Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Done and dusted.
Here all all the components of my project:
Synopsis
The question developed from an interest in the Holocaust denier David Irving and his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt. A source I had encountered in my reading about the Lipstadt-Irving case was Irving’s personal website which contained much of his own opinion regarding a wide variety of historical issues. The reliability of this blog was questionable, and seemed an interesting historical discussion. How did Irving, now discredited, use the internet to express his historical opinion, and what means did he use to do so?
The introduction of my essay provides an overview of theory regarding historical publication online, information I drew from historians such as Roy Rozenwig and Jerome de Groot, as it informs much of my further discussion. Irving is introduced as an historian by a brief discussion of his early work and the trial which resulted from the libel case he brought against Lipstadt. The synthesis of these ideas, the publication of history online and Irving as an historian, constitutes the rest of my essay. This is done through the analysis of two main sources. The historical method of a blog entry regarding Auschwitz and another regarding the death toll at Dresden, are evaluated. The conclusion evaluates Irving’s use of the internet for historical publication, especially his dangerous imitation of professional history and the effect this has on subgenres of historical belief.
The academic content is drawn from Evans and Lipstadt’s books, as well as essays from Rozenwig’s The Centre for History and New Media. The content which I used for close analysis of Irving’s website, Auschwitz and Dresden, was chosen as these are the two issues about which he is most outspoken and for which has received most criticism. Professional history regarding these two areas is also readily available and so inconsistencies in Irving’s work could be easily detected. I chose to focus on Irving’s work regarding historical issues, rather than analyse any of the modern social commentary he also provides on his website.
Essay
Dr. Carl Smith asks, “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? .... Is it possible, in short, to do “serious” history on the web?” 1. This question challenges the very nature of historical publication online. While prominent historical publications such as Trenches on the Web 2 have gained a sound reputation with the wider historical community, lesser known historians, or historians who do not work in a professional context, struggle to gain recognition. One such independent historian is rogue revisionist David Irving. Irving was shunned from the credible stream of historical publication, by the media and historical professionals, because of his failed libel case against Deborah Lipstadt and connections to the Holocaust denial movement.
The value of digital history is not only a modern historical debate, but one which divides the discipline. Some, such as Smith, see it’s merit in presenting historical material on a larger scale than that which is possible in a museum or book. Examples include successful online exhibitions like the British Museum’s Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth 3 and the Smithsonian’s Infinity of Nations 4 about Native Americans. These works are both backed by credible institutions, and present an interpretation of history accepted by professional historians and society as a whole. Yet the unmonitored nature of the internet leaves room for criticism. As Daniel Cohen and Roy Rozenwig stressed, “With Google now indexing more than eight billion pages, a full qualitative assessment of historical information and writing on the Web is well beyond the ability [of] any person or even team of people.” 5 Yet even Cohen and Rozenwig note the benefits, “A much deeper and denser historical record, especially one in digital form, seems like an incredible opportunity and gift.” 6 The question must be asked however, while established and distinguished institutions such as the British Museum and the Smithsonian may be aiming to add to a corpus of reliable historical information, can Irving be considered to be pursuing a similarly legitimate path?
David Irving is a British author whose works are primarily concerned with German perspectives of World War II. He began his collection of over thirty works with The Destruction of Dresden (1963) which garnered both critical and historical acclaim, despite it’s anti-Allied standpoint. Yet his works began to venture further from mainstream opinion regarding the events of World War II and entered the territory of Holocaust Denial. In his 1977 book Hitler’s War he attempted to argue Hitler’s ignorance of the ‘Final Solution’; and while his new perspectives and varied sources attracted many, some of his peers, such as Broszat and Sydnor 7 began to question his methodology. Jerome De Groot says of Irving, “[He] is in some ways the epitome of the public historian - not part of the academy ... a maverick, looking to a wider public audience rather than the circumscribed elite” 8. However most historians and historical commentators express a far less romantic view of Irving. Anthony Lewis calls him “a racist faker.” 9 Much of Irving’s widespread opposition is a product of the libel case he brought against Deborah Lipstadt, a prominent academic of Jewish Studies, after she referred to him as, “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial. Familiar with historical evidence, he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda”.10 The compelling and effective case brought forward by Lipstadt’s defense team was highly publicised, and brought the flaws of his method to the forefront of historical consciousness. It exposed his denial connections to the historical profession and the public alike. This forced him to create his own publishing house, Focal Point Publishing, and an online blog 11 which continues presently as an avenue for his assessment of past and present world events. His newsletter Action Report Online, includes information about his book tours, archives his blog posts and has an online bookstore. As Irving listed in his correspondence with me, his website is interested in a wide variety of topics, “World War II, anti-Semitism, Holocaust, free speech, immigration, racial problems, governmental lying, atrocities, war crimes” 12.
Irving has strong connections with the revisionist movement. His articles appear on websites such as The Institute for Historical Review 13 and The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust 14. His revisionist affiliation, especially in regards to the Holocaust, has given way to such famous statements as, “The gas chamber they show in Auschwitz is as genuine as the fairycastle in Orlando, rather like Disneyland” 15 and “More women died in the backseat of Senator Edward Kennedy’s car in Chappaquiddick than were ever gassed in [the Auschwitz gas chambers]” 16. Such hyperbole might further attract a fringe and politically extreme readership, but at the same time it is out of place in traditional historical discourse.
Irving’s clearly biased historical method and rhetoric is seen his writing about the role of Auschwitz in World War II. He travelled to Poland, visiting Auschwitz, in 2007 and recorded in his Radical’s Diary on March 4th his visit to the site. Irving uses obvious sarcasm when referring to the grounds as a, “holy site” 17, as he examines the ruins of the crematoria by, “duck[ing] under the anti-revisionist red-and-white plastic chain”. His immediate assumption regarding the remains is that it is a forged conspiracy. When shown the disinfection room by his guide he records his irritability noting, “it is her duty to piston all her victims through this propaganda Schleuse, like running a gauntlet at school”. Irving refers to the Auschwitz Sauna Building as the “expensively glass-floored propaganda walk, which is pure Disneyland”, once more questioning the validity of the structures at the site with a casual and colloquial dialogue. Irving is being deliberately disrespectful and adversarial in his post regarding his tour of Auschwitz, exemplified in the rhetoric he uses. This skewed presentation of evidence is far removed from traditional historical discourse, clearly aimed to appeal to a revisionist audience, especially those classified as Holocaust deniers.
If Irving merely wrote a stream of clearly biased and unfounded work I believe the flaws in his method need not be considered an issue. Yet his published books imitate quite successfully the work of a professional historian, while he merges both his own opinion with what he believes to be historical fact. The verisimilar nature of his work makes it in fact quite dangerous. The highly accessible, yet seemingly professional, manner in which Irving writes has garnered him an influence over those readers less informed about the requirements of empirical history. Irving gives a degree of legitimacy to the Holocaust denial movement through outwardly credible writing.
Such an example of this deceptive work is his blog regarding the ten watch towers at Auschwitz. He places the words watch towers in inverted commas, saying “these look very fake - very flimsy, not properly roofed, no ladder or other means of access, open to the weather. They are fakes ... erected post-war”. He then attempts to validate his observations, by referencing photographs he has seen that do not show these watchtowers. While he includes other photographs of this trip, the photographic evidence he refers to here remains unpublished and uncited. We are offered as historical fact an unreferenced and unseen source that supposedly supports Irving’s claims but remains shielded from general examination and discussion. Irving includes no heteroglossia in his publication, his voice remains entirely authoritative. “The Poles and others have wrecked the document that this site could have been, by their keenness to generate money and propaganda ... concealing whatever evidence they might have revealed”. This an ironic statement from a man who deliberately obscures all traces that support his claims and disregards those that oppose him, and then presents his own ultimate and unverifiable truth. 18
Within the broad spectrum that is Irving’s interest in the Second World War, is his work regarding what he calls the “Dresden holocaust” 19. Irving’s work on Dresden began with his articles in German magazine Neue Illustrierte and continued with The Destruction of Dresden (1963). Although this book was widely received as a legitimate historical text, Irving did begin to reveal his affinity for exaggerated estimates, stating in the 1964 edition that the German death toll in Dresden at the hands of the Allies had reached “135 000” 20. Although the revised 1995 edition states “Researchers are advised that figures for the final death toll in Dresden still vary widely, and may be lower than this author originally stated”.21 Despite Irving’s statistics, the independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 implores, “there is not the slightest evidence existing for the long-popular narrative picture of a “bloodbath” caused by the Allied fighter pilots among the people fleeing from the city”, a clear reaction to the narrative he pioneered. 22 Professional historians have also begun to release revised statistics, such as Frederick Taylor, suggesting “25000” people died 23 and Ian Garrick Mason, who placed the figure at, “at least 25,000 people, possibly as many as 40 000” 24. Yet Irving appears to disregard such opposition, and continues to provide a series of outrageously exaggerated estimates, continued on his website.
Irving’s interest in the bombing of Dresden, attempting to fulfill his clear desire to reach an equivalence between the deaths of civilians at German and Allied hands, is chronicled in detail on his website. He maintained an online diary during his search for information that supports his claims regarding the Dresden death toll, writing on the 24th of April 2009 a post citing the new information he had obtained. Irving makes explicit his “confidential” source Hans Voigt, a German school teacher who “was put in charge of Dresden’s Missing Persons Bureau” 25, who used his “immense card index” and diary to estimate a death toll for Irving, reaching the number of 135 000. He claims that this is also the figure that “Kurt Vonnegut and others always used”. 26 (It is important to note that Kurt Vonnegut is an author perhaps best known for his novel Slaughterhouse-Five (1969) which tells the story of aliens able to view the fourth dimension.) Vonnegut’s protagonist directly quotes Irving in the book, and Vonnegut has since stated that he acquired much of his background material from Irving’s Destruction of Dresden. While Irving so detests the “inter-historian incest” 27 of our age, it appears he himself may be citing works that draw too heavily on his own, especially pertinent as Irving himself gathered his death toll figure from a vague and unverified source.
In this same passage from his website Irving reveals a decidedly ambiguous “new secret document”, a coded report from the Dresden Chief of Police to SS Oberfuhrer Dr Dietrichs. Irving states that the report has been “decoded by the British”, although any specifics on this process remain concealed. The source supports the death toll Irving so eagerly promotes, referring to large numbers of missing persons reported to the newly established Central Bureau of Missing Persons at the time. However, one immediately notes once again the lack of specificity in Irving’s source, there is no footnote or credit mentioned at all and Irving remains vague. This is lack of clarity is especially unusual in the face of a growing corpus of history, from politics and professionals alike, which oppose Irving’s inflated statistics.
As the internet is history’s most recent medium for publication there remains no defined standards by which historians operate, let alone any check of quality. Are footnotes or bibliographic details necessary on a web page, especially a passage contained within what is essentially a blog? While books that are published are subjected to stringent peer review, there is less of a culture of such assessment of one’s writing online. Unusually some evaluation has taken place regarding Irving’s online work. Richard Evans, expert witness in the Lipstadt-Irving trial, wrote, “Throughout the trial, Irving posted more or less daily reports on the case on his website. These seldom bore close relationship to what had gone on in court.” 28 Essentially, however, Irving appears to be free to write what he wishes without fear of repercussion, as he said in his correspondence with me, “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”. 29 This is certainly true within the Parramatta Catholic Schools Diocese where his website is blocked as ‘Hate Speech’. Yet, consumers of this media maintain the expectation that a credible, mainstream website will provide them with verified information. Irving however may lack such a readership, and thus is it even important that he maintains historical credibility on his website?
In my correspondence with Irving, he states that his website is at, “a ranking position of No. 40,000 on the Internet” 30 although internet-ranking websites such as Hitwise 31 and Alexa 32 were unable to verify this information and there appears to be no freely available internet ranking system reaching such a number. Despite such an inaccuracy, Irving clearly believes his work is being read by many, and therefore he holds some influence. Whilst Irving may be delusional in terms of the serious or academic consumers he writes for, he is a well known public figure. Youtube videos of Irving speaking at functions around the world exist 33 and Irving is often blogging regarding his tour. (The email I received from his was written from Key West, USA.) Irving retains some influence, despite being within a fairly alternative stream of publication.
Irving’s opinions are extreme, and as he has been shunned from mainstream publication he has found himself in the desolate refuge of online blogging. Clearly he is interested in correcting the mistakes he perceives in the history already in circulation regarding the Second World War, but his interest in maintaining a website reaches beyond that. As he says, “Note that we accept no paid advertising, so we are not affected by outside influences like that”, and whilst this may be true his website is not without advertising. The website itself is called Focal Point Publishing, his publishing company, and there are entire dossiers chronicling his publications and how the reader may purchase them. Clearly Irving possesses a pecuniary interest in propagating his beliefs regarding the Second World War, in maintaining this website and establishing a medium through which he can sell his work outside the mainstream. Perhaps he even creates more media interest in himself, by the means of historical sensationalism such as his latest claim that “150 000 or more” people were killed in the Dresden bombings 34. This will potentially create more traffic to his website and in turn a greater interest in his work. As he says, “If I am the centre of media attention, then [my website] may go up to a ranking position of No. 40,000 on the Internet.”
The internet is a democracy of free speech, yet when some, such as David Irving, possess a public profile and residual legitimacy beyond the faceless blogger they may hold a dangerous influence. Undoubtedly, Irving’s followers now consist of alternative and revisionist readers, and whilst subgenres of historical consumers have existed for decades, such as those in the Zionist movement, he continues to inform a misguided readership. Whilst there is no regulator of publication online, unless one is aligned with a historical institution, and peer assessment is rare, it is the responsibility of those who purport to be historians to maintain and effective historical method and rhetoric free of bias. Irving no longer writes legitimate books or has his work displayed in a museum, yet his blog mimics the academic historical writing he was first mistaken for, giving him unwarranted and dangerous influence. Irving with his faux-professional history fuels a subculture of historical belief, one which spreads a dangerous and highly disrespectful message, yet it still a prominent force in the revisionist movement. As a historian once told me, “Don’t believe everything they tell you” 35, especially if their name is David Irving.
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 biased 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 their involvement in 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 biased 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.”
Bibliography
Books
Cuthoys, Anne et al, Is History Fiction?, UNSW Press, Sydney, 2006
De Groot, Jerome, Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture, Routledge, New York, 2009
Evans, Richard, Lying About Hitler - History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial, Basic Books, USA, 2002
Irving, David, Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden, Focal Point Publishing, London, 1995
Irving, David, The Destruction of Dresden, Holt Rineheart Winston, Florida, 1964
Lipstadt, Deborah, History On Trial - My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, HarperCollins Publishers, USA, 2006
Rosenwig, Roy, Clio Wired, The Future of the Past in the Digital Age, Columbia University Press, USA, 2011
Websites
Abschlussbericht der Historikerkommission zu den Luftangriffen auf Dresden (Final Report of the Historical Commission regarding the Air Raids of Dresden) - www.dresden.de/media/pdf/infoblaetter/Historikerkommission_Dresden1945_Abschlussbericht_V1-14a (accessed 29/6/11) - translated by L. Wright
Alexa - www.alexa.com (accessed 30/6/11)
British Museum - Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth - www.britishmuseum.org/online_tours/egypt/cleopatra_history_to_myth/cleopatra_of_egypt_from_history.aspx (accessed 11/5/11)
Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II (accessed 29/6/11)
Burleigh, M, Mission Accomplished: Review of Dresden by Frederick Taylor, The Guadrian, 7/2/2004 - www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/feb/07/featuresreviews.guardianreview2 (accessed 27/7/11)
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust - www.codoh.com (accessed 10/7/11)
David Irving - A Radical’s Diary - www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2009/240409 (accessed 29/6/11)
David Irving - A Radical’s Diary - www.fpp.co.uk/docs/RadDi/2007/040307 (accessed 10/7/11)
David Irving - Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving (accessed 11/5/11)
Facebook - David Irving Doesn’t Exist - www.facebook.com/group/php?gid=9005500379 (accessed 10/7/11)
Facebook - I’m a David Irving Denier - www.facebook.com/group/php?gid=8914576205 (accessed 10/7/11)
Focal Point Publishing - www.fpp.co.uk (accessed 16/5/11)
Hitwise - www.hitwise.com (accessed 30/6/11)
Institute for Historical Review - www.ihr.org (accessed 10/7/11)
Irving on Dresden - www.irvingbooks.com/xcart/product.php?productid=17517&cat=3&page=1 (accessed 11/7/11)
John Safran’s Race Relations - David Irving Holocaust Denier - www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rBCst4hph0 (accessed 10/7/11)
Mason, IG, Among the Dead Cities: Was the Allied Bombing of Civillians in World War 2 a Necessity or Crime?, The Times Literary Supplement, 28/4/06 - www.sympatico.ca/ian.g.mason/Grayling (accessed 27/7/11)
Smith, Carl Can You Do Series History On The Web? February 1998 - Centre for History and New Media - www.chnm.gmu.edu (accessed 11/5/11)
The Smithsonian - Infinity of Nations - www.nmai.si.edi/exhibitions/infinityofnations (accessed 11/5/11)
World War 1 - Trenches on the Web - www.worldwar1.com (accessed 10/7/11)
Youtube - David Irving - www.youtube.com/results?search_query=david+irving&aq=f (accessed 13/3/11)
Other resources
Irving, David - personal communication (28/2/11)
Yay! :)
Synopsis
The question developed from an interest in the Holocaust denier David Irving and his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt. A source I had encountered in my reading about the Lipstadt-Irving case was Irving’s personal website which contained much of his own opinion regarding a wide variety of historical issues. The reliability of this blog was questionable, and seemed an interesting historical discussion. How did Irving, now discredited, use the internet to express his historical opinion, and what means did he use to do so?
The introduction of my essay provides an overview of theory regarding historical publication online, information I drew from historians such as Roy Rozenwig and Jerome de Groot, as it informs much of my further discussion. Irving is introduced as an historian by a brief discussion of his early work and the trial which resulted from the libel case he brought against Lipstadt. The synthesis of these ideas, the publication of history online and Irving as an historian, constitutes the rest of my essay. This is done through the analysis of two main sources. The historical method of a blog entry regarding Auschwitz and another regarding the death toll at Dresden, are evaluated. The conclusion evaluates Irving’s use of the internet for historical publication, especially his dangerous imitation of professional history and the effect this has on subgenres of historical belief.
The academic content is drawn from Evans and Lipstadt’s books, as well as essays from Rozenwig’s The Centre for History and New Media. The content which I used for close analysis of Irving’s website, Auschwitz and Dresden, was chosen as these are the two issues about which he is most outspoken and for which has received most criticism. Professional history regarding these two areas is also readily available and so inconsistencies in Irving’s work could be easily detected. I chose to focus on Irving’s work regarding historical issues, rather than analyse any of the modern social commentary he also provides on his website.
Essay
Dr. Carl Smith asks, “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? .... Is it possible, in short, to do “serious” history on the web?” 1. This question challenges the very nature of historical publication online. While prominent historical publications such as Trenches on the Web 2 have gained a sound reputation with the wider historical community, lesser known historians, or historians who do not work in a professional context, struggle to gain recognition. One such independent historian is rogue revisionist David Irving. Irving was shunned from the credible stream of historical publication, by the media and historical professionals, because of his failed libel case against Deborah Lipstadt and connections to the Holocaust denial movement.
The value of digital history is not only a modern historical debate, but one which divides the discipline. Some, such as Smith, see it’s merit in presenting historical material on a larger scale than that which is possible in a museum or book. Examples include successful online exhibitions like the British Museum’s Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth 3 and the Smithsonian’s Infinity of Nations 4 about Native Americans. These works are both backed by credible institutions, and present an interpretation of history accepted by professional historians and society as a whole. Yet the unmonitored nature of the internet leaves room for criticism. As Daniel Cohen and Roy Rozenwig stressed, “With Google now indexing more than eight billion pages, a full qualitative assessment of historical information and writing on the Web is well beyond the ability [of] any person or even team of people.” 5 Yet even Cohen and Rozenwig note the benefits, “A much deeper and denser historical record, especially one in digital form, seems like an incredible opportunity and gift.” 6 The question must be asked however, while established and distinguished institutions such as the British Museum and the Smithsonian may be aiming to add to a corpus of reliable historical information, can Irving be considered to be pursuing a similarly legitimate path?
David Irving is a British author whose works are primarily concerned with German perspectives of World War II. He began his collection of over thirty works with The Destruction of Dresden (1963) which garnered both critical and historical acclaim, despite it’s anti-Allied standpoint. Yet his works began to venture further from mainstream opinion regarding the events of World War II and entered the territory of Holocaust Denial. In his 1977 book Hitler’s War he attempted to argue Hitler’s ignorance of the ‘Final Solution’; and while his new perspectives and varied sources attracted many, some of his peers, such as Broszat and Sydnor 7 began to question his methodology. Jerome De Groot says of Irving, “[He] is in some ways the epitome of the public historian - not part of the academy ... a maverick, looking to a wider public audience rather than the circumscribed elite” 8. However most historians and historical commentators express a far less romantic view of Irving. Anthony Lewis calls him “a racist faker.” 9 Much of Irving’s widespread opposition is a product of the libel case he brought against Deborah Lipstadt, a prominent academic of Jewish Studies, after she referred to him as, “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial. Familiar with historical evidence, he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda”.10 The compelling and effective case brought forward by Lipstadt’s defense team was highly publicised, and brought the flaws of his method to the forefront of historical consciousness. It exposed his denial connections to the historical profession and the public alike. This forced him to create his own publishing house, Focal Point Publishing, and an online blog 11 which continues presently as an avenue for his assessment of past and present world events. His newsletter Action Report Online, includes information about his book tours, archives his blog posts and has an online bookstore. As Irving listed in his correspondence with me, his website is interested in a wide variety of topics, “World War II, anti-Semitism, Holocaust, free speech, immigration, racial problems, governmental lying, atrocities, war crimes” 12.
Irving has strong connections with the revisionist movement. His articles appear on websites such as The Institute for Historical Review 13 and The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust 14. His revisionist affiliation, especially in regards to the Holocaust, has given way to such famous statements as, “The gas chamber they show in Auschwitz is as genuine as the fairycastle in Orlando, rather like Disneyland” 15 and “More women died in the backseat of Senator Edward Kennedy’s car in Chappaquiddick than were ever gassed in [the Auschwitz gas chambers]” 16. Such hyperbole might further attract a fringe and politically extreme readership, but at the same time it is out of place in traditional historical discourse.
Irving’s clearly biased historical method and rhetoric is seen his writing about the role of Auschwitz in World War II. He travelled to Poland, visiting Auschwitz, in 2007 and recorded in his Radical’s Diary on March 4th his visit to the site. Irving uses obvious sarcasm when referring to the grounds as a, “holy site” 17, as he examines the ruins of the crematoria by, “duck[ing] under the anti-revisionist red-and-white plastic chain”. His immediate assumption regarding the remains is that it is a forged conspiracy. When shown the disinfection room by his guide he records his irritability noting, “it is her duty to piston all her victims through this propaganda Schleuse, like running a gauntlet at school”. Irving refers to the Auschwitz Sauna Building as the “expensively glass-floored propaganda walk, which is pure Disneyland”, once more questioning the validity of the structures at the site with a casual and colloquial dialogue. Irving is being deliberately disrespectful and adversarial in his post regarding his tour of Auschwitz, exemplified in the rhetoric he uses. This skewed presentation of evidence is far removed from traditional historical discourse, clearly aimed to appeal to a revisionist audience, especially those classified as Holocaust deniers.
If Irving merely wrote a stream of clearly biased and unfounded work I believe the flaws in his method need not be considered an issue. Yet his published books imitate quite successfully the work of a professional historian, while he merges both his own opinion with what he believes to be historical fact. The verisimilar nature of his work makes it in fact quite dangerous. The highly accessible, yet seemingly professional, manner in which Irving writes has garnered him an influence over those readers less informed about the requirements of empirical history. Irving gives a degree of legitimacy to the Holocaust denial movement through outwardly credible writing.
Such an example of this deceptive work is his blog regarding the ten watch towers at Auschwitz. He places the words watch towers in inverted commas, saying “these look very fake - very flimsy, not properly roofed, no ladder or other means of access, open to the weather. They are fakes ... erected post-war”. He then attempts to validate his observations, by referencing photographs he has seen that do not show these watchtowers. While he includes other photographs of this trip, the photographic evidence he refers to here remains unpublished and uncited. We are offered as historical fact an unreferenced and unseen source that supposedly supports Irving’s claims but remains shielded from general examination and discussion. Irving includes no heteroglossia in his publication, his voice remains entirely authoritative. “The Poles and others have wrecked the document that this site could have been, by their keenness to generate money and propaganda ... concealing whatever evidence they might have revealed”. This an ironic statement from a man who deliberately obscures all traces that support his claims and disregards those that oppose him, and then presents his own ultimate and unverifiable truth. 18
Within the broad spectrum that is Irving’s interest in the Second World War, is his work regarding what he calls the “Dresden holocaust” 19. Irving’s work on Dresden began with his articles in German magazine Neue Illustrierte and continued with The Destruction of Dresden (1963). Although this book was widely received as a legitimate historical text, Irving did begin to reveal his affinity for exaggerated estimates, stating in the 1964 edition that the German death toll in Dresden at the hands of the Allies had reached “135 000” 20. Although the revised 1995 edition states “Researchers are advised that figures for the final death toll in Dresden still vary widely, and may be lower than this author originally stated”.21 Despite Irving’s statistics, the independent investigation commissioned by the city council in 2010 implores, “there is not the slightest evidence existing for the long-popular narrative picture of a “bloodbath” caused by the Allied fighter pilots among the people fleeing from the city”, a clear reaction to the narrative he pioneered. 22 Professional historians have also begun to release revised statistics, such as Frederick Taylor, suggesting “25000” people died 23 and Ian Garrick Mason, who placed the figure at, “at least 25,000 people, possibly as many as 40 000” 24. Yet Irving appears to disregard such opposition, and continues to provide a series of outrageously exaggerated estimates, continued on his website.
Irving’s interest in the bombing of Dresden, attempting to fulfill his clear desire to reach an equivalence between the deaths of civilians at German and Allied hands, is chronicled in detail on his website. He maintained an online diary during his search for information that supports his claims regarding the Dresden death toll, writing on the 24th of April 2009 a post citing the new information he had obtained. Irving makes explicit his “confidential” source Hans Voigt, a German school teacher who “was put in charge of Dresden’s Missing Persons Bureau” 25, who used his “immense card index” and diary to estimate a death toll for Irving, reaching the number of 135 000. He claims that this is also the figure that “Kurt Vonnegut and others always used”. 26 (It is important to note that Kurt Vonnegut is an author perhaps best known for his novel Slaughterhouse-Five (1969) which tells the story of aliens able to view the fourth dimension.) Vonnegut’s protagonist directly quotes Irving in the book, and Vonnegut has since stated that he acquired much of his background material from Irving’s Destruction of Dresden. While Irving so detests the “inter-historian incest” 27 of our age, it appears he himself may be citing works that draw too heavily on his own, especially pertinent as Irving himself gathered his death toll figure from a vague and unverified source.
In this same passage from his website Irving reveals a decidedly ambiguous “new secret document”, a coded report from the Dresden Chief of Police to SS Oberfuhrer Dr Dietrichs. Irving states that the report has been “decoded by the British”, although any specifics on this process remain concealed. The source supports the death toll Irving so eagerly promotes, referring to large numbers of missing persons reported to the newly established Central Bureau of Missing Persons at the time. However, one immediately notes once again the lack of specificity in Irving’s source, there is no footnote or credit mentioned at all and Irving remains vague. This is lack of clarity is especially unusual in the face of a growing corpus of history, from politics and professionals alike, which oppose Irving’s inflated statistics.
As the internet is history’s most recent medium for publication there remains no defined standards by which historians operate, let alone any check of quality. Are footnotes or bibliographic details necessary on a web page, especially a passage contained within what is essentially a blog? While books that are published are subjected to stringent peer review, there is less of a culture of such assessment of one’s writing online. Unusually some evaluation has taken place regarding Irving’s online work. Richard Evans, expert witness in the Lipstadt-Irving trial, wrote, “Throughout the trial, Irving posted more or less daily reports on the case on his website. These seldom bore close relationship to what had gone on in court.” 28 Essentially, however, Irving appears to be free to write what he wishes without fear of repercussion, as he said in his correspondence with me, “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”. 29 This is certainly true within the Parramatta Catholic Schools Diocese where his website is blocked as ‘Hate Speech’. Yet, consumers of this media maintain the expectation that a credible, mainstream website will provide them with verified information. Irving however may lack such a readership, and thus is it even important that he maintains historical credibility on his website?
In my correspondence with Irving, he states that his website is at, “a ranking position of No. 40,000 on the Internet” 30 although internet-ranking websites such as Hitwise 31 and Alexa 32 were unable to verify this information and there appears to be no freely available internet ranking system reaching such a number. Despite such an inaccuracy, Irving clearly believes his work is being read by many, and therefore he holds some influence. Whilst Irving may be delusional in terms of the serious or academic consumers he writes for, he is a well known public figure. Youtube videos of Irving speaking at functions around the world exist 33 and Irving is often blogging regarding his tour. (The email I received from his was written from Key West, USA.) Irving retains some influence, despite being within a fairly alternative stream of publication.
Irving’s opinions are extreme, and as he has been shunned from mainstream publication he has found himself in the desolate refuge of online blogging. Clearly he is interested in correcting the mistakes he perceives in the history already in circulation regarding the Second World War, but his interest in maintaining a website reaches beyond that. As he says, “Note that we accept no paid advertising, so we are not affected by outside influences like that”, and whilst this may be true his website is not without advertising. The website itself is called Focal Point Publishing, his publishing company, and there are entire dossiers chronicling his publications and how the reader may purchase them. Clearly Irving possesses a pecuniary interest in propagating his beliefs regarding the Second World War, in maintaining this website and establishing a medium through which he can sell his work outside the mainstream. Perhaps he even creates more media interest in himself, by the means of historical sensationalism such as his latest claim that “150 000 or more” people were killed in the Dresden bombings 34. This will potentially create more traffic to his website and in turn a greater interest in his work. As he says, “If I am the centre of media attention, then [my website] may go up to a ranking position of No. 40,000 on the Internet.”
The internet is a democracy of free speech, yet when some, such as David Irving, possess a public profile and residual legitimacy beyond the faceless blogger they may hold a dangerous influence. Undoubtedly, Irving’s followers now consist of alternative and revisionist readers, and whilst subgenres of historical consumers have existed for decades, such as those in the Zionist movement, he continues to inform a misguided readership. Whilst there is no regulator of publication online, unless one is aligned with a historical institution, and peer assessment is rare, it is the responsibility of those who purport to be historians to maintain and effective historical method and rhetoric free of bias. Irving no longer writes legitimate books or has his work displayed in a museum, yet his blog mimics the academic historical writing he was first mistaken for, giving him unwarranted and dangerous influence. Irving with his faux-professional history fuels a subculture of historical belief, one which spreads a dangerous and highly disrespectful message, yet it still a prominent force in the revisionist movement. As a historian once told me, “Don’t believe everything they tell you” 35, especially if their name is David Irving.
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 biased 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 their involvement in 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 biased 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.”
Bibliography
Books
Cuthoys, Anne et al, Is History Fiction?, UNSW Press, Sydney, 2006
De Groot, Jerome, Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture, Routledge, New York, 2009
Evans, Richard, Lying About Hitler - History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial, Basic Books, USA, 2002
Irving, David, Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden, Focal Point Publishing, London, 1995
Irving, David, The Destruction of Dresden, Holt Rineheart Winston, Florida, 1964
Lipstadt, Deborah, History On Trial - My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, HarperCollins Publishers, USA, 2006
Rosenwig, Roy, Clio Wired, The Future of the Past in the Digital Age, Columbia University Press, USA, 2011
Websites
Abschlussbericht der Historikerkommission zu den Luftangriffen auf Dresden (Final Report of the Historical Commission regarding the Air Raids of Dresden) - www.dresden.de/media/pdf/infoblaetter/Historikerkommission_Dresden1945_Abschlussbericht_V1-14a (accessed 29/6/11) - translated by L. Wright
Alexa - www.alexa.com (accessed 30/6/11)
British Museum - Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth - www.britishmuseum.org/online_tours/egypt/cleopatra_history_to_myth/cleopatra_of_egypt_from_history.aspx (accessed 11/5/11)
Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II (accessed 29/6/11)
Burleigh, M, Mission Accomplished: Review of Dresden by Frederick Taylor, The Guadrian, 7/2/2004 - www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/feb/07/featuresreviews.guardianreview2 (accessed 27/7/11)
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust - www.codoh.com (accessed 10/7/11)
David Irving - A Radical’s Diary - www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2009/240409 (accessed 29/6/11)
David Irving - A Radical’s Diary - www.fpp.co.uk/docs/RadDi/2007/040307 (accessed 10/7/11)
David Irving - Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving (accessed 11/5/11)
Facebook - David Irving Doesn’t Exist - www.facebook.com/group/php?gid=9005500379 (accessed 10/7/11)
Facebook - I’m a David Irving Denier - www.facebook.com/group/php?gid=8914576205 (accessed 10/7/11)
Focal Point Publishing - www.fpp.co.uk (accessed 16/5/11)
Hitwise - www.hitwise.com (accessed 30/6/11)
Institute for Historical Review - www.ihr.org (accessed 10/7/11)
Irving on Dresden - www.irvingbooks.com/xcart/product.php?productid=17517&cat=3&page=1 (accessed 11/7/11)
John Safran’s Race Relations - David Irving Holocaust Denier - www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rBCst4hph0 (accessed 10/7/11)
Mason, IG, Among the Dead Cities: Was the Allied Bombing of Civillians in World War 2 a Necessity or Crime?, The Times Literary Supplement, 28/4/06 - www.sympatico.ca/ian.g.mason/Grayling (accessed 27/7/11)
Smith, Carl Can You Do Series History On The Web? February 1998 - Centre for History and New Media - www.chnm.gmu.edu (accessed 11/5/11)
The Smithsonian - Infinity of Nations - www.nmai.si.edi/exhibitions/infinityofnations (accessed 11/5/11)
World War 1 - Trenches on the Web - www.worldwar1.com (accessed 10/7/11)
Youtube - David Irving - www.youtube.com/results?search_query=david+irving&aq=f (accessed 13/3/11)
Other resources
Irving, David - personal communication (28/2/11)
Yay! :)
Peer assessment
Emma
As Alice said, Emma has done an abundance of thorough research. She has got such a firm grasp on the ideas of her project. Also, I read her source analysis plan today and she has really got the hang of that one as well.
Alice
Like Emma, Alice has done alot of research and this made the her project, and especially her overall argument, in-depth and interesting. I have only read bits and pieces, but in usual Alice-style they were written really well.
Zan
I have only read bits and pieces of Zan's essay as well, but I have read his source analysis for The Other Boleyn Girl. The source analysis was strongly argued and I think the sources he used were a really interesting combination that allowed for a really varied look at Anne Boleyn.
As Alice said, Emma has done an abundance of thorough research. She has got such a firm grasp on the ideas of her project. Also, I read her source analysis plan today and she has really got the hang of that one as well.
Alice
Like Emma, Alice has done alot of research and this made the her project, and especially her overall argument, in-depth and interesting. I have only read bits and pieces, but in usual Alice-style they were written really well.
Zan
I have only read bits and pieces of Zan's essay as well, but I have read his source analysis for The Other Boleyn Girl. The source analysis was strongly argued and I think the sources he used were a really interesting combination that allowed for a really varied look at Anne Boleyn.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Bibliography
Bibliography
Books
Cuthoys, Anne et al, Is History Fiction?, UNSW Press, Sydney, 2006
De Groot, Jerome, Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture, Routledge, New York, 2009
Evans, Richard, Lying About Hitler - History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial, Basic Books, USA, 2002
Irving, David, Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden, Focal Point Publishing, London, 1995
Irving, David, The Destruction of Dresden, Holt Rineheart Winston, Florida, 1964
Lipstadt, Deborah, History On Trial - My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, HarperCollins Publishers, USA, 2006
Rosenwig, Roy, Clio Wired, The Future of the Past in the Digital Age, Columbia University Press, USA, 2011
Websites
Abschlussbericht der Historikerkommission zu den Luftangriffen auf Dresden (Final Report of the Historical Commission regarding the Air Raids of Dresden) - www.dresden.de/media/pdf/infoblaetter/Historikerkommission_Dresden1945_Abschlussbericht_V1-14a (accessed 29/6/11) - translated by L. Wright
Alexa - www.alexa.com (accessed 30/6/11)
British Museum - Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth - www.britishmuseum.org/online_tours/egypt/cleopatra_history_to_myth/cleopatra_of_egypt_from_history.aspx (accessed 11/5/11)
Burleigh, M, Mission Accomplished: Review of Dresden by Frederick Taylor, The Guadrian, 7/2/2004 - www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/feb/07/featuresreviews.guardianreview2 (accessed 27/7/11)
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust - www.codoh.com (accessed 10/7/11)
David Irving - A Radical’s Diary - www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2009/240409 (accessed 29/6/11)
David Irving - A Radical’s Diary - www.fpp.co.uk/docs/RadDi/2007/040307 (accessed 10/7/11)
Focal Point Publishing - www.fpp.co.uk (accessed 16/5/11)
Hitwise - www.hitwise.com (accessed 30/6/11)
Institute for Historical Review - www.ihr.org (accessed 10/7/11)
Irving on Dresden - www.irvingbooks.com/xcart/product.php?productid=17517&cat=3&page=1 (accessed 11/7/11)
John Safran’s Race Relations - David Irving Holocaust Denier - www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rBCst4hph0 (accessed 10/7/11)
Mason, IG, Among the Dead Cities: Was the Allied Bombing of Civillians in World War 2 a Necessity or Crime?, The Times Literary Supplement, 28/4/06 - www.sympatico.ca/ian.g.mason/Grayling (accessed 27/7/11)
Smith, Carl Can You Do Series History On The Web? February 1998 - Centre for History and New Media - www.chnm.gmu.edu (accessed 11/5/11)
The Smithsonian - Infinity of Nations - www.nmai.si.edi/exhibitions/infinityofnations (accessed 11/5/11)
World War 1 - Trenches on the Web - www.worldwar1.com (accessed 10/7/11)
Other resources
Irving, David - personal communication (28/2/11)
Books
Cuthoys, Anne et al, Is History Fiction?, UNSW Press, Sydney, 2006
De Groot, Jerome, Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture, Routledge, New York, 2009
Evans, Richard, Lying About Hitler - History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial, Basic Books, USA, 2002
Irving, David, Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden, Focal Point Publishing, London, 1995
Irving, David, The Destruction of Dresden, Holt Rineheart Winston, Florida, 1964
Lipstadt, Deborah, History On Trial - My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, HarperCollins Publishers, USA, 2006
Rosenwig, Roy, Clio Wired, The Future of the Past in the Digital Age, Columbia University Press, USA, 2011
Websites
Abschlussbericht der Historikerkommission zu den Luftangriffen auf Dresden (Final Report of the Historical Commission regarding the Air Raids of Dresden) - www.dresden.de/media/pdf/infoblaetter/Historikerkommission_Dresden1945_Abschlussbericht_V1-14a (accessed 29/6/11) - translated by L. Wright
Alexa - www.alexa.com (accessed 30/6/11)
British Museum - Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth - www.britishmuseum.org/online_tours/egypt/cleopatra_history_to_myth/cleopatra_of_egypt_from_history.aspx (accessed 11/5/11)
Burleigh, M, Mission Accomplished: Review of Dresden by Frederick Taylor, The Guadrian, 7/2/2004 - www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/feb/07/featuresreviews.guardianreview2 (accessed 27/7/11)
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust - www.codoh.com (accessed 10/7/11)
David Irving - A Radical’s Diary - www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2009/240409 (accessed 29/6/11)
David Irving - A Radical’s Diary - www.fpp.co.uk/docs/RadDi/2007/040307 (accessed 10/7/11)
Focal Point Publishing - www.fpp.co.uk (accessed 16/5/11)
Hitwise - www.hitwise.com (accessed 30/6/11)
Institute for Historical Review - www.ihr.org (accessed 10/7/11)
Irving on Dresden - www.irvingbooks.com/xcart/product.php?productid=17517&cat=3&page=1 (accessed 11/7/11)
John Safran’s Race Relations - David Irving Holocaust Denier - www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rBCst4hph0 (accessed 10/7/11)
Mason, IG, Among the Dead Cities: Was the Allied Bombing of Civillians in World War 2 a Necessity or Crime?, The Times Literary Supplement, 28/4/06 - www.sympatico.ca/ian.g.mason/Grayling (accessed 27/7/11)
Smith, Carl Can You Do Series History On The Web? February 1998 - Centre for History and New Media - www.chnm.gmu.edu (accessed 11/5/11)
The Smithsonian - Infinity of Nations - www.nmai.si.edi/exhibitions/infinityofnations (accessed 11/5/11)
World War 1 - Trenches on the Web - www.worldwar1.com (accessed 10/7/11)
Other resources
Irving, David - personal communication (28/2/11)
Some more ramblings
Okay so of my little checklist, I have done:
1. The synopsis
2. The essay
3. The source analysis
Which means I still have to do the bibliography. I hope to have achieved this by tonight.
I am very happy with my progress to this point. I feel like more work has come together. I added another footnote at the suggestion of Mrs Redman today, the last touch to my essay, to further explain the validity of Hans Voigt as a source for Irving.
Will post bibliography later.
1. The synopsis
2. The essay
3. The source analysis
Which means I still have to do the bibliography. I hope to have achieved this by tonight.
I am very happy with my progress to this point. I feel like more work has come together. I added another footnote at the suggestion of Mrs Redman today, the last touch to my essay, to further explain the validity of Hans Voigt as a source for Irving.
Will post bibliography later.
Monday, August 15, 2011
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.”
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.”
What's been happening
Obviously it's been a long time since I have blogged, but I have quite a few drafts to fill in these blanks, with red pen all over them.
At the moment I am pretty much at the finished point, I just have to do a few more things:
1. Discuss the reliability of the Irving's Dresden death toll source.
2. Do the source analysis (internet theory essay, Evan's book, Irving's email)
3. Do the big bibliography list
Self-assessment
To this point I am fairly happy with my progress. My final project has come together well, I feel like I have established a clear argument. However, this was not without difficulty. Some challenges I faced were:
1. Choosing which passages from Irving's website to use: I initially wanted to only due Dresden, partly because Evans has a succinct little section on Irving and the Dresden death toll and partly because I found the passage I was going to use for that very early on. However, Mr Wright suggested that this wasn't comprehensive enough. So I also did the Auschwitz death camp passage, as he has received alot of public coverage for his stance on this issue. I had to be careful because I did not want to employ a selection criteria that intentially made Irving look bad, like passages were he just does a big rant on the Zionist agenda. So I chose passages were Irving was recording his historical findings, in the public domain, which mimicked real history but on closer analysis were very flawed.
2. Trying to make big points clear: My natural writing style is filled with long sentences and commas, so when I was writing my essay I struggled to make the big points about Irving's historical inquiry clear enough. There isn't really much more to say on this, but I (with the help of Mr Wright) really cut down my sentence size to emphasise the main points of my project.
3. Comparison of Irving's Dresden stats with another source: One issue I definitely faced was the need to compare Irving's Dresden death toll stats to a verified source. I combated this by, with the help of Mr Wright and Jake, finding some verified stats from historians, developed from cited traces. This way I wasn't just saying that Irving's death toll count was wildly exaggerated, but I was proving it.
Will post my source analysis' later tonight.
At the moment I am pretty much at the finished point, I just have to do a few more things:
1. Discuss the reliability of the Irving's Dresden death toll source.
2. Do the source analysis (internet theory essay, Evan's book, Irving's email)
3. Do the big bibliography list
Self-assessment
To this point I am fairly happy with my progress. My final project has come together well, I feel like I have established a clear argument. However, this was not without difficulty. Some challenges I faced were:
1. Choosing which passages from Irving's website to use: I initially wanted to only due Dresden, partly because Evans has a succinct little section on Irving and the Dresden death toll and partly because I found the passage I was going to use for that very early on. However, Mr Wright suggested that this wasn't comprehensive enough. So I also did the Auschwitz death camp passage, as he has received alot of public coverage for his stance on this issue. I had to be careful because I did not want to employ a selection criteria that intentially made Irving look bad, like passages were he just does a big rant on the Zionist agenda. So I chose passages were Irving was recording his historical findings, in the public domain, which mimicked real history but on closer analysis were very flawed.
2. Trying to make big points clear: My natural writing style is filled with long sentences and commas, so when I was writing my essay I struggled to make the big points about Irving's historical inquiry clear enough. There isn't really much more to say on this, but I (with the help of Mr Wright) really cut down my sentence size to emphasise the main points of my project.
3. Comparison of Irving's Dresden stats with another source: One issue I definitely faced was the need to compare Irving's Dresden death toll stats to a verified source. I combated this by, with the help of Mr Wright and Jake, finding some verified stats from historians, developed from cited traces. This way I wasn't just saying that Irving's death toll count was wildly exaggerated, but I was proving it.
Will post my source analysis' later tonight.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Synopsis
Synopsis
The question developed from an interest in the Holocaust denier David Irving and his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt. A source I had encountered in my reading about the Lipstadt-Irving case was Irving’s personal website which contained much of his own opinion regarding a wide variety of historical issues. The reliability of this blog was questionable, and seemed an interesting historical discussion. How did Irving, now discredited, use the internet to express his historical opinion, and what means did he use to do so?
The introduction of my essay provides an overview of theory regarding historical publication online, information I drew from historians such as Roy Rozenwig and Jerome de Groot, as it informs much of my further discussion. Irving too must be introduced as an historian, best done so through a brief discussion of Irving’s early work and the trial which he brought against Lipstadt. The synthesis of these ideas, the publication of history online and Irving as an historian, constitutes the rest of my essay. This is done through the analysis of two main sources. The historical method of a blog entry regarding Auschwitz and another regarding the death toll at Dresden, are evaluated. The conclusion evaluates Irving’s use of the internet for historical publication, especially his dangerous imitation of professional history and the effect this has on subgenres of historical belief.
The academic content is drawn from Evans and Lipstadt’s books, as well as essays from Rozenwig’s The Centre for History and New Media. The content which I used for close analysis of Irving’s website, Auschwitz and Dresden, was chosen as these are the two issues about which he is most outspoken and for which has received most criticism. Professional history regarding these two areas is also readily available and so inconsistencies in Irving’s work could be easily detected. I chose to focus on Irving’s work regarding historical issues, rather than analyse any of the modern social commentary he also provides on his website.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Let's Blog!
Guess who's back, back, back? Back again! Audrey's back! (Classic Eminem reference)
Okay after a brief hiatus of other school work I have actually written a draft! Winner! Yesterday I just sat down and wrote .... and wrote ......... and wrote. But it was worth it because I just got a draft out and it might be absolutely awful, in fact in most definitely it is. But it does create the argument I want to create even if it isn't written very well. At least I have something to edit now.
Here it is:
(Also, the picture is Irving examining the pits they shot people in at Auschwitz, having crossed the cordons ... a good metaphor?)
There are no footnotes, because it never formats properly on here.
Okay after a brief hiatus of other school work I have actually written a draft! Winner! Yesterday I just sat down and wrote .... and wrote ......... and wrote. But it was worth it because I just got a draft out and it might be absolutely awful, in fact in most definitely it is. But it does create the argument I want to create even if it isn't written very well. At least I have something to edit now.
Here it is:
(Also, the picture is Irving examining the pits they shot people in at Auschwitz, having crossed the cordons ... a good metaphor?)
There are no footnotes, because it never formats properly on here.
“Don’t believe everything they tell you”
David Irving and New-Media History
Evaluate David Irving’s use of the internet for historical publication.
As Dr. Carl Smith writes, “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? .... Is it possible, in short, to do “serious” history on the web?”, this question challenges the very nature of historical publication online. Prominent historical publications such as Trenches on the Web have gained reputation due to their acceptance by the wider historical community, yet lesser known historians, or historians who do not work in a professional context struggle to gain recognition. One such historian is rogue revisionist David Irving, who was shunned from the credible stream of historical publication after his failed libel case against Deborah Lipstadt and connections to the Holocaust denial movement.
The reliability and benefit of digital history is only a modern historical debate, but one which divides the discipline. Some, such as Smith, see it’s merit in presenting historical material on a larger scale than that which is possible in a museum or book. Such a medium saw successful online exhibitions such as the British Museum’s Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian’s Infinity of Nations. These works are both backed by credible institutions, and are interested in a branch of history deemed acceptable by both the historical community and society. Yet the unmonitored nature of the internet leaves room for criticism, as Daniel Cohen and Roy Rozenwig stressed, “With Google now indexing more than eight billion pages, a full qualitative assessment of historical information and writing on the Web is well beyond the ability [of] any person or even team of people.” Yet even Cohen and Rozenwig note the benefits, “A much deeper and denser historical record, especially one in digital form, seems like an incredible opportunity and gift.” The question must be asked however, while established and distinguished institutions such as the British Museum and the Smithsonian may be aiming to add to a corpus of reliable historical information, can Irving be considered to be pursuing a similar path?
David Irving is a British author whose works are primarily concerned with the German perspective of the World War II conflict, especially the involvement of the Third Reich. He began his collection of over thirty works with The Destruction of Dresden (1963) which garnered both critical and historical acclaim, despite it’s anti-Allie standpoint. Yet as his works ventured further from mainstream opinion regarding the events of World War II and entered the territory of Holocaust Denial, as in his 1977 book Hitler’s War wherein he attempted to explain Hitler’s ignorance of the ‘Final Solution’, much of the historical community began to view his work with a sense of skepticism. Jerome De Groot says of Irving, “[He] is in some ways the epitome of the public historian - not part of the academy ... a maverick, looking to a wider public audience rather than the circumscribed elite”. However most historians and historical commentators express a far less romantic view of Irving, Anthony Lewis calling him “a racist faker.” Much of Irving’s widespread opposition is a product of the libel case he brought against Deborah Lipstadt, a prominent academic of Jewish studies, after she referred to him as a “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial. Familiar with historical evidence, he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda”, in her book Denying The Holocaust. The trial that proceeded discredited both Irving and his historical method, leaving him little standing in the historical school. This forced him to create his own publishing house, Focal Point Publishing, and he kept an online blog which chronicled not only his interpretation of the legal battle, which spanned a four year period, but also continues presently as a avenue for his assessment of past and present world events.
Richard Evans, expert witness in the Lipstadt-Irving trial wrote of Irving’s website, “Throughout the trial, Irving posted more or less daily reports on the case on his website. These seldom bore close relationship to what had gone on in court.”
Irving currently maintains on his website for Focal Point Publishing, his newsletter Action Report Online, information about his book tours, archives of his blog posts and an online bookstore among a host of other internet facilities. As Irving listed in his correspondence with me, his website is interested in a wide variety of topics, “World War II, anti-Semitism, Holocaust, free speech, immigration, racial problems, governmental lying, atrocities, war crimes”. Irving has strong connections with the revisionist movement, his articles appearing on websites such as The Institute for Historical Review and The Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust. His revisionist affiliation, especially in regards to the Holocaust, has given way to such famous statements as “The gas chamber they show in Auschwitz is as genuine as the fairycastle in Orlando, rather like Disneyland” and “More women died in the backseat of Senator Edward Kennedy’s car in Chappaquiddick than were ever gassed in [the Auschwitz gas chambers]” . This evident bias is clear in both Irving’s historical method and rhetoric, and culminating in his writing regarding the Auschwitz death camp. He travelled to Poland, visiting Auschwitz, in 2007 and recorded in his Radical’s Diary on March 4th his visit to the site. Irving uses obvious sarcasm when referring to the grounds as a “holy site”, as he examines the ruins of the cremotoria by “duck[ing] under the anti-revisionist red-and-white plastic chain”. His immediate assumption regarding the remains is that it is a forged conspiracy, when shown the disinfection room by his guide he records his irritability noting, “it is her duty to piston all her victims through this propaganda Schleuse, like running a gauntlet at school”. Irving refers to the Auschwitz Sauna Building as the “expensively glass-floored propaganda walk, which is pure Disneyland”, once more questioning the validity of the structures at the site with a casual and colloquial dialogue. The rhetoric Irving employs in his posts regarding his tour of Auschwitz exemplifies his opinion of the historical grounds as a whole, he believes them inauthentic and undeserving of respect, and whilst this would perhaps not be considered an issue as a stand alone feature of his writing, if he merely wrote a stream of clearly biased and unfounded work that did not imitate the work of a legitimate historian, he merges both his own opinion with what he believes to be historical fact, adding more influence to his work.
He writes regarding the ten watch towers at Auschwitz, placing watch towers in inverted commas, saying “these look very fake - very flimsy, not properly roofed, no ladder or other means of access, open to the weather. They are fakes ... erected post-war”. He then attempts to validate his observations, by referencing photographs he has seen that do not show these watchtowers, and whilst he includes other photographs of this trip, the photographic evidence he refers to remains unpublished and uncited, an enigmatic source that supports Irving’s claims but remains shielded from general view and discussion. Irving includes no heteroglossia in his publication, his voice remains entirely authoritative, “The Poles and others have wrecked the document that this site could have been, by their keenness to generate money and propaganda. They have slapped a vast monument of paving slabs and memorials between Kremas II and III, concealing whatever evidence they might have revealed. They have conducted little if any archeological research, “digs”, to get at the truth”, an ironic statement from a man who has concealed all traces that support his claims, instead devising his own ultimate and unverifiable truth.
Within the broad spectrum that is Irving’s interest in the Second World War, is his work regarding what he calls the “Dresden holocaust”, in which “whole refugee families must have been engulfed”. Irving’s work on Dresden began with his articles in German magazine Neue Illustrierte and continued with The Destruction of Dresden (1963), although this book was widely received as a legitimate historical text. Irving did begin however to reveal his affinity for exaggerated estimates, stating that the German death toll and the hands of the Allies had reached “135 000”, although the revised 1995 edition states “Researchers are advised that figures for the final death toll in Dresden still vary widely, and may be lower than this author originally stated”. Despite Irving’s statistics the independent investigation commissioned by the by the city council in 2010 implores, “there is not the slightest evidence existing for the long-popular narrative picture of a “bloodbath” caused by the Allied fighter pilots among the people fleeing from the city.”
Irving’s interest in the bombing of Dresden, attempting to fulfill his clear desire to reach an equivalence between the deaths of civilians at German and Allied hands, is chronicled in detail on his website. He maintained an online diary during his search for information that supports his claims regarding the Dresden death toll, writing on the 24th of April 2009 a post citing the new information he had obtained. Irving makes explicit his “confidential” source Hans Voigt, a German schoolteacher who “was put in charge of Dresden’s Missing Persons Bureau” , who used his “immense card index” and diary to estimate a death toll for Irving, reaching the number of 135 000. He claims that this is also the figure that “Kurt Vonnegut and others always used”, yet it is important to note that Kurt Vonnegut is a satirical author perhaps best known for his work Slaughterhouse-Five (1969) which tells the story of aliens able to view the fourth dimension, and Vonnegut has since stated that he acquired much of his historical material for this satirical piece from Irving’s Destruction of Dresden. While Irving so detests the “inter-historian incest” of our age, it appears he himself may be citing works that draw too heavily on his own, especially pertinent as Irving himself gathered his death toll figure from a vague and unverified source.
In this same passage from his website Irving reveals a decidedly ambiguous “new secret document”, a coded report from the Dresden Chief of Police to SS Oberfuhrer Dr Dietrichs. Irving states that the report has been “decoded by the British”, although any specifics on this process remain concealed. The source supports the death toll Irving so eagerly promotes, referring to large numbers of missing persons reported to the newly established Central Bureau of Missing Persons at the time. However, one immediately notes once again the lack of specificity in Irving’s source, there is no footnote or credit mentioned at all and Irving remains vague regarding this “decoded ... secret document”. However, are footnotes or bibliographic details necessary on a web page, especially a passage contained within what is essentially a blog? Furthermore, Irving’s ability to maintain an ordered website is clearly little more than a yearning within the reader, and so would it even be plausible that he could establish some kind of system which allowed for the easy crediting of sources, such as the formatting of footnotes? As the internet is history’s most recent medium for publication there remains no defined standards by which historians operate, essentially a democracy of historical opinion free to be added to, although consumers of this media maintain the expectation that a credible, mainstream website will provide them with verified information. Irving however may lack such a readership, and thus is it even important that he maintains historical credibility on his website?
In my correspondence with Irving, he states that his website is at “a ranking position of No. 40,000 on the Internet”
although internet-ranking websites such as Hitwise and Alexa were unable to verify this information and there appears to be no freely available internet ranking system reaching such a number. Despite such an inaccuracy, Irving clearly believes his work is being read by many, and therefore he holds some influence. He makes reference to a readership with interests similar to his own, “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.” Whilst Irving may be delusional in terms of the serious or academic consumers he writes for, he is a well known public figure. Facebook groups such as “David Irving Doesn’t Exist” and “I’m a David Irving Denier” have surfaced and reached into the hundreds of fans, although it must be noted that an equal number of pages in support of Irving also exist on the social networking website. Youtube videos of Irving speaking at functions around the world regarding his opinion on the Holocaust and other historical issues exist and Irving is often blogging regarding his tour, the email I received from his was written from Key West, USA. Clearly Irving retains some influence, despite being within a fairly alternative stream of publication, thus I believe the authoritative tone he possesses must be spreading an accurate, verified and well-cited historical message.
Irving’s opinions are extreme, and as he has been shunned from mainstream publication he has found himself in the desolate refuge of online blogging, as he said in his correspondence with me, “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”. Clearly he is interested in correcting the mistakes he perceives in the history already in circulation regarding the Second World War, but his interest in maintaining a website reaches beyond that. As he says, “Note that we accept no paid advertising, so we are not affected by outside influences like that”, and whilst this may be true his website is not without advertising. The website itself is called Focal Point Publishing, his publishing house, and there are entire dossiers chronicling his publications and how the reader may purchase them. Clearly Irving possesses a pecuniary interest in propagating his beliefs regarding the Second World War, in maintaining this website and establishing a medium through which he can sell his work outside the mainstream. Perhaps he even creates more media interest in himself, by the means of historical scandal, as this will create more traffic to his website and in turn a greater interest in his work, as he says, “If I am the centre of media attention, then [my website] may go up to a ranking position of No. 40,000 on the Internet.”
The internet is a democracy of free speech, yet when some, such as David Irving, possess a public profile beyond the faceless blogger, I believe it is important that they convey accurate and verified information to their readership. Undoubtedly, Irving’s followers now consist of alternative and revisionist readers, and whilst subgenres of historical consumers have existed for decades, Irving now has the ability to set some of the historical untruths he spreads right, to realign a misguided readership towards mainstream and verified history. Whilst there is no regulator of publication online, unless one is aligned with a historical institution, it the responsibility of those who purport to be historians to maintain an effective historical method and rhetoric without bias no matter where their work is displayed, be it book, museum or blog. As a historian once told me, “Don’t believe everything they tell you”, especially if their name is David Irving.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
New leads
Emailed Dr Phil Cummins from the HTA Study Day regarding resources for my project.
Googled his name, found out he was one the principal of a school that wouldn't let their kids take same-sex partners to the formal, but I'll let that one slide.
Hopefully he emails back with some solid stuff.
Still plodding away at my draft.
Over and out.
Googled his name, found out he was one the principal of a school that wouldn't let their kids take same-sex partners to the formal, but I'll let that one slide.
Hopefully he emails back with some solid stuff.
Still plodding away at my draft.
Over and out.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Problems, problems, problems!
Okay, so after quite a bit of Irving searching these are my discoveries.
1. Irving mostly uses his website for publishing:
a) links to online newpaper articles and making one or two sentence snide comments about them.
b) old documents he has produced eg. one chapter of Destruction of Dresden or a letter to the editor he wrote in 1989
c) a series of articles by other revisionists that have originally been posted elsewhere
What is clearly lacking from this list is new historical material, which is really what I need for my essay. Such material is really only found in his Radical's Diary which ceased in 2007. This diary is a series of posts from his day-to-day life ie. "dropped Jessica at the school gates at 7:55" or "had trouble parking at the barbers". But in amongst all this daily minutiae is tidbits of historical information. I have found a few passages regarding Dresden. The issue here is there any expectation he would maintain historical credibility in what is most appropriately described as a journal of mindless and unconnected thoughts? I am going to say yes because, to be honest, I'm a little bored of reading about the hilarity of his Tahitian holiday with his daughters (he accidentally booked a flight to Haiti instead, "comedy" ensues).
This is one Dresden passage I found:
1. Irving mostly uses his website for publishing:
a) links to online newpaper articles and making one or two sentence snide comments about them.
b) old documents he has produced eg. one chapter of Destruction of Dresden or a letter to the editor he wrote in 1989
c) a series of articles by other revisionists that have originally been posted elsewhere
What is clearly lacking from this list is new historical material, which is really what I need for my essay. Such material is really only found in his Radical's Diary which ceased in 2007. This diary is a series of posts from his day-to-day life ie. "dropped Jessica at the school gates at 7:55" or "had trouble parking at the barbers". But in amongst all this daily minutiae is tidbits of historical information. I have found a few passages regarding Dresden. The issue here is there any expectation he would maintain historical credibility in what is most appropriately described as a journal of mindless and unconnected thoughts? I am going to say yes because, to be honest, I'm a little bored of reading about the hilarity of his Tahitian holiday with his daughters (he accidentally booked a flight to Haiti instead, "comedy" ensues).
This is one Dresden passage I found:
AS THE day draws on I come across a document which I only half-suspected I might ever find. In 1961, when I was writing my first book "The Destruction of Dresden", I was confidentially approached by a German schoolteacher, Hanns Voigt; he said that after the horrific British air raid, he was put in charge of Dresden's Missing Persons Bureau, Abteilung Tote - the Deceased Section. He built an immense card index, and he kept a diary; and he estimated for me that the final death toll in Dresden would have reached 135,000. This was the figure that I, and after me Kurt Vonnegut and others, always used.
Other city officials gave the same kind of estimates. (Later this year I shall post on my website a full dossier on the Dresden death toll.)
Voigt's estimate was a thorn in the side of both German Governments -- both east and west. They had always played down, even trivialised, the air raid casualty figures caused by the British saturation bombing (even as they hyped the numbers killed in the Jewish tragedy).
Only last year a German Government commission consisting of, not just conformist but kow-towing, line-toeing, bowing-and-scraping historians and Nickeseln, agreed that the death roll in the two hour man-made 1945 holocaust in Dresden was far lower, "only 25,000" (or, if possible, even less).
Without doing any in-depth research -- such scholars are far too important for that -- they relied on the police chief's early March 1945 report (which in fact I was the first to find), because it indicated lower figures than Hanns Voigt's for dead and missing.
In the Deborah Lipstadt Trial, her highly-paid chief expert Professor Richard "Skunky" Evans (left) vilified Voigt; he implied that Voigt was a liar, he questioned whether the Missing Persons bureau had ever existed, and he called him a Nazi with an agenda. (Voigt had, we now know, been given a good post-war position in the Soviet Zone before emigrating legally to the West, so the "Nazi" allegation seems unlikely.) Aping Evans, Mr Justice Gray accused me in his 333-page Judgment of falsifying history.
I was not invited to make any submissions to the Dresden Commission. No surprises there. This afternoon, my quiet patience is rewarded. I have come across this new secret document, signed by the police chief of Dresden, and decoded by the British some weeks after the war.
At 5:55 p.m. on March 24, 1945 -- the day in fact when I turned eight, I remember it vividly -- the Dresden Polizeipräsident reported in code to SS Oberführer Dr. Dietrichs:
Re: Missing Persons Situation in Dresden Air Raid Defence region.
The Lord Mayor of Dresden City has established (a) a Central Bureau for Missing Persons and nine Missing Persons registries; (b) eighty- to one-hundred thousand missing-person notifications are estimated to have been registered so far; (c) 9,720 missing-person notifications have been confirmed as fatalities; (d) to date, information on twenty thousand missing person cases has been given out; (e) accurate statistical data possibly only later.
So Voigt was telling the truth.
Even the "hundred thousand" figure for those reported missing must be an under-estimate. There were over half a million homeless refugees in the streets of Dresden, fleeing the Red Army siege of Breslau to the East. Whole refugee families must have been engulfed by the Dresden holocaust, with nobody surviving to report them as "missing".
Another thing seems brutally clear: those listed as "missing" -- in addition to those bodies formally identified and buried or incinerated by this date -- were never going to return. To use the words of the telegram I found yesterday (see above) they were dead, "carbonised," and unidentifiable.
What do these decoded messages tell us about our own lazy and conformist historians, and about "Skunky" Evans in particular? He, and they, would never have found them. It has taken me these many years. Go the extra mile. Eventually, as this morning's Welshman said, "You will be proved right in the end".
Monday, May 23, 2011
GAH!
I'm feeling like I'm in a bit of a rutt.
So, I've gotten to a point in my essay, and I just don't know where to go.
I've written the stuff on internet theory and Irving's background, but I'm struggling to pinpoint specific issues to analyse.
I might try and sit down with Mr Wright tomorrow and have a chat.
There was no point to this post, just a bit of a whinge and a potential solution.
Over and out.
So, I've gotten to a point in my essay, and I just don't know where to go.
I've written the stuff on internet theory and Irving's background, but I'm struggling to pinpoint specific issues to analyse.
I might try and sit down with Mr Wright tomorrow and have a chat.
There was no point to this post, just a bit of a whinge and a potential solution.
Over and out.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Struggling!
So I am in the midst of writing my essay, and I've run into a problem. I am up to the point in my essay plan where I analyse three specific blog posts so as to display Irving's selection criteria, material, rhetoric and causation but the question arises, which posts to choose?
My initial thought was to analyse some of his posts about the Lipstadt trial for these reasons:
1. Evans makes mention of them
2. They are full of rhetoric eg. "traditional enemies"
3. I know a bit about the trial
But ....
Is this even history? Given my question is "Evaluate David Irving's use of the internet for historical publication" should I be focusing on an actual historical issue eg. Hitler's knowledge of the 'Final Solution' or Aushwitz instead of his posts about a legal battle?
Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks everyone :)
My initial thought was to analyse some of his posts about the Lipstadt trial for these reasons:
1. Evans makes mention of them
2. They are full of rhetoric eg. "traditional enemies"
3. I know a bit about the trial
But ....
Is this even history? Given my question is "Evaluate David Irving's use of the internet for historical publication" should I be focusing on an actual historical issue eg. Hitler's knowledge of the 'Final Solution' or Aushwitz instead of his posts about a legal battle?
Any guidance would be appreciated. Thanks everyone :)
Monday, May 16, 2011
The essay keeps on coming
History Extension Report
Evaluate David Irving’s use of the internet for historical publication.
As Dr. Carl Smith writes, “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? .... Is it possible, in short, to do “serious” history on the web?", this question challenges the very nature of historical publication online. Prominent historical publications such as Trenches on the Web have gained reputation due to their acceptance by the wider historical community, yet lesser known historians, or historians who do not work in a professional context struggle to gain recognition. One such historian is rogue revisionist David Irving, who was shunned from the credible stream of historical publication after his failed libel case against Deborah Lipstadt and connections to the Holocaust denial movement.
The reliability and benefit of digital history is only a modern historical debate, but one which divides the discipline. Some, such as Smith, see it’s merit in presenting historical material on a larger scale than that which is possible in a museum or book. Such a medium saw successful online exhibitions such as the British Museum’s Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian’s Infinity of Nations. These works are both backed by credible institutions, and are interested in a branch of history deemed acceptable by both the historical community and society. Yet the unmonitored nature of the internet leaves room for criticism, as Daniel Cohen and Roy Rozenwig stressed, “With Google now indexing more than eight billion pages, a full qualitative assessment of historical information and writing on the Web is well beyond the ability [of] any person or even team of people.” Yet even Cohen and Rozenwig note the benefits, “A much deeper and denser historical record, especially one in digital form, seems like an incredible opportunity and gift.” The question must be asked however, while established and distinguished institutions such as the British Museum and the Smithsonian may be aiming to add to a corpus of reliable historical information, can Irving be considered to be pursuing a similar path?
David Irving is a British author whose works are primarily concerned with the German perspective of the World War II conflict, especially the involvement of the Third Reich. He began his collection of over thirty works with The Destruction of Dresden (1963) which garnered both critical and historical acclaim, despite it’s anti-Allie standpoint. Yet as his works ventured further from mainstream opinion regarding the events of World War II and entered the territory of Holocaust Denial, as in his 1977 book Hitler’s War wherein he attempted to explain Hitler’s ignorance of the ‘Final Solution’, much of the historical community began to view his work with a sense of skepticism. Jerome De Groot says of Irving, “[He] is in some ways the epitome of the public historian - not part of the academy ... a maverick, looking to a wider public audience rather than the circumscribed elite”. However most historians and historical commentators express a far less romantic view of Irving, Anthony Lewis calling him “a racist faker.” Much of Irving’s widespread opposition is a product of the libel case he brought against Deborah Lipstadt, a prominent academic of Jewish studies, after she referred to him as a “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial. Familiar with historical evidence, he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda”, in her book Denying The Holocaust. The trial that proceeded discredited both Irving and his historical method, leaving him little standing in the historical school. This forced him to create his own publishing house, Focal Point Publishing, and he kept an online blog which chronicled not only his interpretation of the legal battle, which spanned a four year period, but also continues presently as a avenue for his assessment of current world events.
Richard Evans, expert witness in the Lipstadt-Irving trial wrote of Irving’s website, “Throughout the trial, Irving posted more or less daily reports on the case on his website. These seldom bore close relationship to what had gone on in court.” Irving currently maintains on his website for Focal Point Publishing, his newsletter Action Report Online, information about his book tours, archives of his blog posts and an online bookstore among a host of other internet facilities.
^^^ This paragraph will keep on going.
Also my essay has footnotes, but they won't show up?
Planning to have finished a draft by Thursday's lesson.
How does this all look? I think this is where I will start getting into some in depth analysis into Irving's method, rhetoric, selection criteria etc, going to work on it tomorrow during my study periods.
Self-assessment
Feeling quite happy at the moment, feels like its coming along quite well. My sources are coming together, but I feel like maybe I keep repeating the same source, maybe need to expand my horizons in that department. I am thinking of my analysis mostly looking at his chronicling of the trial, as this is an area with which I am very familiar, whereas my knowledge regarding say the bombing of Dresden is a little rougher.
Thanks guys :)
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Bit more of my draft done, slowly but surely.
History Extension Report
Evaluate David Irving’s use of the internet for historical publication.
As Dr. Carl Smith writes, “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? .... Is it possible, in short, to do “serious” history on the web?”, this question challenges the very nature of historical publication online. Prominent historical publications such as Trenches on the Web have gained reputation due to their acceptance by the wider historical community, yet lesser known historians, or historians who do not work in a professional context struggle to gain recognition. One such historian is rogue revisionist David Irving, who was shunned from the credible stream of historical publication after his failed libel case against Deborah Lipstadt and connections to the Holocaust denial movement.
The reliability and benefit of digital history is only a modern historical debate, but one which divides the discipline. Some, such as Smith, see it’s merit in presenting historical material on a larger scale than that which is possible in a museum or book. Such a medium saw successful online exhibitions such as the British Museum’s Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian’s Infinity of Nations . These works are both backed by credible institutions, and are interested in a branch of history deemed acceptable by both the historical community and society. Yet the unmonitored nature of the internet leaves room for criticism, as Daniel Cohen and Roy Rozenwig stressed, “With Google now indexing more than eight billion pages, a full qualitative assessment of historical information and writing on the Web is well beyond the ability [of] any person or even team of people.” Yet even Cohen and Rozenwig note the benefits, “A much deeper and denser historical record, especially one in digital form, seems like an incredible opportunity and gift.” The question must be asked however, while established and distinguished institutions such as the British Museum and the Smithsonian may be aiming to add to a corpus of reliable historical information, can Irving be considered to be pursuing a similar path?
Other bits to include:
Jerome De Groot says of Irving, “[He] is in some ways the epitome of the public historian - not part of the academy ... a maverick, looking to a wider public audience rather than the circumscribed elite”
Richard Evans - "Throughout the trial, Irving posted more or less daily reports on the case on his website. These seldom bore close relationship to what had gone on in court." (pg 225)
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Drafting, drafting, drafting on a river :)
Today I am making a commitment and that commitment is to blog at least once a week.
Today I started my draft.
This is my introduction:
As Dr. Carl Smith writes, “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? .... Is it possible, in short, to do “serious” history on the web?”, this question challenges the very nature of historical publication online. Prominent historical publications such as Trenches on the Web and Spartacus Educational have gained reputation due to their acceptance by the wider historical community, yet lesser known historians, or historians who do not work in a professional context struggle to gain recognition. One such historian is ‘rogue revisionist’ David Irving, who was shunned from the credible stream of historical publication after his failed libel case against Deborah Lipstadt and connections to the Holocaust denial movement.
It is 147 words that is 5.88% of my final product ... EXCITING!
I also talked to Mr Wright, he said the following things:
- I need a synopsis ... who knew! About 300 words which can act as an introduction of sorts
- That I need to follow this method: Irving's purpose, method, purpose, method
Am going to keep writing my draft now :)
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Scrap that! New plan.
I tried to sit down to work on a draft today, I did not go well. I think I need to first organise my information. So whilst I have said that by April 22nd (yesterday) I will have a draft, that deadline has changed. Instead, by April 24th (tomorrow) I will have a detailed essay outline. History Extension is hard.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Essay Outline
Although I am admittedly a day late, here is my essay outline:
1. Theory on historical publication on the internet
A brief overview of the theory of historical publication online. This will be drawn specifically from my reading of articles by Roy Rozenwig and Jerome De Groot. Ideas explored will include the validity and reliability of online publication and the 'public' historian (a character with which Irving is clearly aligned).
2. Who is David Irving?
A very brief look at who Irving is and what historical issues he deals with. Here I will briefly look at the trial (using my knowledge from reading Evans and Lipstadt). I also hope to deal with the idea of revisionism, a school to which Irving subscribes, and also cite Derrida's postmodernist theories.
3. David Irving's online publication
Here I will look predominately at his selection criteria, use of rhetoric and citing of evidence online. The easiest way to do this is to choose three passages (yet to be finalised) and analyse them for selection, rhetoric and evidence. I will also refer to my personal correspondence with him and the outcome of the Lipstadt-Irving trial, which support my claims. I will prove that Irving is misusing history, to show that he is not publishing historically valid ideas but merely alternative opinion.
4. Causation for his online publication
I will deal with why Irving needs to publish online, referring to two main ideas. Firstly, as my discussion of internet/history theory will display, the internet provides a place for alternative and often flawed historians to publish, claims can go unsubstantiated and there is no defined community which can call you up on it. Irving clearly relies on the lack of fact-checking to publish his message. Secondly, as Evans notes, Irving has been all but shunned from the mainstream historical community, and so he publishes on a platform which can remained unchecked and allows for the proposing of alternative historical ideas. Also, does Irving use his online following to propogate his own pecuniary interests, that his the promoting of his publishing business, Focal Point Publishing?
How does this look? Does it look like I am forming an argument?
I am still working on a thesis, will be online tonight.
1. Theory on historical publication on the internet
A brief overview of the theory of historical publication online. This will be drawn specifically from my reading of articles by Roy Rozenwig and Jerome De Groot. Ideas explored will include the validity and reliability of online publication and the 'public' historian (a character with which Irving is clearly aligned).
2. Who is David Irving?
A very brief look at who Irving is and what historical issues he deals with. Here I will briefly look at the trial (using my knowledge from reading Evans and Lipstadt). I also hope to deal with the idea of revisionism, a school to which Irving subscribes, and also cite Derrida's postmodernist theories.
3. David Irving's online publication
Here I will look predominately at his selection criteria, use of rhetoric and citing of evidence online. The easiest way to do this is to choose three passages (yet to be finalised) and analyse them for selection, rhetoric and evidence. I will also refer to my personal correspondence with him and the outcome of the Lipstadt-Irving trial, which support my claims. I will prove that Irving is misusing history, to show that he is not publishing historically valid ideas but merely alternative opinion.
4. Causation for his online publication
I will deal with why Irving needs to publish online, referring to two main ideas. Firstly, as my discussion of internet/history theory will display, the internet provides a place for alternative and often flawed historians to publish, claims can go unsubstantiated and there is no defined community which can call you up on it. Irving clearly relies on the lack of fact-checking to publish his message. Secondly, as Evans notes, Irving has been all but shunned from the mainstream historical community, and so he publishes on a platform which can remained unchecked and allows for the proposing of alternative historical ideas. Also, does Irving use his online following to propogate his own pecuniary interests, that his the promoting of his publishing business, Focal Point Publishing?
How does this look? Does it look like I am forming an argument?
I am still working on a thesis, will be online tonight.
Friday, April 8, 2011
I'm back!
Now that the stress of half-yearlies have subsided, I'm back in the blogosphere. Whilst very little has progressed due to other school work, I have set some holiday goals.
1. By April 15th I will created an essay plan, thesis and compiled all my research fully.
2. By April 22nd I will have a draft essay done.
Very exciting! By the end of the holidays I will have a draft essay for Mr Wright and you crazy kids to have a look at (hopefully).
1. By April 15th I will created an essay plan, thesis and compiled all my research fully.
2. By April 22nd I will have a draft essay done.
Very exciting! By the end of the holidays I will have a draft essay for Mr Wright and you crazy kids to have a look at (hopefully).
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
History Extension Proposal - Assessment Copy
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 Wikipedia1. I then read the books Lying About Hitler2 by Richard J Evans and History On Trial 3 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? 4 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 5 and the Institute for Historical Review. 6
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. 7 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 rhetorical 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 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 8 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 9, 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 I have developed.
2 J Evans, Lying About Hitler – History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial, Basic Books, New York, 2002
3 D Lipstadt, History On Trial – My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, HarperCollins, New York, 2005
7 A Cuthoys, J Docker, Is History Fiction?, UNSW Press, Sydney, 2006, pg 212
8 R Rosenwig, Clio Wired, The Future of the Past in the Digital Age, Columbia University Press, USA, 2011
9 J De Groot, Consuming History: Historians and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture, Routledge, New York, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)