Movie "Downfall" (About Hitler's last days)

[robertdmountfor]

So Mr irving being a serial litigant , why has he not taken an action against professor Kershaw , it would be very unlike him , any answer ??
As far as Goebbels diary goes - as I recall Irving was informed if its being in Moscow - he didn't "find it".
I have not problem with Mr. Irvings ability to locate information , it is mainly that he uses it poorly and bends it to suite what he wants it to say - I believe that this was proven beyond doubt as part of his libel case - it was also proven to have been his practise to do this for years - nothing new , nothing recent - "Real History" he calls it , "Real carp" is what it has been proven to be.
Now you tell me that I should respect a man who has been proven to have been distorting the historical record for years.

As i have already stated - if what you say is true - it is most unlike Mr. Irving not to have started a legal action - so what is keeping him , his request for fools to part with their money - is it falling on deaf ears ??
Perhaps you should send him a few quid .

What did I ask Mr. Irving - I only asked him why he withdrew his appeal evidence , seems he didn't want to explain why and took the hump that I has asked him , Mr Irving wants to answer only those who massage and feed his ego.

For your interest , the truth about David Irvings career , his libel action and his "Real History" from the experts who exposed him for what he is.

He doesnt need to....everyone can see for themselves that kershaws work comes from Irvings hard work and research. Trying to gild the lilly I think.
You cant bend FACTS. And give me an example when he has used it 'poorly'.
OF COURSE he found it, what if someone told you it was 'somewhere in Moscow' do you think you could turn up at the location half an hour later? It was buried underground and took a very long time for Irving to find. To question his incredible and groundbreaking work as an author and an historian is a pointless exercise. Try asking all the officer cadets from RCS and WP who they would rather read......you know the answer.

Ende

[LuckyStrike23]

I have a question for somebody who is a native speaker of German. Hitler supposedly spoke with a rough, Austrian accent. Did Bruno Ganz speak with this accent in the film? To my untrained ear, it does sound like he is speaking differently from some of the other actors.

Hitler had not this typical austrian accent. His speech was very different of any german accent. But very striking (clearcut)and easy to recognize. Bruno Ganz voice in Downfall was very similar to this.

[bigschuss]

Thanks for that info PzOffz7.

So, Hitler DIDN'T have an Austrian accent?

I don't speak German, but even I could tell that Ganz spoke differently from the other actors. His diction sounded "choppy" compared to the way the Goebbels actor spoke more "fluidly."

But this isn't an Austrian accent, it was just his accent, correct?

Thanks again.

[LuckyStrike23]

correct.

if you want to hear a rough austrian accent, watch a film with this guy:

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Maria_Brandauer

[Anthony N]

Steins book doesnt drawer on fresh undiscovered facts! What you are talking about was in the public domain for years! The Library of Congress.

Oh dear! Steins book was published in 1966 (Irvine's Hitler book wasn't published until 1977) so it is Irving who was using facts that had been in the public domain for years, not Stein.
Also, the Records of the Reich leader were actually only newly released when Stein's book was written, being the first historian to publish work based on them, they had only started to be microfilmed in 1961 so hadn't been in the public domain for years.
These are easily researched facts.
Ant

[robertdmountfor]

Oh dear! Steins book was published in 1966 (Irvine's Hitler book wasn't published until 1977) so it is Irving who was using facts that had been in the public domain for years, not Stein.
Also, the Records of the Reich leader were actually only newly released when Stein's book was written, being the first historian to publish work based on them, they had only started to be microfilmed in 1961 so hadn't been in the public domain for years.
These are easily researched facts.
Ant

They were given to the National Archives in 1946 having been scrutinised by OSS, to later become CIA. Many cannot be bothered to interpret and decipher this sort of archive, my point is that Irving DOES and he then puts that fresh research into his books. Thats what will always set him apart from all the other banal authors.

[behblc]

robertdemountfr
He doesnt need to....everyone can see for themselves that kershaws work comes from Irvings hard work and research. Trying to gild the lilly I think.
You cant bend FACTS. And give me an example when he has used it 'poorly'.
OF COURSE he found it, what if someone told you it was 'somewhere in Moscow' do you think you could turn up at the location half an hour later? It was buried underground and took a very long time for Irving to find. To question his incredible and groundbreaking work as an author and an historian is a pointless exercise. Try asking all the officer cadets from RCS and WP who they would rather read......you know the answer.

No gilting required.
"It" being "what" ?
If you wish to see how reliable a historian Mr. Irving is please see the red book whch you did the cut and post on.
Now why Kershaw might wish to use him at such length , to the extent that you might alledge that he has plagurised Irving does fail me.
(Considering the outcome of his libel fiasco ).

As for the claims you make regarding Sandhurst and West Point I can just as easily alledge that novice nuns are required read him in 100 unnamed convents in Southern ireland.
As for your claims regarding West Point and Sandhurst - hot air is free and that about sums up your claims.

[robertdmountfor]

No gilting required.
"It" being "what" ?
If you wish to see how reliable a historian Mr. Irving is please see the red book whch you did the cut and post on.
Now why Kershaw might wish to use him at such length , to the extent that you might alledge that he has plagurised Irving does fail me.
(Considering the outcome of his libel fiasco ).

As for the claims you make regarding Sandhurst and West Point I can just as easily alledge that novice nuns are required read him in 100 unnamed convents in Southern ireland.
As for your claims regarding West Point and Sandhurst - hot air is free and that about sums up your claims.

If you had read HW, you would know that it was seen from AH eyes... Eg; the first one knows about the 20th Juli is when he see's 'a flash of yellow light'.
'Fails you?' Dont you understand 'the libel' has nothing to do with kershaw. He pulled out, (Irving asked him as a witness) claiming insufficient grasp of language!
But I am glad you agree....'no gilding is required' for Irving!
No allege...it is FACT regarding RMCS and WP. If you dont believe me......call the information desk there!!
I can see you are not serious and indeed have a limited, and sparse understanding of the topic, so, having answered you, I will leave it there, I wont continue this never ending ramble.

[behblc]

robertdmountfr
If you had read HW, you would know that it was seen from AH eyes... Eg; the first one knows about the 20th Juli is when he see's 'a flash of yellow light'.

And a great pity it was not the last thing he had known about it.

'Fails you?' Dont you understand 'the libel' has nothing to do with kershaw. He pulled out, (Irving asked him as a witness) claiming insufficient grasp of language!

Yes ....why do you not think I read any of the books shown , I have BTW also rad the book which Mr.Irving took action over.
As far as Ian Kershaw not appearing on Mr. Irvings behalf - I think it was a wise decision ,as he wisely declared that hewas not an expert witness in the sense that Mr. Irving sought one .
have you ever heard of a translator ?
Let me explain - this is an expert in a foreign language who has the necessary expertise to translate a text from one language into another , to do it accurately and to make the translation exact.
Professor Kershaw is a Historian , trained professional.
When he requires an item of text - something in german for example to be translated he would be likely to employ the services of a professional translator to do this for him.
I have done this myself to hvae both Dutch and German records translated - it was relatively speaking inexpensive , quick and the work was of good quality - perhaps Mr. irving does not or did not fully appreciate the difference between a translator and a historian , perhaps you did not and now may be able to do so in a more complete manner than you did twenty minutes ago.

But I am glad you agree....'no gilding is required' for Irving!

I think Professor Richard Evans has provided you with enough to be going on should you read his book , after which you might wish to read the judgement from Mr. Irving's libel action.

No allege...it is FACT regarding RMCS and WP. If you dont believe me......call the information desk there!!

If I might enquire as to your source for this claim in the first instance , I do reacll that when asked to endorse your previous claims you have offerred only opinion by way of qualification , might I ask for your source ?
As for ringing the information desk at either West Point of Sandhurst I think one person making a fool of themselves is enough , I don't have to follow you down this path.

I can see you are not serious and indeed have a limited, and sparse understanding of the topic, so, having answered you, I will leave it there, I wont continue this never ending ramble.

Again this is your opinion , which you have a perfect right to hold , I will leave it for the readers to make further comment , should they wish to do so.
Your own lack of sources and abundance of opinion speaks for itself.
As you said we have taken this off track more than just a little and out of respect for the gentleman and members who started this thread we should perhaps leave it up to the membership to pass make up their own minds.

[robertdmountfor]

List for me ONE blinding revelation that kershaw can attribute to himself, or one discovery......... I will let you use your binoculars too if it woul help.
You cant, and theres the rub.

[behblc]

robertdmountfr
List for me ONE blinding revelation that kershaw can attribute to himself, or one discovery......... I will let you use your binoculars too if it woul help.
You cant, and theres the rub.

Are you getting a little tense perhaps ?
Let me try and explain again , as you semed to have missed the point.
Being a Historian is about understanding the past and viewing it in context .
I have already acknowledged that Mr. Irving has brought to light some interesting pieces of evidence , even though he seems to think he has the right to claim them almost as his own to the exclusion of all others.
He fails because he is not very good at using information in a meaningful manner , he fails because he misuses evidence to draw conclusions which are unreasonable , can be supported and are in context.
When you do this and insist on doing this does it really matter what you research if you fail to use it in a meanigful and constructive manner ?
Any research is wasted unless it is used correctly.
This is the difference between them and although Mr.Irving prides himself on using only primary sources he does in doing so fail to present a full picture and make the best use of all sources.
Might I refer you to this book - one which puts Hitler and his party into context , Mr. Irving might have done well to have read it and maybe to have learned something from it.
I highly recommend it , but being well read you are perhaps already aware of it , if not I am pleased to have brought it to your attention.
If you read this book and Kreshaw's biography you might discover that Hitler was not the ever popular man of the people which Mr. Irving might have us believe that he was - but I am sure you are aware of this rather basic piece of inforamtion - one which is illustrated on numerous occasions by use of gestapo records.
Do you think Mr Irving has used these records himself - perhaps not as they often don't show that the German people held the Fuhrer to be ever popular.
Perhaps Mr. Irving just over looked them ??

As far as the use of Zeiss to read - not a good idea , depth of field , focal length all way out , I have a perfectly good set of perscription glasses which do the job just fine.

I would suggest that if you are using a set of Zeiss as a navigational aid in this dialogue you should set them down , you are "walking into doors" at an alarming rate and amusing as it may be I do fear that you may acquire some form of closed head injury.

[robertdmountfor]

Are you getting a little tense perhaps ?
Let me try and explain anay , as you semed to have missed it .
Being a Historian is about understanding the past and viewing it in context .
I have already akcnowledged that Mr. Irving has brought to light some interesting pieces of evidence , even though he seems to think he has the right to claim tem almost as his own.
He fails beacuse he is not very good at using information in a menaingful manner , he fails because he misuses evidence to draw conclusions which are unreasonable.
When you do this and insist on doing this does it really matter what you research if you fail to use it in a meanigful and constructive manner ?
This is the difference between them and although Mr.Irving prides himself on using only primary sources he does in doing so fail to present a full picture and make the best use of all sources.
Might I refer you to this book - one which puts Hitler and his party into context , Mr. Irving might have done well to have read it and maybe to have learned something from it.
I highly recommend it , but being well read you are perhaps already aware of it , if not I am pleased to have brought it to your attention.
If you rad this book and Kreshaws biography you might discover that Hitler was not the ever popular man of the people which Mr. irving might have us believe that he was - but I am sure you are aware of this rather basic piece of infoamtion - one which is illustarted on numerous occasions by use of gestapo records.
Do you think Mr Irving has used these records himself - perhaps not as they often don't show that the German people held the Fuhrer to be ever popular.
Perhaps Mr. Irving just over looked them ??

As far as the use of Zeiss to read - not a good idea , depth of field , focal length all way out , I have a perfectly good set of perscription glasses which do the job just fine.

Well, I refer you to my previous question, can you come up with anything? I think not.
You have just made me drag my turgid copy of kershaws 'nemesis' from a very dusty corner..... (probably make a good door stop....or two) look at the back under 'list of works cited' 7 for Irving. Now count the others, the most is 6, yet at the front in 'acknowledgements' there is no mention of him. Strange that wouldnt you agree?

[behblc]

robertdmountfr
Well, I refer you to my previous question, can you come up with anything? I think not.
You have just made me drag my turgid copy of kershaws 'nemesis' from a very dusty corner..... (probably make a good door stop....or two) look at the back under 'list of works cited' 7 for Irving. Now count the others, the most is 6, yet at the front in 'acknowledgements' there is no mention of him. Strange that wouldnt you agree?

No , not at all , did you expect Keshaw to name him as co author or something ??

Whilst you are mentioning previous questions ....might I refer you to several which I amongest others have put to you all of which you have ignored - in principle the soucres for your allegations and asertions - none of which have been sourced.
You don't seem to do sources , or do I read this wrong ?
I have referred you to the book you mention now perhaps you might look for the use of Gestapo reports on public opinion which are used quite often - perhaps you might comment on why Kershaw might find these useful and yet Irving ignores them ?
Your question was not ignored , you just attempted to dogde it and reflect it back in another way.
If you are unable to comment I can quite understand , and Ps your sources as previously asked for , whilst you are at it . ( Thanks).

[robertdmountfor]

No , not at all , did you expect Keshaw to name him as co author or something ??

Whilst you are mentioning previous questions ....might I refer you to several which I amongest others have put to you all of which you have ignored - in principle the soucres for your allegations and asertions - none of which have been sourced.
You don't seem to do sources , or do I read this wrong ?
I have referred you to the book you mention now perhaps you might look for the use of Gestapo reports on public opinion which are used quite often - perhaps you might comment on why Kershaw might find these useful and yet Irving ignores them ?
Your question was not ignored , you just attempted to dogde it and reflect it back in another way.
If you are unable to comment I can quite understand , and Ps your sources as previously asked for , whilst you are at it . ( Thanks).

Gestapo reports are not unique to Germany, England had 'mass observation' of course there were dissident voices, how could there not be? However, the clear and obvious support of their leader needs no explaination, read the Gestapo reports on public opinion following Juli 20th attentat. Public outrage, General staff in their uniforms were submitted to insults on the street.
The Church opposed euthanasia, and what happened? T4 ended its operations, it listened to public opinion, and responded.

I have explained kershaws use of Irvings work, and I judge it as plaigerism, in its most base form. I refer you back, again, 7 cited sources.

As I have answered you, please find one revelatory discovery from hubris or nemesis, you will find it impossible.

Lets just agree to disagree.

[behblc]

Gestapo reports are not unique to Germany, England had 'mass observation' of course there were dissident voices, how could there not be? However, the clear and obvious support of their leader needs no explaination, read the Gestapo reports on public opinion following Juli 20th attentat. Public outrage, General staff in their uniforms were submitted to insults on the street.
The Church opposed euthanasia, and what happened? T4 ended its operations, it listened to public opinion, and responded.

I have explained kershaws use of Irvings work, and I judge it as plaigerism, in its most base form. I refer you back, again, 7 cited sources.

As I have answered you, please find one revelatory discovery from hubris or nemesis, you will find it impossible.

Lets just agree to disagree.

All of which Irving has never used , gotta question why a man who holds himself to be an expert on the man does not look at him from all sides.
As far as T4 goes it ended officially - in reality it went on and it is worth mentioning that T4 was not about relieveing sufferring it was about killing and making a saving , it ended when the target was reached.
Public opinion - Hitler never asked for the Public opinion yet he did fear it.
Agreeing to disagree - best policy in the interests of this thread .