David Irving fue un historiador y autor autodidacta especializado en la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Sus escritos siempre habían tenido un tono pronazi, pero en las décadas de 1980 y 1990 Irving se convirtió en una especie de negacionista del Holocausto. Al principio, Irving simplemente afirmó que Hitler no tenía nada que ver con el Holocausto e incluso había luchado para evitarlo. Irving acabó negando la existencia de cámaras de gas y las de Auschwitz concretamente. Irving empezó a cuestionar cuántos murieron, la intención de los nazis, etc.
Irving
Deborah Lipstadt, académica, profesora y escritora estadounidense sobre el Holocausto. En 1993 escribió un libro sobre la negación del Holocausto que atacaba directamente a David Irving como un fraude y un antisemita que miente conscientemente para presentar una versión ficticia pronazi de la historia.
David respondió a este libro demandando a Débora por difamación. Sin embargo, David presentó una demanda en Inglaterra y eso es importante.
Si demanda a alguien por difamación en los EE. UU., la persona que presenta la demanda tiene que demostrar que lo que la otra parte dijo que era difamación. Sin embargo, en el Reino Unido, el acusado tiene que demostrar que lo que dijo era cierto.
Entonces, ante un tribunal de justicia, Deborah tuvo que demostrar que David Irving era un mentiroso, un fraude, un antisemita y que tenía una historia intencionalmente falsificada con fines políticos.
Durante el juicio testificaron numerosos peritos. Nada de esto le salió bien a Irving
Robert Jan Van Pelt, un experto en Auschwitz, fue interrogado por Irving y lo destruyó. Pelt pudo responder todas las preguntas y aplastar totalmente los argumentos fraudulentos de Irving. Pelt también dio un extenso testimonio demostrando la existencia de las cámaras de gas de Auschwitz y su mecánica. Numerosos historiadores descubrieron que Irving tradujo mal intencionadamente documentos alemanes para proteger a los nazis. Estos mismos historiadores refutaron categóricamente cada una de las afirmaciones que Irving había hecho, poco a poco. Al final, el caso quedó abierto y cerrado: Deborah había dicho la verdad.
Lipstadt
El juez se puso del lado de la defensa y afirmó:
“Irving, por sus propias razones ideológicas, ha tergiversado y manipulado persistente y deliberadamente la evidencia histórica; que por las mismas razones ha retratado a Hitler bajo una luz injustificadamente favorable, principalmente en relación con su actitud y responsabilidad por el trato a los judíos; que es un negador activo del Holocausto; que es antisemita y racista, y que se asocia con extremistas de derecha que promueven el neonazismo… por lo tanto, la defensa de la justificación tiene éxito…] De ello se deduce que debe haber juicio para los acusados.
Este juicio destruyó públicamente a los negadores del Holocausto. Irving es un historiador muy versado que sabía 10 veces más que cualquier otro negador del Holocausto. Sin embargo, una vez que tuvo que debatir con historiadores reales sobre sus ideas falsas, Irving pareció un idiota y un fraude. Muestra cuán fraudulenta es la negación del Holocausto.
I support freedom of speech, if you think a person is wrong, you have the opportunity to debunk him.
T.D. Player
1 year ago
The truth should be self-evident. There should be no reason to question the narrative. But the lack of physical proof destroys all of these tall tales
Sean Humprey (Austin, TX)
1 year ago
Ask the soldiers that liberated the camps. Many of them suffered ptsd after.
Sacheen Edwards
1 year ago
As an American I value our first amendment. We have every right to be hateful because it’ll be a slippery slope if we let the government tells us what we can and can’t say.
"Shades" MacAuley
1 year ago
Truths and facts should always be questioned, this is the basis of empirical science. Especially an historian should be able to appreciate that a situation or conflict can look very differently from different parties points of view. This seems to be a very dangerous woman to me: were she to be in power in the time of Galileo, she would certainly have been first in line to prosecute him for daring to question an established “truth”.
Rowan Jefferson
1 year ago
Bring deniers to a debate so you can publicly demonstrate how wrong they are. Seriously you must do it. If you don’t you give them credit.
robi
1 year ago
Pessoas como David acreditam ser perfeitos e continua destilando seu ódio a todas as pessoas que estão acima de sua capacitação, para ele é impensável saber que existem pessoas talentosas e dedicadas em suas profissões,a dor da inveja,mas a verdade não está alicerçada em livro nem a uma minoria que tenta na violência extravasar suas decepções..parabéns por existir Déboras.no mundo
Jessie Vergara
1 year ago
This fact of making people silent raises many questions mark
Terrence Smith
1 year ago
David Irving was a great Historian world until he took on the 2nd World War and spread a lot of bullshit.
joel smith-jones
1 year ago
Irving made the truth to become more and more obscure.
Deborah Listadt debagged the old fascist good ‘n’ proper!
patrick ireland jones
1 year ago
Everyone’s a well renowned historian until they tackle the wrong topic.
Burton Scygullah
1 year ago
I have over the years bought several books by David Irving but the only one I have ever read significant chunks of is 1956 Uprising. I am in no position to judge to what degree he is right or wrong in what he says. But this is a historical event, the narrative of which has developed significantly over the years. For example I believe it is no coincidence that the monument to Nagy in Budapest was recently moved to a slightly less prominent location, even if the official explanation offered denied this to be the case. Recent books by Hungarian historians have sought to downplay Nagy’s role with the shift of interest moving towards Mindszenty. And I don’t believe the last word has yet been spoken on this matter, as political opportunism definitely plays a part here. I think every history book should also to some extent be taken in the spirit of the time in which it was written, and Irving wrote this book at a time that it was still forbidden to speak about these events in the East whereas the West, and definitely the English speaking world, had until then AFAIK not produced a comparably detailed study. As such he was breaking new ground. Also, writing for English-speaking readers (the book has AFAIK never been translated into Hungarian, and if it has, it is not well known in Hungary, most people there have never heard of Irving) he was not trying to pick sides in Hungary’s internal political struggle (which anyway, was nonexistent at the time he wrote it). As such he might actually be more objective than some of the recent Hungarian historians in my opinion. But moving back to the topic of WW2, I have always felt that Irving’s great contribution was that by being openly right-wing, he was able to gain access to people in Hitler’s inner circle and make them speak about what they remembered. In the period that these people were still alive, and especially in Germany but to a lesser extent also in Austria, there was a veil of shame over the events of Third Reich and the people who were involved did not speak freely about it, both out of shame and for fear of accusations. I know this from my own experience as I knew several such people during my time in Germany and although I was genuinely interested and not seeking to shame or accuse them of anything, this was a topic that was absolutely impossible to approach. So I do think a lot of kudos does go to Irving for making them talk.
Vads Jankokzi
1 year ago
David Irving was at one time considered the best in the field of WW2 history. If you want to get a taste for his work without the controversy then read his early works, particularly the Dresden book. Once you get an idea of his style and the way he interprets the archives and historical records then you can read his later works with a much better understanding of his writings. Irving was one of the first westerners to have access to the Soviet archives which I believe is one reason why they stand out. Irving’s books are truly different than anything else ever written on the subject and as a person who has read more than 100 books on WW2 I would consider them essential to understanding that whole part of history.
Problem is when he says: “There were no ovens in xx concentration camp, therefore the holocaust didn’t happen.”
David Bronsky
1 year ago
“The past does not exist in the present. Therefore history is what happens in the mind of the historian when he views an artifact of the past” J. Mason
Roy Sykes
1 year ago
If you have laws against questioning history then that leads to more questions
•
David Irving fue un historiador y autor autodidacta especializado en la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Sus escritos siempre habían tenido un tono pronazi, pero en las décadas de 1980 y 1990 Irving se convirtió en una especie de negacionista del Holocausto. Al principio, Irving simplemente afirmó que Hitler no tenía nada que ver con el Holocausto e incluso había luchado para evitarlo. Irving acabó negando la existencia de cámaras de gas y las de Auschwitz concretamente. Irving empezó a cuestionar cuántos murieron, la intención de los nazis, etc.
Deborah Lipstadt, académica, profesora y escritora estadounidense sobre el Holocausto. En 1993 escribió un libro sobre la negación del Holocausto que atacaba directamente a David Irving como un fraude y un antisemita que miente conscientemente para presentar una versión ficticia pronazi de la historia.
David respondió a este libro demandando a Débora por difamación. Sin embargo, David presentó una demanda en Inglaterra y eso es importante.
Si demanda a alguien por difamación en los EE. UU., la persona que presenta la demanda tiene que demostrar que lo que la otra parte dijo que era difamación. Sin embargo, en el Reino Unido, el acusado tiene que demostrar que lo que dijo era cierto.
Entonces, ante un tribunal de justicia, Deborah tuvo que demostrar que David Irving era un mentiroso, un fraude, un antisemita y que tenía una historia intencionalmente falsificada con fines políticos.
Durante el juicio testificaron numerosos peritos. Nada de esto le salió bien a Irving
Robert Jan Van Pelt, un experto en Auschwitz, fue interrogado por Irving y lo destruyó. Pelt pudo responder todas las preguntas y aplastar totalmente los argumentos fraudulentos de Irving. Pelt también dio un extenso testimonio demostrando la existencia de las cámaras de gas de Auschwitz y su mecánica. Numerosos historiadores descubrieron que Irving tradujo mal intencionadamente documentos alemanes para proteger a los nazis. Estos mismos historiadores refutaron categóricamente cada una de las afirmaciones que Irving había hecho, poco a poco. Al final, el caso quedó abierto y cerrado: Deborah había dicho la verdad.
El juez se puso del lado de la defensa y afirmó:
“Irving, por sus propias razones ideológicas, ha tergiversado y manipulado persistente y deliberadamente la evidencia histórica; que por las mismas razones ha retratado a Hitler bajo una luz injustificadamente favorable, principalmente en relación con su actitud y responsabilidad por el trato a los judíos; que es un negador activo del Holocausto; que es antisemita y racista, y que se asocia con extremistas de derecha que promueven el neonazismo… por lo tanto, la defensa de la justificación tiene éxito…] De ello se deduce que debe haber juicio para los acusados.
Este juicio destruyó públicamente a los negadores del Holocausto. Irving es un historiador muy versado que sabía 10 veces más que cualquier otro negador del Holocausto. Sin embargo, una vez que tuvo que debatir con historiadores reales sobre sus ideas falsas, Irving pareció un idiota y un fraude. Muestra cuán fraudulenta es la negación del Holocausto.
PrisioneroEnArgentina.com
Enero 26, 2024
[…] David Irving […]
Irving was a liar, still has a right to express his opinions.
Fantastic site A lot of helpful info here Im sending it to some buddies ans additionally sharing in delicious And naturally thanks on your sweat
sexy teens gallery great porn gallery
I support freedom of speech, if you think a person is wrong, you have the opportunity to debunk him.
The truth should be self-evident. There should be no reason to question the narrative. But the lack of physical proof destroys all of these tall tales
Ask the soldiers that liberated the camps. Many of them suffered ptsd after.
As an American I value our first amendment. We have every right to be hateful because it’ll be a slippery slope if we let the government tells us what we can and can’t say.
Truths and facts should always be questioned, this is the basis of empirical science. Especially an historian should be able to appreciate that a situation or conflict can look very differently from different parties points of view. This seems to be a very dangerous woman to me: were she to be in power in the time of Galileo, she would certainly have been first in line to prosecute him for daring to question an established “truth”.
Bring deniers to a debate so you can publicly demonstrate how wrong they are. Seriously you must do it. If you don’t you give them credit.
Pessoas como David acreditam ser perfeitos e
continua destilando seu ódio a todas as pessoas que estão acima de sua capacitação, para ele é impensável saber que existem pessoas talentosas e dedicadas em suas profissões,a dor da inveja,mas a verdade não está
alicerçada em livro nem a uma minoria que tenta na violência extravasar suas decepções..parabéns por existir Déboras.no mundo
This fact of making people silent raises many questions mark
David Irving was a great Historian world until he took on the 2nd World War and spread a lot of bullshit.
Irving made the truth to become more and more obscure.
And creepy.
Deborah Listadt debagged the old fascist good ‘n’ proper!
Everyone’s a well renowned historian until they tackle the wrong topic.
I have over the years bought several books by David Irving but the only one I have ever read significant chunks of is 1956 Uprising. I am in no position to judge to what degree he is right or wrong in what he says. But this is a historical event, the narrative of which has developed significantly over the years. For example I believe it is no coincidence that the monument to Nagy in Budapest was recently moved to a slightly less prominent location, even if the official explanation offered denied this to be the case. Recent books by Hungarian historians have sought to downplay Nagy’s role with the shift of interest moving towards Mindszenty. And I don’t believe the last word has yet been spoken on this matter, as political opportunism definitely plays a part here. I think every history book should also to some extent be taken in the spirit of the time in which it was written, and Irving wrote this book at a time that it was still forbidden to speak about these events in the East whereas the West, and definitely the English speaking world, had until then AFAIK not produced a comparably detailed study. As such he was breaking new ground. Also, writing for English-speaking readers (the book has AFAIK never been translated into Hungarian, and if it has, it is not well known in Hungary, most people there have never heard of Irving) he was not trying to pick sides in Hungary’s internal political struggle (which anyway, was nonexistent at the time he wrote it). As such he might actually be more objective than some of the recent Hungarian historians in my opinion. But moving back to the topic of WW2, I have always felt that Irving’s great contribution was that by being openly right-wing, he was able to gain access to people in Hitler’s inner circle and make them speak about what they remembered. In the period that these people were still alive, and especially in Germany but to a lesser extent also in Austria, there was a veil of shame over the events of Third Reich and the people who were involved did not speak freely about it, both out of shame and for fear of accusations. I know this from my own experience as I knew several such people during my time in Germany and although I was genuinely interested and not seeking to shame or accuse them of anything, this was a topic that was absolutely impossible to approach. So I do think a lot of kudos does go to Irving for making them talk.
David Irving was at one time considered the best in the field of WW2 history. If you want to get a taste for his work without the controversy then read his early works, particularly the Dresden book. Once you get an idea of his style and the way he interprets the archives and historical records then you can read his later works with a much better understanding of his writings. Irving was one of the first westerners to have access to the Soviet archives which I believe is one reason why they stand out. Irving’s books are truly different than anything else ever written on the subject and as a person who has read more than 100 books on WW2 I would consider them essential to understanding that whole part of history.
Problem is when he says: “There were no ovens in xx concentration camp, therefore the holocaust didn’t happen.”
“The past does not exist in the present. Therefore history is what happens in the mind of the historian when he views an artifact of the past” J. Mason
If you have laws against questioning history then that leads to more questions
We’re so lucky to have the freedom to criticize Irving without the threat of jail. Imagine if questioning his ideas was prohibited by law.
EXTRAORDINARIO ESTE ARTICULO FELICITACIONES