Dunkirk. The reasons for "miraculous escape".

World War II British Military
#41

Here’s some background info on him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Excerpts from the judges summing up at the libel case in 2000 that Irving brought against a historian who had called him a holocaust denier

http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/article/0,,181049,00.html

Here’s the view of Professor Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University on Irvings worth as a historian,

“ Not one of [Irving’s] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. … if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian".

#42

Redcoat,

This is nice, but I want to hear comment about his neo-naziness.

Does he satisfy definition by being british socialist, who proclaims superiority of white race, and wants to expand British Empire, and agitates obedience to a strong leader?

#43

That’s true, he has lied and distorted.

But to say totally discredited…

[i]In an April 20, 1996 review in The Daily Telegraph of Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, Prominent British historian Sir John Keegan wrote that Irving “knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War”, and claimed that Hitler’s War was “indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round.” In an article in The Daily Telegraph of 12 April 2000, Keegan spoke of his experience of the trial, writing that Irving had an “all-consuming knowledge of a vast body of material” and exhibited “many of the qualities of the most creative historians,” that his skill as an archivist could not be contested, and that he was “certainly never dull.”

  • source: wikipedia[/i]

That doesn’t sound like Irving is totally useless, making up stuff.

He’s still the only (or almost the only) source in this world for certain WWII history research subjects - like for example about what happened to Hitler’s private letters to Eva Braun - how many historians offer information about this, and how many do that online.

And I would like to know, if any historian or history book can stand a trial and attack by lawyers (there’s always sources left out, bias, etc (especially when a team spent years researching a book it’s bound to found out errors)). For example, Ian Kershaw has chosen not to use many books in his research, and heaven’s sake, the man used to be medievalist, but then jumped to german history. Point being: no-one can research everything, so everyone can be proven to be selective, and thus distorting things.

And if Irving is totally descredited by doing what he did, then isn’t Bush totally discredited doing exactly the same? Point being: world isn’t fair.

And what did Deborah Lipstadt (who sued Irving) said about arresting Irving:

The author and academic Deborah Lipstadt, who Irving unsuccessfully sued for libel in the UK in 2000 over claims that he was a Holocaust denier, said she was dismayed.

“I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don’t believe in winning battles via censorship…”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm
+
When you ask Professor Deborah Lipstadt for her thoughts on David Irving’s forthcoming trial, the very last thing you expect her to say is:
“Let the guy go home. He has spent enough time in prison.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4578534.stm

Of course, the source is bbc, and since bbc has, in recent years, turn more and more anti-american, and Deborah Lipstadt is american - one can claim that bbc is not relieable source and they are distorting information by being selective (how else can you explain that Bush says Iraq war is going ok, and bbc saying there’s pretty much civil war – somebody must be lying).

So you may want to use another source like:
http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/18100/I’m_Not_Celebrating_The_Irving_Verdict.html

And then there are Jews like Lenni Brenner, who has written many books about the warm bond between Jews and Nazis: For openers, Brenner showed how the Zionists had a long history of shameless cooperation with the Nazis, especially after the dictator Adolph Hitler had came to power in 1933. The Zionists were also in bed, to some extent, with the other members of what later became known as WWII’s “Axis of Evil,” that included Benito Mussolini’s Italy, and Tojo Hideki’s Japan.
http://www.amazon.com/51-Documents-Zionist-Collaboration-Nazis/dp/1569802351

…But when Irving writes about the same thing, it’s “lie”. Funny old world. ;-D

I’m just hoping Irving focuses on researching history, and not making nutcase statements about Jewish conspiracy.

_

#44

The problem was, Keegan hadn’t researched the information that Irving was ‘unearthing’, because what Irving was studying was a very specialised area, and Keegan at that time was unaware that Irving was being selective and dishonest in his work

He’s still the only (or almost the only) source in this world for certain WWII history research subjects - like for example about what happened to Hitler’s private letters to Eva Braun - how many historians offer information about this, and how many do that online.

That’s the problem, we cannot trust his research, therefore that makes it worthless

And I would like to know, if any historian or history book can stand a trial and attack by lawyers (there’s always sources left out, bias, etc (especially when a team spent years researching a book it’s bound to found out errors)). For example, Ian Kershaw has chosen not to use many books in his research, and heaven’s sake, the man used to be medievalist, but then jumped to german history. Point being: no-one can research everything, so everyone can be proven to be selective, and thus distorting things.

He wrote things that he knew to be false. That’s not distorting things, that’s lying

And if Irving is totally discredited by doing what he did, then isn’t Bush totally discredited doing exactly the same? Point being: world isn’t fair.

Bush is a politician, people don’t expect the same level of honesty from a politician as a historian, but even saying that, Bush has been discredited in the eyes of many people.

And what did Deborah Lipstadt (who sued Irving) said about arresting Irving:

The author and academic Deborah Lipstadt, who Irving unsuccessfully sued for libel in the UK in 2000 over claims that he was a Holocaust denier, said she was dismayed.

“I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don’t believe in winning battles via censorship…”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm
+
When you ask Professor Deborah Lipstadt for her thoughts on David Irving’s forthcoming trial, the very last thing you expect her to say is:
“Let the guy go home. He has spent enough time in prison.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4578534.stm

It was actually Irving who was suing Libstedt for calling him a holocaust denier, it seems that Irving doesn’t believe in the right to free speech.
So really he shouldn’t have been too upset when he got thrown in jail for being a holocaust denier.

However, Libstedt is a believer in the right to free speech, so she thought it wrong (as did a number of other Jewish spokespeople) that Irving was jailed for dening the holocaust.

#45

Lenni Brenner was born into a Jewish family, but at an early age he renounced his faith and became a left wing Marxist . His works are highly anti-Zionist, but even he accepts that the holocaust happened, and that the figure of around 6 million Jews murdered is about the correct figure

[But when Irving writes about the same thing, it’s “lie”. Funny old world. ;-D

Only because its been proven that he does lie.

The only ‘funny old world’ part of this story is that there are people still prepared to defend him :roll:

#46

I think this thread is getting a bit away from the main subject.

Therefore here is my point shortly:
There were many arguments for distruction of the retreating forces and many arguments against it.
One of the big arguments against destruction, IMHO, was Hitlers hope for a deal with UK.

.

#47

I really don’t buy this argument, it would make far more sense to destroy the British army. This would both reduce the ability of the British to continue the war, and give the Germans hundreds of thousands of hostages (POW’s) to blackmail the British with.

#48

Redcoat.

The armies were destroyed. Practicaly all of the equipment was left behind. Only lifes were spared.
I recon that those armies military abilities were close to null after Dunkirk. Plus Germeny did not have to take care of prisoners.

But more important, IMHO, is the question:
Have the Germans ever used west allied POW as hostages in WW2?
I mean on reasonably large scale. Individuals do not count in this case.

.

#49

The point you are forgetting or are not aware of is that Britain had a regular army. The BEF was made up of regular and territorial (part time) soldiers. The equipment could be replaced without a lot of bother, experienced soldiers and NCO could not. The remains of the BEF provided the backbone and the training for the conscripted army to come. Many soldiers and Cpls formed the new officers so that the conscripted officers had someone to look to and guide them.
The loss of the BEF would mean that the British could not re-enforce NAfrica without draining soldiers from other places.
The Germans at that time could not continue the attack as they had out striped their supplies and had been given a warning that the body may be wounded but could still fight back. The RAF could also support from home bases unlike the Germans. You should also consider that the French put up a very strong defence of the area so that the BEF could be evacuated.
The Germans did not let the BEF off, but they latter came up with some good reasons why they did not press home the attack. Look at the French war diaries and see who was fighting and when.

#50

But if his research gives new names and places, they can be verified - so he’s helping many historians. That’s what I have been saying from the beginning: you cannot blindly follow anyone.

And it’s a bit funny that historians use his work - and if he’s only ‘author’, then shouldn’t historians using his research also be called only authors, not historians?

Ian Kershaw pretty much builds on Irving. If Irving is fictional writer, then why is Kershaw’s work praised as rock-solid history?

If many Hitler/Third Reich historians rely on Irving, shouldn’t them all be called totally disrecided liars, according your statement? This of course means, that there only are fantasy books about third reich ,-D

Decisions Irving makes affects directly to one people, decisions Bush makes affects directly to millions - shouldn’t there be million times more legal battles to prove every word of Bush?

_

#51

Weapons can be replaced in days, weeks, and months, it takes far longer to build the skills needed for an effective army.

I recon that those armies military abilities were close to null after Dunkirk.

For a couple of weeks maybe, but after that they were the building blocks for the army that returned to France in 1944

But more important, IMHO, is the question:
Have the Germans ever used west allied POW as hostages in WW2?
I mean on reasonably large scale. Individuals do not count in this case.

.

The answer is Yes
After the fall of France, the Germans held on to nearly a million French POW’s, which they used to blackmail Petain’s Vichy government with.

#52

Historians can use the sources that Irving has found in his research, if they’ve checked them first, but what you can’t do is use Irvings books as sources. They have too many lies in them to be of any use

If many Hitler/Third Reich historians rely on Irving, shouldn’t them all be called totally disrecided liars, according your statement? This of course means, that there only are fantasy books about third reich ,-D

No self respecting historian relies on Irving anymore. He’s been found out as a lying scumbag.

Decisions Irving makes affects directly to one people, decisions Bush makes affects directly to millions - shouldn’t there be million times more legal battles to prove every word of Bush?

.
The court case in which it was proved Irving was a lier was one he had started himself

#53

redcoat
Regarding the usage of allied forces as hostages… I think you exagurate it. I am not 100% sure, but Germany ws rather respectull (if this is possible to say in this context) to the western allied POWs.

I do not buy that Germans would start killing or starving them if they were captured.

And ones again. It is one of the profound point in the theory of negotiation, that you should present your arguments in such a way that the oponent would feel like his dignity is preserved. This goes anywhere. From salary negotiation at work to big politic.

#54

When quoting historians and Irving you should take not of the date. At the start he was lorded, as it would appear that he had uncovered new relevant information. But it later turned out that he had made it up, exaggerated the information and quoted sources that did not exist. After this point no proper historian will reference him.

Irving, surmised Professor Evans, had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4449948.stm

Any one quoting Irving as factual is going to lose an argument.

#55

Could you, guys, please stop discussing Mr. Irving in this thread? MAke your own therad! :wink:

#56

I never said they would kill or mistreat the hostages, just the fact they were captives would increase the political pressure on the British government to seek a peaceful end to the war.

And ones again. It is one of the profound point in the theory of negotiation, that you should present your arguments in such a way that the oponent would feel like his dignity is preserved. This goes anywhere. From salary negotiation at work to big politic.

Another important part of negotiation is the use of bargaining to reach agreement, many thousands of POW’s would be an ideal barganing position for the Germans.
The capture of all these troops would also effect how the British would see the situation, it would emphasise the magnitude of the defeat, and make more of them willing to seek a peace deal with Hitler.

#57

Redcoat, but then it would look like that Britain caved in big time.

Anyway, do you mean that this kind of thinking we discuss he could not possibly affected the course of action at Dunkirk. Do I understand you right?

.

#58

[quote]The armies were destroyed. Practicaly all of the equipment was left behind. Only lifes were spared.

Weapons can be replaced in days, weeks, and months, it takes far longer to build the skills needed for an effective army. [/quote]

At some decree, this is comparable to the Stalingrad situation: had the men immediately broke out of the siege, they may have been saved, but without their (heavy) equipment.

While it’s not too fast to produce large amounts of military equipment (it takes months even if military production is already running), it generally still takes longer to train skillful army.

But if you only have men, or, if you only have equipment – you’re in trouble :smiley:

In the rushed evacuation from Europe, the British Expeditionary Force left much of its heavy equipment behind on or around the beaches of Dunkirk. Included among this were 40,000 assorted vehicles (including tanks), 400 anti-tank guns and most of its artillery pieces. Lighter equipment was also lost and many troops returned even without their rifles. One soldier wrote in his diary, “we arrived armed only with shoulders, we didn’t even have cigarettes.”
-Wikipedia

There wasn’t too much equipmen in Britain at the time. One example is that it was not until 1943 when Home Army had proper equipment (a bit late to face a nazi invasion).

So, following that logic, if I quote from Irving that Luftwaffe bombed Britain, that’s not true and it never happened? ;-D

Good source on some matters where Irving is unreliable is at:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-wrong/
(for some reason site is not working at the moment, but I insert the link anyways).

_

#59

But it would look even worse if the British had agreed to a treaty when they had rescued the vast majority of their army, that really would look like they had sold out their Allies

If Hitler had wanted the British soldiers to escape why didn’t he tell his High Command, so they could cancel the attack on the beach-head which had re-started after only two days stoppage ???

Anyway, do you mean that this kind of thinking we discuss he could not possibly affected the course of action at Dunkirk. Do I understand you right?

.

He affected it by agreeing with von Rundstedt. The only way he could have affected it otherwise, would have been to over-rule his commander and order the attack to continue, but he saw no need too, because to the German High Command the British were trapped and going nowhere.

To a land people like the Germans, the coast seemed a barrier trapping the British and French against it. To a sea nation like Britain, it was a ten-lane motorway :wink:
:cool:

#60

[QUOTE=alephh;92342]

So, following that logic, if I quote from Irving that Luftwaffe bombed Britain, that’s not true and it never happened? ;-D

Following your logic, being a racist neo-nazi, who’s happy to lie in order to further his agenda, doesn’t make you a bad historian :roll: