Hitler's War by David Irving

[behblc]

X-Ray
Oh yeah, just take the last sentence of a short & concise argument, and respond to just that to suit your purpose.
Out of context snips are pretty old tricks.
Fine, I've had enough of your haughty, know it all attitude anyhow - Its not like you'll ever turn me around to your 'content' view, nor shall I turn you to mine ,,, So I agree, lets put this topic to rest, so far as you and me are concerned.

You have in effect reflected how Irving writes his history , Evans showed this to great effect.

Your views are your own - and BTW I do feel that governments should have reasonable and fair immigration policies and that they should be enforced , but that is not the subject of this thread and quite frankly nothing to do with W.W. 2.

As far as the SS goes anyone on this forum should have a warts and all understanding of that organisation at this moment in time I don't honestly think I need to be told this.

Difference of opinion - no worries if we were all the same the world would be a grey and boring place.

[Diane]

Irvings Writings

Richard Evans has been widely discredited in several recent articles. One of which was written by a panel in NZ.

Below is a link to Irving's Evans Archive which is worth a look through.


http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/e...ans/index.html

[Xray]

You have in effect reflected how Irving writes his history , Evans showed this to great effect.

Your views are your own - and BTW I do feel that governments should have reasonable and fair immigration policies and that they should be enforced , but that is not the subject of this thread and quite frankly nothing to do with W.W. 2.

behblc, if you really want to be the enforcer and decide what is on topic, what is not, then I suggest that you apply for moderation duty.
You keep droning on and on about this - I mentioned it in passing as the thread evolved, and it relates perfectly with this evolution.

You, on the other hand, wish to keep this DAVID IRVING NOTHING ELSE ! Well too bad.
Threads almost always evolve and stray from the original topic, much as any normal conversation - If you cannot deal with this, then remove yourself from the debate, simple.

[behblc]

X-Ray - his writings happen to be what the subject is about , when threads of this nature start going down side streets that is when they always end up being locked because they become politically orientated in a way which has nothing to do with the subject.

As far as being an enforcer goes - that is not what moderation is about , the admin. staff on this site are not "enforcers".

Threads almost always evolve and stray from the original topic, much as any normal conversation - If you cannot deal with this, then remove yourself from the debate, simple.

I was under the impression that you had ( "removed yourself") , never having been involved in a conversation before I was not aware of this.

I am not really interested in discussing immigration issues , I have views on them but this is not the forum for them , but by all means fire away and when the thread is locked wonder why.

Below is a link to Irving's Evans Archive which is worth a look through.


http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/e...ans/index.html

The proof of the pudding is Irving's derogatory pet name for Richard Evans and his invitation to have his readers to contact Richard Evans by email - also check out his cartoon take on Ian Kershaw .
Irving has also cast scorn on Evans Trilogy of books on the history of the Third Reich - he stated that the books had been such failures that they could be picked up for nothing in the clearance sections of bookshops , as they had sold so poorly - the hard backs are sold out and the paperback run has been well recieved - "David Irving got it wrong".

My own opinion on reading Mr Irving's site is that I really find the man's ego to be a problem - I object to having to click on "Mr. Irving take me to ....." that and his asking me for my money to help his fighting fund".
Not a chance Mr. Irving !

[Xray]

NEWS FLASH : Mods most certainly do enforce forum policy.

You are going off on tangents, and are about as argumentive as a tired child, I have no interest in further discourse with you.

[behblc]

So take your own advice XRay. just to remind you .......

[I]Threads almost always evolve and stray from the original topic, much as any normal conversation - If you cannot deal with this, then remove yourself from the debate, simple./I]

It is your prerogative to simply shut up any time you wish , hardly worthy of a "Newsflash".

[Xray]

If you really, really just have to have the last word, I am hoping that was your attempt.

[leib1]

[LarryHW.]

Irving's Detractor's

A couple of questions....

Not all of Mr. Irving's detractors are leftists and greens. Why do you think he failed to previal in a court of law?

Some time ago, you wrote the William Shirer was a propagandist. I've read most of his major books. He was the CBS correspondent in Germany for a time, and he spent a number of years there in the 1930's. What did he write or portray that was false?

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.

[Xray]

Some time ago, you wrote the William Shirer was a propagandist. I've read most of his major books. He was the CBS correspondent in Germany for a time, and he spent a number of years there in the 1930's. What did he write or portray that was false?

He portrayed as undisputed fact that the Germans made soap and lamp shades out of Jews, both of which have been conclusively proven as myth.

It might well be, though, that he was writing what he thought was true at the time, as the "Rise and fall of the 3rd Reich" came out not all that long after the fall - Though by 1960, Shirer should have easily been able to separate war time scare tactics from established fact.

I'm sure there are other myths in his book portrayed as established fact, but he was a great writer, and much of his work is very well documented.

[LarryHW.]

Well, the book actually came out in 1959. And, yes, there were a lot of things that, 14 years after the war, we did not yet fully know. A lot of things were different at that time. Mr. Eichmann was still a free man in Argentina, and had yet to give testimony about his actions. Documents, letters and other things were yet to come out. So Shirer might have had the detail of how bodies were disposed of wrong, but not the fact that millions of Jews and other were murdered. The story has stood the test of time. What some don't like is that Shirer doesn't portray the Nazis in more favorable light. This should not come as a surprise, given that the Nazi leadership despised the United States and made no effort to hide it.

BTW, you might be interested in Shirer's story of hard it was to get the Rise and Fall published. Most major publishers in the 1950's US had very little interest in the topic, and told him that they doubted there would be enough readers to make publication worthwhile. After a very long and hard struggle, he proved them wrong.

He portrayed as undisputed fact that the Germans made soap and lamp shades out of Jews, both of which have been conclusively proven as myth.

It might well be, though, that he was writing what he thought was true at the time, as the "Rise and fall of the 3rd Reich" came out not all that long after the fall - Though by 1960, Shirer should have easily been able to separate war time scare tactics from established fact.

I'm sure there are other myths in his book portrayed as established fact, but he was a great writer, and much of his work is very well documented.

[Xray]

Well, the book actually came out in 1959. And, yes, there were a lot of things that, 14 years after the war, we did not yet fully know.

That the Jew skin lampshades never existed, was not one of those things not fully known in 1960.
Ilse Koch, the infamous "Bitch of Buchenwald" was exhaustively investigated by the victorious Allies during her trial for the alleged lamp shades, lamps with legs as the base, light switches which used human thumbs, and other such gruesome novelties - Not one of them was proven, though she was found guilty of "participating in a "common plan" to violate the Laws and Usages of War" for proven abuses.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Dachau.../IlseKoch.html
[Don't worry Larry, not a neo-Nazi site]

This should not come as a surprise, given that the Nazi leadership despised the United States and made no effort to hide it.

I think it would be fair to say that this feeling was quite mutual - The USA had violated its declared neutrality in a variety of ways for many months before hostilities commenced, as is well known - So I fail to see why you would even mention the above, as if [despising America] is just another strike against Nazi Germany.

BTW, you might be interested in Shirer's story of hard it was to get the Rise and Fall published. Most major publishers in the 1950's US had very little interest in the topic, and told him that they doubted there would be enough readers to make publication worthwhile. After a very long and hard struggle, he proved them wrong.

I would be interested, that is really the first war history book I ever read, was about 12 or so at the time, I could hardly put the damn thing down until I was done.
He has a great writing style, and the fact that he was there to personally witness many historic events, including the humiliating French surrender, adds credence to his works.
I also liked the way he exhaustively references just about everything ,,, But of course, that, in and of itself, is no guarantee of accuracy, when the reference sources themselves may be lacking in truth.

I think he was at least slightly agenda motivated, but was too much of a real historian to go full blown mode.

The only 3 historians I have ever read who come close, or are even better than Shirer's writing style are Churchill himself, I've read all his works numerous times, Samuel Eliot Morison, author of the amazing 15 volume set of USN ops during WW2, and Shelby Foote, an outstanding American civil war author.

[Daniel Griffin]

I think that this thread has run its course .