The youtuber TIK just cites arguments from Richard Evans' book TELLING LIES ABOUT HITLER [pdf].
Irving writes something about the failed beer hall putsch in 1923. We then head to the original source Irving cited and find that he did not use it correctly. A more detailed account of Hitler's role in the putsch is given at p59 of Goering, where Irving writes:
"Meanwhile Hitler acted to maintain order. Learning that one Nazi squad had ransacked a kosher grocery store during the night, he sent for the
ex-Army lieutenant who led the raid. 'We took off our Nazi insignia first!' expostulated the officer - to no avail, as Hitler dismissed him from the party on the spot. 'I shall see that no other nationalist unit allows you to join either!' Goring goggled at this exchange, as did a police sergeant who testified to it at the Hitler trial a few weeks later".
TIK (4:25): Irving based what he wrote off a policeman's testimony which I'll now read to you. See if you can spot the differences.
Page 52-53 in Evans.
CHAPTER 2 IN EVANS. End note 26.
L. Gruchmann, R. Weber (eds.), Der Hitler-Prozess 1924. Wortlaut der Hauptverhalldlung vordem Volksgericht Miinchen I (2 vols., Munich, 1997-8), Vol. 2, pp. 545--6.
TIK (5:34): Irving is trying to paint the picture that Hitler was against Nazi violence towards the Jews. Reading Irving's account in isolation, you probably came away with the impression that Hitler wasn't happy that the ex army guy smashed up a Jewish shop; even though he took off his party badge to hide the fact he was a Nazi as he committed the act. And that's why he dismissed him from the party. But that's NOT what the original source said. Hitler was annoyed that he had removed the party badge because this confirmed that he didn't belong to the party at the time he committed the act. The reason why this was bad was because the act therefore became a criminal act rather than a political one; and that the party would be seen as a criminal band of thieves rather than a political revolutionary party. Hitler wasn't protecting the Jews, he was protecting the party.
CHAPTER 2 IN EVANS
TIK (6:30): Also the original source didn't mention Goring at all! And yet Irving said that Goring goggled at Hitler's discipline of the brown shirt. Also the policeman didn't say he goggled either. Irving invented this goggle business to implant the idea in your head that Hitler shouted at the guy and that the others were surprised by or in awe of Hitler. Irving said that Hitler had summoned the brown shirt to him but the source says that the brown shirt just happened to be there by chance. And Irving said that this incident happened during the putsch of 1923 but the policeman's account doesn't say that. He says it was an earlier incident. So basically Irving got almost everything wrong. His account is complete rubbish. It's not just a semantic difference either. You come away with a completely different interpretation if you rely on Irving's work.
What's worse is Irving failed to consider that the policeman's account is heavily biased. Nazis and holocaust deniers will no doubt accuse me of being biased, but their own bias is never questioned by them. The policeman, a guy called Hofmann, was a national socialist party member who not only participated in the putsch being with Hitler on the night, but also visited Hitler in prison before his trial. The court knew this and dismissed Hofmann's account knowing he was a Nazi. As Evans writes (pg 54):
CHAPTER 2 IN EVANS.
TIK (8:50): Hopefully you can now start to see the problem here.
What say you codoh? Is Richard Evans on the money here? I mean we know for sure that Irving has made quite a few cockups in his books before. Sometimes if he isn't sloppy with footnotes, he is making outright embarrassing errors.