In article
<73d22883-4e00-42dc-83b8-42586f7e1ed7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
RST BS <D2Zabcdef@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>A Clash Of Revisionists
>
>An odd clash between David Irving and Ingrid Weckert over what really
>happened at Kristallnacht. Weckert's stance is, Kristallnacht was
>basically a 'Hate Hoax', perpetrated by the Jews, and exaggerated by
>Zionist newspapers, to draw world attention to their plight. Irving
>contends it was Nazis, and orchestrated by Goebbels.
>According to Wikipedia - " Nazis, with sledgehammers, went on a wild
>rampage, and ransacked Jew's homes in a thousand German cities, towns
>and villages. 1,668 synagogues were set on fire, hundreds of Jews were
>beaten to death. "
>
>David Irving In Moscow
>
>British historian David Irving presented startling new facts and
Oops! David Irving is not an historian, he is a proven liar, racist, and
author who deliberately falsified history.
Do try to pay attention.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-13-01.html
The specific historiographical criticisms of Irving
13.9 As appears from section V above, the Defendants have selected
nineteen instances where they contend that Irving has in one way or
another distorted the evidence. Having considered the arguments, which I
have summarised at some length, I have come to the conclusion that the
criticisms advanced by the Defendants are almost invariably well-founded.
For whatever reason (and I shall consider later the question of Irving's
motivation), I am satisfied that in most of the instances cited by the
Defendants Irving has significantly misrepresented what the evidence,
objectively examined, reveals.
13.10 Whilst it is by no means a conclusive consideration, it is right
that I should bear in mind that the criticisms which the Defendants make
of Irving's historiography are sup****ted by the evidence of historians of
the greatest distinction. They are set out (along with many other similar
criticisms that the Defendants have not pressed in the submissions made in
these proceedings) in the meticulous written re****t of Evans, who is
himself an historian of high standing. In the course of his prolonged
cross-examination, Evans justified each and every one of the criticisms on
which the Defendants have chosen to rely. In several instances his
criticisms were sup****ted by the Defendants' other experts, van Pelt,
Browning and Longerich. I am satisfied that each of them is outstanding in
his field. I take note of the fact that the expert witnesses who were
summoned by Irving to give evidence on his behalf did not in their
evidence dispute the validity of the points made by Evans; nor did they
seek to sup****t or justify Irving's ****trayal of Hitler.
13.11 Whilst I take account of the standing of the witnesses who have
spoken to the criticisms of Irving as an historian, I must arrive at my
own *****sment of the evidence relating to the nineteen instances relied
on by the Defendants. In doing so, I have well in mind that many of the
do***ents which I will need to analyse were chosen by Irving himself
because they demonstrate, according to him, that Hitler was a friend of
the Jews. Having set out the arguments at length in section V above, I am
able to express my conclusions more succinctly than would otherwise have
been the case. Whilst I will not attempt to address every argument that
has been mounted, I will indicate in each case the reasons why I have
concluded that Irving has misrepresented the evidence.
'''
The aftermath of Kristallnacht (paragraphs 5.73-89 above)
13.19 Notwithstanding Irving's argument, I am unable to detect any
evidence that Goebbels felt apprehensive when he went to see Hitler on the
morning of 10 November. It is in my judgment inconsistent with the
evidence of what Hitler had ordered in the course of the previous night.
Goebbels' diary entry about his meeting with Hitler at the Osteria is
clear evidence of Hitler's approval of the pogrom. Irving very properly
quotes the entry but immediately follows the quotation with the
categorical assertion that Goebbels was making a false claim in his diary
about Hitler's approval. I do not accept that the available evidence
justifies Irving's dismissal of this diary entry by Goebbels.
13.20 I accept the evidence given by Evans that Irving's account of the
investigation into the events of Kristallnacht and such disciplinary
action was taken thereafter fails lamentably to reveal to his readers how
much of a whitewash it was. I have summarised in paragraphs 5.79 and 5.80
above the evidence of the cursory investigation and the derisorily
inadequate disciplinary action taken. Irving, in Goebbels, ignores these
deficiencies.
Oops!
--
"Pissing in the swimming pool when you are in the water will get you
nowhere. Do it from from a 10 meter springboard and everybody will
notice you!" (Werner Knoll, Surrey's Leading Revisionist Scholar)
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org
|
