New proposal draft

Proposal for History Extension Project - Audrey Marsh

Description of preliminary research

My initial research regarding David Irving was in-class discussion, added to by my basic investigation about his work on the internet, predominately utilising Wikipedia. I then read the books Lying About Hitler by Richard J Evans and History On Trial by Deborah Lipstadt, which both provided me with a detailed insight into the Lipstadt-Irving trial, in particular Irving’s flawed methods of historical investigation. However, when my topic narrowed to include the trial in only a very minor way, the nature of my investigation changed.

My new topic was interested in the use of the internet to facilitate the publishing of historical investigation, using Irving as a primary example. Thus, my research reverted to a more preliminary phase, to gain a basic understanding of history in the media. Carl Smith’s essay, from the online series of essays on the Centre of History and New Media at George Mason University website, Can You Do Serious History on the Web? raised issues regarding the validity of online historical publication. While resources were available on this modern historical issue, much of my research relied on my own analysis of Irving’s website. Online analysis involved the location of bias, rhetoric, lack of evidence and his attempts to promote his own interests, such as his publishing company. I also looked at his Twitter account, and posts he had published on the ‘revisionist’ websites, the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust and the Institute for Historical Review. 

Another area I researched was the link between postmodernism and Holocaust denial, dealt with in the book Is History Fiction? by Ann Curthoys and John Docker. They argued that postmodernist theorists such as Derrida and his idea that “truth is plural” allowed all historical interpretation to be considered seriously, and removed the grounds for historians work to be simply dismissed. I recently emailed David Irving through his publishing company, and received a response. He answered my inquires about his historical method, selection criteria and opinion regarding the freedom provided by online historical publication, rather than traditional means such a books and essays, providing a valuable primary resource.

Enquiry questions

Initially, my enquiry related to the trial between Lipstadt and Irving, but after preliminary research and discussions with Mr Wright and my peers, this topic was revealed as unmanageably broad. Having visited and researched Irving’s website, discussion led me to narrow my question to Irving’s use and misuse of history through the modern medium of the internet. The simplicity of my new question, “evaluate David Irving's use of the internet for historical publication”, allows me to discuss all the issues surrounding Irving’s historical publications online, encompassing many facets of my research. The focus questions I now hope to deal with are:

• How does Irving select the material for his website? Is there an emerging pattern in regards to material selection?

• What rhetoric techniques does he employ?

• Are his claims substantiated? Does he cite evidence properly? Is the evidence he provides able to be proven as reliable?

• To what extent are aspects of his historical investigation used to propagate his publishing company (Focal Point Publishing)? 

Research intentions in relation to areas/texts to examine

The location of books dealing with this very contemporary area of historiography is my next area of investigation. Roy Rosewig’s recently published, Clio Wired, The Future of the Past in the Digital Age is a collection of essays documenting the development of internet based historical publication. I also intend to read Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture written by Jerome De Groot, which deals specifically with theories regarding history in a digital format. I will also complete my reading of the essays available on the Centre for History and New Media website and continue to specifically analyse posts made on Irving’s website, looking for bias and unsubstantiated claims, continually posting my progress online.

Research intention in relation to methodology

My project focuses heavily on the use and misuse of history, although I need to establish a clear definition between the two in my analysis of Irving’s work, whether Irving is publishing historically valid ideas or propagating his own ideas and interests using poor historical method. My enquiry also deals with the change of construction and recording of history over time, between Irving’s publication of books and his employment of a website. My enquiry question will be answered through continued research and analysis of his work, culminating in the writing of my essay covering the four focus questions previously outlined.

DAVID IRVING EMAIL!

On Sunday afternoon, I sent David Irving this email:

Dear Mr Irving,

I am researching your work, in particular your website, for a school assignment. I was wondering if you could answer some questions relating to your historical work online for me to use as a part of my assignment.

How do you select the material for your website? Do you employ a particular historical method in your selection criteria?

Do you feel there is more freedom online to express your historical opinions than writing specifically for a published book?

Any feedback would be an amazing addition to my assignment, and I would be immensely grateful for any correspondence from you I could cite as a primary source in my work.

Thank you

Audrey Marsh

And, amazingly, this morning I awoke to this email from David Irving himself:

Hello Audrey.

Here are some answers.

1.  I receive about three hundred emails a day, and many friends around the world suggest newspaper and other items on the Internet that I should link to.  If they come roughly within my own fields of interest (World War II, anti-Semitism, Holocaust, free speech, immigration, racial problems, governmental lying, atrocities, war crimes, etc.) then I will add that link to my site and various sub-indices (e.g.http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler).  The popularity of my website varies. If I am the centre of media attention, then it may go up to a ranking position of No. 40,000 on the Internet. Currently it is below that. Note that we accept no paid advertising, so we are not affected by outside influences like that.

2.  My method of material selection is the same as the way I select material for my books.   If the topic interests me, then it will probably interest my website readers.

3.  The answer at present is Yes, there is more freedom to express opinions online.  There is a risk that is growing however: some of these opinions may be illegal in some countries (yes, opinions can be illegal in modern democracies!); and a country's prosecutors may claim that because a website can be read by its citizens, you have published illegal opinions in that country. Now that we have Europe-wide automatic extradition laws in place, this is a real worry for some websites. (The only slender safeguard for the moment is that Britain insists that an extraditing European country can grab a British citizen only if his offence is also an offence in Britain, which my opinions are not.)

Germany and Austria have a very bad record in all this. In fact, those two countries have had a bad free-speech record for some time...  In Germany you will not find my website on Google (www.google.de) for example: because Google has reached a quiet agreement with the Berlin regime. So much for freedom. Google talk loudly about standing up to China, but ... meanwhile ...

Good luck with your project, Audrey. My motto: "Don't believe everything they tell you."

David Irving
(now writing in Key West, USA)                                                                                                                                                        
David Irving's own online bookstore is now open again at irvingbooks.com , better than ever, a year after its malicious destruction on Nov 13, 2009. 

Obviously this is an amazing primary source. I can't help but notice his lax historical method "My method of material selection is the same as the way I select material for my books. If the topic interests me, then it will probably interest my website readers." His comments about the freedom to express his historical opinion online were perfect, fitting seamlessly with the theory I was currently developing. Irving was outcast from mainstream historical publication because his views were too radical, and possibly illegal as he points out in his email.

A really great source I have stumbled upon here. I think his final remark "Don't believe everything they tell you" is an almost ridiculously Irving-esque thing to say, and a perfect summing up of his mindset as a whole.

First draft for proposal

Proposal for History Extension Project

by Audrey Marsh

Description of preliminary research

Having learnt of David Irving’s work through discussion in class, my initial source of research was through the internet, predominately utilising Wikipedia, providing me with a very basic understanding of Irving’s work. Mr Wright then lent me a book Lying About Hitler  by Richard J. Evans, which I later bought along with Deborah Lipstadt’s book History On Trial. These books provided me with a detailed insight into the Lipstadt-Irving trial, in particular the use and misuse of history and Irving’s flawed methods of historical investigation. However, when my topic narrowed to in fact, include the trial in only a very minor way, the nature of my investigation changed. 

My new topic was interested in the use of the internet to facilitate the publishing of historical investigation. Thus, my research reverted to a more preliminary phase, to gain an understanding of history in the media. Carl Smith’s essay Can You Do Serious History on the Web?, raised some interesting questions that related very closely to the work of David Irving on his website  “Is the format of a web site inherently shallow, best suited to displays of sight and sound that seduce the senses without engaging the mind? Has the unregulated culture of the Internet made cyberspace a bloated refuge for work of questionable value that otherwise couldn't–and shouldn't–see the light of day?”. While I was able to locate a page of academic essays from the George Mason University website, resources were limited on this very modern historical issue and much of my research relied on my own analysis of Irving’s website.

Irving’s work is published online on his own website Focal Point Publishing, and my research on this website involved the analysis of passages he has posted. Such analysis allowed me to locate bias, rhetoric, lack of evidence and his attempts to promote his own interests, such as his publishing company. I also looked at his Twitter account, and posts he had made on the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) website and the Institute for Historical Review (IHR) website. CODOH and IHR are both part of the ‘revisionist’ wave of historical investigation, interested in what they deem to be “real history”. Irving subscribes to this school of history, and knowledge on the revisionist movement allowed me to analyse his websites, looking for ‘revisionism’ in his work.

Another area I researched was the link between postmodernism and Holocaust denial, which was dealt with in the book Is History Fiction? by Ann Curthoys and John Docker. They argued that the work of deconstructionists had allowed dubious historical investigation, such as Irving’s, to come to the foreground. Postmodernist theorists such as Derrida and his idea that “truth is plural” allowed all interpretation to be considered seriously, and removed the grounds for historians work to be simply dismissed. 

Enquiry questions

Initially my interest area related to the trial between Deborah Lipstadt and David Irving, but after some preliminary research and discussions with Mr Wright, I realised that this broad topic, on which Evans and Lipstadt had written whole books, would not be dealt with sufficiently in my far shorter History Extension project. Having visited and discussed Irving’s ‘Action Report’ website, discussions with Mr Wright and my fellow students led me to narrow my question to Irving’s use and misuse of history via the modern means of the internet. The question that resulted from my prior research into the trial and my current research into Irving’s use of the internet, “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?” was published on my blog on January 19th 2011.

Class-based discussion shed light on the issues with this question, I was entering the work under the assumption that Irving was a “flawed historian” without having shown this to be the case. On February 3rd 2011 I blogged my new question, “Evaluate David Irving's use of the internet for historical publication”. The simplicity of this question allowed me to discuss all the issues surrounding Irving’s historical publications online, encompassing many facets of my research. The focus questions I now hope to deal with are:

• How does Irving select the material for his website? Is there an emerging pattern in regards to material selection?

• What rhetoric techniques does he employ?

• Are his claims substantiated? Does he cite evidence properly? Is the evidence he provides able to be proven as reliable?

• To what extent are aspects of his historical investigation used to propagate his publishing company (Focal Point Publishing)?

Research intentions in relation to areas/texts to examine?

As my final question has only been recently developed, and focuses so heavily on evidence from the internet, my next challenge is to locate books that deal with this topic. Roy Rosenwig has written a book Clio Wired, The Future of the Past in the Digital Age which is previewed on Google Books. I will also complete my reading of the essays available on the Centre for History and New Media website.

I will also continue to specifically analyse posts made on Irving’s website, looking for bias and unsubstantiated claims. I have also emailed Irving through his website, hoping for direct correspondence to use as a primary source in my work.

The use of ‘new media’ in the publication of historical investigation is a very new area of historiography, and so I will rely very heavily on my own primary analysis of Irving’s online work, continually posting my progress online.

Research intention in relation to methodology

My History Extension project primarily deals with the use and misuse of history and history in the media (particularly focusing on the internet). It deals with the change of construction and recording of history over time, even in the smallest sense, between Irving’s publication of books and his employment of a website. I intend to uncover the reasons why Irving had to change his medium of historical publication from book to online through my research.

I intend to continue my analysis of Irving’s website, and reading of the books and websites mentioned in the above section. Once my research has sufficiently answered the question, “Evaluate David Irving’s use of the internet for historical publication”, I will write an essay plan, and finally bring all my research and analysis together in an essay covering my four focus questions and culminating in the evaluation of his work online.

Library Fun!

So I thought in the broadest sense my work was about how history is presented in “new media” (eg. blogs, social networking, websites in general). So I did some internet searching for academic essays on the subject and luckily stumbled across this website (http://chnm.gmu.edu/essays-on-history-new-media/essays/) which is from the George Mason University website. It has a series of essays written by academics which deal with the representation of history in new media.

Me and Alice went to the library today, as seen here:

And here:

I read (and borrowed) a really great book while I was there, it was called Is History Fiction? by Ann Curthoys and John Docker. It had a whole section on Holocaust denial using the Lipstadt and Irving trial as a primary example. Curthoys and Docker argued that, “For many opponents of postmodernism, Holocaust denial had for some time seemed to be the ultimate test and disproof of postmodernist ideas about history. The charge was not that postmodernists themselves denied the Holocaust, but they had removed the ground for proving the denialists wrong. As Deborah Lipstadt put it, deconstructionists had ‘created an atmosphere of permissiveness towards questioning the meaning of historical events and made it hard for it proponents to assert there was anything “off limits” for this skeptical approach.’ ” (pg 212) This obviously links closely to the work we did on Derrida’s idea that “truth is plural”, that there is as many different readings of a text as there are readers. In short, it was the work of poststructuralist theorists like Derrida that opened the door to Holocaust deniers like David Irving.

The above paragraph is, admittedly, quite general, but I think I point that slotted almost too perfectly into the course to be forgotten. In fact, I found this whole topic, being the link between postmodernism and the denying of the Holocaust, to be really interesting, maybe I should of focused on this instead? Then again, perhaps too broad.

Irving's take on the trial

Today I was looking at the David Irving website not in the haphazard way I had previously viewed it, but with a fresh eye, looking for specifics. I found a post made on his website regarding the Lipstadt trial filed under the section, "Some traditional enemies of Free Speech". His use of rhetoric is evident in this particular passage. 

He refers to himself as "a British author of about thirty works of history, published by respected mainstream UK and international publishers since 1963, and accorded the widest attention in the popular and serious press. He has been called one of the most widely read historians in the English language. His books are widely quoted as references by others including HM Government's official historians."

He believes he has been wronged by "various British and international organisations, primarily of the Jewish communities, [who] began in the 1970s to make overt and covert attempts to destroy the plaintiff's career by robbing him and his works of their legitimacy. They also secretly sought to have him physically barred from other countries and their archives."

Now, if we contrast his description of himself to his description of Deborah Lipstadt and her alleged vendetta against him, we see obvious bias. "The Second Defendant [Prof Lipstadt] made herself the willing executioner of this campaign, accepting a fee to insert Mr Irving's name and works into a manuscript that she had written analysing the people whom she calls the "Holocaust deniers", an odious phrase which she herself claims to have coined; until thus instructed by those paying her, Prof Lipstadt had not even mentioned Mr Irving in her completed book."

The post was in fact a copy of the case summary Irving was required to submit in court. Yet, let me list the many unfounded claims he makes in this legal document:

1. "He has been called one of the most widely read historians in the English language"

2. "primarily of the Jewish communities"

3. "secretly sought to have him physically barred from other countries and their archives"

4. "accepting a fee to insert Mr Irving's name into a manuscript"

5. "until thus instructed by those paying her, Prof Lipstadt had not even mentioned Mr Irving in her completed book"

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/docs/summary.html - (accessed 21/2/11)

So, I guess this is just a little example of the analysis I plan to make. Would love to know whether I'm doing at all the right thing, or heading in an even remotely okay direction. I am still SO unsure about this topic, so would love to get any feedback or thoughts.

Focus Questions

Sorry! I know it's been all quiet on the blogging front lately, balancing two major works is hard! But Ext 2 is settling down, so I'll have more time for History Extension.

After a talk with Mr Wright, some much needed focus questions have been developed.

How does Irving select his material for his website? 

Is their an emerging pattern in regards to selection?

What is he choosing to exclude from his website?

How does he use rhetoric techniques?

What evidence does he provide?

To what extent are aspects of his historical investigation used to propagate his publishing company?

I will be back on Thursday with some solid examples and analysis on Irving's website.

Solid question

So today Mr Wright sort of polished my question with the help of the rest of the gang. The issue was that I said in my original question was a 'flawed historian' and while I can make this judgement in my project, it seems presumptuous to make this call straight of the bat. A valid and really useful point, thanks guys!

So the new question goes something like this:

Evaluate David Irving's use of the internet for historical publication


This question is great because he allows me to cover all the bases I want to, leaving me the room to cast any (objective) judgements I so desire.

So a great first lesson back, will post again with more research soon.