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
Member
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm
Location: Ohio

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

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 1 week 1 day 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.

User avatar
Deitrich
Member
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:34 am

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

Postby Deitrich » 5 days 21 hours 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: 1029
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

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

Postby Werd » 4 days 13 hours 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: 16
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:56 am

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

Postby FJI » 4 days 10 hours 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: 1029
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

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

Postby Werd » 4 days 9 hours 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


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests