David Irving : real history?

hinault

I hope that I have posted this in the correct section.

David Irving has attracted a lot of adverse publicity and accusations of being a holocaust denier.
It is also true to say that Irving is an historian.

I have read several interviews in which Irving makes the distinction between real historians and other historians.
Irving states that real historians actually take the time to access records and other evidence upon which they put forward their version of history.
Irving claims that he uses historical documentation as the basis for his writing.
Whereas, according to Irving, many other historians use the books/resources of other historians upon which to put forward their version of history and that they fail to validate and verify the accounts on which they depend for their writing.

Is there not an established process for recording historical fact?
In other words is there not an agreed methodology in the "history industry", which historians and authors are required to follow?

I ask the question because Irving claims that 100,000 people perished in the Dresden bombing in February 1945.
British Army records state that between 18,000 and 25,000 perished.

This represents a huge discrepancy between 2 sets of numbers.

If there was an established methodology for accessing data, such a large discrepancy could not exist?

jonniebgood1

Classing David Irving as 'historian' is not widely recognised as being true. Alot of his works have been revised/ changed based on factual evidence. For example, his estimates at the death toll from Dresden (which you query) has been revised many times.

Irving claims that he uses historical documentation as the basis for his writing.
Whereas, according to Irving, many other historians use the books/resources of other historians upon which to put forward their version of history and that they fail to validate and verify the accounts on which they depend for their writing.

I think this is the difference between historiography and 1st hand history. The problem with historiography would be that the authors opinion may influence the readers opinion. Perhaps the clearest example of where this would be a problem would be if Irvings books were taken at face value without recognising his own misrepresentation of facts. There are posters on boards who will be more able to explain historiography than this.

brianthebard

Irving isn't a historian, he took a story from a drunken german sailor as fact and dressed it up to create the story that 100k were killed by the British in the bombings of Dresden.

There are of course specific methodologies to writing history, historians regularly use secondary sources in addition to primary sources, or even secondary sources exclusively. This doesn't stop them being real historians, that line is when you start to ignore facts which damage your argument or even worse create facts out of thin air.

hinault

brianthebard wrote: »

Irving isn't a historian, he took a story from a drunken german sailor as fact and dressed it up to create the story that 100k were killed by the British in the bombings of Dresden.

There are of course specific methodologies to writing history, historians regularly use secondary sources in addition to primary sources, or even secondary sources exclusively. This doesn't stop them being real historians, that line is when you start to ignore facts which damage your argument or even worse create facts out of thin air.

OK.
I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion as to whether or not Irving is/isn't an historian.
Irving is a controversial character at best.
But if his methodology is based upon empirical evidence, then his assertions deserve to be tested right?

My initial question was more to do with the methodology employed to try to ascertain historical facts.

I'll move the discussion away from Irving because there is too much baggage.

Lets take Dan Carlin instead.
http://www.dancarlin.com/

In his hardcore history website he states in his series of presentations about the Ostfront during WWII, that the casualty figures are understated
for that theatre of war.
Carlin goes on to suggest that the Soviet casualty figure 27 million could actually be as high as 35-40 million dead.

Carlin's assertion just like Irving's assertion contradicts the "received wisdom" in relation to the statistical number of casualties presented in official documents.
The difference between 27 million casualties (official guesstimate) and 40 million casualties (carlins guesstimate) is vast.

What I am trying to get is - who is providing the more accurate account of casualties and what methodology should be used to verify/validate statistical assertions made?

brianthebard

hinault wrote: »

OK.
I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion as to whether or not Irving is/isn't an historian.
Irving is a controversial character at best.
But if his methodology is based upon empirical evidence, then his assertions deserve to be tested right?

My initial question was more to do with the methodology employed to try to ascertain historical facts.

I'll move the discussion away from Irving because there is too much baggage.

Lets take Dan Carlin instead.
http://www.dancarlin.com/

In his hardcore history website he states in his series of presentations about the Ostfront during WWII, that the casualty figures are understated
for that theatre of war.
Carlin goes on to suggest that the Soviet casualty figure 27 million could actually be as high as 35-40 million dead.

Carlin's assertion just like Irving's assertion contradicts the "received wisdom" in relation to the statistical number of casualties presented in official documents.
The difference between 27 million casualties (official guesstimate) and 40 million casualties (carlins guesstimate) is vast.

What I am trying to get is - who is providing the more accurate account of casualties and what methodology should be used to verify/validate statistical assertions made?

The problem has never been about challenging perceived wisdom, the problem is when people like Irving use heresay and their own personal bias to write negationist histories, ignoring all standard historical methodology in the process.

As for the question of how to accurately establish casualties, this sort of thing can be calculated in many different and somewhat mundane ways, probably using some sort of comparison between say official Russian transcripts and how many uniforms were sent to the front, or rifles, or a number of other indicators could also be used to arrive at an estimate.

jonniebgood1

brianthebard wrote: »

The problem has never been about challenging perceived wisdom, the problem is when people like Irving use heresay and their own personal bias to write negationist histories, ignoring all standard historical methodology in the process.

I think it would is difficult in many cases to identify what an author's bias is, Irving is an extremist and has been proved wrong in many cases thus his discrediting is widely recognised. This leads in to a query I would have based on current threads in the WWII forum: What constitutes or validates an authors observations and their representation of facts? The clearest example of this is where an authors published figures of WWII casualties was posted (by me) to indicate the differences in mortality rates. My opinion was that as the author was a respected historian (Niall Ferguson- professor of History at Harvard University) so his figures should be a fair representation. An alternative view rubbished this as they felt that Ferguson should specialise in WW2 barbarossa perspective before his view would be reliable. I would absolutely reject this as trying to eliminate a valid source as the information showed something that the poster did not wish to recognise.

My own view on this is that surely the published views of people who are history professors or credible historians should be allowed, moreso encouraged to reinforce opinions expressed on these forums??
My query is absolutely not personal, I hope to clarify the point for my own mind- I would appreciate other views on this in terms of what is a credible source as it seems common for this type of rubbishing sources situation, particularly as it seems to recur with regularity.

hinault

Jonnie, you raise an interesting point.

At a guess an academic qualification and a career in academia is no guarantee that the conclusions put forward from such a person is unbiased.
One would hope that their conclusions are based upon empirical evidence and source data and not based upon their own prejudice.
But who really knows?

This why I am at a loss about conclusions put forward in respect of casualty figures for Dresden and losses on the Ostfront.
One set of conclusions suggest figure x and another set of conclusions suggest figure y.

In respect of Irving, he physically points to a piece of paper and uses that to put forward casualty figures for Dresden which are completely at variance with official figures.

Similarly, Carlin puts forward a figure for casualties on the Ostfront which are between 25% to 40% higher than official figures.

In terms of statistics I am not looking for answers to the nth degree.
However a 25% to 40% difference between the official figure and Carlin figure has to be raise the question of which figure is more accurate.

Morlar

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The clearest example of this is where an authors published figures of WWII casualties was posted (by me) to indicate the differences in mortality rates. My opinion was that as the author was a respected historian (Niall Ferguson- professor of History at Harvard University) so his figures should be a fair representation.

To clarify this point and put it in context, this is in the thread where you have been posting Soviet ww2 propaganda videos, and from the poster who previously referred to "the 'crimes' of the communist regime". Also the thread where you had been posting material from the ww2 soviet communist regime and then onto the ww2 pow mortality rates from Niall ferguson. Here is what was said in relation to that material

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70601538&postcount=37

Just because something is on Wikipedia does not make it trustworthy or credible.

In fact it was posted on a wikipedia page which was largely based on rubbishing the material of an author who himself had to start a seperate page to highlight the wiki bias against his work (and constant editing of that page to paint his figures and material in the worst possible light).

This is the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Losses

This is the authors (James Bacque) other page where he complains about the incessant wiki bias against this book :

http://serendipity.li/hr/bacque_on_wikipedia.htm

The Ferguson figures are posted there halfway down the wiki page as a form of rebuttal against Bacque. There is no hint of peer review or how those figures were arrived at, which archives or sources were used, what criteria was used in determining which information to use which not to use and so on. The fact is that they paint a picture of very minimal German losses, if they had painted a picture of higher German suffering then they would be far more heavily scrutinised.

There is a serious bias on much of wikipedia, as evidenced in the past by the scandal over wiki zionist editors trying to promote a pro-israel senior editor, also evidenced by the very recent well publicised israeli settler 'Wikipedia editing courses' in the news. In my experience any set of figures on wiki about WW2 which lessen German suffering is the set of figures which tend to be selected.

Denerick

It is impossible to write a meaningful history without wide (And at time frustrating) consultation with primary sources. Some broad narrative histories covering centuries may synthesis the various monographs and scholarly works out there but that is only because these books tend to lend a chapter to historical periods that have thousands of scholarly books written about them.

For example, you could spend ten hours every day for the rest of your life reading books on the French Revolution and you still wouldn't have read every historical commentary on the event.

I gather that David Irving was once a relatively well respected historian until he started appearing in front of neo nazi crowds, among other things.

brianthebard

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I think it would is difficult in many cases to identify what an author's bias is, Irving is an extremist and has been proved wrong in many cases thus his discrediting is widely recognised.

Irving is an extreme example but you become better at sensing a persons bias over time as you read different texts, often it could be a throwaway line that will show you a persons background.

This leads in to a query I would have based on current threads in the WWII forum: What constitutes or validates an authors observations and their representation of facts?

An author's argument is validated by the quality of their research and referencing, as well as reviews and papers.

My opinion was that as the author was a respected historian (Niall Ferguson- professor of History at Harvard University) so his figures should be a fair representation. An alternative view rubbished this as they felt that Ferguson should specialise in WW2 barbarossa perspective before his view would be reliable. I would absolutely reject this as trying to eliminate a valid source as the information showed something that the poster did not wish to recognise.

Ferguson is an interesting example because he is as you say a respected historian but he has a huge blindspot when it comes to the British Empire and Empires/Imperialism in general. He is very biased in that regard and clearly believes in a worldview where a single superpower is in charge for the good of stability and economics. He wrote an article recently criticising Obama for not being heavy handed in dealing with Egypt for instance.

Now what makes the difference between him being respected and discredited is the research he uses, the breadth of sources, and the ability to see the counter argument. Despite Ferguson's bias I think overall he fulfills their requirements enough to continue to be a respected historian. Plus it helps that he is not the only person who thinks in this way, although they are not all as vocal or obvious about it.

My own view on this is that surely the published views of people who are history professors or credible historians should be allowed, moreso encouraged to reinforce opinions expressed on these forums??
My query is absolutely not personal, I hope to clarify the point for my own mind- I would appreciate other views on this in terms of what is a credible source as it seems common for this type of rubbishing sources situation, particularly as it seems to recur with regularity.

Not sure if this relates to the rest of the topic but if you're saying that posters should be able to use historians to back up their statements then yes absolutely I'd love that but you'd also have to be ready for the argument to continue on a longer and more detailed line as there will always be counter arguments and counter histories.

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

.........
I gather that David Irving was once a relatively well respected historian until he started appearing in front of neo nazi crowds, among other things.

Published by a major house, widely available, often interviewed....He hung himself when he took somebody to court for libel as his 'underwear' was paraded fully in public.

Denerick

Nodin wrote: »

Published by a major house, widely available, often interviewed....He hung himself when he took somebody to court for libel as his 'underwear' was paraded fully in public.

Kurt Vonnegut also quotes him at the beginning of Slaughterhouse 5. He was considered a major historian. Bit strange really.

Nodin

Denerick wrote: »

Kurt Vonnegut also quotes him at the beginning of Slaughterhouse 5. He was considered a major historian. Bit strange really.

Aye, but he's a very intelligent man. I think it was 'Hitlers War' that was his most widely read and praised. Unfortunately he was led far too much by his own biases and hubris sealed his fate. Waste of a mind, I suppose you could say.