Who was the best WWII author?

[Tim Schreiner]

I also feel that David Irving is my favorate author. His research is solid.

BTW he never denied the the Holocost never happened. He just has a problem with the actual death count. I have been to one of his speakings, and there are a bunch of idiots that were there, but there were true history buffs like myself that were there too.

I look foward to his new book coming out on Himmler.

I don't agree with his politics, but he is an honest writer. and damn good at it too.

[Vadim K]

BTW he never denied the the Holocost never happened.

The man has been branded a Holocaust denier by the British High Court. Let it go.

He just has a problem with the actual death count.

Oh? And what is his death count?

[Peter_Suciu]

The man has been branded a Holocaust denier by the British High Court. Let it go.

Oh? And what is his death count?

Let's try and play nice. If this continues to go round and round I'll shut this one down. I honestly don't know much about David Irving, but I think this is where some sources--such as a new story on the subject of Mr. Irving being branded anything by a court--should be posted.

Situations like this should not just be "yes he is," or "no he isn't." Let the facts...those written ABOUT the man be told, not the FACTS written by the man.

[Vadim K]

...this is where some sources--such as a new story on the subject of Mr. Irving being branded anything by a court--should be posted.

Why settle for a news story? Lets go directly to the Justice Gray's ruling in Irving vs Lipstadt (which I already posted in this thread on 7/11, with a link to the complete transcript of the Judgement, but who's complaining... )

The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

http://wikisource.org/wiki/David_Irv...borah_Lipstadt

[Vadim K]

Irving then put in for an appeal which has been turned down by Lord Justice Sedley in a pretty scathing Opinion

I bear in mind, as Gray J very clearly did, that when a professional historian claims, correctly, that he has been defamed as a falsifier and a bigot, a defence of justification places a heavy burden on the defendant who advances it. There is much about which two people can legitimately differ, and differ angrily, without either of them meriting such a description. But by bringing this action on the pleaded meanings the applicant offered a challenge, and in Gray J's judgment the defendants met it.

I accept that this court is probably as well placed as Gray J to evaluate the documents and the expert evidence, What it cannot do, and is not asked to do, is to ignore or modify the judge's appraisal of the applicant himself. This is not, as the grounds suggest, peripheral. As Gray J in Chapter XIII shows with clarity, the applicant's disposition is the cement between the bricks. What might in another historian have been casual misreadings of evidence emerge in the applicant's case as sedulous misinterpretations all going in the direction of his racial and ideological leanings. Hence the verdict for the defendants.

"Holocaust denial" may be a comprehensible phrase, but it has a particular register about which the judge was entitled to hear expert evidence. With or without such evidence the meaning he assigned to the phrase at J 8.3-4 was plainly right. Holocaust denial means not necessarily a blank refusal to acknowledge a Nazi policy of mass murder of Jews and other minorities but a systematic endeavour, by marginalising and excusing what happened, to accuse those who insist upon it of being Zionist propagandists. This is not the law's concern so long as it stops short of incitement to racial hatred: in the UK there is no law against Holocaust denial, and it is a fundamental liberty not only to be contentious but to be wrong. I bear in mind too that anti-Zionism and anti-semitism are not necessarily the same thing.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/irv...d/sedley.shtml

[marie]

ok,

I chose Ambrose..

I'm a new member...
I'm Marie my friend called me "marielaptitefrancaise". I'm 19 years old early 20 and I'm French.

it very hard for me, to write in english but I'm in progress

Marie

[johnkeller2004]

The man has been branded a Holocaust denier by the British High Court. Let it go.

With the same authority as tribunals who declared apostate women "witches" centuries ago.

Let Irving speak for himself (all his books available for free download):

http://www.fpp.co.uk/

[Vadim K]

With the same authority as tribunals who declared apostate women "witches" centuries ago.

all his books available for free download

...which is an accurate estimate of their value. Besides, I agree with you, I strongly encourage everyone to read his stuff, the man is hilarious.

[behblc]

Irving

Vadim , Thank you for the link to Mr. Irvings appeal to the judgement made against him.

Originally Posted by johnkeller2004
With the same authority as tribunals who declared apostate women "witches" centuries ago.

The above is a commonly used piece of misinformation often quoted in "revisionist" sites to beliitle the impact of the verdict.
For such a statement to be valid it would indeed take reason and logic back some centuries.

"Telling lies about Hitler" by Professor Richard Evans will shed considerable light on Mr. Irvings use and misuse of historical facts which goes back some considerable way .

What Mr. Irving never fully reckoned on was a publisher which was not going to fold and settle out of court and the basic principle of discovery which would allow the defence to study at length all his papers within the limited time frame in which the legal system gave them to assemble their defence.
To achieve this they employed a large research staff and Evans as an expert wittness.

Mr. Irving made much of this post trial forgetting that it was he who brought the action and it was he who opted to conduct his case , without any legal representative.

As for him being a leading WW2 author I would not rate him as his own papers have proved him to be unreliable.
As a researcher yes - he is good - but Mr. Irving is above all fond of a headline - a look at his website tells that much.

Have I read anything of Mr.Iving's ?
Yes his Goring book - I have read better.
His Dresden book

[Bcarver]

I don't think we will hear from Irving anymore, he was arrested in Austria 2 weeks ago for denying the Holocaust and will spend somewhere close to 20 years in prison if the state prosecutor gets his way.

[djpool]

My personal favorites are Paul Carrell and Ryan.

[Rob Brown]

Ive almost finished "A Bridge too Far" My first WW2 read and it has been a great book. Very detailed and full of informative and accurate information. So my vote goes too Cornelius Ryan.

[Simon O.]

Beevor writes for the masses. It's history alright, well written and readable too. But the man lacks the necessary military technical knowledge of the two sides he writes about for it to be up to the level of academic accuracy expected or required by serious military historians of WWII. But then again Berlin and Stalingrad aren't really aimed at those few.

[Rikster]

Stephen Ambrose!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God help us! I just can't bring myself to comment further without risking a serious rant
cheers, Rik

[Sigurd Helge]

I agree with mr Yerger on Michael Reynolds. An interesting read but nothing new.
I grew up with the classics of Ryan, Ambrose, Keegan et al. They are good (and somewhat old) but not the best in my view. Mr Irving is not among what I consider interesting writers, at all.
I suppose Beevors work are destined to become classics. I like them but....

...should I list my own personal favourites in this anglo/american category names like Carlo D'Este, John Ellis and George M. Nipe would reach high on the list. D'Este is outstanding and has written some classical volumes including "A genius for war" (on Patton), a superb biography on Eisenhower and of course "Decision in Normandy" and also the highly recommendable volume on the Anzio landings: "Fatal Decision".

Mr Nipe has written some excellent volumes on the eastern front ("Decision in the Ukraine" is highly recommandable).
Mr Ellis has written some very good books among others the truly superb "Hollow Victory" (on Monte Cassino). It is also highly recommended.
A "one hit wonder" that I often return to is Robert J. Kershaw with his "It never snows in September". That is one good book on operation MARKET GARDEN from a German perspective.