David Irving Question

[Von Fauster]

DISCLAIMER: This is a simple, honest, straightforward question (with no alterior motive)that I am asking because I know that there are many people here who are better read than I am. I am not trying to start a debate on David Irving's political beliefs- especially regarding his opinions on the Holocaust.

I picked up a couple of books, mostly used, a number of years ago on the North African campaign and, for obvious reason, am interested in reading them now. One of the books was David Irving's Rommel: The Trail of the Fox . Because of his reputation as an apologist and/or revisionist I am wondering if the his statements/facts in THIS particular work can be considered reasonably accurate.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful opinions.

[past caring]

Not having read the books, I can't answer for sure. I may have my theories given the track record of the accuracy of his "research" (rather than the political opinions themselves) in other areas....

But more usefully, why not read some other, less controversial histories? Here's some suggestions

Alamein-John Bierman & Colin Smith

Rommel's War in Africa-Wolf Heckmann

The Crucible of War-Barrie Pitt (this one's a trilogy and probably the best of the lot).

All should be available from your library-and you might then be in a better position to judge for yourself.

[Michael Dorosh]

I think Irving does paint Rommel in an unflattering light in many ways - his ego, un-cooperativeness with his Italian allies, his glory seeking - a refreshing change from other more hero-worshipping books about him.

I believe the consensus here was that Trail of the Fox wasn't all that tainted by Irving's unique views, but may be remembering that wrong.

[Von Fauster]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I believe the consensus here was that Trail of the Fox wasn't all that tainted by Irving's unique views, but may be remembering that wrong.

Points well taken fellas. I guess that's what I'm wondering. I don't mind if an author has opinions or draws conclusions. I'm a reasonably educated person and can form my own opinions given the facts-- I'm just wondering about the facts. I like the library suggestion, but I've got Irving's book sitting in my bookshelf and I'm wondering if I should dismiss it out of hand as propagandist tripe, or, give it a go as a reasonably well researched history.

While I'm at it and have your attention- I also picked up Knights Cross by David Fraser. Any good?

[ December 08, 2003, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Von Fauster ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I read it before knowning much about Rommel and before knowning anything about Irving. It was well written and entertaining, so it won't be a total waste of time. I'll leave others to comment on how factual it is.

[past caring]

Not saying that this is the case for a second-but there is a possibility, given Rommel's later actions, that Irving paints him in an unflattering light precisely because of his political views.

BTW, the Heckmann book certainly "redresses the balance"-both in terms of the assesment of his qualities as a general and politically (if that interests you, at all. He was a confirmed Nazi and, like many other anti-Hitler conspirators, only got involved once he could see the writing on the wall).

[Michael Emrys]

I read Irving's book about twenty years ago and found it entertaining. I was also somewhat dubious about parts of it, particularly some of the words he puts in Rommel's mouth read more like something from a recent novel. They were out of character with Rommel's own words as recorded in his diaries. And mind you, this was before I was aware of Irving's reputation. It just seemed like he was going more for sensation than accuracy.

Then I got a copy of a book by Rommel's naval adjutant (or something like that), Admiral Ruge, I believe. It was written in angry rebuttal to what Irving had written. He flatly contradicts many of Irving's assertions about Rommel's conduct in command of Army Group B. If he is right, then what Irving wrote of that period is seriously discredited. Furthermore, it casts grave doubts on the credibility of the rest of his narrative as well.

If you want to read Irving, it might be well to read Ruge as well. To the best of my recollection, his book's English title is With Rommel in Normandy. I'm fairly certain I still have my copy, but that it is still to be unpacked. I haven't seen it in a good long while.

Michael

[Alkiviadis]

Irving's books have to be picked thru like minefields - he has a political (far right wing) axe to grind & he, as has been pointed out, LIES.

In fact he lost a major libel case because of his lies & distortions

I would suggest reading Rommel himself:

"The Rommel Papers" edited by B.H.Liddell Hart.

One aspect of his career that is unexamined & I think relates to his relationship with Hitler is the fact that he was a middle-class Swabian, not an aristocratic Prussian, I suspect both men suffered some disdain from the aristo-warrior class running the army.

[Steiner14]

Originally posted by Von Fauster:

I'm a reasonably educated person and can form my own opinions given the facts-- I'm just wondering about the facts.

Good, but if that were the case, why are you asking that:

I like the library suggestion, but I've got Irving's book sitting in my bookshelf and I'm wondering if I should dismiss it out of hand as propagandist tripe, or, give it a go as a reasonably well researched history.

Simply read the book and decide on your own.

BTW: science (especially true for history-science) IS revisionistic.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Alkiviadis:

Irving's books have to be picked thru like minefields - he has a political (far right wing) axe to grind & he, as has been pointed out, LIES.

In fact he lost a major libel case because of his lies & distortions

I would suggest reading Rommel himself:

"The Rommel Papers" edited by B.H.Liddell Hart.

One aspect of his career that is unexamined & I think relates to his relationship with Hitler is the fact that he was a middle-class Swabian, not an aristocratic Prussian, I suspect both men suffered some disdain from the aristo-warrior class running the army.

And Rommel had no axes to grind - or never lied? He lied to Hitler repeatedly, and was there not some controversy over the conditions of the award of his Pour le Merite? Not that I fault anyone for lying to Hitler, but he was routinely dishonest with his Italian allies and superiors - I have to wonder how truthful he could possibly have been given the fact that anything written by him would have been done without time to reflect after the war (due to his sudden demise in late 1944).

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

And Rommel had no axes to grind - or never lied?

Rommel had plenty of axes to grind, but what I read in his diaries left me not with the impression that he lied in them—they are in fact embarrassingly frank—but in showing the limitations of the man's point of view, his narrowmindedness and insistence on always having his own way. There is a self-righteous priggishness that blossoms in his tone, an arrogant self-superiority that he might have removed or at least toned down had he had the time and leisure to edit them further.

In short, they very much read like something indeed written in the heat of the moment and not the carefully crafted self portrait of a man of his intelligence bent on concealing anything that would fail to be flattering.

But then, what do I know?

Michael