'True Himmler' by David Irving // Biography Discussion

[EtienneSC]

Here is an account of the last two chapters and the end of the book:

Chapter 40 - Difficult promotion
This makes a story of an attempt by Marga Himmler to have the husband of a friend promoted in the SS. He looks slovenly and Himmler looks foolish. The husband is shunted into a "desk job". This is a term of contempt, presumably as senior SS members had also to speak in public and have a public profile.

Chapter 41 - Run up to war with Poland
This gives an account of the last days before the outbreak of war with Poland in 1939. Irving states that the SS were involved in the "Gleiwitz incident" and other false flag attacks that gave a pretext for war. (I believe this, or at least its significance, has been disputed.) Irving writes of "two million Jews living in Poland, which Germany must now inherit" (page 494).

End Notes
These refer at the end to publication of Rosenberg's diary in 2015 (page 602). As Irving notes, there is no reference to holocaust-like activities in it. There is a reference to a statement that Heydrich (who died in 1942) didn't like destroying documents (page 353).

As I've said above, the end notes are a bit irregular in giving sources for the general reader, though there is a lot of detail in them. The book is well indexed.

Conclusion
The book is a readable version of 20th century German history up to 1939 with the focus on Himmler and the SS and Police. Several passages indicate that Irving's Volume 2 will endorse some version of Aktion Reinhard and shootings in the East. The Epilogue for example, speaks of Himmler's men "deleting entire generations" (page 496) and this is the note on which the book ends.

Irving adheres rigorously to a policy of citing only documents from archives and ignoring the work of other scholars. This makes his work difficult to check by anyone who did not make it a full time job. The great advantage of this method of "Real History" is the independent judgement it entails. The disadvantage is the consequent lack of collegiality, at least in the current instance.

For the purposes of this forum, it is Volume 2 - yet to appear - that will be of most interest.

[Werd]

End Notes
These refer at the end to publication of Rosenberg's diary in 2015 (page 602). As Irving notes, there is no reference to holocaust-like activities in it. There is a reference to a statement that Heydrich (who died in 1942) didn't like destroying documents (page 353).

I remember when people were so excited about the diaries of Rosenberg and what they were allegedly going to prove about the holocaust or even gas chambers.

Alas, nothing!
https://www.inconvenienthistory.com/6/1/3237

[Hektor]

I am continuing to enjoy the book. This is one advantage of a narrative format. One point I forgot to make in the last chapter was that Himmler required SS recruits to leave Protestant and Catholic churches, though they generally signed as "gottglaubig" (believers in God). This distanced them from church counsel and discipline. However, Irving says it was to prevent denominational arguments, rather than a move from Christianity towards neo-paganism. To continue with a summary of Holocaust-related passages:

Not sure whether this was a requirement, but I recall a speech by Himmler were he asked people to leave the SS, if they were too strong under the influence of a priest. The SS had def. members from all kinds of denominations (Himmler himself being from a devout Catholic family). Denominational issues were indeed still an issue in Germany at that stage, as one can actually see from the CENTRUM, which was essentially a Catholic party and sort of a predecessor CDU (which included ).

Chapters 19-21 - Agencies, Accession to Power
In chapter 19, Irving discusses the scandal of Röhm's homosexuality. He describes the origins of the Sicherheitsdienst (Security service) run by Heydrich in the Kampfzeit. This was run by Heydrich and kept a card index i.e. a manual database) on political opponents. It was staffed by volunteers. It sounds a bit like Searchlight, the SPLC or LICRA. By 1934 it had 200 members. There is a description of a list of supporters that was deleted from the files at the war's end by one of the supporters (page 228). In July 1932, the NSDAP wins 230 seats in the Reichstag.
.....

The tendencies of using proxies (NGO) to do certain work is not limited to the US or France, but I noticed that other countries do that as well. That way their members don't have to comply with regulations for government employees, while often still getting government funding. The fact checks and those observing/enforcing community standards are also of that kind. I see there is a surge of people informing and reporting on others (sycophantism). I don't think, they'd like Heydrich's decree though:

6. Appropriate steps should be taken at once against informers who for personal reasons make unjustified and exaggerated reports about compatriots, in the form of a serious warning and, in cases of malice, of transfer to a concentration camp.
https://ghdi.ghi-dc.org/docpage.cfm?doc ... ge=english

[EtienneSC]

I have asked Mr. Irving when we could expect the second part to released. This is what he told me:

Thanks [redacted],

Second part, which contains of course what I might call the “Holocaust stuff”, is written and safe in this computer, and will follow after a suitable delay to establish the validity of the first

David Irving

Any update on when the second part - dealing with 1939-45 - will be available? How long is a "suitable delay"?

[Otium]

Any update on when the second part - dealing with 1939-45 - will be available? How long is a "suitable delay"?

No clue, the Barbarossa stuff will appear in that volume 2. Which is what I'm most interested in. Irving did say he would release the third Churchill volume this year, so we can only speculate about whether the second Himmler volume will be out this year, or next year. To me it'd make sense to release the Himmler books a few months apart, in order to keep interest in that project, rather than divert attention to the completion of the Churchill project which should be done closer to the end of the year so that the attention can then be placed onto that set. Who knows really? Only David Irving.

A friend of mine who recently finished the first volume had this to say:

Just finished it. Irving is a good writer and the book really was a breeze except for its length. Yet I don’t understand how he can continually fail to paint a consistent picture of Hitler’s foreign policy and attitudes, not just here, but also in „Hiter’s War“. He describes Hitler’s foreign policy to us and one rightfully gets the feeling that there is nothing really wrong with it. But then he goes ahead and attributes a quote to Hitler that makes him look like a warmongerer. One example of that are the totally meaningless Hosbach notes, which he references in „Hitler’s War“ indirectly and in „True Himmler“ directly, but both times uncritically.

Similar things happen again and again so that the reader is left behind with a bad picture of Hitler, despite all of Irving’s „revisionism“. I don’t know the sources of these Hitler quotes, as Irving doesn’t mention them and the pdf above lacks footnote numbers in the text.

Then there is also a lot of anti-Nazi editorializing that is quite annoying, although it is less than in standard literature on the subject.

I would rather read a Buchanan that focuses on the essentials and avoids these small „quotes“ that probably no one can prove or disprove anyways and who avoids a lot of stupid editorializing.

It would be less bad with Irving if one was to believe that his silly comments are actually representative of his opinion, but that is just not believable.

I agree with this summary, except for the comment about the length of the book. I think, if anything, it should've been longer with more detailed footnotes. I'd say so far for myself the biggest let down is the sparse footnotes. For example, he cites on page 589 an article written by Richard Evans as being from 1913, obviously a typo for 2013. Things like that annoy me, even though they're not significant errors.

Two other things that have irked me so far.

For example, in True Himmler he states:

Schreck, by then an emeritus SS Oberführer, died of meningitis in 1936. The Party staged a showy funeral, and Himmler referred to Schreck as having been Hitler’s ‘first SS man.’ The death affected Hitler deeply and triggered his own first medical episode – agonizing stomach cramps – according to his then physician, Professor Carl von Eicken.

David Irving, True Himmler (Focal Point Publications, 2020), Pp. 159.

Yet in Hitler's War Irving writes that:

Hitler ordered state pensions provided for the next of kin of the people murdered in the Night of the Long Knives, as June 30, 1934 came to be known. Even so he began to suffer nightmares and could not sleep. His medical records reveal that stomach ailments began to plague him from this episode on;

David Irving, Hitler's War and the War Path (Focal Point Publications, 2019 Edition), Pp. 32.

So, did Hitler develop the agonizing stomach cramps in 1934 or 1936? It's a minor contradiction, not an error per se, but a contradiction that annoys me nonetheless. I emailed Irving about it, and he didn't respond.

Regarding footnotes, pages 158 and 159 Irving provides no notes for, even though he quotes Hitler on page 159:

As Hitler reminisced in January 1942, it was Maurice, Schreck, and Heiden who formed that first group of toughs in Munich. ‘But it was with Himmler that the SS became a body of men, devoted to an idea, loyal unto death.’ Referring to the Basque hermit priest who founded the Society of Jesus in 1537, Hitler added: ‘I see in Himmler our Ignatius de Loyola. With intelligence and obstinacy, against wind and tide, he forged this instrument.’ Each SS man knew that his job was to set an example, to see and not to be seen, and that the eyes of the whole nation were on him.

Irving, Himmler, Ibid.

How is anyone unfamiliar with the sources supposed to know where Hitler said this without a relevant footnote? Would it have been that hard? Not in my opinion. This quote is from the Table Talks:

It was Maurice, Schreck and Heyden who formed in Munich the first group of "tough "uns", and were thus the origin of the SS. But it was with Himmler that the SS became that extraordinary body of men, devoted to an idea, loyal unto death. I see in Himmler our Ignatius de Loyola. With intelligence and obstinacy, against wind and tide, he forged this instrument. The heads of the SA, for their part, didn't succeed in giving their troops a soul. At the present time we have had it confirmed that every division of the SS is aware of its responsibility. The SS knows that its job is to set an example, to be and not to seem, and that all eyes are upon it.

Adolf Hitler, 3-4th January, 1942., Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944: His Private Conversations (New York: Enigma Books, 2000), Pp. 167.

I've noticed he does this with quotes from Mein Kampf too, which I understand, but it's a problem if someone wanted to actually find a certain passage. There are also problems when he refers to documents "in private hands", for example on page 155 he mentions such a paper, and does not cite it. He also refers to various diary entries by various figures, whether it be Himmler or someone else and simply refers to archive collections, without giving a proper reference to pages, or documents. Sometimes he just quotes from diary entries from certain days with no reference at all, just the date of the entry. Which I'm sure if you went through the footnotes you could find the actual source referenced the first time he uses it, but doing so can be a pain as well. If he had a bibliography it might make it easier, but he doesn't.

Some people have mentioned how he doesn't have actual in-text notes, this isn't a problem for me. I actually like the method of not using in-text notes but providing sources per page at the end of the book. Theoretically you could include more sources without cluttering the main text with numbers. Yet Irving doesn't take full advantage of this, even though it's easy to find the notes by referring to the page number at the back. I just wish his notes were more detailed and numerous. Especially after 20 years, I'd have expected better.

[Otium]

I'm just going to keep documenting weird stuff I'm noticing about the book as I go.

On page 178 Irving writes:

"Rosenberg was born in Reval, Estonia, and had spent the Great War in Moscow, where he witnessed the excesses of the Bolshevik revolution and Jews moving into the hierarchy after October 1917: Jews would occupy 85 percent of the top five hundred positions."

David Irving, True Himmler (Focal Point Publications, 2020), Pp. 178.

I went to check his notes, and there was no source for this 85 percent figure. So I emailed David Irving and he replied saying:

I think you mean on page 298. You would have found the source in source notes, on page 558, passage beginning: “President Vladimir …”

If you want more help, please cite the correct page number.

David Irving, Email to me. 26.03.2021.

Herein I went to check page 298, in which he writes:

Although comprising barely four percent of Russia’s population, Jews were at the forefront of Moscow’s 1917 revolution. By the end of 1918, Jews filled 457 of the 556 top Bolshevik posts. Speaking to a Jewish audience in 2013, President Vladimir V Putin himself mischievously underlined that eighty-five percent of the first Soviet government were Jews.

David Irving, True Himmler (Focal Point Publications, 2020), Pp. 298.

So this is a bit more specific than the initial mention on page 178. Yet he does source his claim on page 298, which I think is a bit weird, because he couldn't left a note for page 178 that would refer the reader to the footnote on page 558 for the note on page 298 - my confusion with his citation in this regard is proof of why this would've been a better idea, rather than just waiting for the reader to get to that part in the book. I like to check notes as I go, so screwing me around to find your source like this, as a reader, is not a pleasant experience.

Anyway, his actual source is a problem too. On page 558 he cites the source as such:

President Vladimir Putin made his statement during a visit to the Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center: see http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin ... tin_jews-0. Vladimir Lenin’s sister Anna Ulyanova secretly urged Stalin in 1932 to reveal Lenin’s Jewish origins: A 2011 Moscow exhibition revealed a letter written by the sister claiming their maternal grandfather was a Ukrainian Jew; according to his baptismal certificate, Lenin was the grandson of Sril Moiseyevich (Israel Moses) Blank, a native of Zhitomir. Stalin told the sister to keep it quiet. The Jerusalem Post printed the facts without fanfare on May 24, 2011: http://www.jpost.com/jewish-world/jewis ... an-museum; picked up by Time, Jun 13, 2011, and finally by the Jewish Chronicle in London on Sept 18, 2020, ‘Lenin’s Jewish roots’.

Ibid., p. 558.

He bases his figure on an factually unsubstantiated quote from Putin. Personally this isn't satisfying enough for me. It's a fact that Jews were overrepresented in the Soviet Union, so I'm not disputing that, but I think for a historian like David Irving he should do a better job with the resources he has than cite an online article that has been quoted for years by any goober with an internet connection.

It's just not thorough, it's not authoritative or definitive. It's lazy to me.

Also, 457 out of 556 is a very specific number, how did he arrive at that number? Did he provide us with lists of names? No, but 85% of 556 is pretty close to 457, it's something like 472. I'm not sure if that's how he got this number, and it doesn't tell us why he even started with 556 in the first place. I emailed him back about this but he just told me that he won't respond unless I have a "real query". So that puts an end to that, unless anyone else wants to badger him for a real source.

---

Another source of his I had to go to annoying lengths to uncover was a quotation from Otto Wagener he quotes on page 181:

Writing in 1946, Otto Wagener recalled the scene without a trace of the obligatory remorse: ‘ An SS Standarte brought the parade to a close. Well ordered, a proud black-uniformed column of men with Heinrich Himmler marching at their head. The crowd applauded and their cheers rose to a climax as the last men marched off and Adolf Hitler turned and raised his right arm in salute to our tribune.’

Ibid., p. 181f.

I went to check the notes to see if he provided a source, and thankfully he did. He cites the German edition of Wagener's memoirs, but doesn't provide a page number for some reason. WHY? I don't know, I cannot fathom it.

So, I checked the English edition of Wagener's memoirs thinking I'd find some equivalent quote, perhaps not worded the same way, but using similar key words I thought I'd find it. But no. For some stupid reason, there's nothing whatsoever in the English version of the book that comes anywhere close to a quote like this.

At this point I had doubts about whether the quote even existed, just because I thought it was too weird for something like this not to appear in the English edition of the same book. So I checked a German edition, and to my relief I found the quote:

Den Abschluß des Vorbeimarsches bildete eine S.S. Standarte. Wohlgeordnet, eine stolze, schwarze Kolonne, voraus Heinrich Himmler, der Führer der S.S. Auch ihr schlug ein erneuter Jubel entgegen, der sich verdichtete, als die Letzten vorbei waren und Adolf Hitler sich herumdrehte und zu den Tribünen den Arne zum Gruße erhob. Dann bestieg er seinen Wagen und fuhr langsam, von den Heil-Rufen der Masse begleitet, von dem grandiosen Schauplatz dieses ebenso grandiosen Erlebnisses ab.

Otto Wagener, Hitler aus nächster Nähe: Aufzeichnungen eines Vertrauten 1929-1932 (Ullstein, 1978), Pp. 20.

I don't know why Irving didn't just cite the page number. I think he's trustworthy, but he makes some silly choices that aren't convenient, and I think the point of sourcing is to be convenient. Even if I cannot check archival references, I would still prefer to have them, rather than not have them at all.

I think Irving needs to realise that he doesn't have the luxury of being lazy with his sources, or not sourcing things at all. Most conventional historians are pretty good at citing references consistently, even if they're not convincing. Irving is too, don't get me wrong, but just not good enough at times (in my opinion).

Unlike the establishment, Irving cannot just assert something without having to prove it, and that's the price we revisionists have to pay. We're not allowed to not have a source, that's a privilege reserved for the anointed ivory tower hacks.

What interests me about history is knowing where something came from which is why sources are important. I would prefer primary sources over books, but there's not much choice. Irving does a good job using primarily primary sources, which he's known for. This means Irving will always have an advantage over some academic who has to read hundreds of books (which I doubt they do) and keep in line not only the evidence, but also the interpretive musings of all the authors they read. No one person can do all that, it's not physically possible.

[Werd]

Any update on when the second part - dealing with 1939-45 - will be available? How long is a "suitable delay"?

No clue, the Barbarossa stuff will appear in that volume 2. Which is what I'm most interested in. Irving did say he would release the third Churchill volume this year, so we can only speculate about whether the second Himmler volume will be out this year, or next year. To me it'd make sense to release the Himmler books a few months apart, in order to keep interest in that project, rather than divert attention to the completion of the Churchill project which should be done closer to the end of the year so that the attention can then be placed onto that set. Who knows really? Only David Irving.

I appreciate you collecting the minor errors in Irving's book that need to be fixed. I hope in your email correspondence with him, you encourage him to take those into account and to fix them for subsequent print runs.

I would suggest you send something like, One last comment on minor True Himmler corrections and say something like, "Actually, I will continue to email you as I find more minor errors. Don't feel obligated to respond to every email. Just please collect all the errors up, and then fix them for future print runs. Cover your backside, David. The establishment is watching you. Your fans too."

[Otium]

I appreciate you collecting the minor errors in Irving's book that need to be fixed. I hope in your email correspondence with him, you encourage him to take those into account and to fix them for subsequent print runs.

I would suggest you send something like, One last comment on minor True Himmler corrections and say something like, "Actually, I will continue to email you as I find more minor errors. Don't feel obligated to respond to every email. Just please collect all the errors up, and then fix them for future print runs. Cover your backside, David. The establishment is watching you. Your fans too."

No problem. And you're right, I will do that, but I think what I'm going to do is collect everything here first, or privately, and make the "errors" or things I think need to be corrected into a pdf and send it to him, I think that would be more compelling than a few emails complaining about issues that are fairly minor, but when taken together are more significant. Hopefully he will be given more incentive to make edits.

However I doubt he will do any of that anyway, Irving is getting up in years and still has to finish his memoirs. Once that's done maybe he will overhaul a few projects and update them, but I'm not sure if he'd do that with such new works.

[Otium]

Regarding Hitler's stomach cramps as mentioned in this post earlier, I checked both Hitler's War (2019) and True Himmler (2020) for a source regarding either episode either in 1934 or 1936, to no avail. In neither book is there a source regarding how Irving knows Hitler had stomach cramps at this point in time. I expected Himmler to have a reference to Carl von Eicken but I was let down.

However, Irving does quote Eicken in The War Path (1978, 2013):

It was here, in Hoffmann’s home, that Morell first met Hitler in May 1936. He found Hitler upset over the death from meningitis of his beloved chauffeur, Julius Schreck, a few days before. Morell gave him the distinct impression that he, Morell, might have saved Schreck’s life.

Hitler’s stomach pains continued. Professor von Eicken, who had operated on Hitler’s throat in 1935,* examined him again on 20 May 1936. His consultation notes survive:

20 May. Consultation at the Reich Chancellery in conjunction with Dr. Brandt. [Führer suffering from] a roaring in the ears for several days, with high-pitched metallic sound in the left ear at night. Ears: no abnormalities observed. Hearing: more than six metres to each side. Obviously overworked. Preoccupied (chauffeur Schreck!).

Sleeps very little – can’t get to sleep. [I recommend] evening strolls before retiring to bed, hot and cold foot baths, mild sedatives! Time off. Always feels better at Wachenfeld [i.e., the Berghof].

At Christmas 1934, Dr. Grawitz treated M.F. [mein Führer] for acute food poisoning, with NeoBalestol, which contains fusel oil. Headaches, giddiness, roaring in the ears.

David Irving, The War Path: Hitler's Germany 1933-1939 (New York: The Viking Press, 1978), Pp. 201-202.

Irving provides us with two notes at the back of the book providing archival sources, first on page 272 in the note for page 47, and a more detailed note on page 280 for page 201.

This note from Eicken also indicates that Hitler indeed suffered stomach ailments in 1934, so both seem to be true, that he suffered stomach issues in 1934 and again in 1936. Irving just didn't make it easy to understand this, or reference it. I should say this is not an error, but a bad decision on his part, whether knowingly or not. It's not clear. But obviously Irving is still reliable and not making things up, he's just made it a bit difficult.

[Werd]

...Irving just didn't make it easy to understand this, or reference it. I should say this is not an error, but a bad decision on his part, whether knowingly or not. It's not clear. But obviously Irving is still reliable and not making things up, he's just made it a bit difficult.

Perfect analysis.

[10/29/97]

Upon obtaining an autographed "hard" copy of this book from a non mainstream source, I immediately noticed there were no page numbers to allow one to reference the Notes. I have checked past posts from other members, and have seen only general observation about Note difficulties. One member stated that their pdf version had no numbers either. I thought maybe I had some kind of preliminary copy of the book at first, then maybe their was some kind of hidden "code" if you read between the lines. Needless to say, it has been very slow going. I am a "speed" reader on general, unimportant documents, but read at a normal speed on what piques my interest. Will other members with a hard copy please verify as to whether their copy is the same as mine. It has taken me two nights to go through half of the book. I like a challenge, but matching up each chapters text to the notes is daunting. With each chapter, I start by reading the Notes for that chapter, then I read the chapter, then I re- read the chapter again, with one finger in the notes and one on the chapter text, to make a match. Most anyone else but Irving, I would have commended a book laid out this way to my "library's" back burner, for future struggling. Compelling book so far, and am looking forward to the second half, even though it will more than likely be in the same format.

[Otium]

Upon obtaining an autographed "hard" copy of this book from a non mainstream source, I immediately noticed there were no page numbers to allow one to reference the Notes. . .

I understand what you're saying about the notes I've seen a few people struggle with this.

The PDF is the exact same as the printed book, it just doesn't include the photographs.

Irving doesn't use a in-text citation method (neither does John Toland in his Hitler biography). If you go to his note section, the numbers refer to pages in the text, not to numbered references. This is something Irving has done in multiple books. His Goebbels biography is the only one in which I can think of that he uses a typical in-text citation method.

The method he generally uses is actually great, because you can include more notes at the end of the book without cluttering the text with citation numbers. Too bad Irving doesn't utilise this enough in my opinion.

[LeónOcta]

I would like to point something interesting that I have read on the Irving website regarding Himmler and the Holocaust. In a section where he shares the articles that he reads daily, adding his comments to them ( http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html ). On this occasion, he shares the description of a book that compiles Himmler's calendar of events:
https://www.hsozkult.de/publicationreview/id/reb-29664

Irving is referring to a particular point. The quoted text states:

In German, original language:

Im Kalender dokumentiert sind zwei Fälle, in denen Himmler persönlich die Ermordung in den Gaskammern der Vernichtungslager inspizierte. Als sich dabei der Zug mit den vorgesehenen Opfern verspätete, wurde spontan Ersatz gefunden. Genauso wird belegt, dass Himmler die „medizinischen“ Menschenversuche zum Beispiel mittels Unterkühlung grundsätzlich persönlich anordnete. Außerdem zeigt sich die ungeheure ökonomische Bedeutung des Holocausts als gigantischer Raubmord.[2] Himmler sinnierte über die Verwendung des Diebesguts aus den KZ von 127.000 Uhren und 25.000 Füllfederhaltern, davon 5.000 "aus purem Gold“ (S. 272). Nach Abschluss der "Aktion Reinhardt“ und bereits erfolgter Bereicherung auf allen Ebenen wurden immer noch 180 Millionen RM auf das Staatskonto der Reichsbank eingezahlt (S. 601). In der modernen Täterforschung verdichten sich diese ökonomischen Faktoren mit ideologischen, geographischen, generationellen und situativen Faktoren zu einem Motivgeflecht von Antisemitismus und Gewaltradikalisierung durchden und unter dem Deckmantel des Krieges.

In english:

Two cases are documented in the calendar in which Himmler personally inspected the murder in the gas chambers of the extermination camps. When the train with the intended victims was delayed, a replacement was found spontaneously. It is also proven that Himmler always ordered the “medical” human experiments, for example by means of hypothermia, personally. In addition, the tremendous economic importance of the Holocaust as a gigantic robbery is evident. [2] Himmler pondered on the use of the stolen goods from the concentration camps of 127,000 watches and 25,000 fountain pens, 5,000 of which were "made of pure gold" (p. 272). After the conclusion of the "Aktion Reinhardt" and enrichment at all levels, 180 million RM were still paid into the state account of the Reichsbank (p. 601). In modern perpetrator research, these economic factors combine with ideological, geographical, generational and situational factors to form a network of motivations of anti-Semitism and radicalization of violence through and under the guise of war.

Irving says, pointing specifically to the first statement:

Faking History: Inadequate review by German “scholars” of Himmler’s diary, 1943–1945 “Im Kalender dokumentiert sind zwei Fälle, in denen Himmler persönlich die Ermordung in den Gaskammern der Vernichtungslager inspizierte.” — Alas, the reviewer cites no dates, etc., to substantiate this false claim. Himmler’s murder on May 23, 1945 by MI5 officers and its cover-up by a military lawyer (see True Himmler, chaps. 1—2) are not mentioned either

It's probably not a big deal, but it caught my attention and could give us a clue as to what kind of claims he will make on this subject in his second volume.
Also, sorry for my english.