book: 'Hitler's War'

[Clive]

Long time lurker here who finally decided to take the plunge and sign up at this great forum, mostly to pick the brains of those here whose knowledge of WW2 is far greater than my own. Well, I'd like to start off by getting some opinions/reviews on David Irving's 'Hitler's War.'

Is Irving's book a fair and unbiased assessment of the man? Are there better books that I can get a hold of that will give a clearer, more accurate picture of this "controversial" figure?

Thanks in advance.

[EtienneSC]

I read and enjoyed Irving's Hitler's War (1977 edition). However, you will find that the six or so "exculpatory" documents he draws attention to at the beginning were for the most part discredited at the Lipstadt trial in 2000. I would recommend reading the verdict that was printed by Penguin. Irving's own readings were discredited and as he refused to rely on "revisionists", his case fell apart. Despite that, Irving had plainly accessed a lot of new material and where he was not being slapdash I expect he tells an accurate and at least a plausible story. He is interesting on the military aspects of Hitler's policies.

I would particularly recommend Rainer Zitelmann's Hitler: the Policies of Seduction (London House, 1999). I have heard good things about the more recent biography of Stolfi, but have not yet read it. Obviously, one's view of Hitler's character as a whole depends to a considerable degree on one's view of the holocaust, so I would say for that reason that revisionism is a fruitful avenue to explore. I think that bedevills the writings of Ian Kershaw, for example.

It would be interesting to hear more of your own views.

[Barrington James]

There are a number of very good books of how the USA created WW2, including of course, how they got the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor and destroy some old WW1 battle ships while the US air craft carriers had been safely sent state side. They did this of course in order to officially get into WW2 against Hitler. Although the US had long been unofficially in the war all the way from supplying Britain with supplies and money to continue the war, as well as the promise to Churchill ( even before WC became the PM) to get into the war as soon as could….which meant as soon as they figured that Britain had been weakened to the point of never ever becoming a world power again. FDR was pretty tricky.

I would recommend: Charles Tansill, Back Door to War, all his stuff is taken from State Department confidential correspondence taken from the National Archives and the Library of Congress; George Morgenstern, Pearl Harbor, The Story of the Secret War,…“perhaps the most brilliant and impressive monograph on diplomatic history ever turned out by a non-professional student on the subject..”; and , of course, Charles Beard, President Roosevelt and the coming war of 1941.

Antony Sutton has written a number of terrific books on how Wall Street and the Banks, including the Bank of England created Hitler, Lenin and Stalin, and FDR…they are extremely well documented…and shocking. He is also on Youtube.

However the best researched books on how the elite created the FED, all our wars, the great and not do great depressions and , frankly , how they rule the world , including all the above as you have requested, are the books written by Eustace Mullins. ( who took over the 30 year research of Ezra Pound, one of the truly great intellects of the 20th century) . His best book on the topic is The World Order ..now out of print but possibly available second hand …if not, Eustace can be found on Youtube. The late Eustace Mullins was the only research whom I know of who actually named names …at the very top of the food chain…Rockefellers, Warburgs, Rothschilds….He explains everything…

Good luck….Irving, of course, is a great writer as well…he is very, very clever but he made a big mistake expecting a fair trial against DL…and it ruined him …in more ways than one…jail does no one any good...

Barrington James

[Hannover]

It's been a long time since I read Irving's 'Hitler's War' (best described as Britain's, the Soviets', and the U.S.'s War). I do recall that I came away with some distinct impressions.

- I was impressed with Irving's picturesque, action oriented writing style.

- I recall that he demonstrated how Allied bombers flew directly over German troop dispositions enroute to civilian targets, enormous war crimes to be sure. I credit Irving for bringing that into the book, most court historians ignore that well established fact.

- And this is where it got really controversial. Irving claimed that Hitler was not the one responsible, or even knew much about the mass murders of Jews. That alleged process, Irving claims, was directed by Himmler, other high ranking officials, and officers in the field. That position in itself proved much too inflammatory to the usual enemies of free speech and is what started the Jewish supremacist antagonism towards him. Then there is this large problem for Irving, there is no proof that Hitler, nor Hitler's subordinates, engaged in such behavior.

In retrospect we can see that this was the beginning of Irving's 'holocaust lite' dance, which has taken many ridiculous twists & turns since 'Hitler's War'.

- H

[Clive]

Thanks for the replies, very helpful. My knowledge of WW2 is an area I feel I need to strengthen when debating people that follow the sort of "History Channel' mantra of accusing Hitler of being everything from a Satanist and child molester to abusing animals and stealing cable TV.

It's been quite a journey for me to finally get to the real facts that are presented at this great site. My grandfather was in the 101st Airborne, so growing up as a kid I naturally considered the US and its allies the "good guys." My grandfather died when I was very young, so I was unable to gain any information from him. From what I could gather from relatives, he rarely spoke of the war, so they knew very little.

I think it was around the early nineties I began questioning the Holocaust and NS Germany as some sort of evil incarnate. Well, I left the subject for some time, maybe not wanting to believe that the US could have been in the wrong, and that my grandfather was involved in something that was clearly not the Hollywood version of WW2.

But in the end I needed to know the truth. And sometimes the truth is ugly, vicious and cruel. But it is still the truth and no celluloid propaganda or oppressive speech laws can change that. So I do what I can to combat the lies. One lone voice in the wilderness it sometimes seems.

Hope that fills you in a bit on me and my views. I am still taking a lot of this in. there are many brave, highly intelligent, knowledgeable people here so I will probably be asking more questions than actually adding to the discourse.

Thanks again!

[Hannover]

Clive:
You are not a "lone voice in the wilderness". More and more people are waking up just like you. Yes, it's a taboo to find anything decent in the Germans, but as you say, 'the facts are the facts'. I take a very direct approach, I do something that so many are unfamiliar with, I ask for proof. And guess what, there is none which supports the standard narrative, none. And always, always demand specifics, not some vague references. Most people just go on marketed assumptions and propaganda, but as you are finding out, look under the rock and there's nothing there.

Arm yourself with solid facts and you'll be surprised how foolish you can make the sheeple look.

- Hannover

[Kingfisher]

Clive

If you want an accessible, easily-readable Revisionist approach to WW2, try Pat Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War http://goo.gl/Z4bDE.

For a brief one-page intro to that book by Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail http://goo.gl/T7wDE. I recall Hitchens P (Christopher's brother: the two disagreed on literally everything) writing of WW2 as "the war we had to fight". Reading Buchanan was his Road to Damascus. He still hasn't questioned the Big H (how could he, and still make a living?) but he has just about all the rest. See this recent article http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/churchill-cult/

[Clive]

Hannover, thanks for the advice on demanding facts. That seems a tactically more offensive approach than I have been taking and would yield better results. I usually get people who are fresh off watching the latest History Channel piece. As regards to the Holocaust, they will point out those random pictures of piles of bodies they love to show on their "documentaries." I usually counter with the typhus facts, but they seem to dismiss this, probably because they have know idea how lethal something like that can be in such situations. Next time I will hold their feet to the fire and demand they bring me proof beyond some recollections of grainy black and white photos of unknown origin from a TV show.

Kingfisher, by lucky coincidence I have just acquired the book by Buchanan you have suggested! I will crack it open soon and understand Pat's company line on the Holocaust is to be expected. I have also sitting on my shelf Germar Rudolf's 'Dissecting the Holocaust'. I honestly have avoided wading into this one due to what seems like the lengthy technical and scientific passages it presents, but I will give that a go soon as I feel it would be beneficial to have a grasp of such data.

While I have your attention, can either of you give me your opinions on the works of Stephen Ambrose? I read his book D-Day a few years back and at the time it seemed well researched and factual. The only thing I remember questioning was his downplaying of the German soldiers' abilities versus the Americans. If I recall correctly, he had a passage where he even stated that the SS were sub-par compared to the American troops in training, improvising, and ability. I found this hard to swallow considering Germany was outgunned, outnumbered and fighting a war on multiple fronts, yet still held the allies at bay for years. I'll try to find that passage and post it (Moderators: If this topic should have its own thread, let me know and I will start one).

I'd like to say it is nice having a place to go like CODOH where such "taboo" subjects can be discussed rationally and Maturely. It still amazes me how this whole pseudo-history was sold and keeps on being sold to the public. Especially here in the US. I can't help but look back on my youthful beliefs and feel foolish for my gullibility and betrayed by such pernicious lies.

[Kingfisher]

[I] understand Pat's company line on the Holocaust is to be expected.

I was actually referring to Hitchens, but Buchanan has come closer to HD. He actively supported Demjanjuk, and questioned the toxicity of diesel exhaust in the Treblinka context.

I have also sitting on my shelf Germar Rudolf's 'Dissecting the Holocaust'. I honestly have avoided wading into this one due to what seems like the lengthy technical and scientific passages it presents, but I will give that a go soon as I feel it would be beneficial to have a grasp of such data.

That's the Bible, and like the Bible it's a lot to take on at one go...!

Sorry, I know nothing about Ambrose.

[Barrington James]

Clive

If you want an accessible, easily-readable Revisionist approach to WW2, try Pat Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War http://goo.gl/Z4bDE.

For a brief one-page intro to that book by Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail http://goo.gl/T7wDE. I recall Hitchens P (Christopher's brother: the two disagreed on literally everything) writing of WW2 as "the war we had to fight". Reading Buchanan was his Road to Damascus. He still hasn't questioned the Big H (how could he, and still make a living?) but he has just about all the rest. See this recent article http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/churchill-cult/

I read Pat's book and it seemeds to me that he just stole most of his stuff from David Irving/s books on the war....

[catleugh]

At the very least, Hitler's war is well written, interesting, and easy to read. I think his Himmler biography, when it is published, will be well worth reading.

[Bayreuth]

The only real axe to grind that i would have with Hitler's War is that the period immediately post-June 22 1941 is really glossed over quickly. Am I wrong to think that with the opening of alot of soviet archive material and Viktor Suvorov/Joachim Hoffman and others we are living in an era of understanding world war two history quite distinct from that of Hitler's War/1977 ??

Following Clive's lead here is another 'longtime lurker on this great forum' (well put Clive) finally posting.

Dear Hannover, in the dictionary there is a photo of you next to the word 'tenacious.' God bless you.

Barrington James, YES !! I agree. I reckon we need to understand that the very terminology 'world war 1' and 'world war 2' is Anglo-American in its construction and in its slant. 1914 - 1948, 'second thirty years war,' or maybe even more honestly, 99 years war, are the terms that need to be brought into usage.