data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5360e/5360ea81fa9b17ffd499a6c72afa17cade622190" alt="Altmark with Dr Fünfack" SO
MANY innocents were killed in the 1945 British air raid
on Dresden that the German authorities had to cremate the
bodies on mass funeral pyres on the Altmarkt. Mr Irving
was the first to publish these photographs in the west.
When he produced one of them, enlarged to poster size,
during the Lipstadt trial in the British High Court in
2000, Defence Counsel Richard Rampton QC sneered,
"So what!" --- MR RAMPTON: Can we forget Dresden
for the moment, Mr Irving?
- MR. IRVING: I can never forget
Dresden.
[Transcript,
DJC Irving vs Penguin Books Ltd & Lipstadt,
Day
7, January 20, 2000,
page 170; copyright photo, taken on Feb 25, 1945, from
Apocalypse 1945: the Destruction of
Dresden]
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e349b/e349bc8bdb2c81d97c2b052eab41f02dab0946e6" alt="The Independent" London, Monday, April 16, 2007
Robert Hanks: First rule
of history - verify your references Truth matters;
and if we think it doesn't, the door is ajar for anybody
with an agenda and no scruples. MANY of the reports last week of Kurt Vonnegut's
death mentioned his most famous novel, Slaughterhouse
5, and the events that inspired it. In
February 1945, the city of Dresden was devastated by several
nights of air raids by British and American forces; tens
of thousands were killed in the firestorm that the bombing
spawned. Vonnegut was one of many Allied prisoners of war
put to work clearing the dead; Slaughterhouse 5, with
its science-fiction plot-devices and air of childlike
simplicity, was his response to scenes of horror that
challenged rational description or moral sophistication. Putting
a precise number on the dead is impossible in such
circumstances. The figure given in Slaughterhouse 5,
several times, is 135,000 -- as the book says, much worse
than Hiroshima. On Thursday morning, the day Vonnegut's
death was reported, The Today Programme on Radio 4
replayed an interview with Vonnegut recorded in 2005 to mark
the 60th anniversary of the raids: "The best guess I ever
got about how many people were killed," he told James
Naughtie, "is about 135,000. I don't know, you may have
done research since ... That is between two and three per
cent of the number of Jews who were killed in the
Holocaust."
The same number was repeated shortly afterwards, in the
news bulletin; it was also cited on the BBC website that
morning, and in newspapers around the world -- the obituary
in the Independent. But the number is wrong: the true
total of those killed at Dresden was almost certainly no
more than 35,000. In an important sense, this doesn't matter: the arguments
that have raged for 60 years over the morality of bombing
Dresden -- a beautiful medieval city, and a target of
minimal strategic significance -- aren't much affected by
the information that "only" 35,000 died. But
consider where Vonnegut got his numbers from: a 1963 book
entitled The Bombing of Dresden, by a young British author
called David Irving
[Website comment: The book was
called The
Destruction of
Dresden. Verify your
references, Mr Hanks.] Photo
above (click to enlarge) In 1961, while writing his book on the Dresden raid, Mr Irving interview Sir Arthur Harris, who commanded RAF Bomber Command 1942-5 For many years, it was widely held that
while Irving might be unreliable on
Nazi genocide, his earlier work on Dresden was sound.
But when Irving
sued Penguin Books and the
historian Deborah
Lipstadt over claims that he had falsified records,
the defendants retained the Cambridge historian Richard
Evans to scrutinise Irving's published work and its
sources. In his instructive, entertaining and chilling book called
Telling Lies about Hitler (2002) Professor Evans
demolishes Irving's claims to historical authority, devoting
a whole chapter to Dresden. Here he shows how Irving
preferred an unsubstantiated
estimate of 135,000 dead to lower but far better founded
estimates.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3266d/3266d8c25ccbbeadeb3568dfc0901fc7d5adc6be" alt="click for origin" David Irving
comments: NEWSPAPERS can under the new rules claim
qualified privilege in libel actions only on
two premises -- that what they have published is in
the public interest, and that they made due and
proper attempts to contact those they propose to
smear. Newspapers appear to confuse "the
public interest" (e.g., evidence of supporting
terrorism) with something in which the public is
interested, which is a common linguistic error. Reynolds v. Times Newspapers
Ltd and Others, 1999 UKHL 45, the original
benchmark on qualified privilege, required that a
newspaper shall have made proper efforts to contact
the person being defamed. What is totally absent
from Hanks' article is what the House of Lords in
Jameel called the product of responsible
journalism. Journalist Robert Hanks
made no attempt whatever to contact me or balance
his article. Had he even just used Google, he
would instantly have found the items I published on
this website over the last few days, which show
that the allegation that I "preferred an
unsubstantiated estimate of 135,000" is an
egregious smear. MY ethics as a writer appear different from his.
When I first learned that documents existed
suggesting lower figures for Dresden, three years
after my book first appeared, I published
a letter in The Times (London) on July
7, 1966, and at my own expense had the letter
reprinted by the newspaper as a leaflet to issue to
interested parties -- I have also posted it on this
website. I wonder how many times Richard
Evans has done something like that? data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eb1f4/eb1f41f16b717c9d0a1d59682c8b454d98d2dedb" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c66d1/c66d1d9def1a4713055782fb1ac65bae75a3a652" alt="click for enlargement" APOCALYPSE
1945: THE DESTRUCTION OF DRESDEN. A new edition
(above) is in print in April 2007 (£27.90),
fully
illustrated in colour for the first
time,
and fully corrected and updated. The text is also
available as a free download at http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Dresden | One official involved in the collection and disposal of
corpses wrote to Irving arguing, among other things, that
mass cremation on the scale Irving assumed would have been
impossible in the time given, especially considering wartime
shortages of manpower, equipment and fuel. Irving ignored
that point; but later he used similar reasoning to play down
the scale of mass cremation in the Nazi death-camps, where
all the equipment and manpower was in place.
WHAT gives pause here is seeing how easily a "fact" becomes
detached from its source, and can persist even when the
source is discredited. The phenomenon is not uncommon.
Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of
Hizbollah, has been widely quoted as saying "if they
[the Jews] all gather in Israel it will save us the
trouble of going after them worldwide" and "they
[Jews] are a cancer which is liable to spread at any
moment" -- indeed, I think I have cited the first comment
myself, in a discussion with a friend.
In the letters column of the London Review of
Books for 4 January this year, the journalist Charles
Glass provided grounds for thinking that he may never
have said any such thing; whether his grounds were
conclusive enough to justify his remarks about
"disinformation" is another matter. On Any Questions? on Radio 4 on 6 April, Tony
Benn, responding to a question about Iran, said: "In
1980 to '88 there was a war between Iran and Iraq and we
armed Saddam Hussein in attacking Iran. They never mention
that." Well, I've heard that mentioned plenty of times; but it
isn't true. According to the Stockholm International Peace
Research Institute, between 1973 and 2002 Saddam obtained 57
per cent of his imported weapons from the Soviet Union, 13
per cent from France, and 12 per cent from China. The US
sold him about 0.5 per cent of his armaments, and Britain
managed a pathetic one-fifth of one per cent. As with Dresden, changing our minds about the facts
doesn't necessarily change our sense of the morality. Nobody
much doubts that Nasrallah doesn't look kindly on Jews; and
it's not as if Britain can take the moral high ground over
not selling arms to Saddam -- we just weren't very good at
it. But it matters because truth matters; and if we start to
think that it doesn't, we leave the door ajar for
the Irvings, the Holocaust deniers,
anybody with an agenda and no scruples. The theologian Dr Martin Routh, president of
Magdalen College, Oxford, in the 19th century, was asked in
his nineties whether in his long career as a scholar he had
formulated any particularly useful axiom. He came up with a
piece of advice I'm coming to think is one of the most
profound pieces of wisdom I have heard: "Always to verify
your references." The story is in the Oxford Book of
Literary Anecdotes -- paperback edition, 1987, pp 125-6.
Just in case you wanted to check.data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fecf8/fecf8fe36c2a101e056fb98a337e2100e0564315" alt="" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/28cbd/28cbd636a68e29aa21ed063785eeb944b5996935" alt="Related item on this website:"
Our
index on the Dresden raids
More
on Prof Richard "Skunky" Evans and Hanns
Voigt
David
Irving writes a letter to The Times, July
1966,
on new documents on the Dresden death roll
David
Irving, a Radical's Diary: Writer
in The Times attacks him and sets the record
straight
|
The
death of writer Kurt Vonnegutdata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c86aa/c86aa70cbe8197eae939510ab49be467ea85edf2" alt="skunky Evans"
How
much was Professor Richard "Skunky" Evans (right) paid
for his neutral opinion on Mr Irving?
Forward
Forum: Deborah Lipstadt: 60 Years Later, Dresden Bombing
Claims Another Victim: Memory
|