| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Critical responses to David Irving ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Critical responses to David Irving
Critical responses to David Irving have changed dramatically as David Irving, a writer on the subject of World War II and Nazism, changes his own public political views, further there are doubts as to how far Irving applies the historical method. This article documents some of these critical responses over the course of his writing career.
==Overview==
Irving was once highly regarded for his expert knowledge of German military archives. Much of his scholarship was disputed by historians to the point that his standing as a historian was challenged from his earliest publications.〔In 1969, after David Irving's support for Rolf Hochhuth, the German playwright who accused Winston Churchill of murdering the Polish wartime leader General Sikorski, ''The Daily Telegraph'' issued a memo to all its correspondents. It said: "It is incorrect to describe David Irving as a historian. In future we should describe him as an author". Ingram, Richard. ("Irving was the author of his own downfall" ), ''The Independent'', 25 February 2006. The same point was made during Irving vs. (1) Lipstadt and (2) Penguin Books: "It may seem an absurd semantic dispute to deny the appellation of 'historian' to someone who has written two dozen books or more about historical subjects. But 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. Those in the know, indeed, are accustomed to avoid the term altogether when referring to him and use some circumlocution such as 'historical writer' instead. Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history for his own political purposes; he is not primarily concerned with discovering and interpreting what happened in the past, he is concerned merely to give a selective and tendentious account of it in order to further his own ideological ends in the present. The true historian's primary concern, however, is with the past. That is why, in the end, Irving is not a historian". Irving vs. (1) Lipstadt and (2) Penguin Books, ("Expert Witness Report by Richard J. Evans FBA, Professor of Modern History, University of Cambridge" ), 2000, Chapter 6. During Irving's criminal trial in Austria, State Prosecutor Michael Klackl said: "He's not a historian, he's a falsifier of history". Traynor, Ian. ("Irving jailed for denying Holocaust" ), ''The Guardian'', 21 February 2006.〕 Contentious in large part for advancing interpretations of the war considered favourable to the German side and for association with far-right groups that advanced these views, by 1988 he began advocating the view that the Holocaust did not take place as a systematic and deliberate genocide, and quickly grew to be one of the most prominent advocates of Holocaust denial, costing him what scholarly reputation he had outside those circles. A marked change in Irving's reputation can be seen in the surveys of the historiography of the Third Reich produced by Ian Kershaw. In the first edition of Kershaw's book ''The Nazi Dictatorship'' in 1985, Irving was called a "maverick" historian working outside of the mainstream of the historical profession〔.〕 By the time of the fourth edition of ''The Nazi Dictatorship'' in 2000, Irving was described only as a historical writer who had in the 1970s engaged in "provocations" intended to provide an "exculpation of Hitler's role in the Final Solution".〔.〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Critical responses to David Irving」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|