[Usenet headers trimmed]
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
From: Rich Graves
Message-ID: 326B25D4.2EF1@ix.netcom.com
Date: October 21, 1996
This article is two decades old, written before Irving raised the wrath
of "the Jews" by testifying at Zundel's trial. Irving claims he was held
in great esteem right up until that point. Indeed, in this article,
Showalter says, "Irving is neither a closet revisionist nor a covert
anti-Semite." Wherever Showalter is now, I'm sure he's eating those
words. But my point here is, even before people considered him a
Holocaust denier and an overt anti-Semite, he was judged a very poor
historian.
Dennis E. Showalter. "Book Review -- David Irving. Hitler's War."
The American Historical Review, Vol. 82, No. 5 (Dec. 1977), p. 1281.
Dennis Showalter is a professor at Colorado College.
"...Irving's argument can be criticized on two levels. He overlooks,
instead of refuting, Lucy Dawidowicz's argument that Hitler's language
was Aesopian, concealing the reality of extermination behind the
rhetoric of expulsion. He also discounts the evidence that, however
twisted the road to Auschwitz may have been, concrete decisions
implementing the Final Solution were taken, and these decisions involved
Adolf Hitler. Irving emphasizes the difficulty of establishing precise
documentatary connections between Hitler's anti-Semitism and the
extermination of the Jews until the process was virtually completed. But
while the Third Reich has been compared to every form of government from
European feudalism to Oriental despotism, another analogy suggests
itself -- the Mafia structure as commonly visualized. On certain
sensitive issues the Godfather's will is understood and implemented with
little need for formal instructions!
"The general thrust of Irving's work also contradicts his interpretation
of the Final Solution. Unlike the scholars who stress the limits of
Hitler's power, Irving takes pains to show that the war was Hitler's war
from start to finish. He overrode all opposition from the Wehrmacht,
the party, or the foreign office. He alone knit together the threads of
intelligence and strategy, production and allocation. In this context,
even given the increasing autonomy of the "SS state," could subordinates
have so completely concealed for so long the elaborate apparatus of the
death camps from the Fuhrer?
"It would be unfortunate if Hitler's War were to be judged solely on
its treatment of the Holocaust; Irving is neither a closet revisionist
nor a covert anti-Semite. [sic] The key weakness of the book is
professional, not polemic. It tends to push every bit of evidence to the
limits of credibility, and the Jewish issue is only one example.... To
cite further examples of Irving's approach would only belabor the point.
Hitler's War is essentially a nine-hundred-page seminar paper of the
kind often produced by intelligent beginning graduate students. It is a
work too clever by half, and certainly too clever to be sound history."
[
Index ]
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2008
