Like many people, I used to assume that David Irving, the historian, is a bit of a nutter. I lazily assumed that, simply because that was the conventional view.
Having now paid more attention, it seems to me that he is anything but. He differs from other historians because he writes about, not what other historians have previously written, but about what is contained in the contemporaneous documents, including a large number of documents that other historians appear not to have troubled to read at all. I hesitate to try to encapsulate his main conclusions, but roughly, they appear to be as follows:
Continue reading
phenell 