Youtube: TIK uses Evans to attack some Irving arguments

[Werd]

The youtuber TIK just cites arguments from Richard Evans' book TELLING LIES ABOUT HITLER [pdf].

Example #1.
Irving writes something about the failed beer hall putsch in 1923. We then head to the original source Irving cited and find that he did not use it correctly. A more detailed account of Hitler's role in the putsch is given at p59 of Goering, where Irving writes:

"Meanwhile Hitler acted to maintain order. Learning that one Nazi squad had ransacked a kosher grocery store during the night, he sent for the
ex-Army lieutenant who led the raid. 'We took off our Nazi insignia first!' expostulated the officer - to no avail, as Hitler dismissed him from the party on the spot. 'I shall see that no other nationalist unit allows you to join either!' Goring goggled at this exchange, as did a police sergeant who testified to it at the Hitler trial a few weeks later".

TIK (4:25): Irving based what he wrote off a policeman's testimony which I'll now read to you. See if you can spot the differences.

Page 52-53 in Evans.


CHAPTER 2 IN EVANS. End note 26.

L. Gruchmann, R. Weber (eds.), Der Hitler-Prozess 1924. Wortlaut der Hauptverhalldlung vordem Volksgericht Miinchen I (2 vols., Munich, 1997-8), Vol. 2, pp. 545--6.

TIK (5:34): Irving is trying to paint the picture that Hitler was against Nazi violence towards the Jews. Reading Irving's account in isolation, you probably came away with the impression that Hitler wasn't happy that the ex army guy smashed up a Jewish shop; even though he took off his party badge to hide the fact he was a Nazi as he committed the act. And that's why he dismissed him from the party. But that's NOT what the original source said. Hitler was annoyed that he had removed the party badge because this confirmed that he didn't belong to the party at the time he committed the act. The reason why this was bad was because the act therefore became a criminal act rather than a political one; and that the party would be seen as a criminal band of thieves rather than a political revolutionary party. Hitler wasn't protecting the Jews, he was protecting the party.


CHAPTER 2 IN EVANS

TIK (6:30): Also the original source didn't mention Goring at all! And yet Irving said that Goring goggled at Hitler's discipline of the brown shirt. Also the policeman didn't say he goggled either. Irving invented this goggle business to implant the idea in your head that Hitler shouted at the guy and that the others were surprised by or in awe of Hitler. Irving said that Hitler had summoned the brown shirt to him but the source says that the brown shirt just happened to be there by chance. And Irving said that this incident happened during the putsch of 1923 but the policeman's account doesn't say that. He says it was an earlier incident. So basically Irving got almost everything wrong. His account is complete rubbish. It's not just a semantic difference either. You come away with a completely different interpretation if you rely on Irving's work.

What's worse is Irving failed to consider that the policeman's account is heavily biased. Nazis and holocaust deniers will no doubt accuse me of being biased, but their own bias is never questioned by them. The policeman, a guy called Hofmann, was a national socialist party member who not only participated in the putsch being with Hitler on the night, but also visited Hitler in prison before his trial. The court knew this and dismissed Hofmann's account knowing he was a Nazi. As Evans writes (pg 54):


CHAPTER 2 IN EVANS.

TIK (8:50): Hopefully you can now start to see the problem here.



What say you codoh? Is Richard Evans on the money here? I mean we know for sure that Irving has made quite a few cockups in his books before. Sometimes if he isn't sloppy with footnotes, he is making outright embarrassing errors.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=8135

[Werd]

TIK (8:57): Now we move on to the second example from Evans' book which concerns us with the Jews of Rome. Here's what Irving wrote. (Evans pg 103-104).


CHAPTER 3 IN EVANS. End note 82.

Irving, Hitler's War (1991), p. 590.

TIK (9:38): This was from Irving's 1991 edition of Hitler's War. Evans confirms that the 1977 edition had more or less the same passage and I have here the 1983 version with the passage on page 575 with slight differences in the language. Point being that Irving had the same passage in his book through multiple editions and had plenty of opportunity to rectify the mistakes. So is this passage correct then? No! Not at all. Reading Irving, you get the impression that Hitler acted to save the Jews by holding them as hostage rather than liquidating them. In reality what happened was the local commanders on the ground including Kesselring tried to save the Jews from certain death by requesting that they be used to dig fortifications in Italy instead. The German consul in Rome, a guy called Moellhausen, sends a message to the Reich foreign minister that said (Evans pg.105):


CHAPTER 3 IN EVANS. End note 93.

NG-5027, Moellhausen to Ribbentrop, 6 October 1943 (Michaelis, Mussolini, pp. 364-6).

Let's see this Telegram 192 in it's original German.
Let's see the proof that Kappler received any orders. Let's see these orders to liquidate anybody in Italy.


TIK (11:07): After speaking to Kesselering he sends a second message (Evans pg. 106):


CHAPTER 3 IN EVANS. End note 94.

Moellhausen to Ribbentrop, 7 October 1943, (PRO) GFM 33/147/123599 (Michaelis, Mussolini, p. 363).

What is the provenance of this document? Reasons to trust it or no? Was it reproduced in full in an appendix in Michaelis' book, or did Evans just steal a block quotation of alleged document without seeing the document himself?

TIK (11:24): So, "the senior figures in Rome, Moellhausen, Kesselring and probably also Kappler, had effectively formed a triumvirate to block deportation." (Evans pg.107) Moellhausen had even used the word "liquidated" affirming that the messages he previously received from Hitler's headquarters regarding the final solution actually meant liquidation and thus murder. This confirms that they knew exactly what the planned jew action and the final solution to the jewish question really meant. This was the foreign ministry's reply. (Evans pg 106):


CHAPTER 3 IN EVANS. End note 95.

Irving, document no. 97, NG-5027, Sonnleithner to Ribbentrop's Office, 9 October 1943; NG-5027, von Thadden to Moellhausen, 9 October 1943 (Michaelis, Mussolini, pp. 363-6).

What is the provenance of NG-5207? Reasons to trust it or no? Was it reproduced in full in an appendix in Michaelis' book, or did Evans just steal a block quotation of alleged document without seeing the document himself?

TIK (12:28): Yes, Hitler had stepped in and insisted that the 8000 Jews of Rome be sent to Mauthausen. So this wasn't Hitler trying to save the Jews but actually Hitler insisting that the Jews be killed. In the end, over 1000 Jews from Rome were shipped to Auschwitz, not Mauthausen for 40 males and 1 female survived. The rest were gassed. And it didn't really matter if Hitler had insisted they go to Mauthausen rather than Auschwitz, since the death rate at Mauthausen was extremely high anyway. So that can't be used as an excuse to say that Hitler was trying to save the Jews either.

Werd: Apparently TIK doesn't realize that since Mauthausen had no gas chambers, that was not necessarily a death sentence. He is reading questionable death tolls FROM HINDSIGHT into the past and THAT is itself a fallacy. Actually that's a double fallacy on his part. Moving on...

TIK (13:08): But there's more to it than just that. Irving's argument was that Hitler didn't know about the holocaust. Well, clearly he did. (Evans. pg 107):


CHAPTER 3 IN EVANS.

TIK (13:48): By the way, Evans debunks a lot of the holocaust deniers' claims about how there's no smoke from the crematoria, or how there's no chemical residue on the walls of the gas chambers, the Leuchter reports, how the British supposedly invented the lie about the gas chambers even though by Irving's own sources they didn't, how you can't trust eyewitness accounts because they're all doing it "for the money", the claims about the Dresden bombings and many other false claims the holocaust deniers still preach about and no doubt will be in the comments below. You do get a lot of bang for your book.

So if you want to educate yourself I highly recommend this book. But I'm going to leave you with one more example of Irving not beings straight with you. In his Goebbels' biography, Irving wrote this. (Evans pg 74):


CHAPTER 2 IN EVANS. End notes 94 and 95.

94. Irving, Goebbels, p. 276.
95. Weckert,' "Crystal Night" 1938', p. 190.

TIK (15:05): Even in Irving's own source it didn't say that 191 synagogues were destroyed. It said 276. 191 had been burned down and the rest were completely smashed up (footnote 96). Worse, the source was only a preliminary report. Other reports that came later suggested that 520 synagogues had been destroyed or partially destroyed (footnote 97). Irving stated that 7500 Jewish shops out of 100,000 Jewish shops had only had their windows smashed. But his own source confirms that they had been destroyed! (footnote 99) And rather than 7500 shops out of 100,000 it was actually more like 7500 out of 9000 (footnote 100). Irving had used a notoriously bad source for the total number of Jewish shops. Again, you can read more about it in Evans' book which I recommend you read if you're interested in this subject.

So let's see pages 73-75 in toto from Evans since this is what TIK is basing this last paragraph on.

93. Irving, Goring, p. 237; Irving, Goebbels, p. 276.
94. Irving, Goebbels, p. 276.
95. Weckert,' "Crystal Night" 1938', p. 190.
96. Heydrich to Goring, 11 November 1938, in Der Prozess, Vol. XXXII, ND 3058-PS.
97. Deutschlalld-Bericflfe der SOPADE, Vol. 5 (1938), p. 1,187.
98. S. Rohde, 'Die Zerstorung der Synagogen unter dem National-sozialismus', in A. Herzig and I. Lorenz (eds.), Verdrängung und Vernichtung der Juden unter dem Nationalsozialismus (Hamburg, 1992), pp. 153-72, here p. 170
99. Der Prozess, Vol. XXVIII, NO 1816-PS, p. 508: Stenographische Niederschrift von einem Teil der Besprechung über die Judenfrage unter Vorsitz von Feldmarschall Göring im RLM am 12. November 1938.
100. A. Barkai, 'Schicksalsjahr 1938', in W. Pehle (ed.), Der ]udenpogrom 1938 (Frankfurt am Main, 1988), pp. 94-117,here pp. 96 and 113.

ALL CHAPTER 2 IN EVANS.

I would argue that it doesn't bode well for Irving if:

1. Weckert was wrong about the number of Jewish shops that even existed to begin with.
2. Reinhard Heydrich said one thing and Irving said another.

[Otium]

A few comments for the moment.

If Hoffmann is a bad witness because he's a "Nazi" then why should he be taken seriously to support the claims by Evans? Evans is not opposed to citing Nazis, in fact, his most recent work from 2020 makes a point to cite quotations from many Nazis in order to support his contention that Hess didn't have Hitler's blessings to fly to Scotland. What's more, in order to make the claim that Hitler was apparently angry that the SA man didn't wear his uniform when committing an act of violence against the Jews, Evans is more than happy to cite Hoffmann, but not the part from Hoffmann he also quotes in which he explicitly said that Hitler 'always condemned these acts of violence'. So, what Evans means to write, is that Hoffmann is only a good source when he can be interpreted to support a negative portrait of Hitler.

In the case of Crystal Night Evans contradicts his moral position of not citing politically partisan sources (only if they're Nazis funnily enough) by citing the SOPADE reports from exiled Social Democrats. One would be perfectly justified in asking why anyone should trust obvious opponents to the Hitler regime if citing sources from people who might be 'biased' in a particular direction isn't a legitimate thing to do, because they might be lying. Evans doesn't seem to mind. Hell, check any of his books and you'll find a slew of references to disgruntled Jews who hate the National Socialists whom Evans cites as sources for the history of the Third Reich. This is what these same people do in regards to the ridiculous Holocaust story, lest we not forget the uncritical acceptance of many of those sources, so long as they support an anti-Nazi narrative.

By the way, Evans doesn't once cite Weckert's book on Crystal Night either. He references it by name once on page 67, but otherwise rejects the source by calling her names, not addressing anything she's written. Her book was released again by Castle Hill in 2016, it's worth a read.

---

Evans makes the repeated comments that Irving is looking to 'downplay' Jewish suffering. Perhaps this is true, but maybe it isn't - after all, if Irving fully intended to do so he wouldn't be a lukewarm revisionist right? Surely to people like Evans who view "Holocaust denial" as the ultimate act of anti-semitism, Irving's lack of commitment to it isn't evidence toward the direction that he hates Jews that much? The larger point worth making is that by trying to indict Irving for not caring about the Jews enough, and being 'biased', Evans exposes himself as perhaps the 'David Irving' of the orthodox historical milieu, as he himself is clearly preoccupied with attempting to emphasise Jewish suffering, and making 'the Nazis' out to be as evil and malicious as possible, with no nuance about it whatsoever. So while Evans lambastes Irving for picking low numbers in regards to Jewish suffering, or high numbers in regards to the Dresden death toll of Germans, Evans seeks to do the exact opposite. Evans, in order to 'refute' what he sees as a threat to Jewish victimhood, goes to pick higher numbers to support Jewish suffering, and low numbers in regards to the Dresden death toll - which ironically means that Evans is seeking to 'downplay' German suffering. This shows that Evans doesn't actually give a damn about the suffering of all groups who are wronged, but only of the Jews, and if anyone else's suffering can be seen to contrast negatively with those who are the 'good guys' (the Allies who fought against the 'evil' Nazis) then Evans and his ilk will do all in their power to relativize the suffering of others to put Jews on a pedestal and indict the National Socialists in the court of historical opinion. Evans is then no better than Irving, he is simply the anti-Irving.

---

I would recommend you check out Irving's document book, unfortunately it's not formatted very well, and it was never finished because the appeal never went through. But it has some rebuttals to the claims made by Evans and other 'impartial historians' who were payed exorbitant amounts of money to defend the 'truth' which just so happens to align with defending the honour of Jews.

[Werd]

A few comments for the moment.
I would recommend you check out Irving's document book, unfortunately it's not formatted very well, and it was never finished because the appeal never went through. But it has some rebuttals to the claims made by Evans and other 'impartial historians' who were payed exorbitant amounts of money to defend the 'truth' which just so happens to align with defending the honour of Jews.

I will look at this. Thank you. What are your views on the following:

TIK (5:34): Irving is trying to paint the picture that Hitler was against Nazi violence towards the Jews. Reading Irving's account in isolation, you probably came away with the impression that Hitler wasn't happy that the ex army guy smashed up a Jewish shop; even though he took off his party badge to hide the fact he was a Nazi as he committed the act. And that's why he dismissed him from the party. But that's NOT what the original source said. Hitler was annoyed that he had removed the party badge because this confirmed that he didn't belong to the party at the time he committed the act. The reason why this was bad was because the act therefore became a criminal act rather than a political one; and that the party would be seen as a criminal band of thieves rather than a political revolutionary party. Hitler wasn't protecting the Jews, he was protecting the party.

&

TIK (6:30): Also the original source didn't mention Goring at all! And yet Irving said that Goring goggled at Hitler's discipline of the brown shirt. Also the policeman didn't say he goggled either. Irving invented this goggle business to implant the idea in your head that Hitler shouted at the guy and that the others were surprised by or in awe of Hitler.

&

Even in Irving's own source it didn't say that 191 synagogues were destroyed. It said 276. 191 had been burned down and the rest were completely smashed up (footnote 96).

96. Heydrich to Goring, 11 November 1938, in Der Prozess, Vol. XXXII, ND 3058-PS.

&

My comments in the second post I made asking about:

Telegram 192
Proof of any orders received by kappler to liquidate that small number of Jews in Italy
The Moellhausen to Ribbentrop document and how Evans saw the original himself or stole block quotations of it from another book
The NG-5207 document and how Evans saw the original himself or stole block quotations of it from another book

As for the Weckert versus Social Democrats business about statistics on Jewish shops that existed in total, why shouldn't they both be checked to see what their sources ultimately are and why they arrive at different numbers for total Jewish shops out of which many (not all) were destroyed and/or just windows smashed? Who is more correct about how many Jewish shops existed in total and why?

[Archie]

That argument in the video about Hitler kicking someone out of the party for ransacking a Jewish deli without his party badge is pretty ridiculous.

Hitler said: "By doing this [removing the badge] you admitted that you did not belong to the party at the moment when you committed the act."

It's seems pretty clear that the guy was hoping that not having the badge on would immunize him from party discipline. I interpret Hitler's remark as him telling the guy that the act of removing the badge was effectively an act of resignation from the party. The alternative interpretation, that Hitler encouraged his guys to ransack shops with their party badges proudly displayed, is absurd unless there is some evidence that Hitler regularly encouraged this.

[Otium]

The alternative interpretation, that Hitler encouraged his guys to ransack shops with their party badges proudly displayed, is absurd unless there is some evidence that Hitler regularly encouraged this.

and:

What are your views on the following:

Yes Archie, it's even more absurd because, as I pointed out, Evans has to totally ignore the other statement by Hoffmann that shows Hitler was against the use of that kind of violence. This also somewhat addresses the point about Goering, because it's true Werd, as Irving admitted in the lipstadt trial, he used 'authors license' to describe Goering as 'goggling' - but nonetheless, we have from Hoffmann the conjecture that Hitler condemned that sort of thing, so it hardly matters whether Goering 'goggled' or not. It doesn't make the fact that Hitler expelled an SA man and his troop from the party for their actions untrue either. It's a minor point, and not significant at all because it doesn't take away from the larger point.

But, if we're going to talk about historians who do that sort of thing, then one need only glance at the works of pretty much any orthodox historian. One will quickly find that their own inventions rival this one instance of 'authors licence' by Irving. For example, there is a controversy regarding the 'Rienzi experience' as it is known. This was an event from Hitler's teenage years as recorded in the memoirs of August Kubizek, where after a Wagner performance of Rienzi the young Hitler and Kubizek made their way to a hill where Hitler launched into a beautiful prophetic speech about how he was destined to be the saviour of Germany. Historians of course, just dismissed this story from Kubizek without any good evidence, and Kershaw claimed that Kubizek had 'over dramatized' the reminiscence in order to downplay its importance in Hitler's development:

Adolf was so stirred by a performance of Wagner's early opera, Rienzi (which glamorized the tale of a fourteenth-century Roman populist who in the opera purportedly attempted to unify Italy but was ultimately brought down by the people he had led) that he took Kubizek on a long nocturnal climb up the Freinberg, a mountain outside Linz, and lectured to him in a state of near ecstasy on the significance of what they had seen. Kubizek's account, is, however, highly fanciful, reading in mystical fashion back into the episode an early prophetic vision of Hitler's own future.Plainly, the strange evening had made a lasting impression on Kubizek. He reminded Hitler of it when they met at Bayreuth in 1939. On the spot, Hitler seized on the story to illustrate his early prophetic qualities to his hostess, Winifred Wagner, ending with the words: 'in that hour, it began'. Kubizek, more impressed than ever, subsequently produced his post-war, highly imaginary depiction, with the melodramatically absurd claim at the forefront of his mind. This has not prevented the 'vision' on the Freinberg being taken seriously by some later writers.

Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris (Allen Lane, 1998), Pp. 610.

I've underlined the comments Kershaw makes that cannot be substantiated by any evidence. No doubt an example, similar to that of Irving, but more harmful because he is definitively saying that the experience was 'highly imaginary' and 'absurd' among other things. Thankfully the historian Ben Novak has criticised Kershaw for this:

He begins by offering a brief summary of the main facts of the Rienzi experience as though they were factual He writes, for example, “Plainly, the strange evening had made a lasting impression on Kubizek,” implying that the experience must have happened to have made an impression. Nevertheless, he goes on to call Kubizek’s account “highly fanciful,” and an “imaginary depiction,” implying that the Rienzi experience is fictional. Yet, while the artful use of these two phrases seems to imply that the event did not happen, neither phrase actually denies that the Rienzi experience occurred. On close reading, they could equally well imply that while the event may have happened Kubizek’s description of it is over dramatized. This, of course, is bad historical method; since Kershaw was not present, he has no way of judging whether Kubizek’s account is over-or under-dramatized. Thus Kershaw takes a decidedly ambiguous and unhistorical approach to the Rienzi experience: neither fully crediting nor fully denying it.

Ben Novak, Hitler's Rienzi Experience: Factuality (2007), Pp. 112

Hitlers_Rienzi_Experience_Factuality.pdf

(127.42 KiB) Downloaded 90 times

This is the first example of a similar thing that I could think of. My point is that these historians do this kind of thing all of the time, and you'll certainly notice many more times in which they do this if you read their trashy books.

---

Lastly, regarding this Hoffmann incident, Irving in my opinion made a relevant point at the Lipstadt trial:

Rampton:

You cannot have it both ways, Mr Irving. Either Hoffmann is reliable and was not skewing his evidence in order to help his leader out of a tight corner, in which case you should have given the whole account, or else he was an unreliable witness and you should have just left it out.

Is that not right?

Irving:

You are the one who is trying to have it both ways, Mr Rampton. You want to have him as an unreliable witness who is trying to help Hitler, but at the same time hacking Hitler on the shins by what he says, saying that Hitler was angry because the guys who attacked the grocery shop had had the effrontery to take off their Nazi badges.

That would not have helped Hitler at all, would it?

Lipstadt Trial Transcript, Day 12: Monday, January 31st, 2000. Also see.

Irving is entirely correct. Either these historians, such as Evans, believe that Hoffmann is an unreliable source of evidence because of his "Nazi" affiliation, and that's why his testimony is false (which is silly) because what Hoffmann said is in line with Irving's interpretation. Or Hoffmann is actually cutting off his nose to spite his face and backstabbing Hitler, which makes little sense if these people are also claiming Hoffmann is supposedly on Hitler's side. If this is the case, then Hoffmann must be considered reliable to the contemporary historian (Just by being anti-Hitler, which is hardly a reason to trust somebody), and it must therefore be true that Hitler didn't approve (as Hoffmann stated) of these acts of violence. Irving also briefly made this point by quoting Hoffmann in a footnote to his Himmler biography (see page 525-526, note for page 137).

[Hannover]

This is just too ridiculous. Much ado about nothing.

The True Believers here are talking about documents / orders, etc. which do not exist as alleged.
Otherwise they would be showing them for public review; which of course would be in their interest to do so. It just more bluffing, and they count on not being challenged.

Also, we see the laughably alleged gas chambers being mentioned, which have been demonstrated at this Forum, the CODOH main site, & elsewhere, to be utterly impossible. Absurd is the best descriptor.

Then we have the glaring lack of the human remains for the claimed '6M Jews, 5M others' which are said by "The Holocaust Industry" to exist in known locations. The fact is that no such remains exist, period ... as Revisionist have also proven repeatedly.
Imagine it, a supposed '11,000,000 murdered people, the size of the population of London, England.
The entire matter is ridiculous in the extreme.

Revisionist are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

- Hannover

Only lies require censorship.

[Werd]

Yes Archie, it's even more absurd because, as I pointed out, Evans has to totally ignore the other statement by Hoffmann that shows Hitler was against the use of that kind of violence. This also somewhat addresses the point about Goering, because it's true Werd, as Irving admitted in the lipstadt trial, he used 'authors license' to describe Goering as 'goggling' - but nonetheless, we have from Hoffmann the conjecture that Hitler condemned that sort of thing, so it hardly matters whether Goering 'goggled' or not. It doesn't make the fact that Hitler expelled an SA man and his troop from the party for their actions untrue either. It's a minor point, and not significant at all because it doesn't take away from the larger point.

Here is what TIK said.

Also the original source didn't mention Goring at all!

So TIK is saying that Irving lied and acted like Goring was even at the meeting at all! And there is this from earlier:

Even in Irving's own source it didn't say that 191 synagogues were destroyed. It said 276. 191 had been burned down and the rest were completely smashed up (footnote 96).

96. Heydrich to Goring, 11 November 1938, in Der Prozess, Vol. XXXII, ND 3058-PS.

Another little error that apparently needs fixing.

[Werd]

Irving in my opinion made a relevant point at the Lipstadt trial:

Rampton:

You cannot have it both ways, Mr Irving. Either Hoffmann is reliable and was not skewing his evidence in order to help his leader out of a tight corner, in which case you should have given the whole account, or else he was an unreliable witness and you should have just left it out.

Is that not right?

Irving:

You are the one who is trying to have it both ways, Mr Rampton. You want to have him as an unreliable witness who is trying to help Hitler, but at the same time hacking Hitler on the shins by what he says, saying that Hitler was angry because the guys who attacked the grocery shop had had the effrontery to take off their Nazi badges.

That would not have helped Hitler at all, would it?

Lipstadt Trial Transcript, Day 12: Monday, January 31st, 2000. Also see.

Irving is entirely correct. Either these historians, such as Evans, believe that Hoffmann is an unreliable source of evidence because of his "Nazi" affiliation, and that's why his testimony is false (which is silly) because what Hoffmann said is in line with Irving's interpretation. Or Hoffmann is actually cutting off his nose to spite his face and backstabbing Hitler, which makes little sense if these people are also claiming Hoffmann is supposedly on Hitler's side. If this is the case, then Hoffmann must be considered reliable to the contemporary historian (Just by being anti-Hitler, which is hardly a reason to trust somebody), and it must therefore be true that Hitler didn't approve (as Hoffmann stated) of these acts of violence. Irving also briefly made this point by quoting Hoffmann in a footnote to his Himmler biography (see page 525-526, note for page 137).

Then I have a question for you and Hannover.

This is just too ridiculous. Much ado about nothing.

The True Believers here are talking about documents / orders, etc. which do not exist as alleged.
Otherwise they would be showing them for public review; which of course would be in their interest to do so. It just more bluffing, and they count on not being challenged.
Only lies require censorship.

I'm thinking about purchasing a copy of Hitler's War. The Millennium edition. 2019
https://irvingbooks.com/xcart/product.p ... ctid=18101
Is it worth it?

[Werd]

Let me make just a tally of the main issues. No need to copy and paste them again.

1. Regarding Hitler's dismissal of the man who ransacked a Jewish shop, Irving provides no easy footnote for the primary source of this exchange. Once it was located, we see that the person was in fact dismissed allegedly BECAUSE he took off his badge whereas if he had left it on, it would have been considered a legitimate political action and Hitler would have been alright with it. Also apparently, the primary source doesn't mention Goring being present, but Irving acts like Goring was.

The last line of the citation from the 1924 court record as found in Evans says HITLER ALWAYS CONDEMNED THESE ACTS OF VIOLENCE AND THE INDIVIDUAL EXCESSES THAT OCCURRED. I think TIK and Richard Evans may be splitting hairs here as to WHY Hitler condemned these acts. Not because it was antisemitic and not because it was excessive. Because it makes the party look bad even if when they do it, they remove the badge. It seems to me it could be POSSIBLE that in the 20's Hitler wanted people to trash jewish shops no problem but to show off who they were when they did it. That's assuming a lot. But that's what holocaust mongers do. It seems like TIK, with Evans are reading their own ideas into the text. Something they well accuse Irving of. I would say the ONLY POINT they have here, is the apparent ABSENCE of any proof of Goring at this court goggling at Hitler's reaction. For that, Irving should come clean.

2. The business with the Jews in Italy. Evans claims that Ribbentrop brought Hitler a telegram saying that 8000 Jews need to be brought to upper Rome to be liquidated. Where is this telegram? Evans is quoting Irving's 1991 Hitler's War with this. Has Irving seen this telegram? Where is it? What is it's number and code?

There is also supposed to be a Moellhausen cable from 6 October. The cable, Telegram 192, says Kappler received order to move the Jews to upper Italy to liquidate them. In the footnote in Evans' rendition of the cable, it is given as NG-5027. Has anyone seen the original? Or is this a certified true copy? Evans complains that Irving never put this in his book. Telegram 192 as it's called was footnoted by Evans as appearing in a book called Mussolini by one author, Michaelis as NG-5027. Did Michaelis reproduce this original German document in an appendix in the back of his book? Or did Evans just borrow an English translation from Michaelis and steal his footnotes, Holocaust controversies, style?

There was a response to this Telegram 192. Irving put THIS in his book but not Telegram 192 according to an annoyed Evans. Kesselring is asking Kappler to postpone the "jew-action" which is supposed to be liquidation given this Ribbentrop to Hitler telegram cited two paragraphs above. Again, did Michaelis reproduce this entire document in his appendix or something when he first published his work in 1978? Who saw an original German of this first, Irving or Michaelis? OR DID ANYONE see an original instead of a certified true copy?

Regarding the whole "crystal night" business, Evans complains that Irving in his Goring book in the 80's and Goebbels book in the 90's cited a low death figure of 35 or 36 Jews based on a mere PRELIMINARY report by Heydrich and apparently, it was 91, as found by the Supreme Party Tribunal. Evans give NO FOOTNOTE for this source! Evans says when he examined Irving's EARLIER WORK, he knew that these lower figures were wrong. EVANS DOESN'T SAY WHAT THIS EARLIER WORK WAS!

Evans complains that when Irving cites a Heydrich to Goring report that was presented at Nuremberg for saying only 191 synagogues were destroyed, a further reading of this document actually says 191 burned down and a further 76 completely smashed. So Irving screwed that up and needs to answer for it. Apparently social democrats did a tally and found 520 synagogues had been partially or completely destroyed (footnote 97). Apparently though, and this is really funny, a further study AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER, found it was even higher than that. This is footnote 98 saying this and we are given no explicit figure from Evans, nor are we treated to an understanding of what superior methods they apparently used to determine the "real" number of attacked synagogues. Some Jewish author in footnote 100 claims it was 9000 Jewish shops in total of which over 7000 were destroyed and not 7000 out of 100,000 as Weckert claims.

[Werd]

I would say the ONLY POINT they have here, is the apparent ABSENCE of any proof of Goring at this court goggling at Hitler's reaction. For that, Irving should come clean.

Thanks to HMSendeavour for giving out the following link.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/tran ... day012.htm
Look what I found. Göring was indeed there!

Q. In Göring, page 59 -- I have not got it with me, but this is quoted on page, my Lord, 225 of Evans, at the bottom of the page, you wrote this: "Meanwhile, Hitler acted to maintain order. Learning that one Nazi squad had ransacked a kosher grocery store during the night, he sent for the ex-army lieutenant who had led the raid. 'We took off our Nazi insignia first!' expostulated the officer -

P-62

to no avail, as Hitler dismissed him from the party on the spot. 'I shall see that no other nationalist unit allows you to join either!'" That is Hitler, apparently.

"Göring goggled at this exchange, as did a police sergeant who testified to it at the Hitler trial a few weeks later"?

A. That was Hofmann, yes.

Q. That was Hofmann?

A. Yes. The whole episode is based on Hofmann.

Q. "Göring goggled at this exchange"?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you know Göring was there?

A. Have you ever heard of author's licence?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Author's licence or ----

A. Are you criticising "Göring goggling" or being there?

Q. I am asking both questions, I think, am I not, Mr Irving?

Do you know that Göring was there?

A. Yes. It is -- he was there because it is evident from the timetable of •• Einsatnacht(?) that he was there.

Q. And how do you know that Göring goggled?

A. That was author's licence.

Q. You mean it was an invention?

A. Yes.

Q. It is a piece of fiction?

A. Well, when you write a book that is going to be read, as opposed to work written by learned authors like Professor

P-63

Evans, you occasionally help the reader along by saying, well, I mean, this was rather a surprising exchange. Here is Adolf Hitler ticking off an Army lieutenant, one of his Nazis, for raiding a Jewish shop and throwing him out of the party for doing it. You would imagine that any other Nazi, like Göring standing nearby, is going to be saying -- doing a double take of this or am I wrong?

Q. You are completely wrong. It is a quite illegitimate licence you have taken with a record of history, but there it is. It may not be the biggest point in the case, but it is there.

A. How am I completely wrong? How am I completely wrong?

Q. You attribute a reaction to Göring for which you have no evidence.

A. But it is reasonable to assume that if Hermann Göring, who was a dedicated Nazi, standing next to Hitler, and here is Hitler throwing somebody out of the party on the spot for having taken action against a Jewish kosher store that night, the Nazi is going to be saying, "What is going on here?" and he is going to be doing what is called a double take. I think it is a very reasonable inference to draw, and it is only two words.

Q. It is reasonable to assume that Hitler, very disturbed at what had been happening and trying to restore law and order, sent for the lieutenant if, in fact, as Hofmann said, the lieutenant just happened to be there?

A. Well, I am sure that the ex-Army lieutenant was not hanging around in Hitler's presence the whole time.

Presumably, he was somewhere hanging around the beerhall and Hitler learned he was there and said, "Bring that fellow in. I want to tell him what I think of him".

Q. Do you not see what you are doing all the time, Mr Irving?

With every single one of these little fictions, these little author's licence ---- A. Are you saying that he did not throw the man out of the party for having done what he did that night? This is the major point. You are looking for words ---- Q. Just let me ---- A. --- just the same as in the other one where we have Hitler saying, "You cannot do that, you cannot kill the Jews" and you are picking on the date.

Q. No, Mr Irving.

A. And here we have evidence that Hitler threw the person out of the party for having taken his squad to ransack a Jewish store, and you are picking on whether he was sent for or not.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/tran ... day012.htm

So let's recall what youtuber TIK said:

TIK (6:30): Also the original source didn't mention Goring at all!

Wrong again! Evans is leaving that out, or didn't notice it. Either way, BAD EVANS!

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/rebu ... index.html

WRITING his Hermann Göring biography (Macmillan, 1987), David Irving referred to Göring's role on the night of the November 1923 Hitler Putsch. Among the unpublished source materials that he used was the transcript of the Hitler Treason trial that resulted, held in Munich in 1924. Drafting the biography in August 1985, Mr Irving relied on the American-made microfilm copy of the Bavarian trial transcript, Hitler Prozeß, 4. März 1924, (National Archives, Microcopy T84, Rolls 1, 2, 3), nearly three thousand pages of typescript, selecting and laboriously copy-typing (in German) the passages which were of use for the Göring biography.

Professor Richard Evans, chief defence expert in the Lipstadt trial, expressed irritation in his expert report and testimony that Mr. Irving gave no page numbers to enable him to cross-check and verify references. There were probably two reasons for this omission:


The first is that experience shows that if one provides literally chapter and verse of such citations, then other lazier historians (like Evans himself) come along and cite the quotation, pretending that they have found and looked at the original materials themselves.

The second reason is, quite simply, that in 1985 only the unpaginated microfilm copy was available.

In 1998, two years before the Lipstadt trial began, a printed and fully indexed edition of the trial transcript was published by German academics, and in 2000 Professor Richard Evans -- or his hired helps -- were able to make use of this handy work, which was of course not available to Mr Irving in 1985, who had to read the microfilm for six days on a viewer.

A MINOR witness whom the defence lawyers produced was a Bavarian Policeman (Oberwachtmeister) called Hofmann, who gave an eyewitness account of events that November 1923 night. Under oath, Hofmann, a few months later, described having seen Hitler reprimand a Nazi officer for petty anti-Jewish outrages during the night (vandalising a kosher delicatessen).

Evans in his report adopted the far-fetched argument that the reason for Hitler's reprimand was that the officer's unit had removed their Party insignia; and he further alleged that Mr Irving knew, and suppressed, the fact that Hofmann was a Nazi and hence intrinsically unreliable as a witness. (Evans based his conclusion on Hofmann's political loyalties entirely on a stray remark by the 1924 trial judge, who complimented the witness on having spoken up for Hitler: ''Es ist ein schönes Zeichen von Ihnen, wenn Sie zu Gunsten Ihres Führers aussagen.") Evans also attached no importance to Hofmann's further remark (see again the transcript extracts): Hitler hat diese Gewalttätigkeiten und diese einzelnen Ausschreitungen, die vorgekommen sind, ständig verurteilt. ("Hitler consistently condemned these acts of violence and individual excesses that occurred.")

This episode became one of Evans's grounds for alleging that Mr Irving was biased and selective in his choice of evidence. The contrary facts, e.g., that Hofmann was a minor police official testifying in court under oath, with nothing obvious to gain by speaking up for Hitler, did not count in the view of either Evans or Mr Justice Gray.

At the time of the Lipstadt trial, Mr Irving had no access to his 1985 "Göring" working files. He had donated all his materials to the Irving Collection at the Institut für Zeitgeschichte, in Munich, a collection he has been unable to access since the city's Social Democrat authorities banned him from Germany in 1993. (Ironically, Evans and his hired helps were however at liberty to browse in them.)

My isn't that nice. And idiots love to pretend that not one revisionist has ever been banned from any archive and that they have things just as easy for themselves as the other side does. The holocaust mongers love to pretend a level and fair playing field exists. It's one of the 'noble lies' they have to tell themselves and others for a 'greater good' whatever they think it may be.

The ancient Xerox 850 word processor on which Mr Irving typed up his original working notes in 1985 went out of business soon after. Preparing for the Lipstadt trial, in November 1999 he sent the original Xerox computer discs to Downloading Ltd in London to have them professionally converted, at great expense, to modern computer format. It was not until early 2001 that these experts were able to salvage and retrieve the discs' contents. These showed that Mr Irving had found no evidence in the transcript that Hofmann was a Nazi, so he could not have "ignored" such evidence either.

In 2001 the Court of Appeal refused however to allow the introduction of this evidence or even to give permission to appeal.

From Mr Irving's letter to his counsel, sending him the material for the appeal, it is evident that in 1985 he transcribed 17,436 + 17,169 words in German from the trial transcript. In the final Göring biography the events of that night came to just two pages, of which the "police sergeant" episode is less than three lines.

The lack of proportion in the weight that Evans attached to the Police Sergeant Hofmann matter, even if he was correct, is characteristic of his approach.

[Werd]

From my recollection, Telegram 192 was published in the ADAP collection available online. (Try Series E, vol 7)

Edit: http://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/bsb ... 7/image_87

This is just too ridiculous. Much ado about nothing.

A few comments for the moment.
I would recommend you check out Irving's document book, unfortunately it's not formatted very well, and it was never finished because the appeal never went through. But it has some rebuttals to the claims made by Evans and other 'impartial historians' who were payed exorbitant amounts of money to defend the 'truth' which just so happens to align with defending the honour of Jews.

Telegram 192 and Telegram 201 are mentioned in footnotes 19 and 20. Look below in the footnotes 19 and 20. We even have some German. But of course Evans borrows this from Michaelis' book. Now Evans himself is saying these documents are in the Public Record Office. Did he see them, or is he just borrowing footnotes from Michaelis? PRO is in London of course. So the question becomes ARE THESE CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OR OBVIOUS GERMAN ORIGINALS? Why would David Irving put these in his book if he didn't think these were real?

From Evans Trial Report pdf.

10.
At the beginning of October SS Hauptsturmführer Theodor Dannecker of Section IV-B-4 of the RSHA arrived in Rome at the head of a mobile Einsatzstab [task staff, i.e. execution team].[17] Dannecker had already played a prominent part in the deportation of Jews from France and Belgium. He had with
him an authorisation from Gestapo Chief Heinrich Müller ordering the local police chief to furnish all necessary assistance. [18] It was in this context that Moellhausen sent his cable of 6 October (document 1, above, cited by Irving both in Hitler's War and in his submission to the court). It was marked 'very very urgent' [Supercitisssime] and addressed to the Reich Foreign Minister personally.


11. This cable, Telegram 192, read in full:

Obersturmbannführer Kappler has received orders to arrest the eight thousand Jews resident in Rome and bring them to Upper Italy, where they are to be liquidated. The City Commandant of Rome, General Stahel, informs me that he will permit this action only if it corresponds to the intention of the Herr Reich Foreign Minister. I am personally of the opinion that it would be better business to employ the Jews for fortification work, as in Tunis, and, together with Kappler, I will propose this to Field Marshal Kesselring. Please advise Moellhausen.[19]


12.
Consul Moellhausen followed this with a second dispatch on 7 October, again marked 'very very urgent' [Supercitisssime] and to 'the Reich Minister personally'. It was numbered 201 and headed 'in connection with telegram of 6th, no. 192+' [Im Anschluß an Telegramm vom 6. Nr. 192+] Irving completely omits this document from his account, although the Foreign Ministry's reply, document number 98 as submitted by Irving, clearly reads 'in response to no. 201 of 7.10 ' [Auf Nr. 201 vom 7.10.].

Telegram 201 read as follows:


Field Marshal Kesselring has asked Obersturmbannführer Kappler to postpone the planned Judenaktion for the time being. But if something has to be done, he would prefer to use the able-bodied Jews of Rome for fortification work here. [20]

13.
This is the complete documentary background to Hitler's order [Führerbefehl] as passed on to Rome by Eberhard von Thadden of the Foreign Ministry.

14.
On 9 October, Moellhausen received an answer to telegram 201 addressed explicitly to him and marked 'very urgent'. This is the additional document, listed above as number (4), submitted by Irving to the court. It reads:

On the basis of the Führer's instructions, the 8,000 Jews resident in Rome are to be taken to Mauthausen as hostages. The Herr R(eich) F(oreign) M(inister) asks you not to interfere in any way in this affair, but to leave it to the SS. Please inform Ambassador Rahn Thadden.[21]

15.
This in turn was a response to a message of earlier in the day from Dr. Franz von Sonnleithner to the Office of the Foreign Ministry asking them to relay the following message from Ribbentrop to Rahn and Moellhausen. This is the document referred to above as number (2) and also cited by Irving, indeed the key document in his whole account. It reads as follows:

The Reich Foreign Minister requests that consuls Rahn and Moellhausen be informed that, on the basis of a Führer instruction, the 8,000 Jews resident in Rome should be taken to Mauthausen (Upper-Danube) as hostages. The Reich Foreign Minister requests that Rahn and Moellhausen be told under no circumstances to interfere in this affair, but rather to leave it to the SS. Sonnleithner. [22]


16.
But Irving then omits a vital document from his account. A few hours later a second, unequivocal message was sent to Rome from the same source:

The Herr Reich Minister of Foreign Affairs insists that you keep out of all questions concerning Jews. Such questions, in accordance with an agreement between the Foreign Ministry and the Reich Security Head Office, are within the exclusive competence of the SS, and any further interference in these
questions could cause serious difficulties for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.[23]

17.
Nowhere does Irving even mention the existence of this document, let alone cite or refer to its contents.

(ii)[sic] Irving's manipulation of reliable sources.

1.
Moellhausen's telegram of 6 October, not cited by Irving, makes it clear that not merely was Stahel 'objecting' to the
Aktion, but that he was refusing to comply with it unless it was sanctioned by Ribbentrop himself. Moreover Moellhausen, Rahn's stand-in, had not only the stupidity to use the word 'liquidate' in official correspondence with the Foreign Minister, but also the audacity, before a response could be given to his first telegram, to contact Field Marshal Kesselring and obtain his agreement that the Jews of Rome be engaged in fortification work. The senior figures in Rome, Moellhausen, Kesselring, and probably also Kappler had effectively formed a triumvirate to block deportation. Any prospect of a 'clean' round-up was fading fast in this entanglement. Hitler's order cut decisively through the mess and made clear in no uncertain terms that the Jews of Rome were still to be deported and not to be kept in Italy on fortification work.

2.
Appended to the order outlining 'the Führer's instructions' in this matter was a clear order that Moellhausen and Rahn were 'under no circumstances' to interfere in the affair. They were instead to leave it entirely to the SS.[26] Irving manipulates the document (no. 2 above) by omitting all mention of this part of it both in the 1991 edition of Hitler's War and in his submission to the court. Only in the 1977 edition of his book does he mention that Ribbentrop ordered that the matter was to be left to the SS, just as only in the 1977 edition of his book does he add that the Jews were 'liquidated' anyway. Clearly he is suppressing this important information in order to underline the impression he gives that Hitler was intervening purely and simply to stop the Jews being killed. Yet the instruction to put them in the hands of the SS was made explicit by the second telegram, which is left unmentioned by Irving even though he
must be familiar with its contents.[27]

3.
In 1977, Irving wrote that the Jews were liquidated 'regardless' of Hitler's orders (i.e. contrary to them), part of his thesis that Hitler was only responsible for the deportations; and Himmler and Heydrich murdered the Jews without his knowledge.[28]
Ribbentrop must have discussed with Hitler all the major
aspects of the situation, including Himmler's liquidation orders, the impending round-up by the SS, and the attempts to block it by the consuls and the army. There is every reason to suppose that Ribbentrop'sinjunction to leave the Aktion
to the SS was an integral part of the discussion, and that Hitler approved it. If Hitler was intervening to stop the Roman Jews from being killed, then he knew that the Roman Jews were to be liquidated, he knew it was on Himmler's orders, and he must have known it was part of a much wider pattern of mass murder of Jews by the SS, or in other words, he must have known it was part of the 'Final Solution'.






18 . Michaelis, p. 362; Katz, pp. 117-18 and 125-9. Both cite Taglicozzo, 'La Comunità di Roma sotto l'incubo della svastica.', p. 19-20 and Kappler's sworn testimony at the trial of Adolf Eichmann.

19. 'Obersturmbannführer Kappler hat den Auftrag erhalten, die achtausend in Rom wohnenden Juden festzunehmen und nach Oberitalien zu bringen, wo sie liquidiert werden sollen. Stadtkommanddant von Rom, General Stahel, mitteilt mir, daß er diese Aktion nur zulassen wird, wenn sie im Sinne des Herrn
Reichsaußenministers liegt. Ich perönlich bin der Ansicht, daß es besseres Geschäft wäre, Juden, wie in Tunis, zu Befestigungsarbeiten heranzuziehen und werde dies gemeinsam mit Kappler Generalfeldmarshall Kesselring vortragen. Erbitte Weisung. Moellhausen.' NG-5027, Moellhausen to Ribbentrop, 6 October 1943. The document is also to be found in the Public Record Office, Kew (PRO) under GFM 33/147/123580. It is also reproduced in Akten zur deutschen Auswärtigen Politik 1918-1945, Serie E: 1941-45, vol. VII, 1 October 1943-30 April, 1944 (Göttingen, 1979), p.31. The text above is Michaelis's translation, p. 363.

20. 'Generalfeldmarshall Kesselring hat Obersturmbannführer Kappler gebeten, geplante Judenaktion zunächst zuruckzustellen. Sollte jedoch etwas unternommen werden, würde er es vorziehen, die arbeitsfähigen Juden Roms zu Befestigungsarbeiten heranzuziehen', Moellhausen to Ribbentrop, 7 October 1943, (PRO) GFM 33/147/123599. Michaelis's translation, p. 363.

21. 'Für Konsul Moellhausen persönlich: Auf Grund Führerwiesung sollen die in Rom wohnenden 8.000 Juden als Geiseln nach Mauthausen gebracht werden. Der Herr RAM bittet Sie, sich auf keinen Fall in Angelegenheiten einszumischen, sondern die SS zu überlassen. Bitte Gesandten Rahn verständigen. Thadden .', NG-5027, von Thadden to Moellhausen, 9 October 1943. Michaelis's translation, pp. 363-4.

22. 'Der Herr RAM bittet, Gesandten Rahn und Konsul Moellhausen mitzuteilen, dass auf Grund einer Führerweisung die 8000 in Rom wohnenden Juden nach Mauthausen (Oberdonau) als Geiseln gebracht werden sollen. Der RAM bittet, Rahn und Moellhausen anzuweisen, sich auf keinen Fall in diese Angelegenheit einzumischen, sie vielmehr der SS zu überlassen. Sonnleithner.' Irving document no. 97, NG-5027, Sonnleither to Ribbentrop's Office, 9 October, 1943.

23. NG-5027 as cited by Michaelis, p. 364. No further details.

26. Sonnleither to Ribbentrop's office, 9 October 1943

27. NG-5027, as cited in Michaelis, p. 364.

28. Hitler's War, (1977 ed.) pp. .326-7 and 329-32.

[Otium]

Evans complains that when Irving cites a Heydrich to Goring report that was presented at Nuremberg for saying only 191 synagogues were destroyed, a further reading of this document actually says 191 burned down and a further 76 completely smashed. So Irving screwed that up and needs to answer for it. Apparently social democrats did a tally and found 520 synagogues had been partially or completely destroyed (footnote 97). Apparently though, and this is really funny, a further study AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER, found it was even higher than that. This is footnote 98 saying this and we are given no explicit figure from Evans, nor are we treated to an understanding of what superior methods they apparently used to determine the "real" number of attacked synagogues. Some Jewish author in footnote 100 claims it was 9000 Jewish shops in total of which over 7000 were destroyed and not 7000 out of 100,000 as Weckert claims.

I agree that it would be interesting to know what exactly these 'superior methods' might've been to conclude the numbers were higher. Although I think it's probably along the lines of witness testimony or some such unfalsifiable piece of 'evidence'. I don't think we can know the full extent of the damage for sure.

What is 'completely smashed'? That doesn't necessarily sound like 'destroyed' to me. If 191 synagogues burn down they no longer exist, if 76 are smashed they still exist but are in tatters. This seems like a matter of semantics. It's a minor point. As for the number of 520 being 'partially or completely destroyed' I guess it depends on your definition, I don't think I'd be wrong to presume that these interested parties who're obsessed with Jewish 'suffering' would take a rather liberal approach to what can be defined as 'destroyed'.

Let's not pretend that these minor critiques of Irving were anything but the attempt of the establishment to assassinate his character. As far as actual errors go, these are all quite minor and offer little in the way of substance.

I'm thinking about purchasing a copy of Hitler's War. The Millennium edition. 2019
https://irvingbooks.com/xcart/product.p ... ctid=18101
Is it worth it?

Yeah. Although it is revised and abridged. You'd do better to buy this version and have an original two volume edition of Hitler's War on hand as well. Also get his single volume edition of 'The War Path'.

[Werd]

I'm thinking about purchasing a copy of Hitler's War. The Millennium edition. 2019
https://irvingbooks.com/xcart/product.p ... ctid=18101
Is it worth it?

Yeah. Although it is revised and abridged. You'd do better to buy this version and have an original two volume edition of Hitler's War on hand as well. Also get his single volume edition of 'The War Path'.

I'm guessing you mean the original 2 volume hardcover set from 1977.

[Otium]

I'm guessing you mean the original 2 volume hardcover set from 1977.

Cheaper alternative is the 1983 papermac editions.