Just a quick note about a website you shouldn't take seriously

Commenting on something I scribbled in January, Dr Dee (who sterling contributions to this thread are to be applauded) asks me for my views on the Jews and the origins of the Second World War. Unfortunately, the article on Kristallnacht he links to, and from which he derives his question, comes from the Institute of Historical Review, which automatically makes it useless. (I know, I'm guilty of the genetic fallacy.) The IHR (not to be confused with the Institute for Historical Research) is the world's leading Holocaust denial organisation, frequented by the world's leading anti-Semitic crackpots masquerading as "scholars" in search of "real history."

Richard Evans, the historian whose history of the Third Reich I mentioned in the earlier post, has in fact written a book demolishing the claims of the IHR's foremost contributor, David Irving, who shot to fame in 2000 following a hugely publicised libel case in Britain. For those of you not familiar with the Irving trial, let me summarise: Irving, a writer with no academic credentials but plenty of books to his name, sued academic historian Deborah Lipstadt for calling him a Holocaust denier in one of her books. Since the case was heard in Britain, where libel laws favour the plaintiff, the burden of proof was on Lipstadt, who had to show that her accusation was accurate. Evans, a professor of History at Cambridge and a leading historian of 19th and 20th century Germany, became one of Lipstadt's expert witnesses; he was tasked with assembling the evidence required to prove Lipstadt's accusation. His involvement in the trial is detailed in Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, which is a superb, meticulously argued piece of work. Oh, and needless to say, Irving lost.

Let's glance at the article Dr Dee mentioned. Don't be fooled by the footnotes. Look closer, and you'll notice that the author of the piece gets just about everything wrong. She cites almost no secondary literature whatsoever; even if you're going to say something radically different from what everyone else is saying, you've still got to respect everyone else. That's why real scholarly articles almost always begin with a literature review. The IHR article is equally lacking in primary sources to substantiate the author's claim that "I found many facts which do not agree with the generally accepted thesis" -- which, by the way, is the sort of statement that you'll never catch respectable historians saying. Facts? As the late US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Ingrid Weckert is both making up her own "facts" and ignoring established ones. For instance, she writes that the Final Solution "did not mean physical extermination -- it meant only emigration of the Jews from Germany," but supplies no evidence for this ridiculous claim. I could go on, but I won't. I don't like reading dishonest, ideologically-motivated, anti-Semitic claptrap, even if it does show you the way history shouldn't be written.

By the way, Dr Dee, I'm not blaming you for citing the piece. I'm pretty sure you're not an anti-Semite or a Holocaust denier, just someone who's fallen for the IHR's dishonesty. It's easy to fall prey to internet hoaxes, as I myself will personally testify.
Posted by kungfuzi at 10:02 pm |