Source Analysis

Source Analysis

Essay: Can You Do Serious History on the Web? - Carl Smith

The value of historical publication online is only a new debate within the discipline and so locating material to develop a theory regarding this topic was difficult. Smith’s essay however proved useful in that it provided the core questions of the issue in terms of the internet’s unregulated culture and the difficulty in producing a ‘serious’ but suitably engaging work. Smith holds a Ph.D in American Studies from Yale University, and so his scholarship would be assumedly valid, added to by his publication in AHA Perspectives. However, the article has been written to promote Smith’s online exhibition regarding the Chicago Fire, and so may be bias in order to prove that his exhibition is a ‘serious’ and engaging piece. It was also written in 1998 and so the analysis may be outdated for the work of Irving in 2011. I believe however that the core principles of the internet, in regards to historical publication, have not changed and so this essay is still applicable and useful. This essay informed the core components of my essay regarding the use of the internet for publishing historical work, which then informed my analysis of Irving specifically.

Book: Lying About Hitler - Richard J. Evans

Whilst being aware of Irving from the vast media coverage he received during the Lipstadt-Irving trial, Evans’ book allowed me to gain a far fuller understanding of the flaws in Irving’s  historical method. Evans acted as an expert witness for the Lipstadt defense team, a potential source of bias, despite his assurance of objectivity. Irving is invested in the result of the case, and his working with Irving’s opposition may have informed his opinion of Irving as a historian. However, despite any potential bias, Irving is a clearly reliable source. Evans has held the position of Chairman of the Faculty of History at Cambridge University and has written multiple books on Germany, especially during World War 2. This is added to by his Rankean method, involving stringent footnoting and well-cited sources. Irving’s analysis of Irving as a historian dealt with his work on the Dresden death toll and Auschwitz, the two core issues of my project. He also made reference to Irving’s internet work, making this source very valuable. While the interest of my project moved away from the Lipstadt-Irving trial, Evan’s book still provided a model for the analysis of Irving’s work on which my own criteria for examination was based.

Email: David Irving (28/2/11)

The email I received from David Irving was an immensely useful primary source for my analysis of Irving as a historian, in particular his methodology and perceived influence. This email is clearly very unreliable, containing the personal bias of Irving who is keen to assure me of the validity of his historical method, including selection criteria and his ability to publish freely online. However, it is this bias that creates the main strength of this source, it’s insight into Irving’s own perception of himself as a historian. The email within itself proves the flaws of Irving’s method, he cites that his website is ranked 40 000 on the internet, without providing any evidence for this claim. This shows however that Irving believes he maintains an influence, an issue that provided much of the debate in my project. He also makes reference to his selection criteria, which is merely based on his own personal interest, and the differing freedom to express opinions online in different countries. Irving’s highly bias personal communication with me provided much of the material for my debate regarding his historical intentions and influence. The email also provided the title of my work as he cites his own motto, “Don't believe everything they tell you.”