Here’s what Evans said of Irving: "Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about". Really? Come on, that is obviously not possible, not one little tiny sentence? But seriously,, if you consider the amazing legacy Mr. Irving is leaving us, the prison time, the threats, the court cases, the financial worries and all the hardships he went through in his lifetime, all for the simple and noble goal of exposing the lies and healing our past , the 12 minute errors of interpretation you dug in his works are obviously a non event as far as I'm concerned, I will continue reading his books with passion, and avoid yours with the same passion.
@@owningdishonestshills7435 Maybe, but when someone is paid $250K to testify against someome else as Mr. Evans was, you can expect his testimony to go right in line with those who dished out the funds... no matter the truth. Anyone who takes the time to read anything from Mr. Irving will have to admit he is a serious historian and the best researcher to uncover new yet unseen documents, knowledge of a trial is clearly not enough to judge a writer, you have to read him yourself.
My understanding is that Lippstat is a professor of religion - not a historian. I quit watching after the second reference to her being a historian, and how terrible it must be to have your reputation as a historian be impugned - when you’re not one. Sigh,
I stand corrected. Curious, though, why the astute professor of Modern history Lippstadt and her multimillion dollar legal team chose not to use her surely formidable command of modern history in the courtroom when Mr Irving accused her of defamation. I’m also waiting for the blueprints the said astute professor says “we” have.
Absolute and complete nonsense. Evans destroyed him in trial, even though Irving had him on the stand for 5 days. You have very little idea of how thorough Evans is and was.
Darren Gray I’ve met Evans, and I’ve met his research staff, and I’ve heard him lecture. And I’ve read the judgement of the Judge at the Lipstadt case, in which he clearly states that Evans was completely convincing in showing up Irving’s ridiculous lies. Irving brought suit against Penguin Books, was stupid enough to represent himself against Rampton and Julius, acting for Lipstadt......and he went down in flames, and was promptly bankrupted, as his appeal went down in flames. Leuchter destroyed his reputation.....Lipstadt destroyed his lifestyle. You fool.
@@vnurcombe I think we all know the truth about what happened at the real trial, the movie has been made to create a "new" truth. Anyway, if you are so close to your friend skunky, why not invite him to a public debate with David Irving on all aspects of ww2? Record it! I would love to see him shit himself! You should try not to be so bedazzled by celebrity, becoming a sycophant after meeting someone famous is common but not desirable. Sycophantic fool!
Darren Gray you don’t actually know much about this trial, do you? Irving was moronic enough, to the defence’s enormous glee and relief, to forego a jury.....despite Justice Gray explaining this was a dumb move. Irving couldn’t take the risk that the jury wouldn’t hate him. As predicted, he fell into every trap the defence laid out ahead of him....he was too dumb or too poor to engage counsel. Or he thought himself cleverer than everybody. He tried hard to suck up to both Evans and particularly Chris Browning, bad move. Irving only appears intelligent if you are dumb, or you don’t understand the processes of historiography. Given Irving’s total audience are now neonazis, they are of course preternaturally ignorant. The written judgment came out to 349 pages. Following an introduction. and a discussion of the complaint,[56] more than three-quarters of the written judgment is devoted to an analysis of all the evidence that was presented. Only then does the judge get to his findings on the evidence.The judge deems that "in the course of his prolonged cross-examination, Evans justified each and every one of the criticisms on which the Defendants have chosen to rely." On the issue of Auschwitz, the judge states "My conclusion is that the various categories of evidence do 'converge' in the manner suggested by the Defendants... Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied upon by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews," and "it follows that it is my conclusion that Irving's denials of these propositions were contrary to the evidence."Furthermore, "the allegation that Irving is a racist is also established." Ultimately, the judge ruled that the defence succeeded in proving everything they claimed in trial but for two assertions: that Irving had broken an agreement with the Moscow archives and mishandled the glass plates containing Goebbels' diaries, and that he hung a portrait of Hitler above his desk. However, the judge pointed out that "the charges against Irving that have been proved to be true are of sufficient gravity" that those two claims mentioned above would "not have any material effect on Irving's reputation." Irving was CRUSHED by the historians, crushed by the truth. Read volume 11 of the trial transcripts on the HDoT website. OUCH.
You should wise up. The transcript of the trial shows how Irving was totally embarrassed by Evans when he tried to cross examine him. It ended up with Irving admitting he had made errors and misrepresented / amended evidence and Irving’s only justification was that he hadn’t intended to do this, but given the evidence of his racism (in his own diaries) the court came to the view that Irving had intended to misrepresent the evidence. To claim that Irving bettered Evans is clearly nonsense. And I’m not clear why you have your username. Do you understand what Hitler and his regime did? They murdered little children - small babies and toddlers. You’re sick and ignorant.
The fact you would call yourself after a man who was largely responsible for such suffering and death means that you immediately remove yourself from being taken seriously. The fact that you compound this by claiming Irving is a better historian shows ignorance of the trial at which EVEN IRVING accepted he made repeated errors in his representations of historical sources. The only issue was whether these were deliberate or careless.
You are misrepresenting events Evans. The film does not faithfully depict what happened in court. You are a despicable person for not acknowledging that you were paid £78,000 to testify against Irving. Neither did you recognise the fact that Irving, with no support, had the might of Lipstadt's multi £million legal team on the canvas many times. Personally you had a vendetta against Irving and as such your bias was not that of a true academic.
Evans was NOT paid £78000 to testify against Irving. Evan was paid ( considerably more ) to research and investigate Irvings work over a period of 2 years. Had Irving been an honest historian and his work stood up to scrutiny then Evans could have actually supported Irving despite being paid. It was a risk Lipstadt's defence team had to take.
" Evens is afraid of David Irving, Irving would wipe the floor with him in any debate about ww2. " Yes, Evans would be afraid of David Irving. Irving is 6'7 and 280. He would likely sack Evans.
Truth fears not investigation
Follow your leader
Hi
@@junioroliver6084 Hi there Junior.
I love Sir Evans.
Boy, I LOVE his books !!
I hope you mean Irving's books?? Nobody reads Evan's rubbish except his unfortunate students who he forced to buy them, allegedly.
Evans' books are best-sellers but sure, no one reads them. He must have a lot of students. And Irving's books are unreadable trash.
@@AllenbysEyes 🤣🤣🤣 exactly. These "students" of history that see opinion and fact as univocal love pushing their opinion as fact.
@@darrengray3782 Follow your leader
MEJOR ES LEER A DAVID IRVING
ESTE OTRO ES UN CHARLATAN
LOS PROTOCOLOS DE LOS SABIOS DE SION SE ESTAN CUMPLIENDO !!!
They got the VERY beautiful Rachel Weisz to play Deborah L. Shows how the official story tellers believe in historical accuracy.
And they had the ugly Timothy Spall to play Irving. Irving in real life is quite handsome.
Follow your leader
Hi
Richard Evans describes Lipstadt as a historian?! Well that's a lie so how accurate is his work?
Follow your leader
Perhaps you could give us your interpretation of what a historian is ??
@@scabbycatcat4202 She is a well known historian, good grief
@@user-xo8hk6oz2b That is an answer to a completely different question. Do you have learning difficulties ??
Here’s what Evans said of Irving:
"Not one of his books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about".
Really? Come on, that is obviously not possible, not one little tiny sentence?
But seriously,, if you consider the amazing legacy Mr. Irving is leaving us, the prison time, the threats, the court cases, the financial worries and all the hardships he went through in his lifetime, all for the simple and noble goal of exposing the lies and healing our past , the 12 minute errors of interpretation you dug in his works are obviously a non event as far as I'm concerned, I will continue reading his books with passion, and avoid yours with the same passion.
Follow your leader
@@slizzysluzzer I have no leader but when I see something stupid, I tell everyone.
@@rosesprog1722 Follow your leader
if someone lies so much, it is possible to discount them completely.
@@owningdishonestshills7435 Maybe, but when someone is paid $250K to testify against someome else as Mr. Evans was, you can expect his testimony to go right in line with those who dished out the funds... no matter the truth. Anyone who takes the time to read anything from Mr. Irving will have to admit he is a serious historian and the best researcher to uncover new yet unseen documents, knowledge of a trial is clearly not enough to judge a writer, you have to read him yourself.
My understanding is that Lippstat is a professor of religion - not a historian. I quit watching after the second reference to her being a historian, and how terrible it must be to have your reputation as a historian be impugned - when you’re not one. Sigh,
Follow your leader
Quick google search shows that you are just lying, she is a professor of modern history.
I stand corrected. Curious, though, why the astute professor of Modern history Lippstadt and her multimillion dollar legal team chose not to use her surely formidable command of modern history in the courtroom when Mr Irving accused her of defamation.
I’m also waiting for the blueprints the said astute professor says “we” have.
@@vexxedami7817 she was defending herself, so you are crying that she was using any means at her disposal
@@vexxedami7817 you are just a nazi admit it
Evens is afraid of David Irving, Irving would wipe the floor with him in any debate about ww2.
Absolute and complete nonsense. Evans destroyed him in trial, even though Irving had him on the stand for 5 days. You have very little idea of how thorough Evans is and was.
Ha ha perhaps in the movie you fool,
Darren Gray I’ve met Evans, and I’ve met his research staff, and I’ve heard him lecture. And I’ve read the judgement of the Judge at the Lipstadt case, in which he clearly states that Evans was completely convincing in showing up Irving’s ridiculous lies. Irving brought suit against Penguin Books, was stupid enough to represent himself against Rampton and Julius, acting for Lipstadt......and he went down in flames, and was promptly bankrupted, as his appeal went down in flames. Leuchter destroyed his reputation.....Lipstadt destroyed his lifestyle. You fool.
@@vnurcombe I think we all know the truth about what happened at the real trial, the movie has been made to create a "new" truth. Anyway, if you are so close to your friend skunky, why not invite him to a public debate with David Irving on all aspects of ww2? Record it! I would love to see him shit himself!
You should try not to be so bedazzled by celebrity, becoming a sycophant after meeting someone famous is common but not desirable. Sycophantic fool!
Darren Gray you don’t actually know much about this trial, do you? Irving was moronic enough, to the defence’s enormous glee and relief, to forego a jury.....despite Justice Gray explaining this was a dumb move. Irving couldn’t take the risk that the jury wouldn’t hate him. As predicted, he fell into every trap the defence laid out ahead of him....he was too dumb or too poor to engage counsel. Or he thought himself cleverer than everybody. He tried hard to suck up to both Evans and particularly Chris Browning, bad move. Irving only appears intelligent if you are dumb, or you don’t understand the processes of historiography. Given Irving’s total audience are now neonazis, they are of course preternaturally ignorant. The written judgment came out to 349 pages. Following an introduction. and a discussion of the complaint,[56] more than three-quarters of the written judgment is devoted to an analysis of all the evidence that was presented. Only then does the judge get to his findings on the evidence.The judge deems that "in the course of his prolonged cross-examination, Evans justified each and every one of the criticisms on which the Defendants have chosen to rely." On the issue of Auschwitz, the judge states "My conclusion is that the various categories of evidence do 'converge' in the manner suggested by the Defendants... Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied upon by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews," and "it follows that it is my conclusion that Irving's denials of these propositions were contrary to the evidence."Furthermore, "the allegation that Irving is a racist is also established."
Ultimately, the judge ruled that the defence succeeded in proving everything they claimed in trial but for two assertions: that Irving had broken an agreement with the Moscow archives and mishandled the glass plates containing Goebbels' diaries, and that he hung a portrait of Hitler above his desk. However, the judge pointed out that "the charges against Irving that have been proved to be true are of sufficient gravity" that those two claims mentioned above would "not have any material effect on Irving's reputation." Irving was CRUSHED by the historians, crushed by the truth. Read volume 11 of the trial transcripts on the HDoT website. OUCH.
Richard Evans is a horrible little man. He makes me cringe. Irving is 10x the historian Evans is. That is if you could even call Evans a "historian."
You should wise up. The transcript of the trial shows how Irving was totally embarrassed by Evans when he tried to cross examine him. It ended up with Irving admitting he had made errors and misrepresented / amended evidence and Irving’s only justification was that he hadn’t intended to do this, but given the evidence of his racism (in his own diaries) the court came to the view that Irving had intended to misrepresent the evidence. To claim that Irving bettered Evans is clearly nonsense. And I’m not clear why you have your username. Do you understand what Hitler and his regime did? They murdered little children - small babies and toddlers. You’re sick and ignorant.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 have you even read Hitlers War?
Have you even read his books??
The fact you would call yourself after a man who was largely responsible for such suffering and death means that you immediately remove yourself from being taken seriously. The fact that you compound this by claiming Irving is a better historian shows ignorance of the trial at which EVEN IRVING accepted he made repeated errors in his representations of historical sources. The only issue was whether these were deliberate or careless.
What is your opinion of Hitler? Do you also deny the holocaust?
You are misrepresenting events Evans. The film does not faithfully depict what happened in court. You are a despicable person for not acknowledging that you were paid £78,000 to testify against Irving. Neither did you recognise the fact that Irving, with no support, had the might of Lipstadt's multi £million legal team on the canvas many times. Personally you had a vendetta against Irving and as such your bias was not that of a true academic.
Follow your leader
It was Irving who took them to court and lost.
@@owningdishonestshills7435 Ha ! EXACTLY.
Evans was NOT paid £78000 to testify against Irving. Evan was paid ( considerably more ) to research and investigate Irvings work over a period of 2 years. Had Irving been an honest historian and his work stood up to scrutiny then Evans could have actually supported Irving despite being paid. It was a risk Lipstadt's defence team had to take.
" Evens is afraid of David Irving, Irving would wipe the floor with him in any debate about ww2. "
Yes, Evans would be afraid of David Irving. Irving is 6'7 and 280. He would likely sack Evans.
KaibaCorpCEO u got me
Hes also dead.