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

[robertdmountfor]

[QUOTE=antwhiplash;2464533]A very interesting lecture, thankyou for the link.
I have read a few opinions on downfall from historians, film makers & intellectuals & although a few were very much against the film being shown, most of them thought that the film modernised the view of Hitler & by humanising him & the Nazi heirarchy made him all the more evil. I agree with them that in the past Hitler has been betrayed as almost superhuman and as such has been a figure more likely to be attractive to Neo Nazis. By being portrayed as very human in Downfall it actually has the opposite effect, it makes him seem all too human, almost pathetic, very lost & hardly a character a Neo Nazi would hold up as some superhuman being to be followed even after all these years.
The lecture also brought up something that i was discussing recently with my fiance. How will future generations view Hitler? This was because i was thinking about how we view the Roman Empire now. Although it was one of the most evil regimes ever it is now viewed more for it's inventions & military genius & not for making a sport from genocide, even hitler didn't go that far!
Fascinating.


He will be placed in line with all the 'greats' of history.. Alexander, Richard the Lionheart, Ceaser, Napoleon, Frederick die grosse, Bismarck, Hindenburg ...
sadly Kershaw relies very little, if at all on research, first hand interviews, plagerism, and in that respect limits his knowledge to an intellectual and personal argument. Look at all the acknowledgements at the back!!!
'Hitlers War', ...... now thats a book!!!
David Irving has without doubt risen above all other's attempts to explain the man. His work will always remain the definitive account of his life and career.

[behblc]

robertdmountfor
He will be placed in line with all the 'greats' of history.. Alexander, Richard the Lionheart, Ceaser, Napoleon, Frederick die grosse, Bismarck, Hindenburg ...
sadly Kershaw relies very little, if at all on research, first hand interviews, plagerism, and in that respect limits his knowledge to an intellectual and personal argument. Look at all the acknowledgements at the back!!!
'Hitlers War', ...... now thats a book!!!
David Irving has without doubt risen above all other's attempts to explain the man. His work will always remain the definitive account of his life and career.

Hitler did make a huge impression on 20th Century history of that there is no doubt but he will not be remembered for anything good or for anything which contributed towards the well being or benefit of anyone.
You list a number of great military leaders - Hitler will never rank alongside any of them and for obvious reasons.
To compare Hitler to Bismarck , - why ?
Why not Stalin or Pol Pot ?

I would not regard Mr. Irvings study of Hitler very highly , it has been shown to be flawed and this from a man who was able to revise his work to remove any mention of the Holocaust , yes I am sure Mr. irving was doing what the judge said he did - showing Hitler in the most favourable light possible , without regard to the facts.

What act of plagerism is Professor Kershaw guilt off - might you enlighten me and if possible tell me why he has not had to pay damages ?

I would disagree that Kershaw has written a second class work , or anything which presents anything less than a balanced account of Hitler , his life and his contribution to 20th century history.

[Anthony N]

Hitler did make a huge impression on 20th Century history of that there is no doubt but he will not be remembered for anything good or for anything which contributed towards the well being or benefit of anyone.
You list a number of great military leaders - Hitler will never rank alongside any of them and for obvious reasons.
To compare Hitler to Bismarck , - why ?
Why not Stalin or Pol Pot ?

I would not regard Mr. Irvings study of Hitler very highly , it has been shown to be flawed and this from a man who was able to revise his work to remove any mention of the Holocaust , yes I am sure Mr. irving was doing what the judge said he did - showing Hitler in the most favourable light possible , without regard to the facts.

What act of plagerism is Professor Kershaw guilt off - might you enlighten me and if possible tell me why he has not had to pay damages ?

I would disagree that Kershaw has written a second class work , or anything which presents anything less than a balanced account of Hitler , his life and his contribution to 20th century history.

Having studied the Third Reich in depth for 2 years before University when Bullock's A Study in tyranny was THE authoritative book on Hitler i agree that Kershaw is definitely not guilty of plaigerism, infact he is at the forefront of the modern way of looking at Hitler, and so i would also wish to know who Kershaw plaigarised in this?
As for Irving i would rate him as a poor Historian, not because of his own supposedly far right views but because he has a dogmatic approach which means that instead of taking all the evidence avaialable & making an informed opinion, he instead has the conclusions he wishes to make & then fits it to the evidence he believes proves this.
Hitler will never be seen as a great alongside others, he was obviously a very able & intelligent politician & a great orator with bucketfulls of charisma but he was a very poor military tactician & also failed to achieve anything positive that we are better off for to this day.
He was so evil that i really cannot see him being held up against other greats from history.
Ant.

[bigschuss]

sadly Kershaw relies very little, if at all on research, first hand interviews, plagerism, and in that respect limits his knowledge to an intellectual and personal argument. Look at all the acknowledgements at the back!!!

I couldn't disagree more. He spent a decade researching his 2 volume Hubris and Nemesis.

I'll keep an open mind and ask you to explain some of these comments. Maybe I'm missing something?

[peleliuexplorer]

History shows that Hitler will be remembered along with the other "greats" since he practically took over all of Europe! He will also go down as the most evil, along with Stalin and Saddam H.

-Eric

[Santi]

Watching the Greman language version with English subtitles worked quite well - my high school German classes kicked in. I find watching dubbed-in versions distracting in films like this.

I have that version on DVD.
I love that movie. Truly oustanding.

[behblc]

Tiger89
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianK
Watching the Greman language version with English subtitles worked quite well - my high school German classes kicked in. I find watching dubbed-in versions distracting in films like this.


I have that version on DVD.
I love that movie. Truly oustanding.

Have to agree - dubbed english destroys a good film - Das Boat , Heimat , Downfall - all should be watched in
their mother tongue.

To return quickly to the critical comments made off Ian Kershaw - Mr. Irving makes similar comments - Mr. Irving seemed irked that Kershaw was given a Knighthood.

I recall asking Mr. Irving a perfectly reasonable question only to find that by way of reply that I was being placed on his list of "traditional enemies".
mr. Irvings views mean nothing to me it is his objectivity which I would be more concerned with.

To retrun finally to "Downfall" - an excellent film which I enjoy on a regular basis .

[robertdmountfor]

.

I recall asking Mr. Irving a perfectly reasonable question only to find that by way of reply that I was being placed on his list of "traditional enemies".
mr. Irvings views mean nothing to me it is his objectivity which I would be more concerned with.


So that is the reason that you do not like him...
If you knew him, or even about him one could instantly see that this is a colussus of a man a true historian.....look at all his previous work compared to Kershaw.
Kershaw is the liberal elites favourite 'Hitler' expert. His talk on the last days was pitiful! Nothing that he said was anything new or even remotely interesting. Just a re hash of all the known facts presented in a style that gave the impression that everything he said was unknown hitherto.
Irving sued Liptstadt as she claimed he was a denier..this may be true, but it does not detract from his work at all...how could it?
His work is common reading at Westpoint, what more can be said?
Irving has 'been there' and done it with all the living major figures both past and present from the TR, look at all his titles, they will never be surpassed.
He discovered Goebbels glass diary copies, Prof Morrells secret diary, he has Himmlers vast correspondence that has just come to light, as I said, anyone looking for the historical truth and not just what the LE would like us to believe, hes your man. No contest. And what ever anybody says or does can change that.

[behblc]

It is not a case of not liking him- I don't know him , his refusal to even attempt to give me an answer was more a source of amusement than annoyance.

robertdmountfor
Irving sued Liptstadt as she claimed he was a denier..this may be true, but it does not detract from his work at all...how could it?

My I refer you to a book , "Telling lies about Hitler" By Professor Richard Evans.
May I also refer you the judgement in his libel action and the judgement which was hadned down in his failed appeal.
Your question may be answered if you refer to all three.
I note that you have failed to address your previous comment and the repeated questions from those who asked you to qualify your remarks.

His work is common reading at Westpoint, what more can be said?

Westpoint may need to revise their reading lists .

And what ever anybody says or does can change that.

I don't doubt that Mr. Irving has a talent for research , he has only a limited talent for the use of what he is so good at ferreting out.
he also has a fendency to regard it as his alone and is jealous of others referring to it or using it.

Perhaps we might return to "Downfall" a seperate thread on Irvings work might be best but I can only see it being locked unless the objectiveity of those taking part is somewhat better than that which Mr. Irving sets as his own particular benchmark.

[robertdmountfor]

It is not a case of not liking him- I don't know him , his refusal to even attempt to give me an answer was more a source of amusement than annoyance.


My I refer you to a book , "Telling lies about Hitler" By Professor Richard Evans.
May I also refer you the judgement in his libel action and the judgement which was hadned down in his failed appeal.
Your question may be answered if you refer to all three.
I note that you have failed to address your previous comment and the repeated questions from those who asked you to qualify your remarks.

Westpoint may need to revise their reading lists .

I don't doubt that Mr. Irving has a talent for research , he has only a limited talent for the use of what he is so good at ferreting out.
he also has a fendency to regard it as his alone and is jealous of others referring to it or using it.

Perhaps we might return to "Downfall" a seperate thread on Irvings work might be best but I can only see it being locked unless the objectiveity of those taking part is somewhat better than that which Mr. Irving sets as his own particular benchmark.

The fact remains, what better recommendation than Westpoint, and I might add, Sandhurst.
If he has a tendency to regard it as his own, who can blame him? He then publishes his results......in many cases free of charge, look at his website, you can enter free, and download all of his recent work. Can Kershaw get even close....of course not.
But as you say this is a Downfall thread...

[Anthony N]

.

Irving sued Liptstadt as she claimed he was a denier..this may be true, but it does not detract from his work at all...how could it?

I would have said that the fact that he denies the holocaust makes him a very poor historian, to do all the research he claims to have done & not notice the holocaust? That's staggering!

[/QUOTE]He discovered Goebbels glass diary copies, Prof Morrells secret diary, he has Himmlers vast correspondence that has just come to light, as I said, anyone looking for the historical truth and not just what the LE would like us to believe, hes your man. No contest. And what ever anybody says or does can change that.[/QUOTE]

There have been historians using similar groups of papers for decades. What about George H Stein's book on the Waffen SS which used the records of the Reich Leader of the SS and Chief of German Police which amounted to 1,000 linear feet of files! Even that was only one of many sources used for the book first published in 1966.
This is what historians do but Irving likes to make his followers believe he's the only historian who does this.
Ant

[behblc]

I won't be making any further replies regarding David Irving - it is taking the thread of topic , its negative and unproductive , an allegation which is slanderous has been made of Ian kershaw - and for me this is not what Wehrmacht Awards is about.

Robertdmountfor has not explained his allegation nor has he withdrawn it - I won't be discussing Irving any further in this thread - as far as I am concerned he is off topic.

[robertdmountfor]

I won't be making any further replies regarding David Irving - it is taking the thread of topic , its negative and unproductive , an allegation which is slanderous has been made of Ian kershaw - and for me this is not what Wehrmacht Awards is about.

Robertdmountfor has not explained his allegation nor has he withdrawn it - I won't be discussing Irving any further in this thread - as far as I am concerned he is off topic.

In Kershaws 2 books , list of work cited are 8 of Irvings Hitlers War.
The well known and highly respected German journalist Rolf Hochhuth reviewed the two volumes of kershaws Hitler for Welt Woche, and spotted it derived mainly from Irvings HW.
Dont forget that kershaw failed to act as a witness at Irvings trial claiming his knowledge of German was not enough to sustain!!
He is a conformist historian..they are the opposite of non-conformist. They keep their heads below the parapet, they swim with the tide, they march with the jackbooted throng of fellow conformist historians and trample dissent and REAL RESEARCH underfoot.
It was kershaw who said that he dismissed the idea of interviewing surviving members of the TR regime, including Frau Junge..'I didnt want to be involved with those people with their trite memories'
So lets review the evidence.... cannot understand or speak German to any significant extent, so therefore could not understand sutterlin script, (of which the majority of period hand written notes and letters were written in) does not feel that it was worth interviewing the actual figures that were these events, considering their possible input as 'trite' and his two volumes are full of Irving rip offs.
Now try to tell me that I should respect this man as thee authority on AH!
You must be mad.

[robertdmountfor]

I would have said that the fact that he denies the holocaust makes him a very poor historian, to do all the research he claims to have done & not notice the holocaust? That's staggering!

He discovered Goebbels glass diary copies, Prof Morrells secret diary, he has Himmlers vast correspondence that has just come to light, as I said, anyone looking for the historical truth and not just what the LE would like us to believe, hes your man. No contest. And what ever anybody says or does can change that.[/QUOTE]

There have been historians using similar groups of papers for decades. What about George H Stein's book on the Waffen SS which used the records of the Reich Leader of the SS and Chief of German Police which amounted to 1,000 linear feet of files! Even that was only one of many sources used for the book first published in 1966.
This is what historians do but Irving likes to make his followers believe he's the only historian who does this.
Ant[/QUOTE]


I dont understand what sense this makes? Hitlers War was exactly that, and if you took the time to read it you would see what it says about 'entlossung'.
Steins book doesnt drawer on fresh undiscovered facts! What you are talking about was in the public domain for years! The Library of Congress.
Irving CONTRIBUTES to these academic institutions... 'World History in Munich' are one benefactor of his.
kershaw used the Goebbels diaries very significantly in his work.
You say that 'this is what historians do' it was not what kershaw did!! Irving continues to push the boundaries of research and continues to uncover more than all the so called historians Bullock et al put together.

[behblc]

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.