Alan Eardley
One Too Many
- Messages
- 1,500
- Location
- Midlands, UK
Irving's publications
I see a real difference between historians and politicians - that of executive action. A president can order the invasion of a country, a chancellor the genocide of a people. The historian merely presents evidence and may at most seek to make a case from that evidence to form opinion.
I some ways this is like what lawyers do. Every legal case has two sides - prosecution and defence. In most societies every criminal, no matter how guilty and no matter how heinous the crime, is entitled to a defence. The Nazi war criminals who were brought to trial for actual involvement in the 'holocaust' were so represented at Nuremburg. No one (as far as I know) suggested locking up their defence counsel for making a case in their defence. Locking up a historian (in this instance Irving) for the crimes of generals and politicians seems to me to be analogous with that.
I earn my living by doing research and by teaching others to do it. Irving's worst crimes are against research, not against the Austrian state. He started out as a promising researcher (his books on Dresden and Convoy PQ17 in the 60s and 70s were well reviewed by some prominent historians at the time) but he fell prey to most of the faults that can detroy a research practitioner. His real punishment is the ruin of his reputation among historians.
Just my opinion.
I see a real difference between historians and politicians - that of executive action. A president can order the invasion of a country, a chancellor the genocide of a people. The historian merely presents evidence and may at most seek to make a case from that evidence to form opinion.
I some ways this is like what lawyers do. Every legal case has two sides - prosecution and defence. In most societies every criminal, no matter how guilty and no matter how heinous the crime, is entitled to a defence. The Nazi war criminals who were brought to trial for actual involvement in the 'holocaust' were so represented at Nuremburg. No one (as far as I know) suggested locking up their defence counsel for making a case in their defence. Locking up a historian (in this instance Irving) for the crimes of generals and politicians seems to me to be analogous with that.
I earn my living by doing research and by teaching others to do it. Irving's worst crimes are against research, not against the Austrian state. He started out as a promising researcher (his books on Dresden and Convoy PQ17 in the 60s and 70s were well reviewed by some prominent historians at the time) but he fell prey to most of the faults that can detroy a research practitioner. His real punishment is the ruin of his reputation among historians.
Just my opinion.