From: geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Goebbels' diaries reviewed by Irving??
Date: 26 Jul 92 23:12:01 GMT
Organization: Decision Systems Laboratory, Univ. of Pittsburgh, PA.

In article <ggm.711857508@brolga> ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (George Michaelson) writes:
>geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:
>
>If I thought enough 'difficult' but in some sense 'true' things were
>going to come out of Irvings work to justify the pain of accepting
>them, Then perhaps yes he is a 'real' historian. In the spheres of
>Holocaust studies, Hitler studies, I'm not sure what contribution he is
>making that he alone can do, or that has significant merit.  If you have
>an insight on this I'd welcome it. (no sarcasm intended)
>
Well, the "Hitler's War" book seems to me to be the best telling
of the war from the German perspective that I've read.  I don't
think there are many historians who are the only unique person
that can make some specific contribution.

>>Despite the distaste for Irving's opinions,
>>I think it might be better to try to be objective about the
>>work, although I know that might be impossible for those who
>>lost their families in the holocaust.  
>
>Better for who? And Objective about what? I'm worried that Irving is not

Objective about the documents.  Better for historical investigation.
Having too much emotional involvement may make this impossible.
This could apply to Irving as well as his Jewish critics.

>
>> I haven't found Irving's
>>works to be what those who haven't read them say they are.
>>Read them and see.  They don't deny the holocaust, but support it.
>
>But to what extent? and with what qualifications? To what end?
>
With the qualification that he claimed Himmler was the author of
the Holocaust and Hitler only found out what he was doing in 1943.
To what end?  I don't think that can be determined from the text.
The text is all I have.  I don't know Irving and haven't read anything
by him other than that book and its prequel.  The text can be used
for many ends, which Irving may approve or disapprove, but that
isn't relevent.

>Don't you hear even the faintest whisper of "... and he came so close
>to realizing the dream..." in his work? Its certainly the air I am left
>with from his more public persona.
>
It may be that Irving is an admirer of what Hitler did in some respects.
He condemns much in his moral character, but yes, I do get the feeling
that Irving respects Hitler's power and ability.  There are no
outright statements of admiration, but it can't be ruled out based
on the book.  Perhaps if I read the book looking for such sentiments,
I might find them, but perhaps it was better that I read the book
before I had heard anything about Irving at all, and thus came to
it unbiased.

>anniversary.  If I cannot rid myself of this particular burden, I should
>probably abstain from criticism of Irving, but you'll understand its hard.

I'm not saying anyone should abstain from criticism of Irving, but
I think the criticism should be accurate (not saying that yours
is inaccurate).  Many have said Irving denies the holocaust, but
the book certainly documents it rather than denies it.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------