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.
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.