Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 4 months 1 week ago (Wed Aug 08, 2018 11:31 pm)


According to 35:52 of this video
Most of the others - Barnes, Hoggan, App, Carto, Zündel, Irving, and Smith - have polemicized about the Holocaust, but not a single one of them has ever written even a single thoroughly researched and referenced article on the Holocaust, let alone a monograph.

David Irving has written well over 20 books on World War II, and caused quite an uproar with his 1977 book "Hitler's War" for his choice to not connect Hitler with the alleged holocaust.

As much as an uproar as he caused, to my understanding, "Hitler's War" is the Second World War from the point of view of Hitler, rather than a repudiation of the holocaust. But some people get angry when you depict Hitler as a human rather than the devil they would like you to believe that he is.

So it would be more accurate to define "Hitler's War" as a biography rather than one of the numerous books found on HolocaustHandbooks.


If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

avatar
Deitrich
Member
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:34 am

Re: Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby Deitrich » 4 months 6 days ago (Sat Aug 11, 2018 11:02 pm)

My understanding is that he was not even a denier/revisionist of any sort during this period when he wrote that book- those opinions being formed later as a result of the reaction to it.

His books on Hitler and Churchill were sound tomes as a result.

The content of his post-smashed period (1992 onward) such as Goebbels and Himmler are hardly worth the paper they're written on for obvious reasons. Irving is unquotable from 1992 on imo.

This creates difficulties whilst conversing with some because it's difficult to bring some to understand that the credibility of his works declined with time in this direction- whereas the orthodox promotes the opposite- that Irving's works have increased in reliability the later in time they become (such as Treblinka being real, bunkers of Auschwitz being real, a Holocaust orchestrated by Himmler/Goebells but not Hitler and a 4 million figure and the Hoefle telegram being a "proof", and non-existent mass graves etc)

"Hitler's War" was quoted in several works- notably Sanning's work, to good effect- there's nothing wrong with it, particularly the edition that eliminated all reference to the "lie".

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby Werd » 4 months 5 days ago (Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:12 am)

Deitrich wrote:
"Hitler's War" was quoted in several works- notably Sanning's work, to good effect- there's nothing wrong with it, particularly the edition that eliminated all reference to the "lie".

We must be VERY CAREFUL with Irving's work.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8133

I would say his work on PQ 17 was phenomenal.
I have two editions. The original that got him in trouble with Broome and a subsequent one.
His book The War Between the Generals is excellent.
I would say his editions of "Hitler's War" that were out around the time of his arrest in Austria are very good.
His earliest editions of the attack on Dresden are the best. More reasonable and accurate numbers about how many really died. His mid nineties figure of almost 1 million is simply untenable.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=921

avatar
FJI
Member
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:56 am

Re: Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby FJI » 4 months 5 days ago (Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:18 am)

Anything that deviates from the official narrative, ie. Hitler evil monster, 6 million Jews etc. is considered by the authorities to pretty much equal a hate crime, because any deviation from the official narrative inevitably leads most intelligent people to the conclusion that its voracity needs to be questioned.

I think Irvines questioning of the Holocaust narrative means his history is part of 'revisionism' though in my opinion it doesn't go far enough.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby Werd » 4 months 5 days ago (Mon Aug 13, 2018 10:38 am)

Deitrich wrote:The content of his post-smashed period (1992 onward)

What is "post-smashed" ?
such as Goebbels and Himmler are hardly worth the paper they're written on for obvious reasons. Irving is unquotable from 1992 on imo.

What is wrong with the Goebbels book? Nearly every revisionist says it is trash. I do not know the details on it. I can not comment on it like I can his other books which I am more familiar with.

And a Himmler book? I thought he was still working on his Himmler book?
The one that contains a lot of material he stole from Bellinger's research because Bellinger could not read German? But nonetheless still deserved some credit for what he was able to get?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2202

avatar
Deitrich
Member
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:34 am

Re: Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby Deitrich » 3 months 2 weeks ago (Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:01 am)

Werd wrote:What is "post-smashed" ?


Post-smashed refers to the period after which Irving was backtracking from revisionism and establishing himself exterminationist like circa 1990's- in other words, after realising the myth was not going to implode after the Zundel trials and Leucther report and that his brief hard line stance would and did earn him the wrath of the lie-establishment.


What is wrong with the Goebbels book? Nearly every revisionist says it is trash.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Goebbels/Goebbels.pdf

Irving certainly does good work with regards to utilising "primary source". Where he fails is where he gives no consideration as to whether or not the primary source was "true". He also chooses to mould whatever actual findings he has to the narrative he wishes to portray at the time- since this is a "post-smashed" book- it comes as no surprise that Goebbel's takes a smashing also. In order to dissuade the label "holocaust denier" or "nazi sympathiser"

And a Himmler book? I thought he was still working on his Himmler book?


He is (or allegedly is). The fact is we can already glean what the book will contain. The already researched fact about Himmler's murder by the British. Ultimately the "facts" deformed into Himmler being responsible for a "holocauust" that actually occured according to IRving in which Hitler did not know about. Essentially an orthodox holocaust narrative removed from Hitler whom he wrote about before he was "smashed".

The one that contains a lot of material he stole from Bellinger's research because Bellinger could not read German? But nonetheless still deserved some credit for what he was able to get?


Not sure where your going with that but it's certainly not David's original research. One must wonder at the method called "lie-sandwich"- where one takes a lie and sandwiches it between 2 slices of truth. Hence making the lie digestible- even unnoticable to a large public.

It's not uncommon today to hear people speak of Irving the "revisionist" or "denier" even among revisionist circles.

The main point is that if your going to use him as a source- check the source he uses first.

MY determination is that his Hitler and Churchill works are solid- steer clear of anything 90's plus.

It is of the same order as "Mike Walsh's" books for the hardcore Nazi utopian.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby Werd » 3 months 1 week ago (Tue Sep 04, 2018 8:29 am)

Deitrich wrote:
Werd wrote:http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Goebbels/Goebbels.pdf

Irving certainly does good work with regards to utilising "primary source". Where he fails is where he gives no consideration as to whether or not the primary source was "true". He also chooses to mould whatever actual findings he has to the narrative he wishes to portray at the time- since this is a "post-smashed" book- it comes as no surprise that Goebbel's takes a smashing also. In order to dissuade the label "holocaust denier" or "nazi sympathiser"

I guess this is why Weckert gave him a hard time for his belief in the total authenticity of the Goebbels diaries. She questioned the legitimacy of many entries in the diaries. Especially ones regarding Kristallnacht. I did too.
viewtopic.php?p=78487#p78487
However theblackrabbitofinle seemed to have no problem with the entries.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3793&start=60

avatar
Deitrich
Member
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:34 am

Re: Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby Deitrich » 3 months 1 week ago (Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:10 am)

Werd wrote:
Deitrich wrote:
Werd wrote:http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Goebbels/Goebbels.pdf

Irving certainly does good work with regards to utilising "primary source". Where he fails is where he gives no consideration as to whether or not the primary source was "true". He also chooses to mould whatever actual findings he has to the narrative he wishes to portray at the time- since this is a "post-smashed" book- it comes as no surprise that Goebbel's takes a smashing also. In order to dissuade the label "holocaust denier" or "nazi sympathiser"

I guess this is why Weckert gave him a hard time for his belief in the total authenticity of the Goebbels diaries. She questioned the legitimacy of many entries in the diaries. Especially ones regarding Kristallnacht. I did too.
viewtopic.php?p=78487#p78487
However theblackrabbitofinle seemed to have no problem with the entries.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3793&start=60


I do not really "know" anything about you werd only that you are "semi-spoken" of in what might be termed "kind" terms in certain fraudulent forums.

However I have no actual reason to doubt your resolve on your own merits and therefore I will respond accordingly... :)

Regarding your response and juxtaposition- I can only leave the reader to review and determine...

In my personal "parochial" view- (a) some parts of the diaries are obviously authentic, some parts obviously not. Even if you take the "whole" diary as being authentic- it takes liberal reasoning to give the interpretations IRving gives them without counter.

Given the larger arena in which they exist- I do not wish to make the "illegal" statement that his work is mendaciaous here- but I consider that end to be a "reasonable" proposition.

User avatar
Sannhet
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 374
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:12 pm
Location: USA

Re: Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby Sannhet » 3 months 1 week ago (Fri Sep 07, 2018 11:38 am)

Deitrich wrote:the edition that eliminated all reference to the "lie".

Which edition was this? Where might it be found?

avatar
Deitrich
Member
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:34 am

Re: Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby Deitrich » 3 months 1 week ago (Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:53 pm)

Sannhet wrote:
Deitrich wrote:the edition that eliminated all reference to the "lie".

Which edition was this? Where might it be found?


From:
https://codoh.com/library/document/4180/?lang=en

On another day of the trial, Rampton holds aloft two different editions of Irving’s classic history, Hitler’s War, and points out that the 1977 first edition upholds the genocide of Judaics, while the reissued and revised 1991 edition does not. True, but the movie omits what made the difference. Between 1977 and 1991 the two Zündel trials took place with the demolition of “survivor” testimony in the first, and the Leuchter Report issued at the second, which impressed Irving so much that he revised his Hitler book to reflect the Leuchter revelations which Zündel had made possible.


Although I have certainly erred by overstretching in my original statement that he eliminated "ALL" reference to the lie...

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby Werd » 3 months 1 week ago (Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:50 am)

Deitrich wrote:In my personal "parochial" view- (a) some parts of the diaries are obviously authentic, some parts obviously not. Even if you take the "whole" diary as being authentic- it takes liberal reasoning to give the interpretations IRving gives them without counter.

So therefore you side with theblackrabbitofinle that the entries about the Stoßtrupp Hitler are real? Okay, then out the window goes a basis for claiming a certain entry or entries are forgeries/fakes.

What parts do you question the authenticity of and why? Would care to bump an old topic if you have some new information?
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3793

avatar
Deitrich
Member
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:34 am

Re: Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby Deitrich » 3 months 6 days ago (Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:15 am)

Werd wrote:
Deitrich wrote:In my personal "parochial" view- (a) some parts of the diaries are obviously authentic, some parts obviously not. Even if you take the "whole" diary as being authentic- it takes liberal reasoning to give the interpretations IRving gives them without counter.

So therefore you side with theblackrabbitofinle that the entries about the Stoßtrupp Hitler are real? Okay, then out the window goes a basis for claiming a certain entry or entries are forgeries/fakes.

What parts do you question the authenticity of and why? Would care to bump an old topic if you have some new information?
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3793


I am unsure as to what you are trying to say- I stated something, and you quoted it claiming I went the diametrically opposite way from what I stated which you quoted (???)

To answer your last part though- no I don't have anything "new" to add, I learn from reading the works. I have figured this to be established beyond doubt as far as revisionists are concerned (that parts are original and parts are edited- particularly after July 1941 when they are all typewritten, the original being in Soviet possession first)- this is the first time I have heard to the contrary?

What is "your" opinion of the diaries authenticity? Do you know something outside of what is written in the text books and codoh papers?

I have little knowledge of this Rabbit or what he has written, just that he was "smashed" at some point.

avatar
Deitrich
Member
Member
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:34 am

Re: Should "Hitler's War" be Considered Revisionist Literature?

Postby Deitrich » 3 months 6 days ago (Tue Sep 11, 2018 5:22 am)

Werd wrote:
Deitrich wrote:In my personal "parochial" view- (a) some parts of the diaries are obviously authentic, some parts obviously not. Even if you take the "whole" diary as being authentic- it takes liberal reasoning to give the interpretations IRving gives them without counter.

So therefore you side with theblackrabbitofinle that the entries about the Stoßtrupp Hitler are real? Okay, then out the window goes a basis for claiming a certain entry or entries are forgeries/fakes.

What parts do you question the authenticity of and why? Would care to bump an old topic if you have some new information?
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3793


Werd; If I may be allowed a second comment here...

As I alluded to earlier- I am unsure exactly as to where you are coming from- a quick review of those threads you linked- I was unable to decipher exactly what was supposed to be implicated here by either "side"..

I "think" you are trying to forward the opinion that the whole diary is authentic- and if so I have not the scope to make any serious reflection on that personally from an academic POV as I do not have the time to go through all the entries myself.

What I actually want to add is this...

Given the Soviet possession of the diary script, post 1941 being typewritten curiously, given the established propensity of the Soviet's with all their forged documentary evidence, and given Goebbels role, propaganda minister!!! Arguably the second most important position in this affair after Hitler...

^It would be "astonishing" if the whole thing was authentic- would it not be?


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests