Lying About Hitler - Notes

So I have been reading Lying About Hitler by Richard J Evans again, making notes as I go, because I think this will be the easiest way for me to actually remember and comprehend the trial. With the internet idea I have formulated I kind of plan of where I want to take it:


What does David Irving's website allow him to do that a book or other publication doesn't? And how is it further evidence he is a flawed historian?


I have been reading Irving's online newsletter, and at times it is very hard to decipher what Irving is talking about. On the whole the newsletter consists of him posting a link to a newspaper article about issues such as Judaism, hate crimes, the Holocaust, the Second World War and Nazism (Deborah Lipstadt even makes an appearance). Sometimes Irving will even add a "witty" and highly offensive observation about the articles contents. This is a new brand of historical observation that the internet allows for, because he couldn't write a whole book about these issues (eg. Winona Rider alleging Mel Gibson called her an "oven-dodger'), but he can post a link and make a comment about them. It seems like Irving just scours the internet looking for articles about Judaism and Nazism, their is a very wide range of topics covered in his newsletter.


I am going to use my knowledge of the trial (which I am still piecing together) to show that Irving was a flawed historian, briefly outlining his historiographical misdemeanours that were uncovered in the trial and then showing how they are still occurring on his website eg. misquoting and misstating statistics.


So I hope this is sounding okay ... let me know everyone!


These are the notes I have compiled so far from my more detailed reading of Evan's book (more to come):

• there has been a continuos stream of Holocaust denial material since WWII
• Lipstadt  book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory was published in 1993 giving an extended account of deniers since WWII saying they were closely linked to neo-fascism etc
• Irving has written more than 30 book about mostly about WWII and Nazi Germany
• early on he sparked controversy by saying:
• Allied bombers had killed many more than originally thought at Dresden (Destruction of Dresden - 1963)
• Churchill had ordered the assassination of General Sikorski (Accident - 1967)
• Hitler had not known about Jewish extermination until late 1943 (Hitler’s War - 1977)
• he was never trained as a historian - “History was the only subject I flunked at school” (pg.5) but thought this to be good as he wouldn’t be biased by any job or income
• in her book Lipstadt made some large claims, saying in regards to Irving (pg.6):
• “discredited”
• “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial”
• “familiar with historical evidence, he bends it until it conforms with his idealogical leanings and political agenda”
• “neofascist”
• “denial connections”
• “an ardent admirer of the Nazi leader”
• “declared that Hitler repeatedly reached out to the Jews”
• scholars had “accused him of distorting evidence and manipulating documents and misrepresenting data in order to reach historically untenable conclusions, particularly those that exonerate Hitler”
• “on some level, Irving seems to conceive himself as carrying on Hitler’s legacy”
• In regards to Holocaust deniers in general:
• “misstate, misquote and falsely attribute conclusions to reliable sources. They rely on books that directly contradict their arguments, quoting in a manner that completely distorts the author’s objectives”
• Irving wrote to Penguin (Lipstadt’s publisher) in November 1995 demanding the withdrawal of Lipstadt’s book from circulation, he alleged defamation and threatened to sue
• Lipstadt had only mentioned him on 6 pages of a 300+ page book
• Penguin refused and so Irving issued a defamation writ in September 1996
• almost all historians were critical of Irving’s historical methods but praised the huge level of research he had undertaken (pg. 8 - pg.12)
• Irving had faced many legal challenges before:

• sued for libel for Destruction of Convoy PG 17 - paid 40 000 pounds
• his published had to pay damages when Irving said Anne Frank’s diary was forged
• sued for libel by Jillian Page - paid costs
• he sued Colin Smythe for libel - Irving had to pay costs
• arrest and deportation from Austria in 1983
• convicted for insulting the dead in Germany in 1991
• banned entry from Germany, Canada and Australia in 1992-93
• he had to set up his own publishing company Focal Point, because he become so notorious for writing “boobs” (pg. 14)
• by mid-1990’s even he admitted his reputation was “down to its uppers” but it “hasn’t yet worn through the street”
• Irving on his historical method:
• “adopted strict criteria in selecting my source material”
• “borrowed deep into the contemporary writings of his closest personal staff, seeking clues to the real truth in diaries and private letters written to wives and friends”
• “for the few autobiographical works I have used I have preferred to rely on their original manuscripts rather than the printed texts”
• “I’ve trained myself to go for the line of most resistance and I go for the handwriting” (pg.15)
• “every historian has got to be selective ... you have got to select which documents you select”
• “I don’t have any kind of political agenda” (pg. 21)
• he was going up against decades of work from academic, phD bearing historians
• he did uncover new evidence, as did many other historians however
• he said history relied on “incest” yet this was the scholarly method approved by the masses using footnotes etc.
• in regards to the alleged Hitler Diaries (1983) Irving had been an early acknowledger of their inauthenticity, which was correct and appeared to prove he was a legitimate historian as other respected historians had deemed them real, but a couple of days later after announcing them fake, he changed his mind (maybe because they gave a favourable account of Hitler?) - suspiciously bias
• he summoned other historians to provide evidence for “what they’ve been saying for fifty years” and believed none could because their was an international campaign by the “Jewish community”, “our traditional enemies” (pg.22)
• he preached his own brand of ‘Real History’ (pg. 21)
• he believed Lipstadt to be part of this Jewish conspiracy, claiming his own freedom of speech (obviously not that of Deborah Lipstadt) (pg.22)
• he operated through his own website and the ‘Institute for Historical Review’
• the media was confused about the legal details, believing Lipstadt and Penguin were suing Irving, Irving himself saying “They want to ruin me” (pg. 24)

Thanks everyone :)