preview

David Irving's Denial Of The Holocaust

Decent Essays
Open Document

It is arguable for various reasons that David Irving may be considered a historian regardless of his denial of the Holocaust. Under the definition of what makes a historian (i.e. someone who is a scholar, has had their works published, etc.) Irving fits the description. David Irving, as a historian, has a strong focus on the German military, not the Holocaust. Irving’s morality is definitely questionable based on the remarks he has made, but he has not published anything specifically on the Holocaust and he has claimed that he does not consider himself “a historian of the Holocaust”. Irving has also stated that he considers himself “as a biographer of top Nazis”. One discussion that plays in heavily with the debate regarding whether or not Irving may be considered a historian is whether or not his works are being censored through the widespread banning of his publications. I personally believe that in this case this is censorship. Much of …show more content…

As mentioned before, Irving’s works have a sole focus on the German military, not the Holocaust. As long as Irving does not publish anything inaccurate like his beliefs, he may remain a historian. When it comes to morality, I personally do not believe that you have to agree with someone’s beliefs in determining whether or not they may be considered a historian, especially because Irving isn’t even a historian of the Holocaust. Irving’s denial of the Holocaust does make him questionable as a source, but based on our readings it is suggested that the reasoning behind this is that Irving has blatantly neglected to look at documents that include proof of the Holocaust. It has also been stated that Irving had eventually acknowledged the occurrence of the Holocaust based on a document he had read, although his timing was

Get Access