What do you think?
Rate this book
Hitler's War #1-2
Hitler's War
Beginning in 1933 with Hitler's economic and military rebuilding of Germany following World War I, and concluding in 1945 with the events surrounding his alleged Hitler's War is an insider's view of the events from the point of view of the man who held Europe in thrall for more than a decade. 16 pages of photographs.
794 pages, Paperback
First published March 31, 1977
131 people are currently reading
2690 people want to read
About the author
David Irving
50 books423 followersDavid John Cawdell Irving is an English author who has written on the military and political history of World War II, especially Nazi Germany. He was found to be a Holocaust denier in a UK court in 2000 as a result of a failed libel case.
Irving's works include The Destruction of Dresden (1963), Hitler's War (1977), Churchill's War (1987) and Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (1996). In his works, he argued that Adolf Hitler did not know of the extermination of Jews, or, if he did, he opposed it. Though Irving's negationist claims and views of German war crimes in World War II (and Hitler's responsibility for them) were never taken seriously by mainstream historians, he was once recognised for his knowledge of Nazi Germany and his ability to unearth new historical documents, which he held closely but stated were fully supportive of his conclusions. His 1964 book The Mare's Nest about Germany's V-weapons campaign of 1944-45 was praised for its deep research but criticised for minimising Nazi slave labour programmes.
By the late 1980s, Irving had placed himself outside the mainstream of the study of history, and had begun to turn from "'soft-core' to 'hard-core' Holocaust denial", possibly influenced by the 1988 trial of Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel. That trial, and his reading of the pseudoscientific Leuchter report, led him to openly espouse Holocaust denial, specifically denying that Jews were murdered by gassing at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
Irving's reputation as a historian was further discredited in 2000, when, in the course of an unsuccessful libel case he filed against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, High Court Judge Charles Gray determined in his ruling that Irving willfully misrepresented historical evidence to promote Holocaust denial and whitewash the Nazis, a view shared by many prominent historians. The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". In addition, the court found that Irving's books had distorted the history of Hitler's role in the Holocaust to depict Hitler in a favourable light.
Irving's works include The Destruction of Dresden (1963), Hitler's War (1977), Churchill's War (1987) and Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich (1996). In his works, he argued that Adolf Hitler did not know of the extermination of Jews, or, if he did, he opposed it. Though Irving's negationist claims and views of German war crimes in World War II (and Hitler's responsibility for them) were never taken seriously by mainstream historians, he was once recognised for his knowledge of Nazi Germany and his ability to unearth new historical documents, which he held closely but stated were fully supportive of his conclusions. His 1964 book The Mare's Nest about Germany's V-weapons campaign of 1944-45 was praised for its deep research but criticised for minimising Nazi slave labour programmes.
By the late 1980s, Irving had placed himself outside the mainstream of the study of history, and had begun to turn from "'soft-core' to 'hard-core' Holocaust denial", possibly influenced by the 1988 trial of Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel. That trial, and his reading of the pseudoscientific Leuchter report, led him to openly espouse Holocaust denial, specifically denying that Jews were murdered by gassing at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
Irving's reputation as a historian was further discredited in 2000, when, in the course of an unsuccessful libel case he filed against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, High Court Judge Charles Gray determined in his ruling that Irving willfully misrepresented historical evidence to promote Holocaust denial and whitewash the Nazis, a view shared by many prominent historians. The English court found that Irving was an active Holocaust denier, antisemite and racist, who "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence". In addition, the court found that Irving's books had distorted the history of Hitler's role in the Holocaust to depict Hitler in a favourable light.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews
February 24, 2016
You will not find a more detailed account on Hitler's decisions towards and during the war. You just cannot, since Mr. Irving's knowledge- the book has an insane amount of sources, most of them primary- is beyond what other historians can aim for. His ability to get in touch with important survivors of the Third Reich- many of whom would reject other historians for their one-sided views- and lay hands on unique sources (like the Goebbels' diaries) make him one of the- if not the most- fundamental historians on WW2.
His later derailings don't take anything away from this masterpiece, once heralded by many journalists, but later on silenced by their politically correct intuitions.
His later derailings don't take anything away from this masterpiece, once heralded by many journalists, but later on silenced by their politically correct intuitions.
December 27, 2019
To begin with a palate-cleanser: A couple years ago I read a headline claiming that the nation of Iceland was on its way to eradicating Down Syndrome. Well that's good news! I thought. Surprising, though, that I hadn't heard about whatever medical breakthrough made this possible. I clicked on the story to learn the truth: Iceland hadn't cured Down Syndrome, they had merely succeeded in killing all Down Syndrome babies in the womb.
This kind of context is necessary to understand why our own rulers need to suppress Hitler's War, maybe the most truly controversial book of the past 50 years. This great book does nothing to cleanse Hitler of his obvious evil acts and faults, and anyone who claims David Irving is trying to clearly hasn't read even the first twenty pages. (I am referring to the First Edition, which begins on September 1, 1939.) The end of the chapter sees Hitler exterminating the feeble in order to free up resources for the war effort. Any claim that Irving's wonderful biography is meant as a work to rehabilitate or lionize the man must end right here. You either jive with the murder of innocents or you don't.
But as the Icelandic word games above show, we are very comfortable with child murder, even if we are uncomfortable with Hitler. But at least Hitler promoted it on a eugenics basis - he strove to benefit his nation and race by such atrocities. Modern man slays his children because they might get in the way of next year's ComicCon. Christians of the modern era are fond of referring to our slaughter of innocents as a eugenics regime, but this is insulting to true eugenicists. Old school eugenicists killed the weak for the good of the race (as the name suggests). Modern man kills his children not for the good of anyone but himself.
This explains a large part of the animosity leveled at Irving. Just as clear is the professional resentment towards Irving's methods. John Lukacs, in an attempt to be cruel to Irving, called him a "popular historian" apparently to distinguish him from scholar squirrels and out-and-out ideologues. This is true in ways Lukacs would prefer to ignore. Irving's books just plainly make good reading.
Part of this is because Irving does not adhere to any kind of interesting "lens" of historical analysis. Irving pursues facts like an autistic bloodhound. His priors, as they come out in his work, are describing in his biographical blurb: He is a proud Englishman and son of a Navy Commander, the self-taught product of negligible universities. Gibbon dredged up Rome to bolster the wheezing Enlightenment. Carlyle engaged with the French Revolution and Frederick II because he wanted to elicit the great man. Irving is an everyman.
To the acadmeic historian (like Lukacs), history itself is not so much a thing to be reported and detailed, but a kind of mirror for the academic's intellect, a medium for other points he wants to make. The notion is that the historian's job is not to describe history, but to reflect upon it. But this is not Irving's MO. Apart from the political elephants in the room, I suspect the academic animosity towards Irving comes from the fact that Irving is so atheoretical that he comes off as a blank slate. I also suspect this is one of the reasons why his books, which are so largely critical of the Nazi regime, are somehow transformed into Nazi propaganda--a blank slate is easy to write upon, for those who go in expecting a clear ideology. In fact, Irving's books might actually have a larger presence today if he actually were a Nazi.
As a pretentious hack myself, his atheoretical style was not my cup of tea, and the other books I picked up (on Nuremberg and the war between the Allied generals) did not grab me. Hitler's War does not suffer from this. It is compelling even for someone like me who has only a general interest in WWII.
The best parts are when we get glimpses into Hitler's psyche. His underground marriage to Eva Braun, preceded by a rare kiss between them, is incredibly poignant. His shrewdness and foresight provide lessons in politics. His belief that he had wasted his genius on the war is petulant, but drives home the fact that Hitler was truly a "great man" of history. That Churchill, his only worthy foil, stripped him of the title "Slayer of the Bolsheviks" by giving half of Europe to them and ruining his own empire is such an unfathomably irrational act that the world has never quite gotten over it.
There is much admirable in his patriotism and dedication to the cause of his nation (however misplaced). Put another way: What modern Western leader can you imagine giving his life and fortune for the good of his nation? I can't think of any. Irving notes that when Hitler was the target of an attempt on his life in 1938, a crowd of hands came up to prevent the would-be assassin from aiming the gun. What modern people would go out of their way to defend a leader in this way? Even the pope now travels in bullet-proof glass.
But of course we should not go too far in complimenting the man, even if some kind words are necessary for a measured and accurate approach. He was still Hitler, after all. But as this book drives home, Hitler was not so much a uniquely evil man, but one who fit in quite well amongst the tyrants, eugenicists, and mass-murderers of his time. Irving, in his objectivity, is not a good guide for charting this intellectual history. But read Belloc or Chesterton on the specter of "Prussianism," which they cited as reason for British involvement in the 1914 war, and tell me that Hitler is not a natural outgrowth of it.
The problem is that outgrowth is yet growing. And to divert our eyes from it, we have to convince ourselves that this Hitler is a kind of unique excrescence, while ignoring that the poison tree still bears much fruit.
Irving is inveighed against as a liar or distorter, owing to his disastrous libel suit against the Holocaust Industry. Of course it is true that Irving chooses his sources and comes in with his own POV, even if it is one ostensibly free from ideology. The problem is that when Irving engages in such basic tasks, his reliance is on the documents rather than conventional wisdom. I encourage people to pick up Lying About Hitler by one of the trial's expert witnesses, Richard Evans. As far as I can tell, aside from a few errors which Irving admits to, most of the alleged "manipulation" of documents is merely the regular task of the historian, trying to create a narrative out of an infinite number of data. Moreover, many of Irving's "lies" which Evans believes he has proved are surrounded by weasle-words like Hitler "must have" known something, or a camp which a document places in northern Italy "could have" actually been in the east. In other words, Evans is allowed to be speculative because his narrative supports the conventional wisdom (but how that conventional wisdom is created is the thousand-dollar question). Even more, Evans is allowed to accuse Irving is lying--of intentionally distorting the facts--even though he has only speculations about what actually occurred. This is weak stuff that even a layman like me can sniff out. Ironically, the conclusion of the Lipstadt trial, which subjected Irving's work to years of adverse scrutiny, has better guaranteed its merit for posterity probably more than any historian's that has ever lived.
This book should be in every library branch in America. Instead, it was burned. Next time you see your obese local librarian wearing her "I read banned books" pin, make sure to put in a request to get Hitler's War back on the shelves.
This kind of context is necessary to understand why our own rulers need to suppress Hitler's War, maybe the most truly controversial book of the past 50 years. This great book does nothing to cleanse Hitler of his obvious evil acts and faults, and anyone who claims David Irving is trying to clearly hasn't read even the first twenty pages. (I am referring to the First Edition, which begins on September 1, 1939.) The end of the chapter sees Hitler exterminating the feeble in order to free up resources for the war effort. Any claim that Irving's wonderful biography is meant as a work to rehabilitate or lionize the man must end right here. You either jive with the murder of innocents or you don't.
But as the Icelandic word games above show, we are very comfortable with child murder, even if we are uncomfortable with Hitler. But at least Hitler promoted it on a eugenics basis - he strove to benefit his nation and race by such atrocities. Modern man slays his children because they might get in the way of next year's ComicCon. Christians of the modern era are fond of referring to our slaughter of innocents as a eugenics regime, but this is insulting to true eugenicists. Old school eugenicists killed the weak for the good of the race (as the name suggests). Modern man kills his children not for the good of anyone but himself.
This explains a large part of the animosity leveled at Irving. Just as clear is the professional resentment towards Irving's methods. John Lukacs, in an attempt to be cruel to Irving, called him a "popular historian" apparently to distinguish him from scholar squirrels and out-and-out ideologues. This is true in ways Lukacs would prefer to ignore. Irving's books just plainly make good reading.
Part of this is because Irving does not adhere to any kind of interesting "lens" of historical analysis. Irving pursues facts like an autistic bloodhound. His priors, as they come out in his work, are describing in his biographical blurb: He is a proud Englishman and son of a Navy Commander, the self-taught product of negligible universities. Gibbon dredged up Rome to bolster the wheezing Enlightenment. Carlyle engaged with the French Revolution and Frederick II because he wanted to elicit the great man. Irving is an everyman.
To the acadmeic historian (like Lukacs), history itself is not so much a thing to be reported and detailed, but a kind of mirror for the academic's intellect, a medium for other points he wants to make. The notion is that the historian's job is not to describe history, but to reflect upon it. But this is not Irving's MO. Apart from the political elephants in the room, I suspect the academic animosity towards Irving comes from the fact that Irving is so atheoretical that he comes off as a blank slate. I also suspect this is one of the reasons why his books, which are so largely critical of the Nazi regime, are somehow transformed into Nazi propaganda--a blank slate is easy to write upon, for those who go in expecting a clear ideology. In fact, Irving's books might actually have a larger presence today if he actually were a Nazi.
As a pretentious hack myself, his atheoretical style was not my cup of tea, and the other books I picked up (on Nuremberg and the war between the Allied generals) did not grab me. Hitler's War does not suffer from this. It is compelling even for someone like me who has only a general interest in WWII.
The best parts are when we get glimpses into Hitler's psyche. His underground marriage to Eva Braun, preceded by a rare kiss between them, is incredibly poignant. His shrewdness and foresight provide lessons in politics. His belief that he had wasted his genius on the war is petulant, but drives home the fact that Hitler was truly a "great man" of history. That Churchill, his only worthy foil, stripped him of the title "Slayer of the Bolsheviks" by giving half of Europe to them and ruining his own empire is such an unfathomably irrational act that the world has never quite gotten over it.
There is much admirable in his patriotism and dedication to the cause of his nation (however misplaced). Put another way: What modern Western leader can you imagine giving his life and fortune for the good of his nation? I can't think of any. Irving notes that when Hitler was the target of an attempt on his life in 1938, a crowd of hands came up to prevent the would-be assassin from aiming the gun. What modern people would go out of their way to defend a leader in this way? Even the pope now travels in bullet-proof glass.
But of course we should not go too far in complimenting the man, even if some kind words are necessary for a measured and accurate approach. He was still Hitler, after all. But as this book drives home, Hitler was not so much a uniquely evil man, but one who fit in quite well amongst the tyrants, eugenicists, and mass-murderers of his time. Irving, in his objectivity, is not a good guide for charting this intellectual history. But read Belloc or Chesterton on the specter of "Prussianism," which they cited as reason for British involvement in the 1914 war, and tell me that Hitler is not a natural outgrowth of it.
The problem is that outgrowth is yet growing. And to divert our eyes from it, we have to convince ourselves that this Hitler is a kind of unique excrescence, while ignoring that the poison tree still bears much fruit.
Irving is inveighed against as a liar or distorter, owing to his disastrous libel suit against the Holocaust Industry. Of course it is true that Irving chooses his sources and comes in with his own POV, even if it is one ostensibly free from ideology. The problem is that when Irving engages in such basic tasks, his reliance is on the documents rather than conventional wisdom. I encourage people to pick up Lying About Hitler by one of the trial's expert witnesses, Richard Evans. As far as I can tell, aside from a few errors which Irving admits to, most of the alleged "manipulation" of documents is merely the regular task of the historian, trying to create a narrative out of an infinite number of data. Moreover, many of Irving's "lies" which Evans believes he has proved are surrounded by weasle-words like Hitler "must have" known something, or a camp which a document places in northern Italy "could have" actually been in the east. In other words, Evans is allowed to be speculative because his narrative supports the conventional wisdom (but how that conventional wisdom is created is the thousand-dollar question). Even more, Evans is allowed to accuse Irving is lying--of intentionally distorting the facts--even though he has only speculations about what actually occurred. This is weak stuff that even a layman like me can sniff out. Ironically, the conclusion of the Lipstadt trial, which subjected Irving's work to years of adverse scrutiny, has better guaranteed its merit for posterity probably more than any historian's that has ever lived.
This book should be in every library branch in America. Instead, it was burned. Next time you see your obese local librarian wearing her "I read banned books" pin, make sure to put in a request to get Hitler's War back on the shelves.
June 25, 2020
Given what the Nazi Germans did to Britain I don''t know how David Irving can DARE to call himself a British Nationalist.
For 4 years Britain had to endure frightful bombings for which we were not prepared, Thousands of women , children, babies, old people were killed across British cities. Famous cathedrals, museums, mansions, whole streets which had lasted fro centuries were smashed to rubble.
No one who really is a British or English patriot can feel positively about Nazi Germany. People like David Irving and Nick Griffin always bang on about the tears they shed fro the bombing of Dresden, but are indifferent to the German bombing of Brtain.
For 4 years Britain had to endure frightful bombings for which we were not prepared, Thousands of women , children, babies, old people were killed across British cities. Famous cathedrals, museums, mansions, whole streets which had lasted fro centuries were smashed to rubble.
No one who really is a British or English patriot can feel positively about Nazi Germany. People like David Irving and Nick Griffin always bang on about the tears they shed fro the bombing of Dresden, but are indifferent to the German bombing of Brtain.
December 15, 2016
This is a really good book backed by an amazing amount of research and proof . I saw a video where he claimed that when he first submitted it for publication the publisher said great book but we need 8-10 pages about the 6 million Jews who were gassed to death. He refused as a historian who basis his work on fact and proof he said there was no proof .The guy has guts if nothing else as THEY have made his life pretty much a living hell.
May 18, 2023
Hitler's War is both the crown jewel and thorn of David Irving's career. Prior to its publishing, Irving was held in high esteem by the British establishment, featuring prominently in the media as a leading historian. However, due to his controversial interpretation of the 'holocaust' and his claim that there was no order for the genocide of European Jewry, Irving has since seen his career destroyed, largely at the hands of the people he describes as the 'traditional enemies of the truth'.
Thus, this book I approached with great intrigue. The copy I ordered online turned up and arrived with a signature from the man himself on the inside of the front cover (to my delight). The book reveals itself in a chronological format, guiding the reader through events from the perspective of the Fuhrer. Irving's unique selling point is his impeccable ability to unveil novel sources, much to the dismay of his rival historians, whom Irving describes as intellectually incestuous due to their cross-referencing of each other's work.
As anyone that's grown up in the western world understands, discussion of Hitler in any vein apart from the start point of the epitomisation of absolute evil is socially verboten. Irving's portrayal of Hitler, the man, then, breaks this cultural taboo. One thing that stood out to me was that the charge of 'holocaust denier' which is geared at Irving holds little merit. For although he negates the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, the book details the mass killings of Jews in Ukraine, as well as other instances of violent atrocities that Irving considers to be historically factual, backed by evidence.
Irving must be praised for the unearthing of never before seen documents. He found his way into the closed corridors of Hitler's inner circle, a domain no other historian had managed to breach. For the sources he obtained, his impeccable prose, and his ability as a historian, this book is a must have for any serious student of 20th century history, World War II, and Adolf Hitler.
Thus, this book I approached with great intrigue. The copy I ordered online turned up and arrived with a signature from the man himself on the inside of the front cover (to my delight). The book reveals itself in a chronological format, guiding the reader through events from the perspective of the Fuhrer. Irving's unique selling point is his impeccable ability to unveil novel sources, much to the dismay of his rival historians, whom Irving describes as intellectually incestuous due to their cross-referencing of each other's work.
As anyone that's grown up in the western world understands, discussion of Hitler in any vein apart from the start point of the epitomisation of absolute evil is socially verboten. Irving's portrayal of Hitler, the man, then, breaks this cultural taboo. One thing that stood out to me was that the charge of 'holocaust denier' which is geared at Irving holds little merit. For although he negates the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz, the book details the mass killings of Jews in Ukraine, as well as other instances of violent atrocities that Irving considers to be historically factual, backed by evidence.
Irving must be praised for the unearthing of never before seen documents. He found his way into the closed corridors of Hitler's inner circle, a domain no other historian had managed to breach. For the sources he obtained, his impeccable prose, and his ability as a historian, this book is a must have for any serious student of 20th century history, World War II, and Adolf Hitler.
March 3, 2016
A totally unique book, theres noone else like this one, chronicles ww2 via, mostly, documents from the archives (many just recently found), and its also unique in its way its written, it simply "states" what the author finds in the archives, objectively and succinct, in my opinion as all historians should do
September 28, 2021
Mr.David Irving is an outstanding historian and a writer. what i love about this man is he never backs down to unearth the truth, come what may. Hitler's war is a must read for everyone who think Hitler was the only War monger who dragged Europe into World War 2 while no one blame it on Winston Churchill
December 23, 2018
I don't care what anyone has to say(negative that is) about this book. This is a must read if u want to know what happened inside the 3rd Reich. The research, again, unparalleled!
January 14, 2015
Although the book has 800+ pages, the book only focuses on the key political and military aspects of Hitler's reign (1933-1945). One actually revives the dilemmas the former chancellor faced along the way. It is striking that many of his strategical decisions or opinions (not being executed by his generals) were right.
perhaps-i-will-read-hard-to-say
February 10, 2014Gordon Craig called this "the best study we have of the German side of the Second World War." [When? Maybe other scholarship has surpassed it.] But Richard J. Evans finds it highly flawed. Quoting directly from Ian Buruma's New Yorker article (4/16/2001):
He shows how Irving hid some of the worst statements about the Jews in footnotes, or mistranslated the German to make them sound almost innocuous. Facts were invented, such as fifty thousand Jews having fought in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising....And historical documents were edited to distort the facts. Irving quoted Goebbels' diary of March, 1942, as evidence that Hitler was kept in the dark about the killings in Auschwitz and Treblinka. According to Irving, Goebbels wrote about the extermination program on March 27th, but "evidently held his tongue when he met Hitler two days later." In fact, as Evans shows, Goebbels did not meet Hitler two days later but did mention on March 27th that "the Fuhrer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a radical solution." Irving had conveniently left this passage out.
Library does not have this.
He shows how Irving hid some of the worst statements about the Jews in footnotes, or mistranslated the German to make them sound almost innocuous. Facts were invented, such as fifty thousand Jews having fought in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising....And historical documents were edited to distort the facts. Irving quoted Goebbels' diary of March, 1942, as evidence that Hitler was kept in the dark about the killings in Auschwitz and Treblinka. According to Irving, Goebbels wrote about the extermination program on March 27th, but "evidently held his tongue when he met Hitler two days later." In fact, as Evans shows, Goebbels did not meet Hitler two days later but did mention on March 27th that "the Fuhrer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a radical solution." Irving had conveniently left this passage out.
Library does not have this.
September 11, 2014
A great history of the war Germany was fighting during WWII. Not based as much on Hitler as the study of the actual war aspects. Definitely more balanced than other histories and biographies. Well documented and footnoted also. Highly recommended reading.
June 23, 2014
-Hay autores que trascienden su obra, pero aquí se tiende a hablar de libros-.
Género. Biografía.
Lo que nos cuenta. Primer libro de una biografía en dos partes sobre Adolf Hitler, que narra los sucesos desde el atardecer del 3 de septiembre de 1939 hasta las tres y cuarto de la tarde del 30 de abril de 1945.
¿Quiere saber más del libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Biografía.
Lo que nos cuenta. Primer libro de una biografía en dos partes sobre Adolf Hitler, que narra los sucesos desde el atardecer del 3 de septiembre de 1939 hasta las tres y cuarto de la tarde del 30 de abril de 1945.
¿Quiere saber más del libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
May 23, 2023
David Irving has the reputation for presenting WWII in an impartial manner. I'm afraid that this is completely false. This book is very biased against Hitler. It is dangerous because it does it subtly, mostly through omission, to provide a false picture of Hitler which may seem authentic. It seems to be a team effort of "mainstream" authors who are openly hostile, and Irving who is surreptitiously hostile. It's like Irving is targeting those who may have a sympathy for National Socialism.
Mine are strong words, so I am ready to back them up. I'm going to give 4 arguments:
1) Germany and National Socialism are blamed for starting WWII by attacking Poland. Therefore an analysis of why Hitler decided to invade Poland should be the crucial point of this book. Irving is simply not explaning much. Hitler wanted to attack Poland because...he liked war, and testing his people, I guess. That's the impression that the reader gets. You read this book thinking "wow, this Hitler is evil, he attacked because he loved war...". But then, AFTER the invasion (i.e. after the reader has already made up his mind about Hitler being the aggressor), Irving casually says:
"Hitler’s armoured and mechanised units encircled the enemy armies while they were still massed to the west of the Vistula, where they were deployed in preparation for the drive to Berlin – the thrust which would bring about an anti-Nazi revolution in Germany." (pg 224) and then again, casually: "the Polish army optimistically assembled at Posen (Poznan) for the attack on Berlin had been encircled" (pg 232).
WAIT, WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY???
Mr Irving, you didn't think it was worthwile to discuss the fact that Poland had prepared an army to invade Germany? This couldn't possibly have factored into Hitler's decision to attack first? The two quotes I gave above are literally the only two places in which a Polish plan to attack Germany is mentioned. This is ridiculous! In a book that reports what is written in the diary of the assistant of the plumber who unclogged Hitler's toilet, Irving didn't think it was worthwhile to discuss Poland amassing an army to invade Germany? When did they do that? Why? How big was this army? What were their intentions? Could this have been considered a Polish declaration of war? The book says NOTHING.
Now bear in mind: I'm not entering a discussion about what Poland did or didn't do, or who is at fault here. I'm just reviewing what's written in Irving's book. In countless pages dedicated to Hitler making up his mind about invading Poland there's no single mention of this Polish army, which is only mentioned in passing AFTER the invasion was done (and the reader made up his mind about Hitler being the aggressor). This is not just bad writing. This is fraud.
2) Irving also forgot to mention that Britain introduced conscription in April 1939. This fact shifts the blame for WWII at least partly, because it clearly puts pressure on Germany. If Britain wants war, Germany needs to grab land in the East to be able to have enough food and resources to defend itself (e.g. resisting a British naval blockade). Expanding in the East (Lebensraum) had been a German geopolitical goal since the end of the 19th century, and the need for it was clearly demonstrated when the German people were starved to death by the British during and after WWI (yes, Britain starved the German people for months even after the German army laid down its arms). Not that you'd know any of that by reading this book, of course. Irving doesn't explain the strategic necessity, or at least the pressure, for Hitler to expand in the East, leaving the impression that Hitler just wanted war for its own sake. Irving doesn't even mention the man who is responsible for Britain's conscription: Leslie Hore-Belisha. This man was a Jew, but I'm sure it's just a coincidence and he was only thinking about British interests when he made the British youth getting ready to die to remove Hitler from power.
3) In a few cases Irving concedes certain facts, but the way he underplays them in the overall context is misleading for the reader. For example:
3.1) For Czechoslovakia he mentions in passing on page 91 and 92 that the Czechs falsely accused Germany of concentrating troops on the border, and then gloated that their own mobilization scared Germany away. Irving doesn't quite drive home the point that Hitler was humiliated in the international stage, and this is what made him decide to smash Czechoslovakia which has demonstrated to be hostile.
3.2) You can see this pattern even regarding Memel: "Ribbentrop issued a crude ultimatum to Lithuania to hand back Memel" (pg 164). It's written in a way that makes it sound like Germany is the aggressor. It's mentioned in passing that Lithuania stole Memel, but never given a proper discussion, making it sound like it Hitler wanting Memel was just a land grab.
4) And of course, no real historian would use the word "Nazi". If a book uses the word "Nazi" you immediately know that you're looking at political propaganda that belongs to Reddit and Wikipedia and not to a serious history book. For those not aware, the name of the party was (abbreviated to) NSDAP, and they always referred to themselves as "National Socialists". "Nazi" is just an insult. Moreover, Irving tries to give the impression that everyone involved in the war was a "Nazi", which is false. German generals and military and political officials were not necessarily members of the party, and of course the Wehrmacht was not a political force. Irving repeatedly says "Nazi armies" (did they send party members to the battlefields?) and even "Nazi battleship" (can inanimate objects like a ship become members of a party?).
There's also no such thing as "Nazi Germany". This is a pathetic attempt to delegitimize Hitler, who was the lawful leader who had been elected (unlike, say, Churchill). Irving doesn't say "Tory Britain" or "Commie Russia" so why does he say "Nazi Germany"? Sometimes he just says "Nazi" to mean "Germany", for example "[Hitler] had normalised Nazi relations with the Vatican" (pg 184) which implies Hitler was not the legitimate leader of Germany, but only of his party. It's childish; Irving doesn't like that the German people have elected Hitler, so he talks like a foreign occupier was ruling over Germany. He surreptitiously pushes his own political ideas in what is supposed to be an impartial history book.
Irving even said "Nazi-Soviet pact" which made me laugh out loud. Can you be any more obvious? Why not say "Nazi-Commie" pact? I'm not a fan of the USSR but I certainly wouldn't take seriously a book which says "Commie Russia" or "Commie Soviet Union". Or that referred to the Red Army as "commies". Imagine reading in a book something like "The commie armies have attacked Poland" would you take this book seriously? Why is it only for the Third Reich that most so-called historians feel free to drop any pretense of objectivity and start talking in a juvenile and hysterical manner?
In summary, Irving is a buffoon and a charlatan. I'm still not sure if he's part of a scheme to push a second layer of propaganda targeted at those who don't fall for a simple "mustache man bad, don't ask questions", or if he's just incredibly sloppy and not very bright. In either case, his book is not worth reading. I read only the first 3 parts, because what's the point in reading a history book by an author that you don't trust? Too many chances to lie by omission, and I have demonstrated that Irving lied. I reckon you could get some historical fact here and there, but for me it's not worth it. I haven't read all of Irving's book, but I bet this book doesn't explain why Britain and the US allied themselves with Stalin who had already murdered tens of millions of his own people, while Hitler hadn't killed practically anyone before WWII. If it does, please let me know.
To understand the real reasons for the attack on Poland, I'd recommend Hitler's Revolution and/or John Wear's article on codoh. com. Even Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World which is a much less ambitious book meant for the general public did a much better job at presenting a more historically accurate and balanced perspective.
Mine are strong words, so I am ready to back them up. I'm going to give 4 arguments:
1) Germany and National Socialism are blamed for starting WWII by attacking Poland. Therefore an analysis of why Hitler decided to invade Poland should be the crucial point of this book. Irving is simply not explaning much. Hitler wanted to attack Poland because...he liked war, and testing his people, I guess. That's the impression that the reader gets. You read this book thinking "wow, this Hitler is evil, he attacked because he loved war...". But then, AFTER the invasion (i.e. after the reader has already made up his mind about Hitler being the aggressor), Irving casually says:
"Hitler’s armoured and mechanised units encircled the enemy armies while they were still massed to the west of the Vistula, where they were deployed in preparation for the drive to Berlin – the thrust which would bring about an anti-Nazi revolution in Germany." (pg 224) and then again, casually: "the Polish army optimistically assembled at Posen (Poznan) for the attack on Berlin had been encircled" (pg 232).
WAIT, WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY???
Mr Irving, you didn't think it was worthwile to discuss the fact that Poland had prepared an army to invade Germany? This couldn't possibly have factored into Hitler's decision to attack first? The two quotes I gave above are literally the only two places in which a Polish plan to attack Germany is mentioned. This is ridiculous! In a book that reports what is written in the diary of the assistant of the plumber who unclogged Hitler's toilet, Irving didn't think it was worthwhile to discuss Poland amassing an army to invade Germany? When did they do that? Why? How big was this army? What were their intentions? Could this have been considered a Polish declaration of war? The book says NOTHING.
Now bear in mind: I'm not entering a discussion about what Poland did or didn't do, or who is at fault here. I'm just reviewing what's written in Irving's book. In countless pages dedicated to Hitler making up his mind about invading Poland there's no single mention of this Polish army, which is only mentioned in passing AFTER the invasion was done (and the reader made up his mind about Hitler being the aggressor). This is not just bad writing. This is fraud.
2) Irving also forgot to mention that Britain introduced conscription in April 1939. This fact shifts the blame for WWII at least partly, because it clearly puts pressure on Germany. If Britain wants war, Germany needs to grab land in the East to be able to have enough food and resources to defend itself (e.g. resisting a British naval blockade). Expanding in the East (Lebensraum) had been a German geopolitical goal since the end of the 19th century, and the need for it was clearly demonstrated when the German people were starved to death by the British during and after WWI (yes, Britain starved the German people for months even after the German army laid down its arms). Not that you'd know any of that by reading this book, of course. Irving doesn't explain the strategic necessity, or at least the pressure, for Hitler to expand in the East, leaving the impression that Hitler just wanted war for its own sake. Irving doesn't even mention the man who is responsible for Britain's conscription: Leslie Hore-Belisha. This man was a Jew, but I'm sure it's just a coincidence and he was only thinking about British interests when he made the British youth getting ready to die to remove Hitler from power.
3) In a few cases Irving concedes certain facts, but the way he underplays them in the overall context is misleading for the reader. For example:
3.1) For Czechoslovakia he mentions in passing on page 91 and 92 that the Czechs falsely accused Germany of concentrating troops on the border, and then gloated that their own mobilization scared Germany away. Irving doesn't quite drive home the point that Hitler was humiliated in the international stage, and this is what made him decide to smash Czechoslovakia which has demonstrated to be hostile.
3.2) You can see this pattern even regarding Memel: "Ribbentrop issued a crude ultimatum to Lithuania to hand back Memel" (pg 164). It's written in a way that makes it sound like Germany is the aggressor. It's mentioned in passing that Lithuania stole Memel, but never given a proper discussion, making it sound like it Hitler wanting Memel was just a land grab.
4) And of course, no real historian would use the word "Nazi". If a book uses the word "Nazi" you immediately know that you're looking at political propaganda that belongs to Reddit and Wikipedia and not to a serious history book. For those not aware, the name of the party was (abbreviated to) NSDAP, and they always referred to themselves as "National Socialists". "Nazi" is just an insult. Moreover, Irving tries to give the impression that everyone involved in the war was a "Nazi", which is false. German generals and military and political officials were not necessarily members of the party, and of course the Wehrmacht was not a political force. Irving repeatedly says "Nazi armies" (did they send party members to the battlefields?) and even "Nazi battleship" (can inanimate objects like a ship become members of a party?).
There's also no such thing as "Nazi Germany". This is a pathetic attempt to delegitimize Hitler, who was the lawful leader who had been elected (unlike, say, Churchill). Irving doesn't say "Tory Britain" or "Commie Russia" so why does he say "Nazi Germany"? Sometimes he just says "Nazi" to mean "Germany", for example "[Hitler] had normalised Nazi relations with the Vatican" (pg 184) which implies Hitler was not the legitimate leader of Germany, but only of his party. It's childish; Irving doesn't like that the German people have elected Hitler, so he talks like a foreign occupier was ruling over Germany. He surreptitiously pushes his own political ideas in what is supposed to be an impartial history book.
Irving even said "Nazi-Soviet pact" which made me laugh out loud. Can you be any more obvious? Why not say "Nazi-Commie" pact? I'm not a fan of the USSR but I certainly wouldn't take seriously a book which says "Commie Russia" or "Commie Soviet Union". Or that referred to the Red Army as "commies". Imagine reading in a book something like "The commie armies have attacked Poland" would you take this book seriously? Why is it only for the Third Reich that most so-called historians feel free to drop any pretense of objectivity and start talking in a juvenile and hysterical manner?
In summary, Irving is a buffoon and a charlatan. I'm still not sure if he's part of a scheme to push a second layer of propaganda targeted at those who don't fall for a simple "mustache man bad, don't ask questions", or if he's just incredibly sloppy and not very bright. In either case, his book is not worth reading. I read only the first 3 parts, because what's the point in reading a history book by an author that you don't trust? Too many chances to lie by omission, and I have demonstrated that Irving lied. I reckon you could get some historical fact here and there, but for me it's not worth it. I haven't read all of Irving's book, but I bet this book doesn't explain why Britain and the US allied themselves with Stalin who had already murdered tens of millions of his own people, while Hitler hadn't killed practically anyone before WWII. If it does, please let me know.
To understand the real reasons for the attack on Poland, I'd recommend Hitler's Revolution and/or John Wear's article on codoh. com. Even Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World which is a much less ambitious book meant for the general public did a much better job at presenting a more historically accurate and balanced perspective.
September 7, 2015
There are those who believe what they have been told. There are those who go with the flow. There are those who contemplate. And then there are those who like to question and reason.
The early 20th century witnessed the rise of the Nazi regime which proliferated throughout the 20's and 30's until it wreaked havoc on the world, wiping away a major chunk of the human race and heritage. The Nazi ideologies were so widespread that it intimidated half the world about the consequences if it was left unchecked and would come to power.
Read more on http://candidcadence.blogspot.com.au/...
The early 20th century witnessed the rise of the Nazi regime which proliferated throughout the 20's and 30's until it wreaked havoc on the world, wiping away a major chunk of the human race and heritage. The Nazi ideologies were so widespread that it intimidated half the world about the consequences if it was left unchecked and would come to power.
Read more on http://candidcadence.blogspot.com.au/...
July 13, 2020
A work of expert scholarship that raises some very serious questions regarding mainstream historical narratives concerning Hitler, The War, and the 'Final Solution'. Also a genuine joy to read. Upon finishing this book, I resolved to read all the other major works by David Irving.
At first I was skeptical of the book because of its descriptive prose and narrative writing style. Often history books that are written in this way do so to disguise a lack of documentary evidence or serious research. Not so with "Hitler's War". The book is very cleary based upon exhaustive research. Every paragraph is backed by primary documentary evidence, some of which was discovered by Irving himself -- and impressive feat, given how many thousands of scholars have sifted through and mined the historical record of this era for decades upon decades. What I appreciated most, though, was the dozens of obscure anecdotes that Irving shines a light upon, little gems in the historical record that have previously gone unnoticed or even undiscovered by historians. Irving has the eye of a literary, in this regard; he knows how powerful the little details are in bringing the characters and events of history to life.
The book is controversial. In this regard, "Hitler's War" is not just compelling reading, but an important contribution to the scholarship of National Socialist Germany because it forces some critical questions to be asked regarding the consensus narrative regarding this era. Interestingly, Irving doesn't actually make too many directly controversial claims in this book (though there are some of those, too). Rather, it is certain intentional, conspicuous *omissions* that Irving allows for which themselves speak volumes. Irving's basic approach seems to have been to simply write a biography of Hitler utilizing the available primary documentary evidence... no more, no less. If certain mainstream historical narratives are not mentioned in this book, it is merely because Irving could apparently find no documents to substantiate them.
"Hitler's War" clarified a lot of less controversial topics pertaining to Hitler and the history of the war for me as well. In particular, Irving points out again and again that Hitler legitimately deserves credit as being one of the great military thinkers of history. After reading this book, it is difficult to deny that Hitler possessed an extraordinary strategic intuition -- a genius, one might even call it. As one of Hitler's generals put it, just because Hannibal (Napoleon too, I would add) eventually lost the war didn't make him a "bad" general. As well, Irving's revelations regarding Hitler's mad desire to avoid war with Britain, and Churchill's diametrically opposed will toward war at all costs, was enlightening.
In summary, I find myself forced to repeat that "Hitler's War" is outstandingly readable, an honest-to-god 'page turner'. It is an instant classic for me, and a reminder of why history is my favourite discipline of the humanities. It is also a very important book too, academically as well as politically. What would be the implications if all that you thought you knew about Hitler was skewed, twisted, or even outright fabricated? The answer is that the implications are not merely trivial, but rather have immediate cultural and political consequences in our contemporary context. In this sense, "Hitler's War" isn't just a masterful biography of Hitler, but a required reading for anyone that senses that, to a large degree, our entire sociopolitical and cultural paradigm is built upon a tottering myth of Hitler and the Nazis that the documentary evidence, according to Irving, is seriously called into question. And the political consequences of that lie, if Irving is correct, are earth shattering.
At first I was skeptical of the book because of its descriptive prose and narrative writing style. Often history books that are written in this way do so to disguise a lack of documentary evidence or serious research. Not so with "Hitler's War". The book is very cleary based upon exhaustive research. Every paragraph is backed by primary documentary evidence, some of which was discovered by Irving himself -- and impressive feat, given how many thousands of scholars have sifted through and mined the historical record of this era for decades upon decades. What I appreciated most, though, was the dozens of obscure anecdotes that Irving shines a light upon, little gems in the historical record that have previously gone unnoticed or even undiscovered by historians. Irving has the eye of a literary, in this regard; he knows how powerful the little details are in bringing the characters and events of history to life.
The book is controversial. In this regard, "Hitler's War" is not just compelling reading, but an important contribution to the scholarship of National Socialist Germany because it forces some critical questions to be asked regarding the consensus narrative regarding this era. Interestingly, Irving doesn't actually make too many directly controversial claims in this book (though there are some of those, too). Rather, it is certain intentional, conspicuous *omissions* that Irving allows for which themselves speak volumes. Irving's basic approach seems to have been to simply write a biography of Hitler utilizing the available primary documentary evidence... no more, no less. If certain mainstream historical narratives are not mentioned in this book, it is merely because Irving could apparently find no documents to substantiate them.
"Hitler's War" clarified a lot of less controversial topics pertaining to Hitler and the history of the war for me as well. In particular, Irving points out again and again that Hitler legitimately deserves credit as being one of the great military thinkers of history. After reading this book, it is difficult to deny that Hitler possessed an extraordinary strategic intuition -- a genius, one might even call it. As one of Hitler's generals put it, just because Hannibal (Napoleon too, I would add) eventually lost the war didn't make him a "bad" general. As well, Irving's revelations regarding Hitler's mad desire to avoid war with Britain, and Churchill's diametrically opposed will toward war at all costs, was enlightening.
In summary, I find myself forced to repeat that "Hitler's War" is outstandingly readable, an honest-to-god 'page turner'. It is an instant classic for me, and a reminder of why history is my favourite discipline of the humanities. It is also a very important book too, academically as well as politically. What would be the implications if all that you thought you knew about Hitler was skewed, twisted, or even outright fabricated? The answer is that the implications are not merely trivial, but rather have immediate cultural and political consequences in our contemporary context. In this sense, "Hitler's War" isn't just a masterful biography of Hitler, but a required reading for anyone that senses that, to a large degree, our entire sociopolitical and cultural paradigm is built upon a tottering myth of Hitler and the Nazis that the documentary evidence, according to Irving, is seriously called into question. And the political consequences of that lie, if Irving is correct, are earth shattering.
September 8, 2018
An incredibly well researched book. Primary sources used throughout. A thoroughly insightful view of probably the 20th century most influential leader, reviled, hated and written off. But adored in his lifetime and right up to the end. Another biographer, Ian Kershaw, said it's impossible to know Hitler the man. that may be true, but Irving presents the facts without comment and allows the reader to form their own view.
December 15, 2022
Excellent book.Dont heed the reviewers who only insult and don't review anything about the book.
August 22, 2020
If you only read one biography of Hitler, or one book on the events of WW2, this is the book to read. Irving himself is not infallible, but here's a heuristic for you:
David Irving was one of the superstars of WW2 historiagraphy. As a researcher, he is as hard working and principled as you could hope one man to be. He's garnered praise from his colleagues in the field the world over for decades. But eventually he set a foot wrong by refusing to pipe down about the complete lack of a "Fuhrer order", and the omnipresent absence of proof for the mainstream holocaust narrative. For this transgression against Western political mandate, Irving has had is life, if not destroyed, crippled. He's been imprisoned, beaten till his face was too swollen to see through, had his research papers destroyed, his house broken into and ransacked, his emotional state over the death of one of his daughters exploited by his opponents in court, he's been financially drained, and still he has not conceded his conclusions.
But, just because he did not give in to the well-funded bullies that preside over us, doesn't mean he ran to the arms of the (nuance-deficient) opposition. "NAHTZEES" DON'T LIKE HIM EITHER! The reason is because he is his own man, with his own convictions, and understanding of history that is almost entirely verifiably correct, and neither extreme will except a dent in their propaganda.
Irving does not paint Hitler as a Saint or a Devil, but a man. Reading this book, you will see Hitler for the ambitious and capable human being with (ultimately fatal) flaws that he was. You will not find great contradictions in character present in basically all other writeups of the man ("He was a stupid madman with one testicle! But also an effective calculating adversary that required the might of 3 world empires and their vassals to topple"). You WILL find well sourced information proving that certain events did not go as is popularly understood. You will also find not so well sourced claims that are easily debunked, but get this:
In Irving's court dispute with Deborah Lipstadt, Deborah hired a team of researchers to peruse all (30+) of David's books for "lies" (not errors, they sought to damage his character), and they presented a list of of "lies" that amounted to just over a 1 to 1 ratio with the number of books he had written. Of those "lies" only 7 were found to actually be in error. 30+ books in 40 or so years, and 7 errors. That's a ringing a ringing endorsement as I see it.
I have some differences in opinion with Irving, but I'm inclined to defend him even though some of our disagreements are hugely important (he is not a holocaust "denier", he just has a different version of this event for which there is no proof, but still believes up to 6 million jews died at the hands of the NSDAP), because anyone can see that he has done tremendous work, and anyone who's honest will say it, too.
David Irving was one of the superstars of WW2 historiagraphy. As a researcher, he is as hard working and principled as you could hope one man to be. He's garnered praise from his colleagues in the field the world over for decades. But eventually he set a foot wrong by refusing to pipe down about the complete lack of a "Fuhrer order", and the omnipresent absence of proof for the mainstream holocaust narrative. For this transgression against Western political mandate, Irving has had is life, if not destroyed, crippled. He's been imprisoned, beaten till his face was too swollen to see through, had his research papers destroyed, his house broken into and ransacked, his emotional state over the death of one of his daughters exploited by his opponents in court, he's been financially drained, and still he has not conceded his conclusions.
But, just because he did not give in to the well-funded bullies that preside over us, doesn't mean he ran to the arms of the (nuance-deficient) opposition. "NAHTZEES" DON'T LIKE HIM EITHER! The reason is because he is his own man, with his own convictions, and understanding of history that is almost entirely verifiably correct, and neither extreme will except a dent in their propaganda.
Irving does not paint Hitler as a Saint or a Devil, but a man. Reading this book, you will see Hitler for the ambitious and capable human being with (ultimately fatal) flaws that he was. You will not find great contradictions in character present in basically all other writeups of the man ("He was a stupid madman with one testicle! But also an effective calculating adversary that required the might of 3 world empires and their vassals to topple"). You WILL find well sourced information proving that certain events did not go as is popularly understood. You will also find not so well sourced claims that are easily debunked, but get this:
In Irving's court dispute with Deborah Lipstadt, Deborah hired a team of researchers to peruse all (30+) of David's books for "lies" (not errors, they sought to damage his character), and they presented a list of of "lies" that amounted to just over a 1 to 1 ratio with the number of books he had written. Of those "lies" only 7 were found to actually be in error. 30+ books in 40 or so years, and 7 errors. That's a ringing a ringing endorsement as I see it.
I have some differences in opinion with Irving, but I'm inclined to defend him even though some of our disagreements are hugely important (he is not a holocaust "denier", he just has a different version of this event for which there is no proof, but still believes up to 6 million jews died at the hands of the NSDAP), because anyone can see that he has done tremendous work, and anyone who's honest will say it, too.
February 27, 2016
Although Irving went off the rails later in his career, that should detract in no way from this, his magnum opus. Beginning with the start of the Second World War, Irving takes the reader inside Hitler's command and his inner circle and chronicles how he fought the war. The book is meticulously researched and showcases the author's great writing style that draws the reader into the text. As the book is written from the locus of what Hitler was thinking, doing, etc., some have criticized it as being the biography that Hitler would have written; I disagree.
September 4, 2020
This work is probably the most detailed and exacting day-by-day history of the Führer during the Second World War and should be required reading, even if one does not come to the same conclusions as the author. Ultimately, a very different picture of Adolf Hitler emerges, with all the complexity, brilliance, and flaws of the man as leader of the Third Reich.
September 9, 2014
David Irving did a great job here . This books mentions everything about World War II and analyze Hitler's thoughts . The bad is that is very difficult book and in some points you get very confused .
I think it worth a try for those who like books that have to do with War .
I think it worth a try for those who like books that have to do with War .
September 10, 2024
Read by the venerable Alex Linder here: https://odysee.com/@Brando:c/Hitler&#...
March 18, 2018
based on the author's revolutionary pursuit of primary sources that no other WWII author had previously unearthed, one could easily call Irving's research on Hitler and top National Socialist brass exhaustive. As a result of the Lipstadt trial, this book unfairly earned a reputation of holocaust denial. As I abhor censorship, and being told not to read a book makes me only want to read it more, I decided to ignore all outside opinions about Irving, and judge the book solely on what I read. What I found was a book providing insights and sources on Hitler I could find nowhere else. I found nothing I would call Holocaust denial. Irving maintains no written records can connect to a Fuhrer Order, but admits that after a certain point in 1944, Hitler could most likely no longer credibly plead ignorance to what Heinrich Himmler was doing in the east with all of the Jews that had been ordered deported. Irving approaches the people involved and the entire story in an objective, dispassionate manner, relying solely on provable facts to tell the story (here and there he glosses over things, but they are all things we have read about in other places). If you are curious about this "book you are not supposed to read," then I suggest giving it a chance. Be forewarned, it cannot be called a great history of the campaigns of the war per se. It truly is a history of Hitler's view of the war, showing you his thought processes behind decisions, showing you his view of campaigns and generals from his HQ. It is more like WW2 behind closed doors, but from Hitler and the German's point of view.
March 15, 2022
A very objective look at such a great and important figure especially of the 20th century! I can't say that I necessarily agree with everything put forth here about my Uncle but I will say that I truly do appreciate David Irving's ability to keep conspiracy theories and nonsense speculation to as minimal a level as possible given the topic he was tasked to document. I highly encourage anyone interested in Third Positionist politics to read this. I would also place this book on the Red Pill 101 reading list.
November 9, 2022
Amazing book so refreshing to read something from the Axis perspective and not filled with allied propaganda. I salute Mr . Irving for his hard work uncovering true history no matter how hard it might be for some others to hear . & no I’m not a racist or a jew hater just because I rated this book 5 stars , people need to stop being small minded or else we will never learn from history.
April 6, 2015
buku yang sangat memuaskasn tapi sayangnya akhir-akhir ini kondisi hidupku dalam jalur buntu; dalam artian melingkar. harus baca heidegger, sosiologi yang menyangkut interaksionisme dan lainnya. jadi pusing. tapi yang jelas, ini buku terbagus yang pernah aku baca soal hitler. aku juga lagi baca Mein Kampfnya Hitler.
January 15, 2024
Finished volume 1. Another history that relates a truth violently different from what the mainstream media and schools teach. Humanizing to the German position while at the same time pointing out the inhumanity of the eugenics and "final solution". Detailed about logistics and the limitations due to manufacturing and gas shortages. Well worth the time investment.
November 15, 2016
brilliant first person account Read it in the late seventies when first published and have paged through it many times since.
January 30, 2017
Best thing I've read on AH so far.
March 9, 2018
As close as you will ever get in terms of documentary evidence into the workings of the Third Reichs dictator.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 70 reviews