i don't get it. david irving was a highly respected historian until he started questioning the wrong subjects and was blacklisted academically and even imprisoned in austria for wrong think. this presents some issues a. if irving was a liar and his claims were false it would be easy to disprove him academically instead of putting him in prison potentially making him a martyr for holocaust deniers.  b. why would he lie? he is blacklisted from major universities and book publishers, was imprisoned, and turned into an international pariah. there is literally no incentive for him to lie. i'm sure he made money off of his controversial wwii takes but not nearly as he could have made much more money going along with the narrative of the holocaust.
United States