - he uses "appears" an awfully lot in a legal judgement doesn't he. Besides Irving thinking this memo - series of memos - was a forgery we also have Pressac - an emminent holocaust supporter. However, I believe nitzor et al have found useful items in the memos so they hate to dismiss them entirely - contradicting Pressac no less. The judge obviously agrees with nitzor et al - he must be a holocaust trivia scholar.

That would be SS Captain Karl Bischoff, Sonderbauleiter [Special Head of Construction] for the camp, and later Leiter der Zentral Bauleitung [Head of the Central Construction Management] for the Auschwitz region? and the "letter dated 28 June 1943 from Bischoff to Kammler (the authenticity of which Irving challenges) setting figures for the incineration capacity of the five crematoria, according to which their total capacity is 4756 people in every 24 hours"? and Pressac, who references Bischoff's various memos including this document numerous times with no question of their veracity in his book, "Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers" [3], but refers to this letter as "an internal propaganda lie of the SS" because he believes they were inflating the crematorium capacity to please their bosses? That doesn't constitute a forgery, in any meaning of the term. If I may borrow but alter the judge's words: "In my opinion there is force in the opinion that all your “errors” converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Irving and reflect your partisanship for the Nazi cause. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency. Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to me by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on your part knowingly to misrepresent or manipulate or put a “spin” on the evidence so as to make it conform with your own preconceptions. In my judgment the nature of these misstatements and misjudgments is a further pointer towards the conclusion that you have deliberately skewed the evidence to bring it into line with your political beliefs." I reiterate my former position; there are enough fora on the net which would welcome your posting of this material, but I don't feel that it advances the goal of Wikipedia in putting the most accurate and reliable set of facts out as possible. Gzuckier 16:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The only reports of French civilian deaths during the raid are from the firefight between German troops in the aftermath of the explosions from additional explosives left by the Commandos elsewhere on the dock. German officers and other ranks, along with German civilian workers, were killed or injured when the Campbeltown went up. But Irving states - specifically - in Hitler's War that French workers were on the destroyer when it went up. As for Mr Justice Gray's comments on Irving, he uses legal terminology. Read the entire judgement. Darkmind1970 13:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Wiki - St Nazaire Raid - I guess we are reading the same article. The first dock explosion says German soldiers and civilians ( maybe it was just German civilians ) - I will try to check this out.

Not just Wiki- I've looked at a wide range of articles via google. I'll double check later once I get home and access my books. Darkmind1970 15:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


I've checked the web and can find Hitler's War where Irving says 60 French workmen and sightseers were killed. Nothing about on board the ship. Other sources are totally concerned with English losses. Does Irving have another source where he says on board or civilians. I suspect that he just didn't dream up the dock incidence. The source on the wiki St Nazaire Raid - jamesgdorrian - gives little, I doubt Irving would have used him as a reference. Any references for the St Nazaire local cemetary? PS The St Nazaire city homepage says 479 were locals were killed in about 50 bombing raids by the Allies. The site fettes.com/scotsatwar shows a picture of the ship just before it blew up. I can only see three figures in the photo - doesn't match any of the casualty figures ( 40,400,60,etc). I guess until someone took a trip to St Nazaire this may not be anserable by sources. War books tend to count their own guys and minimze civilians. A head count of headstones with the raids date on them would probably be pretty close. Maybe Irving will answer an email about where he got his number - probably some archive.


With Pressac putting forth such a definitive destruction of the Bischoff memos I am surprised that the defense - Lipstadt - and the judge used it so prominately in their case and judgement. I guess that Irving is not a very knowledgeable revisionist, otherwise he would have blown it out of the water - even subpoenaed Pressac ( if he is/was alive ) or at least brought in a documents expert. Probably the judge would have just shifted to wherever Irving missed a point though - I have a better chance to climb Mt Everset in my pajamas than he had to win ( whether he was right or not - stupid to take Goliah to court in Gaza).

Once again, where in the world are you getting this "Pressac putting forth such a definitive destruction of the Bischoff memos"? I guess it makes sense; somebody whose grasp of history is even worse than Irving's, criticizing Irving. Do you know anything about Pressac at all? Pressac was a denialist until he visited Auschwitz and saw the archives with his own eyes and became convinced by, among everything else, the Bischoff documents, which he refers to profusely in his book. (Perhaps you could do so, in lieu of giving us all the benefit of your beliefs that nothing that you have not personally seen exists). His "destruction" as you put it consists of believing that Bischoff overstated the cremation rate in order to look good for his bosses; but the majority of historians who are not David Irving believe that Bischoff's rate is more accurate than Presssac's estimate. Once again I wonder; isn't there anywhere else more dedicated to your quixotic search for hysterical accuracy at all costs than the article talk pages of wikipedia? Gzuckier 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Sorry for the probable confusion - first most of the memos with Bischoff ( not the contractor like I first said but their boss ) are accepted as authenic ( as much as copies of copies can be - Russian archives must hold/have held the originals ). However, Pressac in his very thorough book reprints the copies. Checking out the signatures, Pressac seems to have not noticed, the same man seems to have multiple people writing his signature. I assumed this was well known and also assumed that multiply documents with what appears to be forged signatures left you with at maximun one true document - the question is which one. ( I assumed that Pressac with his thoroughness and his use of the documents unwittingly ruined them. ) Also the word Vergasungkeller, on the cover sheet of one multi-page memo seems to be the first and last use of the word in the German language - at least one "scholar" hasn't been able to find it in any other literature. ( The first and last use of a word makes for a dead end even in the code word realm. )

Glad to have cleared it up for you. Any other confusions you have re the large volume of evidence? Gzuckier 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internment concluded

I changed the section title from "internment concluded" to "release." Internment is the practice of confining large numbers of people without trial during wartime. If it has a dual meaning as a synonym for imprisonment, it must be much less well known. The use of the word "internment" in an article indirectly related to the Second World War, when it isn't being used in the sense I just described, is misleading. David Irving certaintly had a trial, and was found guilty. JF Mephisto 16:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe it should be "release from prison", though? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree - release from prison sounds fair enough. Darkmind1970 13:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


I have read that Irving spent his time in jail reading the files of Hoess. It appears he is on the trail of writing about Auschwitz and/or Hoess. It will be another non-peer reviewed mammoth of a book I suspect - footnotes to die for. You have stirred up a monster, it would have been better to have left him alone I'm afraid.

You mean another book that selectively quotes from the evidence, leaves out large sections, misrepresents facts and relies on dodgy theories? How large a monster are we talking about? Darkmind1970 09:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


He may get really nasty and just quote proholocaust peer reviewed "historians - now that would be a low blow. I've asked before for a list of his errors ( got 1. whether Frenchmen were on board a boat 2. Dresden body counts - we need more than that - please don't print out the stupid judge's decision again, I/we've all seen that ad nauseum ).

Rereading the article I noticed that much of it was built on Guttenplan - a journalist, not a "peer reviewd historian" one book. Any good source of his background other than the Nation.

Really, is relying on Guttenplan a good, honest move by wiki. Why not use Richard Evans or Mathias, someone we recognize better?

[edit] I have now made the intro more fitting and polite

I will have no reference to anybody having 'served' a prison sentence, as if this was some honurable undertaking, like serving the Bush government , for example.

I will have no reference to 'unsuccesfull' libel cases, as the result follows in the next sentence, and it is up to anyone to judge whether he thinks it is succesful or not, it might have been succesfull in some respects in the eyes of David Irving, and it certainly seemed to be a success of Ms Lipstadt, so you see, you cannot coin any juridicial case as successfull or not, as this is not a neutral statement. Sir-John-Peters 09:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Update : Someone has just reverted the text back as it was before, without discussing it here! That is what I was allways told: Do not make any edits without discussing them here. But this nomenclature prefers to rest silently in the background, apparently thinkíng that their rationale cannot survive if brought out in the light, and they may be right on this.Sir-John-Peters 11:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

For you cowards hiding in the back, using vandalism to revert my justified and careful argued edits, I will inform you that i have removed this section:

>Irving's credentials as a historian have been discredited as a result of controversy surrounding his Holocaust denial and misrepresentation of historical evidence. He served a prison sentence in Austria from February to December 2006 for Holocaust denial[1].<

This is irrelevant It is not the role of an encyclopedia to report any ones standing in certain quarters of the public domain, and that someone may have criticised him. An encyclopedia should lay out the facts, and let the reader conclude for hilself. And as I said, I will have no reference to anyone having 'served' a prison sentence. Sir-John-Peters 11:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You make no sense - in fact, I even have trouble parsing your grammar. Irving's prison sentence and the result of the Lipstadt lawsuit are major notable events and belong just where they were, and where I have restored them. --Stephan Schulz 12:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I note that you take the liberty to answer back to me, despite bearing the name Schulz.

It surely must be a misunderstanding, or you must be under the dillusion that somehow you and I are equals. Sir-John-Peters 16:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I would definitely hope not. --Stephan Schulz 17:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I can only say it is a terrible family name you have got. I am from Denmark and despise all germans! Sir-John-Peters 17:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I consider it a rather stupid attitude, but that's your prerogative. Repeated POV pushing and reverting against consensus is not. --Stephan Schulz 18:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Sir-John-Peters, if you carry on with this aggressive and intransigent tone, you'll very probably be blocked. Please read the civility requirements and the three revert rule. In the meantime, please don't keep making the same changes again and again against consensus. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not making the same changes. Now I am going to change something else Sir-John-Peters 18:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All of you who have been after me now and in the past: shame on you. I don't know if you considered me an englishman or something else, but now that I have reveiled my true identity you seem to retract, and this just makes me disgust you even more! One shouldn't think it was possible to do it more than I have done previously, but it is.Sir-John-Peters 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir-John-Peters why don't you take a break from this article until the edit-war blows over? There are plenty more that can do with edits of your quality. Then after some time return and restate your case for the changes on this talk first asking for responses and in a good faith act to build consensus. Carrying on in this vein will only lead to punitive action by admin as Squiddy already outlined. You are a good editor and your points are valid to my eyes so please consider this constructive advice. D Mac Con Uladh 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

This area looks terrible. Can someone familiar with the article prune back some of the links? It even has a link to a torrent (dead). Perhaps a max of five to get a mixture of commentary and other sources wouldnt look so ramshackle? D Mac Con Uladh 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bad english flourish in the introduction

like: >Irving's credentials as a historian have been discredited as a result of controversy <

This must be corrected as soon as possible. If no one else does it out of their own initiative, I shall have to look into it. In the meantime, I have added this accurate disription of events from his arrest in November 2005, and till his release in December 2006.:


>On the November 11, 2005 he was arrested in Austria charged under Austria's 1945 "Verbotsgesetz" (Banning Law) with having uttered illegal opinions on history at a 1989 talk . On February 20, 2006 he was sentenced to three years in jail. His lawyers triumphed in the Court of Appeal and he was released on Dec 21, 2006 after 400 days in solitary confinement .<

HISTORICAL NOTE :Austria was occupied by the USSR from 1945-48, and it was their strict Anti-Nazi laws, that got Irving imprisoned. Sir-John-Peters 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Would this be a good place to point out that the anti-Nazi Prohibition Act (Verbotsgesetz or VerbotsG), passed (unanimously, I believe) on May 8, 1945, as the first law passed under the new Austrian Republic, did not mention Holocaust denial, Auschwitz denial, Holocaust revisionism, or any such item? (Das Verbotsgesetz im Spannungsverhältnis zur Meinungsfreiheit. Eine Verfassungsrechtliche Untersuchung, Wien, Verlag Österreich, 2005) That was added with the rather well known "law 148" enacted in 1992, under which Irving was charged (Bundesgesetzblatt 1992/148), 7 years after the German law enacted in 1985. [4] Presumably the Soviet control of Austria had somewhat ebbed by the 1990s? Gzuckier 20:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Please stop replacing sourced material. What stands in the introduction is factually correct; more details, including his appeal and release, are provided in the body of the article. I'm not sure what the point of your inaccurate historical note is; Austria was occupied by the US, UK, France, and the USSR until 1955. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In contrast to west-germnany which was solely occupied by western powers, what marks Austria out, is the presence of Soviet Troops until, as you say 1955. And this verbotzgesetz-law from 1945 that the Austrians have, is heavily influenced by the soviet presence, just like similar laws in former East-Germany.

>After World War II, the United States and Britain declared the Austrians a “liberated” people, but the Soviets prolonged the occupation. Finally Austria concluded a state treaty with the Soviet Union and the other occupying powers and regained its independence on 15 May 1955<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austria#Austrofascism_and_the_Third_Reich Sir-John-Peters 18:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What about similar laws in liberated Western Germany? Were the Soviets to blame for these, too? --Stephan Schulz 18:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the sentence 'He served a prison sentence in Austria from February to December 2006 for Holocaust denial' to the end of the lead para. This fits better chronologically, but I did it because the damage to Irving's historical credentials was more to do with his failed libel action, so (after sentence move) the first two sentences now fit together without the Austrian prison term incongrously placed in between them. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GROSS DISTORTION

This entry is egregiously one sided, obviously written by those who conspire against Irving for an agenda other than accurately writing his biography. The administrator, gwernol, reverses any edits that attempt to remove the bias. If this is typical of Wikipedia, then it is the crap website some say it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.243.93.250 (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Any attempts to deny that he's a Holocaust denier or to assert that he is now a recognized historian will require evidence. I don't know what else you're complaining about. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Jews editing this page dominate the article. It is a bit like having Nazis edit an article on Ben Gurion, Mr. Rubin.

I am generally an Irving "sympathizer" and suspect the claims about him being a "Holocaust Denier" were unfortunate and ill-formed opinions. Nevertheless, given that the courts have generally ruled against him, (especially when he represents himself), and given that the academic community appears to accept Lipstadt's claims, Rubin is correct. Besides, I've taken a quick look through the article, and I see that it continues to be very balanced and very fair to Irving, despite his best attempts to "shoot himself in the foot". --Otheus 15:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, I didn't know that I'm Jewish. Oh wait, is that a hint of bias? Please don't make such silly accusations. Darkmind1970 09:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Calm down - Lipstadt is a theologian and we call her a great historian ( to say nothing of one of the greatest historians, Gibbons ). Historians write history - propagandists write propaganda. Now we have to figure out who is who. Denying the holocaust may turn out to be history or propaganda, ditto supporting the holocaust. Now put up or shut up - we could all meet in Poland with shovels if anyone wanted to settle this once and for all.159.105.80.63 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I spent a Summer in Poland in 1986. I visited Auschwitz and can tell you it is an experience I will never ever forget. Very moving. --Tom 14:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
"Denying the holocaust may turn out to be history or propaganda, ditto supporting the holocaust." Um, no. The Holocaust happened. Even Irving now denies that he denied the Holocaust, although he has been shown not to be a reliable source. The Holocaust is not questioned by any reliable historians, only by a few cranks on the fringe. An encyclopaedia need not obfuscate to satisfy a fringe minority that denies all of the evidence from extermination camp survivors, from the Allied soldiers who liberated those camps and saw the gas chambers and the piles of corpes, and from historical researchers. The issue is settled. Ground Zero | t 15:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Allied soldiers ( all except the Russians ) all saw gas chambers that didn't exist ( accepted by all reputable historians ). However, you are right in one issue, there were corpses - but not gassed ones. By persisting in repeating historically inaccurate "facts", it is plain to everyone not on the fringe that the issue is still confused by legend.159.105.80.63 17:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Allied soldiers... all saw gas chambers that didn't exist...." Mass hallucinations? How could soldiers see something that didn't exist? I don't understand what you are trying to say.Ground Zero | t 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A piece of trivia that would be good in the article. In 1992, in Vienna, a David Irvine ( close but not quite ) was arrested by Austria. David IrvinE, was English but some bigshots kid. There had been a warrant for David IrvinG, issued by the Austrian ambassadore to England ( under pressure from some English group). Whether anyone knew about the warrant I didn't read. David IrvinE certainly was surprised.159.105.80.63 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Above - groundzero - all the camps captured by Allied troops are now know to not have had gas chambers ( historians all seem to finally agree on this one. Of course the exception is the Rusian Allies ( they got all the Polish camps - the alleged gas chamber ones.) So when you hear that an American saw a gas chamber just smile - unless he was with the Russians. 159.105.80.63 20:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the major death camps were all in the east. Do you have a source for the trivia story? --Guinnog 20:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the wikipedia article - Holocaust - is probably an okay citation. There are probably several thousand on the internet - Yad Yashem, etc that have put the gas chambers in Poland. Anyone who saw gas chambers outside Poland is up against all historians now ( in the 1950s,60s,70s,80s and maybe the 90s they were still seeing them in Germany but that is really old now ).159.105.80.63 11:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've added a "controvery" in the imprisonment area.

I've added a much needed "controvery" part in the imprisonment area. There was international controversy concerning his imprisonment and free speech issues so I've added a brief mention of those people who opposed his imprisonment on free speech grounds.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with it, quite apart from how badly-written it is. I doubt whether the references can sustain the conclusion they are being used to sustain at the moment. --Guinnog 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Well give me examples of how it's written badly as well as examples of how the sources don't support what is in the text. I quoted directly from them mostly.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I've trimmed it and got rid of the "it's" for "its" and the "should of". I am still not convinced that it merits a section of its own. --Guinnog 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, Why did you remove the mention of "significant amount of controversy"? The controversy caused by his imprisonment would warrant the lable of "significant". Also the Glass article actually argues that "Arguing that a society that prohibits the free speech of fascists is actually resorting to fascism to fight fascism" stating that, and i'm quoting here.."That is no way to suppress fascism. It is fascism." Moreover Irvings imprisonment was an international issue. It was covered by many international news organizations.Wikidudeman (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned, it was awfully badly written and I was trying to get it into more encyclopedic style. I don't think any significant meaning was lost. --Guinnog 11:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images are copyright

I noticed that the images are suspect, and checked to find that the uploader had stolen them. 4 of them now listed as copyviolations. Dee Mac Con Uladh 16:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/Talk%7EDavid_Irving_57c0.html"