Hitler's War by David Irving

[Matt Swenson]

I just finished reading this (the most current version) book. Has anyone else read "Hitler's War" by David Irving? I know that he has taken a lot of flak for it to put it lightly. I found his approach to be quite open and less biased than a lot of other histories of WWII that I have read. I could not put the book down and it is 700+ pages long! I am interested in everyone else's thoughts... What parts were most eye opening for you in terms of things that you may not have know before or was there anything in this book that changed how you viewed certain WWII figures...etc

[behblc]

Whilst irving has been able to access information from private sources which "mainstream" historians have not it is how he uses it in a reasonable and consructive manner which counts in the long run.
To rewrite a book and delete any reference to "The Final Solution"durring the rewrite does beggar belief.

Beyond this actual work Mr. Irvings credentials as an objective historian nhave been questioned on the basis of his other works - it is not a source I would use in isolation.

[TerryG]

Whilst irving has been able to access information from private sources which "mainstream" historians have not it is how he uses it in a reasonable and consructive manner which counts in the long run.
To rewrite a book and delete any reference to "The Final Solution"durring the rewrite does beggar belief.

Beyond this actual work Mr. Irvings credentials as an objective historian nhave been questioned on the basis of his other works - it is not a source I would use in isolation.

I have read the book many years ago and I seem to recall that it was a good read (it was a long time ago). A historian should be able to present the facts in an "unbiaised" way but, as expressed above, the man's personal opinions and actions, as described in the media, do now make me very cautious about anything he writes. All this, however, comes from media exposure. I dare say that there are plenty of books out there, written by less flamboyant individuals who should also be taken "with a pinch of salt".

[pasoleati]

Well, it is useful to study the background of the detractors of Irving, the detractors themselves being far from biased. For example, among those detractors you will find an inordinately large number of leftists and now-greens/used-to-be-Stalinists.

As for Irving´s work, I think Colonel (ret.) Sampo Ahto´s recommendations speak for themselves as Ahto is a courageous voice among Finnish historians in that he does not follow the politically correct agenda of so many. E.g. his strong critique of the European Union, Nato and US requires courage as the establishment is basically walking on the leash of Bruxelles and Washington.

[behblc]

For me its not a case of being PC it is a case of being objective and reasonable in what you are saying and being able to stand over it .
As far as " detractors" go I judge them by the same yardstick.

Terry G.
have read the book many years ago and I seem to recall that it was a good read (it was a long time ago). A historian should be able to present the facts in an "unbiaised" way but, as expressed above, the man's personal opinions and actions, as described in the media, do now make me very cautious about anything he writes. All this, however, comes from media exposure. I dare say that there are plenty of books out there, written by less flamboyant individuals who should also be taken "with a pinch of salt".

Which is why I don't always reads in isolation - everything on its merits.

[hess]

a must read book for people who are interested in ww2 history without doubt the most informative i have read and i have read many .Forget about David Irvings detracters they all seem to have their agendas .Read it for what it is a top quality piece of historical writing .I have just finished David Irvings Nuremburg another well researched hard to put down book .Many more twists and surprises .Read and enjoy

[behblc]

Gentlemen , an accurate historical record is all that matters to me , and just who are his detractors , can we have a few names and some examples of their erroneous statements ?

[Mil-Archive]

I read it years ago and found it outstanding. I believe it was also regarded highly enough to be on the required reading list for american officers at westpoint until pressure groups had it removed.

[behblc]

Will anyone care to name "the detractors" and / or "the pressure groups" ?
I would venture to say that David Irving is a good researcher , a moderate author and a poor historian . ( Who has a rather large ego).
A good researcher , speaks for itself , a moderate author ( IMO) - I find him hard work to read , a poor historian - see the judgement against him and Professor Richard Evans objective evidence on Irvings work.
Ego , his jealousy of Ian Kershaws success.

[Mil-Archive]

I think it would be hard to respond to that without this thread getting political and therefore getting deleted.

[bobcam1]

His detractors are legion......Most seem to agree that he was an average historian, whose reputation as such was forever made suspect, when he began to support the causes of Neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers.

His libel lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt of Penguin Books was a key point in his life, when the courts ruled against him, labeling him "an active Holocaust denier", as well as an Anti-semite and racist.

One of his most abhorrent quotes: ""I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."

As an historian, some of his works are readable....As a human being, ALL of his opinions are reprehensible.

[behblc]

"Telling Lies about Hitler" Professor Richard Evans.
"The Unwritten Order" Richard Longerich.
"The Case For Auschwitz" Robert Van Pelt.

The above are all bases on the evidence presented against Irving in his libel action against Penguin Books and Lipstadt .

All of the above destroyed his credibility as an objective historian.
Evans makes frequent reference to "Hitler's War" , illustrating how the historical record was distorted and misquoted to accommodate Irving's views.
This was demonstrated throughout Irving's works , not only in "Hitler's War".

Professor Longerich's book makes nonsense of Irving's view that Hitler knew nothing of "The Final Solution" , the Argumentum ex silentio is ignored by Irving.

Irving's alternative view is that which he calls "Real History" - a revisionist take on WW2 , against this background it is understandable that his works are not required reading by any Institute of reputation.

I have named several respected historians which have issues with David Irving's standards (as a historian) and having done so see no reason why this thread should be locked.

[Xray]

I haven't read any of his works, mostly because they aren't available in the library.
I'd read a book penned by Mickey Mouse himself, and make my own determination on credibility, rather than to reply on the opinions of others.
He is pissing people off and, in my judgment, shows that he is doing something right - So I'm inclined to support the guy on that basis alone.

I find it odd that a "holocaust denier" would write that Hitler knew nothing of the final solution.
An obvious contradiction, since a holocaust denier doesn't acknowledge any "final solution" in the first place.

One must keep in mind that Hitler was once Times 'Man of the Year" ,,, And that those who try to completely demonize him do so largely in the confines of their own narrow political/social views - And to further their credibility with other liberal leaning people and organizations.

[chippler]

...
One must keep in mind that Hitler was once Times 'Man of the Year" ,,, And that those who try to completely demonize him do so largely in the confines of their own narrow political/social views - And to further their credibility with other liberal leaning people and organizations.

TIME magazines man of the year (now "person of the year") is awarded to someone, or an idea, which has had the most influence on the World in the preceding year.

Contrary to popular belief, it isn't awarded because you're a great guy. Ayatollah Khomeini was even TIME magazines man of the year in 1979, he founded modern Islamic jihad and human rights abuse and torture were commonplace under his rule.

It's funny you are harping on about how narrow-minded some people can be when it comes to their political views yet you had no clue as to what TIME "man of the year" actually was. Yes he was chosen probably because he helped pull Germany out of a slump (something of which, some say, was inevitably going to happen anyway) but he did this through re-armament.

- Chris

[behblc]

Xray
I haven't read any of his works, mostly because they aren't available in the library.
I'd read a book penned by Mickey Mouse himself, and make my own determination on credibility, rather than to reply on the opinions of others.
He is pissing people off and, in my judgment, shows that he is doing something right - So I'm inclined to support the guy on that basis alone.

I find it odd that a "holocaust denier" would write that Hitler knew nothing of the final solution.
An obvious contradiction, since a holocaust denier doesn't acknowledge any "final solution" in the first place.

One must keep in mind that Hitler was once Times 'Man of the Year" ,,, And that those who try to completely demonize him do so largely in the confines of their own narrow political/social views - And to further their credibility with other liberal leaning people and organizations.

Speaking purely for myself - I have read Irving's books - well two of them and found them hard going some of it to do with his style of writing.
I made up my own mind on him , I didn't have it made up for me.

You see it is not the credibility of others which is the issue - it is the credibility of Mr. Irving.
Mr. Irving played this same card when he lost his libel case - he portrayed himself as the victim , one man against so many.
As far as doing something right - "pissing people off" - he is really doing that to himself then blaming others.
Irving says the holocaust never happened in terms of a genocidal act and that Hitler knew nothing of the camps or ill treatment which took place there - I hope this might clarify your confusion.

Hitler's reputation stands on his achievements and the legacy he left mankind - it is this historical record upon which he is judged , nothing else.
In what year was he "man of the year" ?

Churchill described Hitler as being " a child of rage and grief of an empire and race which had suffered overwhelming defeat in war."
He also said of him of him "It is not possible to form a just judgement of a public figure who has attained the enormous dimensions of Adolf Hitler until after his life work as a whole is before us"

Look at your "Times Man of The Year" within context , I refer you to Mr. Churchill and my own view that Hitler must be judged on the legacy he left and his life achievements.