David Irving: Forskelle mellem versioner
Content deleted Content added
Maunus (diskussion | bidrag) |
Maunus (diskussion | bidrag) →Lipstadt-sagen (2000): mere om retssagen og Evans konklusioner |
||
Linje 27:
}}</ref>
Evans konkluderede sin gennemgang af Irvings værker således:
Irving er udvist af eller nægtet indrejse i [[Tyskland]], [[Østrig]], [[Italien]], [[Canada]], [[Australien]], [[New Zealand]], [[Sydafrika]] og [[USA]]. ▼
{{blockquote|Ikke en eneste af <nowiki>[hans]</nowiki> bøger, taler eller artikler, ikke et eneste afsnit, ikke én sætning i nogen af dem, kan anses for at være en korrekt fremstilling af sit historiske emne. De er alle fuldstændig blottet for historisk værdi, fordi man intet sted kan stole på at Irving på noget sted i nogen af dem giver en pålidelig gengivelse af de emner han taler eller skriver om ... hvis vi med ordet "historiker" mener en som beskæftiger sig med at opdage sandheden om fortiden og give en så korrekt repræsentation af den som muligt, så er Irving ikke historiker.<ref>"Not one of <nowiki>[Irving's]</nowiki> 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 ... 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."{{cite web |url=https://hdot.org/evans/#evans_6.html|work=Holocaust Denial On Trial: Expert Witness Report|title=Chapter 6. General Conclusion |last=Evans |first=Richard J. |authorlink=Richard J. Evans |accessdate=19 December 2013}}</ref>}}
Evans udtalte også at:
{{blockquote|Irving ... havde med fortsæt fordrejet og forsætligt fejloversat dokumenter og falsificeret, bevidst brugt tilbageviste vidnesbyrd og forfalsket historisk statistik... Irving er så langt fra at nå den normalt gældende standard for historisk forskning at han slet ikke fortjener at blive kaldt 'historiker'.<ref>Irving, ''(...)'' had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics. ''(...)'' Irving has fallen so far short of the standards of scholarship customary amongst historians that he does not deserve to be called a historian at all."{{cite news|last=Walker |first=Andrew |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4449948.stm |title=UK | Profile: David Irving |publisher=BBC News |date=20 February 2006 |accessdate=2 September 2011}}</ref> </blockquote>
Ikke alene tabte Irving salen, men desuden gjorde retssagen at andre af hans værker som ikke allerede var blevet offentligt tilbagevist nu blev analyseret og kritiseret. Han måtte også betale alle sagsomkostninger, et beløb der var større end 2 millioner pund.<ref name="Walker"/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/709996.stm | accessdate=12 January 2011|title=Irving defiant over libel defeat|publisher=BBC News|date=12 April 2000}}</ref> When he did not meet these, Davenport Lyons moved to make him bankrupt on behalf of their client. He was declared bankrupt in 2002,<ref>{{cite news|first1=Vikram|last1=Dodd|last2=Guttenplan|first2=D.D.url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/mar/05/humanities.highereducation |title=Holocaust denier made bankrupt|work=The Guardian|date=5 March 2002|accessdate=12 January 2011|location=London}}</ref> and lost his home, though he has been able to travel around the world despite his financial problems.<ref>{{cite news|last=Dodd|first=Vikram|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/22/irving.humanities|title=Failed libel action costs Irving his home|work=The Guardian|date= 22 May 2002|accessdate=2 September 2011|location=London}}</ref>
▲Irving
== Arrestation i Østrig (2005) ==
| |||