David Irving |
Documents on the International Campaign for Real History
First posted Tuesday, August 7, 2012
© Focal Point 2012
Quick navigation
BOTH historians earned the undying hatred of the Jewish community for raining on its well-oiled victory parade -- the kind of parade in which gloats predominate, rather than floats.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
London, EnglandJOSEPH De R. has written:
Re-your latest Radical's Diary on the opening ceremonies of the Olympics: right on! I pointed out the ad nauseam Black close-ups to my wife. So obvious! Is Britannia really going down the drain?? pathetic.I thank him for those kind words of support. "The world seems to agree. See the San Francisco Chronicle comments today!"
Sunday, July 29, 2012
London, EnglandK. and the Doc come to pick us up for lunch in K's Bentley; we drive out to the Palmer Arms in Dorney, then coffee afterwards at Eton.
One of my Himmler editors comments:
I've belatedly re-read chapters 23 and 24 looking for material to cut. Himmler never completely disappears from view but there are long paragraphs relating events in which he seems to have no direct role, as on pages 324, 325, 331 and 333 and 335 - 338. . . But it is all so fascinating that I would be reluctant to lose too much of it. I have read other accounts of June 30 and your work is as usual full of revelations.I reply: "Yes, that is a concern of mine always, we must never drift too far from our main subject, and I shall make cuts accordingly when the book is finished."
Bed at ten pm as Hugo and Jessica have started watching The Promise, a bloodthirsty docudrama about Israel and Palestine. Jessica sketches two still-lifes, an apple and a pepper, very well. It's in our Irving blood.
Monday, July 30, 2012
London, EnglandWRITER Richard C. comes at nine-thirty and stays two hours. Most enjoyable. A tall, urbane Englishman born in Birmingham, he has lived for twelve years in 83rd Street, New York. His father a North London Jew, a boxer; his mother a Catholic. We find we have a lot of mutual friends. When I mention Robin Denniston who signed up Hitler's War for Hodder & Stoughton in the 1970s, despite everything, he says to my great sorrow that Robin died four months ago. He adds that historian Sir John Keegan has had a stroke and is in a bad way.
For his forthcoming book History of Historians he has visited Richard J Evans in Cambridge, who stoutly defends his (in C.'s view "indefensible") position that David Irving is not an historian. . .
I tell him I have used a different soubriquet for Evans, "skunk," for the past ten years on my website, which seems very fair, as he pissed on all the greatest contemporary historians at the Lipstadt trial. And as for Cato, Thucydides, Gibbon, Churchill -- I point out, none of them was an ademic historian, had a degree, or studied history.
On the Himmler MS, which he has read, he thinks that the suicide/death chapters should all come at the end of the book, and I should start it with the great fencing match which launched Himmler into the Apollo fraternity. I politely disagree. He himself is a fencer, nearly made an Olympic team, and is wearing an Olympic tie as he is doing a commentary this afternoon.
I told him the Weidenfeld/Genoud story (how they signed up Hitler's Table Talk). He knew that my first lawyer was Michael Rubinstein, and grimaced when I mentioned Felicity R.'s name. He also knew that I had done the Rommel tour for Weidenfeld with Alexandra "Gully" Wells. As Director of Publishing at Hutchinson's he had cleansed their backlist of all but four books, including Mein Kampf, but inserted the word evil, later changed to vile, on the dustjackets.
Reverting to the interview for his own book, he asked me what I consider were my greatest achievements: I mention the Dresden decode, March 24, 1945; and the Cadogan diary entry for Dec 7, 1941. He says that Piers Brendon of the
Churchill archives disagrees with me about the importance of "winds." (I explained why it was not a routine weather-reference.) I said that thanks to Martin Gilbert's selfish hogging of the Winston Churchill papers in the 1970s and 1980s I had had no choice but to go beyond that "trough," e.g., to the Paul Reynaud and Edouard Daladier files in Paris, and the Mary Borden diary in the University of Boston Mass., and Mackenzie-King's papers and those of Robert Menzies.
He describes a warehouse between Moscow city and the airport which was under the custody of a Mr Dove, a truckdriver, who had unofficial access; that it contains inter alia the captured Rothschild papers, RSHA and SS files, Blum's and other French government papers captured by the Nazis, and more; that Norman Stone had twice been called in to review the contents, and The Sunday Times had signed a deal to exploit them, to the anger of Mr Dove who had then broken the deal.
C. asks me what I know about Christine Stoner, a "fabulist" who was Joachim von Ribbentrop's mistress and claimed to have employed Martin Bormann as a butler for three months after the war. I tell him what I know of MB's death and what Hugh Trevor-Roper told me about his purported post-war contacts with MB.
Ron G. of Iowa informs me:
On your Radical's Diary site, at least for July 11 to 13, in your paragraphs, there are some underlined words, and when I "mouse over" the word, it links to "balloons" of odd stuff, that are "powered by Text-Enhanced". I don't remember right now if that was in previous editions or not. Is this what you want? or does some oddity put it in for you? Usually your links are hidden, not underlined, and in blue highlight when discovered.I reply: "That is wierd, Ron. I have checked the HTML and there are no hyperlinks in those three days at all. . . It is malware. See this link: http://wafflesatnoon.com/2011/10/05/seeing-unwanted-text-enhance-ads."
I WRITE to M J H., whose garage has spent three years renovating the vintage car I bought from the widow of a supporter: "I would like to come and see the car Wednesday, probably late morning, Michael." He says that's fine.
Lynda M emails me:
A man called me last night around midnight, saying he was a friend of yours. I was in no mood to talk to him as he had woken me out of a deep sleep. This morning he called again and wanted to make contact. I asked why and he said "just to talk". He said you had given him my number.It sounds quite suspicious and I told him I was not interested but maybe you can shed some light on who this person is if you even know. He says his name is Robert Linz.
I check our database and inform her I know no such name.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
London, EnglandI AM still trying to solve the mystery of ten or twenty boxes of autographed books that went missing last November. Rather unhelpfully Jae is not answering emails. "They are valuable," I chide her. "I do NOT want to bother your parents with this question. James says he does not have the boxes in the cottage. You told your shyster lawyer that they were in the storage units. When we finally got the keys we searched them." The autographed books were not in them. I tell her this problem is not going to go away.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
London, EnglandI DRIVE Jessica to her vacation job in a chemist's shop job in Shepherd's Bush. She twiddles with the radio knobs and I lose Classic FM.
A writer, Jonas A., is researching historians and the Lipstadt Trial:
I just had a series of email conversations with Lipstadt (left) , and I thought you might want to see her genius:
Hello Prof. Lipstadt,I am currently reading some of your work. What is your take on David Irving's Hitler's War precisely? Forget about Irving the "anti-Semite." He has been praised by a number of historians for digging into the archives and looking into primary sources. I realized that much of what has been written about the Third Reich has been based on secondary sources. You also wrote on History on Trial that John Lukacs and Charles Sydnor challenged Irving on his use of sources and found them inaccurate. They found his sources as "pretentious twaddle." Can you tell me where he misused his sources? History on Trial did not go that far.
I am currently writing a piece on this subject myself and would be honored to send you some preliminary chapters. Thank you so much.
Lipstadt: I suggest you look at the experts' reports on www.hdot.org especially Richard Evans' report. It is all dealt with there point by point. Evans finds Irving's work to be a "tissue of lies." So did the judge.
Jonas: Thanks for the quick response. I found Evans' statement to be somewhat inconsistent. At one point, he declared that Irving "knows an enormous amount about Hitler and his entourage and his immediate circle in the second world war and their conduct of military affairs, and over the years he's dug up through contacts and through sheer energy and diligence enormous amounts of new documentation of varying interest and importance, but some of it is undeniably important."
Yet after the trial, he wrote that Irving's writing as "completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about . . . if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian." I certainly do not know which statement I should take seriously, since the latter was posed after the trial. I have written to Evans about this and I'm hoping to get a response.
Honestly, historical scholarship should not be solely contingent upon the experts' opinions but on historical evidence and consistency. We know that Galileo got into trouble largely for similar issues. I would definitely agree that Irving is on the far-right, but his books surely cannot be dismissed on that issue alone. They have to stand on their own. Moreover, what about other historians who have found his works to be historical? Can we all dismiss them as well? Since History on Trial was purportedly written on the basis of evidence, I definitely believe that you should have given some specifics as to where the other authors disagree with Irving. That would have placed the book on a much rational ground.
Lipstadt: Forgive me but I don't have the time to enter into a long discourse on this. Simply put, Evans came to his conclusions before the trial. [His expert report was given to the court well before the trial.] Secondly, just because someone knows a tremendous amount about some topic does not mean that the person tells the truth. Every conclusion about Irving's work is based on evidence. Do the work, read the report, and you will see. Good luck to you on this.
Jonas: Thank you again for taking time to write. I honestly am doing the work by reading your books as well as others, including Evans'. If Evans came to his conclusion before the trial, then what does his previous statement mean, where he unequivocally declared that Irving has done his homework? How do I reconcile that statement with the one he made during or after the trial? Once again these issues seem to vindicate what Irving has been saying for decades: that "conformist" historians like to cite each other for opinions which have never been verified by the historical data.
I certainly do not want to find myself in this circle, since we all know that we all have our biases and opinions. This is why historians would serve the interest of historical scholarship by digging into the archives and reliable documents, not quoting each other for statements which are disputable. I am also willing to accept that Irving can be wrong, but he has to be proved wrong by the method he seems to know best: the archives, documentary evidence, etc.
I thank him for having shared this exchange with me. "Very interesting -- and amusing. The key lies of course in the money that was paid to Evans."
He asks, "How much do you think they paid him? I probably will put this in the book."
I reply: "Eventually, with the appeal and other matters he took home half a million dollars. He told the press he was building a new wing of his house with the proceeds. For an interim account of how much the "neutral" expert witnesses were paid by the defence, namely the file handed to me at the stroke of midnight before the Judgment was read, go to this table."
I add: "They received more in subsequent months for the trial and appeal. The Judge was shocked when I told him these amounts; he declared they were 'obscene' and indicated that he would not award these costs in their entirety. In the event, Lipstadt's costs were not awarded to her at all, as her financial backers Steven Spielberg et al. were not party to the action and thus had no claim in law."
[Tuesday, August 7, 2012 I add: I forgot to mention that even while the Trial was on, "Skunky" Evans agreed a contract with one of the defendants, Lipstadt's publisher Penguin Books, to write a three volume history of the Third Reich, for which the press reported he was paid a million pound advance. I guess some people might think he lost his neutrality at that moment. If you can persuade him to resume corresponding, you might ask him about the amount he was paid, and did it not appear to compromise his objectivity? (Under the Rules of the Supreme Court in the UK, expert witnesses, regardless of which side has hired them, are required in law to be "neutral between the parties.")]
10:09 a.m I reply: "In Hitler's War I reference a ledger kept by Walther Hewel (above with Hitler) Ribbentrop's liaison officer to Hitler, of all intercepts placed before Hitler (Vorlagen beim Führer) 1940 to 1942, and if you can get my 1967 book Breach of Security you will see I have appended a translation of key Forschungsamt items in that list, i.e. those with a register number like N.12345. The ledger is in the Politisches Archiv des Ausw. Amtes and you can find a file number for it in the George Kent finding aid to the Politisches Archiv files.
I did have it microfilmed in the 1960s, but those films are currently away in storage. If you can't retrieve it, let me know and I will have a think."
Thursday, August 2, 2012
London, EnglandJONAS A. sends me an email conversation he is currently having with Professor Richard "Skunky" Evans.
Jonas to Evans: I am currently reading some of your work. What is your take on David Irving's Hitler's War precisely? He has been praised by a number of historians for digging into the archives and looking into primary sources. I realized that much of what has been written about the Third Reich has been based on secondary sources. I also discovered that you seem to present two contradictory views on Irving. At one point, you declared that Irving "knows an enormous amount about Hitler and his entourage and his immediate circle in the second world war and their conduct of military affairs, and over the years he's dug up through contacts and through sheer energy and diligence enormous amounts of new documentation of varying interest and importance, but some of it is undeniably important." Yet after the trial, you wrote that Irving's writing as "completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian." Can you clarify those statements? I am currently writing a piece on this subject myself and would be honored to send you some preliminary chapters. Thank you so much.
Evans: Thanks - there is really no contradiction. He did dig up a lot of valuable material but what he did with it was worthless.
Jonas: Thanks for the response. If he actually "did dig up a lot of valuable material," then everything he ever wrote could not possibly be "worthless." That would be an obvious contradiction, and I'm sure you would agree with me here. Some of his stuff could be demonstrably false-and I think he should be willing to conceive that point. However, one should be able to disprove his claims by what he seems or claims to know best: the archives, documented accounts, etc. I have carefully read Lying About Hitler and you seem to rely heavily on what other historians have said about Irving, which again is an appeal to authority. Moreover, if that is not ad hominem, it is close enough. Should serious historians be willing to take this route?
I really enjoy reading your work In Defense of History, in which you argue quite rightly that there was a community of historians in the 1920s in Germany who agreed on similar issues but we today would consider those issues to be quite wrong. If that is the case, it is not historically sound to summon the opinions of the experts in order to dismiss Irving. Is it possible to challenge Irving on his own ground? He has been saying for decades that he is more than willing to change his mind if someone would prove him wrong from the archives. If not, he will then continue to marshal his claims that "conformist historians" have no interest in real history, most particularly when it comes to making extraordinary claims with regard to Nazi Germany and providing little archival evidence for those claims. He certainly would be right in line with rational and historical thought if he backs his claims with documents straight from the archives as opposed to relying on the opinions of like-minded historians. Would you not agree?
Evans: Sorry, you do not seem to have grasped my point. He has discovered some valuable documents, but in presenting him in his work he has frequently manipulated them by adding words, leaving words out, changing the order, and so on. My book does not rely on what other historians have said. The first chapter analyses their views in order to establish his reputation. All the rest is based on a thorough analysis of his own work compared to the sources on which it claims to rest. You need to read my book and the notes more carefully. Irving has never changed his mind in the light of criticism. Read the trial transcripts and the High Court judgement for many many examples of his refusal to do so when presented with incontrovertible evidence. The archival evidence presented by serious historians of the Holocaust is massive, many thousands of times more than anything Irving has put forward. His charge that historians are 'conformist' is fantasy, especially since he also says he never reads other historians! We are perfectly capable of making up our own minds
Jonas asks me: "Would you like to say something to his last message before I send him a response?"
I reply: "You are making some good points. You might put to him some of the quotations at link. and ask if they are ALL wrong and he is the only one in step? He pissed on ALL of the authorities, which is why he earned the nickname Skunky. Another historian, Richard C., who spoke with him told me a few days ago that Evans's colleagues call Evans (above, in his new dignity as Regius Professor of History at Cambridge) "the ++++".
[Click for the brief continuation of the Jonas/Evans dialogue. Evans declares: "This correspondence is now closed."]
Friday, August 3, 2012
London, EnglandEmails, finished by nine am.
Sir John Keegan (right) has died. Today's Telegraph has the obituary.
No mention of the Lipstadt trial, as Dean A. points out. But Keegan was better than most historians. No conformist, he. He wrote in his review of another book in The Times Literary Supplement, April 24, 1980: "Two books in English stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War. Chester Wilmot's The Struggle for Europe, published in 1952, and David Irving's Hitler's War, which appeared three years ago. They do so because, from exactly opposing angles of vision, each tackles the strategy of the whole war and makes impressive if doctrinaire sense of it.
The second book [Hitler's War] has not yet worked its way into our general understanding of the conflict, though it undoubtedly will do so when controversy over its sensationalist elements is exhausted.I asked him to come to the Lipstadt trial in January 2000 and repeat those words as a witness, and he declined. I had to sub-poena him, and in the witness box he rather ungraciously confirmed that he had written that but followed, before I could stop him, with savage criticism of my views on the Jewish Holocaust (which he did not know).
I will add however that on the very day after the Lipstadt Trial ended, Keegan wrote a half-page article praising my work in the Daily Telegraph, as did Professor D C Watt in the Evening Standard, and that both historians earned the undying hatred of the Jewish community for raining on its well-oiled victory parade -- the kind of parade in which gloats predominate, rather than floats.
Reviewing historians' recommendations later, Scott Manning commented: "Hitler's War and the War Path by David Irving is an interesting recommendation by Keegan. The book has been criticized for years as being 'pro-Hitler', yet Keegan recognizes it as one of the most import books on the time period. In a later book, Keegan acknowledges the criticisms of the book, but he also says it 'is unique in that it recounts the war exclusively from the German side'. Irving's portrayal of Hitler is that of a man trying to do the best for his country. Keegan sees value in the book because of Irving's work 'in all the major German archives,' interviews with many survivors, and personal discovery of important documents. The major flaw Keegan sees in the book is 'it is untouched by moral judgment'."
I tell Hugo that she is wrong of course about those final days in DC. There was not a hint of grumpiness on my part, just great sadness when she left to return to Indianapolis. Hugo says how could I prove that "in a court of law" and I say quite simply, "the diary". It is plain enough, written up day by day. I send her this message: "Dear Snowdrop
Hugo has told me the outlines of your reply, and I shall drop the matter as of today. Your memory is wrong . . . I have only the most pleasant memories (Pentagon Mall). Nietzsche once wrote, roughly, "My memory tells me this happened. My conscience says it should not have. Gradually, Memory yields to Conscience." . . . Hugo has now watched the film on the Anni Derwani murder . . ., and he thinks I am wrong. Time will tell.Of course in those final weeks of November 2011 the pain from my leg was approaching its maximum volume, so that may have shown through.
I draft more Himmler, milking the 1935 diary (which I have spent three days transcribing, then find I already transcribed it in 1977. I forgot. Have I really been working on him since then? I have today posted the transcript in the Himmler dossier on my website.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
London - Gatwick - London, EnglandUP at six-fifteen a.m. and I drive Jessica to Gatwick airport for her flight to Copenhagen to see her grandmother and aunt. Driving with her is a delight -- when she takes off her earphones.
8:59 a.m She texts: "They have sat me next to baby on plane. Kill me." I tell her: "Gotta like babies."
A British reader writes, "I recently watched your speech 'The Faking of Adolf Hitler for History' and ever since then my eyes have been opened to all the lies I have been taught through school. I have recently purchased your book Hitler's War and I must say it is a great read and full of amazing facts. I hope you keep up the great work and keep spreading the truth."
Sunday, August 5, 2012
London, EnglandI REPLY to Augustine, who wants to film my forthcoming Oregon meeting: "My only problem with videos is that it has a very inhibiting effect on what I can safely say. . . I am still thinking about it." She relents, and agrees not to film it.
I catchup on emails: "Dear Mr. Irving!" writes a lady from Hungary:
I have been your admirer ever since I met you in Kelowna, British Columbia some years ago. I am ashamed of how Canada has treated you. I am waiting for " Himmler" with great anticipation, and since I discovered you on Youtube, I listen to all your talks. I would like to ask that you research one of the the great injustices of the 20th Century, that was perpetrated on my country, Hungary, namely the Treaty of Trianon. That is a task that, in my opinion, only you can take on objectively. I am forever greatful to you for having written Uprising, and also greeting me in my mother tongue. May God bless you and yours. Sincerely, Erzsebet Schumann <[email protected]I reply with a few words in Hungarian, and promise: "I will bear Trianon in mind. I do what I can for Hungary. A beautiful Hungarian girl, Reka, visited me every month in prison in Vienna. Kelowna was about 1983."
Monday, August 6, 2012
London, EnglandHIROSHIMA day. A Polish man living in London is interested in buying Hitler's War. I arrange to meet him in Chiswick with a copy. He comes from Lublin, and reminds me that the Majdanek camp was in a suburb of that city. I reply: "I have been to Majdanek three times.
I had an excellent (but moody) Polish girl from Lublin working with me, Martyna, driving in USA, two months ago. She has returned to Stettin. Do you know a fit girl, non-smoker, who wants a two or three month job in USA. Must be fit, as it involves a lot of driving. Thirty-five cities, see www.focal.org/speaks for the itinerary.
Ausgezeichnet! Sie möchten lediglich die Formuliering das Drehbuch und die finale Schnittfassung überlegen. Wir brauchen m.E. nicht unbedingt den Film zu prüfen, lediglich das Geschriebene der Endfassung. (Sonst wird womöglich nochmals behauptet, wir könnten den Film als DVD zu vertreiben trachten.)He disagrees, arguing that it is good tactics to give the Court one item it can rule against us on, so as to ease a favourable decision on the other. I have to see that, and comment:
Ok. Vor allem habe ich über die Formulierung die unzuständige Einzelrichterin gelacht.A few minutes later he sends me an extraordinary article by the Rommel film's screenwriter, Niki Stein, who has written in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung a lengthy article justifying his own practice of pirating the intellectual property of others. Let's see how the production company likes that if my claim comes to a German Court.
I thank my lawyer: "Das ist ja so lustig! . . Der Vater eines (jüdischen) Freundes von mir, der bekannte Historiker Dr David Kahn, sagte ihm vor dreißig Jahren etwa: 'Man schreibe nie etwas, ohne zu bedenken, wie es nach einem halben Jahrhundert vor einem offenen Gericht vorgetragen klingen wird.' Sein Wort in Gottes Ohr bzw. Niki Steins." ["Never write anything without reflecting on how it might sound read out in open court fifty years later".]
I send an inquiry to Cornell University Law Library: "Hello. Fine library. I worked in your archives forty years ago for my biography of Adolf Hitler (The Viking Press, 1977). I am working on a biography of Heinrich Himmler, and am searching so far without success for the 1943 to 1944 telegraphic reports made by Allen Dulles (OSS Berne) to his chief, William B Donovan (director, OSS) in Washington DC. They are not in the Allen Dulles papers in Princeton, I went there last month to check. Any clues? Carlisle [Pennsylvania] perhaps? FDR Library? I would be grateful for any hints."
Jessica texts from Denmark that she is on the ferry to Århus, where her Danish grandmother lives. She is so excited, she hardly ever gets to see her.
Our Index on the origins of anti-Semitism
Rosa Silverman in Sunday Telegraph heaps scorn on Olympics critic: 'Nazi stag party' MP Aidan Burley attacks multicultural Opening Ceremony
to support this huge website's work
Adolf Hitler Heinrich Himmler Josef Goebbels Reinhard Heydrich SEARCH WEBSITE Auschwitz
