Editing David Irving (section)

==Reception by historians==
{{main|Critical responses to David Irving}}
Irving, once held in regard for his expert knowledge of German military archives, was a controversial figure from the start. His interpretations of the war were widely regarded as unduly favourable to the German side. At first this was seen as personal opinion, unpopular but consistent with full respectability as a historian.<ref name="Lipstadt 2005 22">{{Harvnb|Lipstadt|2005|p=22}}.</ref>

By 1988, however, Irving had begun to reject the status of the Holocaust as a systematic and deliberate genocide. He soon became the main proponent of Holocaust denial. This, along with his association with far-right circles, dented his standing as a historian. 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 the mainstream of the historical profession.<ref>{{Harvnb|Kershaw|1985|p=150}}.</ref> 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".<ref>{{Harvnb|Kershaw|1985|p=268}}.</ref>

The description of Irving as a historian, rather than an author writing about history, is controversial, with some publications since the libel trial continuing to refer to him as a "historian"<ref name="DI_historian">e.g. [https://www.theguardian.com/irving/ The Guardian]</ref> or "disgraced historian",<ref name=DIdisgraced>Philippe Naughton and agencies in Vienna. [https://web.archive.org/web/20080724155120/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2049360,00.html "Irving jailed for three years, despite Holocaust U-turn"], ''[[The Times]],'' 20 February 2006.</ref> while others insist he is not a historian, and have adopted alternatives such as "author"<ref name="DI_author">"In 1969 ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' determined 'It is incorrect to describe David Irving as a historian. In future we should describe him as an author.{{'"}} {{cite news |last= Ingrams |first= Richard |url=http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article347567.ece |title= Irving was the author of his own downfall |work= [[The Independent]] |date= 25 February 2006 |location= London |access-date= 27 March 2010 |url-status= dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071220125920/http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article347567.ece |archive-date= 20 December 2007}}</ref>
or "historical writer".<ref name="DI_writer">"...{{nbsp}}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 vs. (1) Lipstadt and (2) Penguin Books, [http://hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/6.html Expert Witness Report] by [[Richard J. Evans]] FBA, Professor of Modern History, [[University of Cambridge]], 2000, Chapter 6. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131206151336/http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/evans/6.html |date=6 December 2013 }}</ref>
The military historian [[John Keegan]] praised Irving for his "extraordinary ability to describe and analyse Hitler's conduct of military operations, which was his main occupation during the [[Second World War]]".<ref name="keegan">{{cite web |author=Keegan, John|url=http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F2000%2F04%2F12%2Fnirv512.html |title=The trial of David Irving—and my part in his downfall |access-date=25 February 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040627233112/http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=%2Farchive%2F2000%2F04%2F12%2Fnirv512.html |archive-date=27 June 2004|author-link = John Keegan}}. ''The Daily Telegraph'' (UK). 12 April 2000</ref> Donald Cameron Watt, [[Emeritus Professor]] of Modern History at the [[London School of Economics]], wrote that he admires some of Irving's work as a historian, though he rejects his conclusions about the Holocaust.<ref name=HistoryNeeds>{{cite news |title=History needs David Irvings|first=Donald |last=Cameron Watt |work= London Evening Standard |date= 11 April 2000}}</ref> At the libel proceedings against Irving, Watt declined Irving's request to testify, appearing only after a [[subpoena]] was ordered.<ref name="Guttenplan 128">{{Harvnb|Guttenplan|2001|p=128}}.</ref> He testified that Irving had written a "very, very effective piece of historical scholarship" in the 1960s, which was unrelated to his controversial work. He also said that Irving was "not in the top class" of military historians.<ref name="Guttenplan 128" />