David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, by Richard J. Evans

Table of Contents
<< 2.5 Reputation

2.6 Conclusion

2.6.1 In the light of the above, it seems reasonable to conclude the following:
  • 1. Irving's claim that other historians copy from each other and only he goes to the original sources is false.
  • 2. Contrary to what he falsely claims are his rigorous methods of assessing the reliability of historical evidence, Irving arbitrarily declares sources such as the Hitler diaries or the oral evidence of Second World War survivors to be reliable or unreliable according to whether he thinks he can use them to support his own arguments.
  • 3. Irving has long been notorious for his factual inaccuracy amongst historians with a real expertise in the subjects on which he writes.
  • 4. The fact that he has had legal judgments and government exclusion orders made against him in a number of countries, and that he no longer finds reputable publishers for his work, also indicates that he is not a reputable historian.
  • 5. He himself admits his reputation amongst professional historians is extremely low.
2.6.2 The following pages will document in considerable detail the reasons for Irving's poor reputation as a researcher and interpreter of the history of Nazism and the Second World War and a biographer of Hitler.

accessed 12 March 2013