h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

People are very very quick to diss anyone or anything that shows even the remotest support for right-wingness.

I have heard a fair bit about Herr Irving, but all of it has been critiscism, backlash and hatred. To me, nobody has stopped to consider the plausilbility of his claims. Are they based on any kind of fact whatsoever? I don't know, because everyone seems only concerneed with trashing this guy.

This guide entry seems very one-sided. Seems to be more concerned with kicking a man when he's down. Once someone gives me the facts about Irving, I will be ready to consider if he really is the monster that everyone makes him out to be.

This post has been removed.

I'll check out the site when I've got time to investigate heavy stuff. Seems strange that it was ommited, really. The fact that half the entry is made up of quotations (seeming to me that he's merely an irate human able to publicize his views) makes the entry geared towards making the man look inhuman. Without being given the other side, his side, of the story, who are we to say otherwise?

So, I'll visit the site when I can, then make my final judgement. thank you

Do read his work, and Lipstadt's book. I feel it would be inappropriate to go into extreme detail about the views expressed in each at h2g2, and honestly it would be a disservice if someone tried to gloss over the material.

I feel there is nothing to bash most right-wing figures about. But David Irving's work was a problem. This is not because his views are controversial. The man has a right to his opinions. The problem was that he was masquerading as a "historian" and an "expert" while simultanously ignoring mounds of scientific evidence, taking quotes out of context, misrepresenting statistics, and drawing false conclusions based primarily on his own personal opinions.

If you need any confirmation that the Nazis did set out to systematically eliminate all the Jews in their territory, there are any number of history books you could read. There are also biographies by former Nazis, Nazi records that survived with verifiable signatures intact, and huge quantities of scientific evidence in the form of ashes, bones, collected items like gold tooth fillings, chemical residues, and so forth. Actually visiting one of the death camps might also be helpful in the pursuit of truth, if you are able to travel there.

Since history that is not remembered tends to repeat itself, there is a very real concern that Irving might give the Germans excuse to "forget" the Holocaust -- thus making them more likely to repeat the error. There are indeed people who would much rather believe the Holocaust was far less serious than assumed. But it is impossible to ignore the evidence once you see it. In the long run, it is better that Irving be allowed to continue expressing his personal opinions while being discredited as the science-based historian he never was.

I think it might be a good idea for you to read "Selling Hitler" by Robert Harris.
It is not a work of opinion, nor is it specifically about David Irving, but it is a step-by-step account of the infamous forging of the Hitler diaries of 1983. I think it is especially suited to your demands, since it is neither about politics nor the so-called "Holocaust-lie", but the account of a true, very funny, and very tragic story.
But it does tell you what sort of person Irving really is (by the way: the man is not even a historian, he's just a self-styled scientist without a degree; interesting, eh?): Holocaust or not, his judgements and opinions just aren't worth a penny. The book shows how unscientific his "methods" (if that's what you wanna call them) are.
This might be of interest especially to you, since the whole thing isn't about politics at all, just incompetence.
After reading the book, you will probably ask yourself: if Irving proved so inconsistent and incompetent in this case, how can anybody trust him on a subject like the Holocaust?

I think most people with any kindness in their soul cannot get to grips with the holocaust, mankind is surely not that cruel. That maybe why Irving gets an audience. We just don't want to believe that we, mankind, could do such things.

It is intensely upsetting to understand that there are large numbers of people, people like us, out there who could participate in such evil, regardless of body count.

And does knowledge of history prevent recurrence? I am sure there were many in Ruanda who had heard of the holocaust, and then we come to Yugoslavia.... The scale may not be quite the same in the latter case, but the evil was there.

Sadly, humans like to compartmentalize evil and put themselves on the other side. The bad guy is the one in the black hat, and when the white hat guy shoots someone dead it is ultimately good. Of course, I and my friends are all white hats. In the same way, the Nazis were bad, bad people. But I am not a German, and my country is not Germany, so we will surely not do what the Nazis did...

But we know, don't we, what lurks inside. We are all capable of following orders, however much we might like to think otherwise. That is why the German nation, if there is such a thing, has never been ostracised, and why even those who remember happily drive their Mercedes/BMW etc. Its not a German thing, its a human thing. Even the victims then are capable of segregation, discrimination and its accompanying evils in Israel/Palestine. Humans are not good Beings.

Wowowow.... Hold it!
I totally agree with you, except for the last sentence!
It's so easy to make a lot of noise being destructive the way the greater part of the human population apparently is, but doing good for a change tends to be awful quiet. That's why it's so difficult to see!
Besides, I just don't give a damn what the majority thinks or does. I certainly have the potential to do what the Nazis did, as does anyone else, but - just like those who were idiotic enough to participate in Nazism - I also have the potential to do the exact opposite (don't know if I will, though, hehe), as does anyone else.
I think we have a real responsibility to see both sides. We must see the terrible things that are going on to keep them from happening if we can, but we must also see the "good", quiet things.
Life does, after all, consist of more than stupid Nazis, racists, the KKK, or Pat Buchanan (oops!). A lot more.
And I refuse to have all that taken away from me.
What I was trying to say in this sermon (sorry!) was that humans are not not good beings - they are decidedly mixed.
And you are free to take your pick!

Ok, so humans are not wholly good beings, and there are degrees of evil. But we are not talking semantics here, but semitic (I really am very very sorry for that play on words, but sometimes the fingers take over and the imperative to amuse overides innate good taste, which demonstrates the point rather well, we can all do things we know are wrong).

The argument that I originally tried to put forward is that the appeal of Irving et al. is not, as you might imagine, to the evil in us, but to the good. We really do not want to accept man's capacity for evil, therefore we don't want to accept that the holocaust happened, and faced with the incontrovertible evidence that it did, we wish to believe that it really wasn't as extensive or dreadful as it was. I am not sure that right or left politics comes into it.

The contention that a full picture of history will help us put the world to rights is plainly wrong. There are people, this very day, shooting 14 year old kids....... just following orders.

I think it may be a bit naive to assume irvings supporters are so shoccked by the holocaust they cant believe in it. Irvings is linked with a number of rightist groups throughout europe whose aim in denying the holocaust is to make facism seem acceptable again.