Monday, May 26, 2014

David Irving.

This is coolbert:

With regard to Mr. David Irving please read this severe critique as originally written over thrity years ago now:


"David Irving is an amateur historian, and an indefatigable collector of documents. There is nothing wrong in this: Many of the best historians are not, and have not been, professionals. However, Mr. Irving is one of the worst contemporary historians."


2. "Critical responses to David Irving".

"Critical responses to David Irving have changed dramatically as David Irving, a writer on the subject of World War II and Nazism, changes his own public political views, further there are doubts as to how far Irving applies the historical method. This article documents some of these critical responses over the course of his writing career."


"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 His mastery of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable.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 ..." - - Justice Gray

Justice Gray of course presiding at the libel trial that was LOST by David Irving.

Irving more correctly considered to be a biographer rather than a historian. And the difference is exactly?


1 comment:

Dan Kurt said...

That Irving is maligned as a Historian is a testament to he power of the Jews. Irving is part Jewish, BTW. That he lost in a British court attests to the corruption of the British legal system as also evidenced by the sham trial of Nikolai Tolstoy author of Stalin's Secret War and others. Tolstoy was sued for libel by Lord Aldington who was the snake who admitedly turned over 70,000 Cossacks, Serbs and Croats to the Russians at the end of the war who promptly killed them, the Operation Keelhaul. Tolstoy told the story and othes about the crimes of Stalin yet was convicted of libel. See here on how it sometimes works out:

Dan Kurt