Has anybody here read any of David Irving's books? I mean the earlier ones, like "The destruction of Dresden" or "Hitler's war". Are they worth reading, or was his later fancy for revisionism visible already then?
M.
M.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'm not sure but the libel case was very interesting watching especially a dramatisation-documentary done on it.
you still can read them. Just be sure to cross-check all facts with other sources before relying on them.
Thank's for your comments. I'm not going to use his books as references in any scientific context, I'll might read them just by pure interest.
M.
M.
I have read several of his books before he got flamed big time for trying to revise his bestseller "Hitler's war" (wasn't allowed)...Suddenly, this man, who was so well respected (although provocative)before (Exposing the Hitler diaries hoax...) and pretty inovative for getting to those Russian files among the first and doing his own research instead of quoting older authors was branded a pariah of the PC history writters. This man did his reserarch, believe me. At the end, sadly, the only ones publishing his works were right wing publishers and that just sealed his undoing.
I do encourage everybody to read him. At least you will be able to judge for yourself.
I do encourage everybody to read him. At least you will be able to judge for yourself.
I can't remember the name of his study but one man made a report saying the gas chambers were not used as that as there was no evidence of Zyclone B gas on it, this was seriously discredited but Irvine did use it as evidence in one of his books.
He did do research, however his undoing was suing an American writer for libel after she accused him - in her book - of being a Holocaust denier.
Throughout the trial it did become clear that he was obviously, if not revisionist then at least anti-semitic.
Wow, it was a long, long time ago, but I remember having read the two you mentioned, plus "The German Atomic Bomb". Nothing earthshaking, easy to read, scholarly suspect, but I have never taken the trouble to verify his notes.
The man wrote thousands of pages of usful and acurate history, lets not forget that, if he got a few things wrong, for whatever reason, shouldnt mean all the rest of his work becomes flawed. Besides who here agrees with only one books apriasel of events?. Dont we all read several acounts and from them arrive at our own opinion.
Hannibal
Hannibal
That report you mention was the "Leuchter report" (or something like that) and Irwing did mention him due to some lawsuites in Canada against some revisionist but never used him as evidence in his works, He said although that there is not a single piece of paper in existance with Hitler's signature, aproving or ordering some kind of "Final solution" as we know it today (execution). By the time he got into that Libel lawsuite he was already dead meat for years as a "credible" history writer...nobody would publish his works. Which is sad since he did a very extensive biography about Goering and Goebbels which will rott in some cellar. During his heyday he was THE leading acceptable revisionist and you saw his books everywhere..He just thought he could "shock" the media once again. Most of the money he made during those years he lost in that lawsuite...which, if you ask me I do not even know why he bothered begining since it was a lost cause. No history writer who wants to place some food on his table will even consider going against the accepted WWII history about the Holocaust. You can doubt anything...was Rommel gay or was it Eisenhower, did Hitler take Cocaine, was he Jewish did he have only one ball, was Montgomery a failure or not..Barbarossa, premtive strike or stab in the back, Pearl Harbour, an US sheme to get themselves into the war???????..etc...But never dare to say that perhaps the number of 6.000.000 is a big too much inflated to say the least. I do believe in the Holocaust happening, no doubt, but something happened on the way that has turned that incident in history into something completely out of proportion..a real alibi for never ending war reparations and massive guilt feelings..outright criminal prosecution in most of Europe if you even dare to "insult the memory of the dead" (as they call it to deminish or put on the same level that tragic event with other millions of tragedies during that horrible war). Do you get prison terms like in Germany if you decide to say that the Spanish inquisicion executed actually "only" about 500 people during its 400 year existence?. I am convinced of that is that history about this last century wont be written objectively till another hunderd years...Vae victis
Never read that one..But to call "The destruction of Dresden" "Scholarly suspect" is a joke, isn't it?...Scholary suspect is to claim, as nowadays, that during those two nites and days of continuos USA-RAF fire bombardment during the very end of February 1945, there were only about 30.000 dead civilians when thats the figure where the German authorities stopped counting during the second day and began burning the dead masses on huge pires on the streets. About 100.000 is far more acurate, but then...Why would the good Allies do such thing on a open city, crammed with east german refugees to the tilt and with no militar significance when the war was basically over....<sigh>
I have a copy of "Hitler's War" (the 2-volume edition published by Viking in 1977), and I have no complaints about the man's research, his conclusions, or his knowledge of the subject. It's unfortunate that Mr. Irving's credibility has since been destroyed, BUT, at the time it was printed, I don't recall any political correctness police wanting to have his head because he bothered to carefully research the existing historical evidence and present what I still think is an evenhanded account of Hitler's activities during the war. As for the subsequent use or misuse of his writing is concerned, I could care less. The rewriting of history has been painfully evident as long as history has been first recorded. I suppose that objective history is impossible, as an author's biases invariably creep in. However, it seems that being accused of something akin to heresy regarding historical events is still happening in our so-called enlightened electronic age.
I have always felt that the main problem of Irving's works were not the challenges to previously held ideas he put forward, but rather the odd way he tended to focus his theses and underlying arguments based on his beliefs.
If memory serves me, he starts off Churchill's War by saying that he is not out to undermine Churchill just to undermine, then describes him as looking like a toad. While he did make some inciteful and well thought-out examinations of Churchill, such sentiment being blatantly up front and non-apolgetic tainted this book.
His overly legalistic defense of Hitler's role in the Holocaust also led me to believe that Irving had not so hidden agendas when he wrote his works on the 3rd Reich. While much of his examinations are in depth and use sources that were too often ignored by the mainstream of scholarly works, he too often chose to be blind concerning his beliefs (i.e. he praised Hitler's ability to know all the railroad uses and where the rolling stock was, yet implies that the movement of jews to the camps went by without Hitler knowing of it).
Thus Irving has always struck me as the epitome of excellent potential flawed by an agenda that became more glaringly obvious over time. His anti-semitic views and legalistic defenses of Hitler's role in the Holocaust do not fall in line with his meticulous work in other areas, unless one takes into account that Irving was writing his histories ultimately to prove something that he already believed. Like bad science, believing in a certain outcome helps make that come true.
If memory serves me, he starts off Churchill's War by saying that he is not out to undermine Churchill just to undermine, then describes him as looking like a toad. While he did make some inciteful and well thought-out examinations of Churchill, such sentiment being blatantly up front and non-apolgetic tainted this book.
His overly legalistic defense of Hitler's role in the Holocaust also led me to believe that Irving had not so hidden agendas when he wrote his works on the 3rd Reich. While much of his examinations are in depth and use sources that were too often ignored by the mainstream of scholarly works, he too often chose to be blind concerning his beliefs (i.e. he praised Hitler's ability to know all the railroad uses and where the rolling stock was, yet implies that the movement of jews to the camps went by without Hitler knowing of it).
Thus Irving has always struck me as the epitome of excellent potential flawed by an agenda that became more glaringly obvious over time. His anti-semitic views and legalistic defenses of Hitler's role in the Holocaust do not fall in line with his meticulous work in other areas, unless one takes into account that Irving was writing his histories ultimately to prove something that he already believed. Like bad science, believing in a certain outcome helps make that come true.
Ebusitanus,
I have not read Mr. Irving's works, but I seem to recall that it was Irving who sued a journalist for libel - not that Irving was sued or other wise "persicuted" by PC thought police. He lost, because a court of law held that what the journalist said was, objectively, true. Truth is an absolute defence to libel.
Otherwise, I know nothing of Irving's views and could not care less. What I do find disturbing is that a man who attempted to silence another writer using legal process - and lost - is somehow held out as a martyr. Is this rational? Evidence, as you seem to imply, of some kind of "conspiracy", jewish or otherwise, to silence truth-seeking historians? Again, I must admit my ignorance of the nuances of Irving's beliefs, but as an otherwise impartial observer it appears to me that it was Irving who was trying to do the "silencing".
In a free society, if people do not like your views, they have a perfect right to ignore you, not buy your books, or call you a fool or worse. They cannot lie about what you have said - that would be libel. If Irving's writings on the Hitler era prove to be accurate, they will survive. If, as would appear more probable from their characterization on this forum, they are not accurate, they will not. No martyrdom involved.
As for the "never ending war reparations and massive guilt feelings...": well, cry me a river. Murder millions, set up death camps, attempt to control the world and reduce other peoples to slavery and worse ... and the citizens of your country may, on its bloody defeat, be left with a few "guilt feelings". Quite right. And so they should.
I have not read Mr. Irving's works, but I seem to recall that it was Irving who sued a journalist for libel - not that Irving was sued or other wise "persicuted" by PC thought police. He lost, because a court of law held that what the journalist said was, objectively, true. Truth is an absolute defence to libel.
Otherwise, I know nothing of Irving's views and could not care less. What I do find disturbing is that a man who attempted to silence another writer using legal process - and lost - is somehow held out as a martyr. Is this rational? Evidence, as you seem to imply, of some kind of "conspiracy", jewish or otherwise, to silence truth-seeking historians? Again, I must admit my ignorance of the nuances of Irving's beliefs, but as an otherwise impartial observer it appears to me that it was Irving who was trying to do the "silencing".
In a free society, if people do not like your views, they have a perfect right to ignore you, not buy your books, or call you a fool or worse. They cannot lie about what you have said - that would be libel. If Irving's writings on the Hitler era prove to be accurate, they will survive. If, as would appear more probable from their characterization on this forum, they are not accurate, they will not. No martyrdom involved.
As for the "never ending war reparations and massive guilt feelings...": well, cry me a river. Murder millions, set up death camps, attempt to control the world and reduce other peoples to slavery and worse ... and the citizens of your country may, on its bloody defeat, be left with a few "guilt feelings". Quite right. And so they should.
Ebusitanus,
when I wrote "scholarly suspect", I meant Irving's corpus as a whole, I wasn't talking about the seriousness of Dresden, which everybody knows was unjustifiable mass murder. I defer to specialists who have claimed that his scholarship is suspect. If I want to learn about k-mesons, I ask a physicist. If I want to know if somebody is scholarly competent, I ask his peers.
However, I doubt that anybody here has seriously done scholarly analysis of Irving's work. I am a professional historian, and I have done it with other authors. Believe me, to do it with any of Irving's works would require a specialist devoting months. Do you think that it is easy to verify references?
when I wrote "scholarly suspect", I meant Irving's corpus as a whole, I wasn't talking about the seriousness of Dresden, which everybody knows was unjustifiable mass murder. I defer to specialists who have claimed that his scholarship is suspect. If I want to learn about k-mesons, I ask a physicist. If I want to know if somebody is scholarly competent, I ask his peers.
However, I doubt that anybody here has seriously done scholarly analysis of Irving's work. I am a professional historian, and I have done it with other authors. Believe me, to do it with any of Irving's works would require a specialist devoting months. Do you think that it is easy to verify references?
Malthus,
I never said that Irwing was the one sued, just for that reason I believe that it was a very bad idea to take actions against that writter (can't remember his name). It was a forgone conclusion and he did not try to do any "silencing" as you post it, he was trying (foolishly) to protect his "good" name. When you see that in Germany or for that case most of Europe where just questioning part or details of what happened during those years gets you in prison under the accusation of "Offending the memory of those who died" (Since, its a PROVEN (beyond the samllest doubt)fact that the Germans as a whole slaughtered up to and beyond 6 million jews, questioning any facet, number or means is a plain insult the those who died) ...then, my friend, we do have a major problem for any serious resarch in the future. Of course, you will say that all those making the resarch or questioning are inmediatly neo-nazis or worse, who try to redeem the dark memory of Hitler and his cronies...Well, some may well have that agenda and I despise them as everybody should. BUT, to pack every resarcher into that big bag is shameful and on the same line as your mentioned "Jewish conspiracy seekers" and such.
Martyr????...F@$% that! You just turn the coin around..So because he might be provocative and being unjustly or justly slandered, that makes him a martyr for me? I'm beyond that...Why on earth can't I show you perhaps the other side of the coin?...do I make a martyr from him for that?...You just wouldn't even give the chance to prove you otherwise..<sigh>
On the "guilt trip" line...Reparations were fine and justified, criminals had to be taken accountable for their mischief and treated accordingly, memorials had to be erected to honor those who fell in fight against that Monster..But, C'mon...60 years...60 years...It about time we let the new generations living in Germany build their own history. Haven't they proved they are beyond that dark spot in their history?...Does a German teenager of today have to keep bearing the burden of what his Grandgrandfather did back in the days?...Where is the limit? Why is it ok for any American to wave his flag on the 4th of July and we automatically asume if a german does so on a soccer game he is a dangerous and dearanged neo-nazi....Its enough!!! Why has this to be rubbed in salt every month after month? Just let them close that book and live a new life. I, as a spaniard, don't feel guilty for what my ancestors did in southamerica, don't feel proud either...it was another time another way of thinking different motivations...end, I don't have Cortez' bloody sword under my bed neither his ill gotten gold. Societies are build on individuals and as such we shouldn't be taken accountable for what my president says on such and such convention or if my soccer team winns against that team...Stop this!
I never said that Irwing was the one sued, just for that reason I believe that it was a very bad idea to take actions against that writter (can't remember his name). It was a forgone conclusion and he did not try to do any "silencing" as you post it, he was trying (foolishly) to protect his "good" name. When you see that in Germany or for that case most of Europe where just questioning part or details of what happened during those years gets you in prison under the accusation of "Offending the memory of those who died" (Since, its a PROVEN (beyond the samllest doubt)fact that the Germans as a whole slaughtered up to and beyond 6 million jews, questioning any facet, number or means is a plain insult the those who died) ...then, my friend, we do have a major problem for any serious resarch in the future. Of course, you will say that all those making the resarch or questioning are inmediatly neo-nazis or worse, who try to redeem the dark memory of Hitler and his cronies...Well, some may well have that agenda and I despise them as everybody should. BUT, to pack every resarcher into that big bag is shameful and on the same line as your mentioned "Jewish conspiracy seekers" and such.
Martyr????...F@$% that! You just turn the coin around..So because he might be provocative and being unjustly or justly slandered, that makes him a martyr for me? I'm beyond that...Why on earth can't I show you perhaps the other side of the coin?...do I make a martyr from him for that?...You just wouldn't even give the chance to prove you otherwise..<sigh>
On the "guilt trip" line...Reparations were fine and justified, criminals had to be taken accountable for their mischief and treated accordingly, memorials had to be erected to honor those who fell in fight against that Monster..But, C'mon...60 years...60 years...It about time we let the new generations living in Germany build their own history. Haven't they proved they are beyond that dark spot in their history?...Does a German teenager of today have to keep bearing the burden of what his Grandgrandfather did back in the days?...Where is the limit? Why is it ok for any American to wave his flag on the 4th of July and we automatically asume if a german does so on a soccer game he is a dangerous and dearanged neo-nazi....Its enough!!! Why has this to be rubbed in salt every month after month? Just let them close that book and live a new life. I, as a spaniard, don't feel guilty for what my ancestors did in southamerica, don't feel proud either...it was another time another way of thinking different motivations...end, I don't have Cortez' bloody sword under my bed neither his ill gotten gold. Societies are build on individuals and as such we shouldn't be taken accountable for what my president says on such and such convention or if my soccer team winns against that team...Stop this!
well ask native Americans if they got any reparations for the mass murder commited among them.
But you hit the point. While th '68 generation lived the protest to the old German 50's establishment, declaring all people who lived in the WWII timefrime bad just because they did not kill Hitler, the current Generation is much more objective. We now do understand that honor, principles, chain of command, legal issues, limited knowledge etc were real reasons for people not opposing (or if opposing, not actively attacking) the regime. We nunderstand that there were attrocities, both of the type that was common practice back then and of another type, which was not to compare with anything a civilized country did. We understand that a lot of this all was largely unknown and that people had no real interest in getting to know. Wer also understand that while there were a lot of psychopaths, murderers and other brutal persons in charge, there were also those who did it because they had virtually no choice. We also do agree that not every soldier was committing crimes or had to be a nazi at all.
So there is relatively low native guilt feeling in our society. Paradoxically, our government and cultural elites try to enforce such feelings on us. This is brain-washing. If the government wants to pay one reparation after another, they may do, but from their private accounts, not from public tax money and the industry.
The German guilt is more than paid off, I guess.
Solesurviver.
True. I would not like to suggest that "Germans", taken as a whole, must feel guilt for the actions of their ancestors to the end of time. Such thinking is counterproductive and, in fact, leads to the very same type of mindset that the Nazis embodied (i.e. identification of evils by group rather than individual responsibility). The fact remains, however, that the war happened within living memory - not eons ago. When the last nazi thug or fellow traveller dies, their guilt dies with them. But by the same token, the mere passage of time by no means should lessen the guilt that German individuals who participated in atrocities should, rightly, feel.
I quite understand why individual Germans - even participating nazis - should feel blameless. As Eric Hoffer points out in "The True Believer", people join mass movements such as nazi-ism precisely to be set free of individual responsibility -- the great leader knows all and does all. When the "great leader" is overthrown, the followers quite naturally heap all of the blame on him. After all, they joined up to be set free of responsibility - it is therefore unfair for them to be saddled with responsibility after the fact.
I don't buy this logic, any more than I buy the commonly held view that Germans committed atrocities with a Nazi gun pointed collectively at their heads. Germans, it would appear, were quite enthusiastic about the nazi program - so long as they were winning.
Ebusitanus,
I by no means wished to impy that any serious seeker after the truth was a neo-nazi or anything of the sort. If, in my intemperate reply, I made that impression, I apologize for it.
As for the laws of Germany, or Europe for that matter, I am entirely ignorant of them and have to take your word for it. It is certainly a shame and quite unjustifiable if the laws prevent historians from uncovering any fact - whether it fits within the current model of history or otherwise. After all, that is the historian's job. I am a big believer in freedom of expression - any expression, even nazi rhetoric. A free society can, in my opinion, handle it all and the truth will out.
But, correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Irving was not prosecuted under any such law. It is he that sought to do the prosecuting. In the former case, I might have sympethized, even if I believed him wrong; in the latter, I have no sympathy.
I don't believe I have, as you put it, attempted to "pack every researcher into that big bag". I remain quite open to reasoned explanation of the events of the nazi era - although I must admit that I do not understand exactly what remains to "explain". That less than six million Jews died? So what? Is the murder of "only" five, four, three two or one million somehow acceptable? Quite frankly, it would require a lot of "explaination" to convince me that the nazis were anything other than an unmitigated disaster for the human race, whatever minor details are subject to change.
This being said, I remain entirely unclear as to what exactly the historical revisionists are trying to accomplish. I am not a professional historian, but from my point of view it seems that the revisionists, by revisiting every minor aspect of the nazi era to "set the record straight", are doing more than anyone else to ensure that the evils of that time are constantly re-aired.
Which is just my point - in a free society, truth will out. If you wish to forget that "dark stain", you are perfectly free to do so. You are not free to make other people forget it.
What exactly is the problem with this?
True. I would not like to suggest that "Germans", taken as a whole, must feel guilt for the actions of their ancestors to the end of time. Such thinking is counterproductive and, in fact, leads to the very same type of mindset that the Nazis embodied (i.e. identification of evils by group rather than individual responsibility). The fact remains, however, that the war happened within living memory - not eons ago. When the last nazi thug or fellow traveller dies, their guilt dies with them. But by the same token, the mere passage of time by no means should lessen the guilt that German individuals who participated in atrocities should, rightly, feel.
I quite understand why individual Germans - even participating nazis - should feel blameless. As Eric Hoffer points out in "The True Believer", people join mass movements such as nazi-ism precisely to be set free of individual responsibility -- the great leader knows all and does all. When the "great leader" is overthrown, the followers quite naturally heap all of the blame on him. After all, they joined up to be set free of responsibility - it is therefore unfair for them to be saddled with responsibility after the fact.
I don't buy this logic, any more than I buy the commonly held view that Germans committed atrocities with a Nazi gun pointed collectively at their heads. Germans, it would appear, were quite enthusiastic about the nazi program - so long as they were winning.
Ebusitanus,
I by no means wished to impy that any serious seeker after the truth was a neo-nazi or anything of the sort. If, in my intemperate reply, I made that impression, I apologize for it.
As for the laws of Germany, or Europe for that matter, I am entirely ignorant of them and have to take your word for it. It is certainly a shame and quite unjustifiable if the laws prevent historians from uncovering any fact - whether it fits within the current model of history or otherwise. After all, that is the historian's job. I am a big believer in freedom of expression - any expression, even nazi rhetoric. A free society can, in my opinion, handle it all and the truth will out.
But, correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Irving was not prosecuted under any such law. It is he that sought to do the prosecuting. In the former case, I might have sympethized, even if I believed him wrong; in the latter, I have no sympathy.
I don't believe I have, as you put it, attempted to "pack every researcher into that big bag". I remain quite open to reasoned explanation of the events of the nazi era - although I must admit that I do not understand exactly what remains to "explain". That less than six million Jews died? So what? Is the murder of "only" five, four, three two or one million somehow acceptable? Quite frankly, it would require a lot of "explaination" to convince me that the nazis were anything other than an unmitigated disaster for the human race, whatever minor details are subject to change.
This being said, I remain entirely unclear as to what exactly the historical revisionists are trying to accomplish. I am not a professional historian, but from my point of view it seems that the revisionists, by revisiting every minor aspect of the nazi era to "set the record straight", are doing more than anyone else to ensure that the evils of that time are constantly re-aired.
Which is just my point - in a free society, truth will out. If you wish to forget that "dark stain", you are perfectly free to do so. You are not free to make other people forget it.
What exactly is the problem with this?
Malthus,
Thank you for your understanding...most of people would just have tried to tatoo me a swastica on my forehead for writting such "unholy" words.
Irwing got into that lawsuite on the states where such laws do not exist. In most of Europe, such "freedom of speech" as you put it, ends there. He got jailed in Germany for a speech he gave in Dresden in the early 90' and had to jump bail to escape doing time. Various historians have gotten time in Germany and France for "insulting the memory of the dead". Some were Pro-Nazi "historians" trying to mend the Third Reich and had thus a hidden agenda in their books but other were seriously trying to investigate such and such detail about the Holocaust or some obscure sides of the Allied waging war.
Of course its not about the number of corpses...just alone one inocent victim his not justificable but in a "free" society you have to have the chance to question anthing and study whatever you want without fearing a mighty hammer falling on you because you are clipping away at the paint of some huge dogma of faith.
All this began in the mid 80' when a serie of historians, David Irwing included, began to question various areas of WWII and giving some fresh insight into temas that hadn't been touched since the inmediate postwar and had been taken as dogma from one historian to the next without much own research. At the begining it was such and such allied atrocity or such and such misunderstood german action (Katyn masacre, Dresden-Hamburg, Whilhelm Gustloff, starving of thousands of german POW in the west after 45..etc..) and even big publications were interested and books came out one after another. Then somebody began attacking the Holocaust in certain details and a t the begining there wasn't much opposition either..as you say, official numbers were questioned and then other disturbing details such as why pre 70' everybody accepted that in the "western" concentration camps, people were gased (Dachau, Mauthausen, Buchenwald...), and those terrific images of western allies liberated camps were shown (those bulldozers pushing hunderds of corpses into pits) with american-british troops onlooking as obvious sign of masses of gased people and the suddenly, no more people were gased in those camps..everything happened on those misterious, mostly destroyed "eastern" camps (Auschwitz, Maidanek, Treblinka...) which were all beyond the iron curtain....
Anyways...At one point, lawsuites began to fall on those historians who dared to question a bit too much and sentnces began to lay jurisprudence for future cases...Basically, on the court it boiled down to that...since the Holocaust was a proven fact, not to be questioned in any way, every attempt by anybody to touch that story set in stone was obviously slandering the name of millions of dead people...and that's it...It became punishable to question this "official" story line in any way...And that is what I find disturbing if anything else.
Thank you for your understanding...most of people would just have tried to tatoo me a swastica on my forehead for writting such "unholy" words.
Irwing got into that lawsuite on the states where such laws do not exist. In most of Europe, such "freedom of speech" as you put it, ends there. He got jailed in Germany for a speech he gave in Dresden in the early 90' and had to jump bail to escape doing time. Various historians have gotten time in Germany and France for "insulting the memory of the dead". Some were Pro-Nazi "historians" trying to mend the Third Reich and had thus a hidden agenda in their books but other were seriously trying to investigate such and such detail about the Holocaust or some obscure sides of the Allied waging war.
Of course its not about the number of corpses...just alone one inocent victim his not justificable but in a "free" society you have to have the chance to question anthing and study whatever you want without fearing a mighty hammer falling on you because you are clipping away at the paint of some huge dogma of faith.
All this began in the mid 80' when a serie of historians, David Irwing included, began to question various areas of WWII and giving some fresh insight into temas that hadn't been touched since the inmediate postwar and had been taken as dogma from one historian to the next without much own research. At the begining it was such and such allied atrocity or such and such misunderstood german action (Katyn masacre, Dresden-Hamburg, Whilhelm Gustloff, starving of thousands of german POW in the west after 45..etc..) and even big publications were interested and books came out one after another. Then somebody began attacking the Holocaust in certain details and a t the begining there wasn't much opposition either..as you say, official numbers were questioned and then other disturbing details such as why pre 70' everybody accepted that in the "western" concentration camps, people were gased (Dachau, Mauthausen, Buchenwald...), and those terrific images of western allies liberated camps were shown (those bulldozers pushing hunderds of corpses into pits) with american-british troops onlooking as obvious sign of masses of gased people and the suddenly, no more people were gased in those camps..everything happened on those misterious, mostly destroyed "eastern" camps (Auschwitz, Maidanek, Treblinka...) which were all beyond the iron curtain....
Anyways...At one point, lawsuites began to fall on those historians who dared to question a bit too much and sentnces began to lay jurisprudence for future cases...Basically, on the court it boiled down to that...since the Holocaust was a proven fact, not to be questioned in any way, every attempt by anybody to touch that story set in stone was obviously slandering the name of millions of dead people...and that's it...It became punishable to question this "official" story line in any way...And that is what I find disturbing if anything else.