Richard Evans is a fraud. Nothing he says is true, or taken at face value. Nothing he's ever written is done from an objective standpoint. He doesn't write with the intention to illuminate and come to the truth of the matter, he writes with the
modus operandi of an inequitable partisan towards the Third Reich. With no regard for nuance or evaluation that could possibly be perceived in favour of the Third Reich. Due to this, nothing he's written is valid. Nothing he's ever said is valid, he is a poisoned well of disinformation, misinformation that relies on partial truths to come to utter lies. He is the fruit of the poisonous tree.
For example, at the Irving trial he was payed $700,000 by Penguin books to act as a historian and dismiss anything and everything David Irving ever said. Even though David Irving is a much more remarkable historian than Richard Evans could ever hope to be, and knows more about original material than Evans. Evans' subsequent Third Reich trilogy was published by Penguin books; thus his claim to objectivity is impossible. If one can be payed $700,000 to represent a Partisan viewpoint and then published by the same people to historically document that partisan authorship, one who believes in the objectivity of such a person is willingly deluding themselves.
Evans in a new book this year purports to realign the fact of the Hess flight to Scotland:
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=13225&p=96400Which is an impossibility. The physical evidence of the aircraft that Hess piloted required to be refueled for a second time on another German airfield before being flown to England, thus more than just Rudolf Hess was in on his plan to seek peace in Britain because this required multiple collaborators. And of course, there are dozens of books, not least of all the Hess book by David Irving that put it beyond doubt that Hitler was aware of this peace offensive.
However, Evans cannot stand this idea. He must attempt through a partisan hack job disguised as scholarship to bury this fact in myth. For this could lead to a possible change of opinion of the Third Reich and her alleged aims in the Second World War, to something much more moderate and reasonable. This view, if it were to be too widespread in the public, would destroy some aspect of the negative public perception of the Third Reich. And to Marxists like Evans, this is is unconscionable. It could endanger their Holocaust mythology and over all "Good War" myth.
An example of Evans' documentary manipulation is that of the Schlegelberger document.
This document reads as follows:
"Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."
Source: http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Schlegelberger/DocItself0342.html
Read this carefully. Any normal person who isn't attempting to commit perjury, as Evans was when he gave his fraudulent "interpretation" of this document, would see how cut and dry it is. What did Evans conclude from it? Well:
In paragraphs 5.155 and 5.161 of Justice Gray's decision, it is noted that Professor Evans expressed the opinion that the subject matter of the "Schlegelberger note" was probably not the Jewish question generally, but rather the narrower issue of mixed marriages between Jews and Gentiles and the children of such marriages. Consequently, this document cannot be used by revisionist historians to prove there was no Nazi policy to exterminate the Jews, because it does not refer to all Jews, only to a small category of Jews.
Paul Grubach, Hitler, the 'Final Solution,' and the Luther Memorandum: A Response to Evans and Longerich https://codoh.com/library/document/hitler-the-final-solution-and-the-luther/en/
Ah yes! How silly of the "Holocaust Deniers" to miss that the Schlegelberger note was OBVIOUSLY referring to Jews of Mixed Aryan-Jewish parentage! It's so obvious even a blind man could see it!
(Sarcasm).
This is how Evans' forces the documentary record to conform to his own lies. This document, obviously contains nothing of which Evans' interpretation could be substantiated. Nothing whatsoever. In fact the document itself, even if accepted in the way Evans interprets it would contradict the Holocaust narrative - for if the goal of the Holocaust was to exterminate all Jews, why on earth would the
mischling be left to be dealt with until after the war? It makes no logical sense, even less so from the standpoint of Evans. He blatantly lies to everyone in an attempt to push his partisan narrative. In the process he has the gall to claim that it was David Irving who "misinterpreted" documents. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evans is a hack. A disgusting creature, and his books, in my view, deserve to be burned.
Evan's interpretation of this document is further discredited (
as if it ever had any merit in the first place) by another document, the Luther Memorandum:
Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of this war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was an unalterable decision of the Führer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much.
(Document NG-2586)
See the full Luther Memorandum here: Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (Castle Hill Publishers, 2015), Pp. 269-279
Also see:
Paul Grubach, The "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" Extermination or Ethnic Cleansing? A Review
https://codoh.com/library/document/the-final-solution-of-the-jewish-question-1/en/and:
Paul Grubach, Holocaust Revisionism vs. Richard Evans
https://codoh.com/library/document/holocaust-revisionism-vs-richard-evans/en/Hitler's orders are perfectly clear. Referring to Jews in general (thus contradicting Evan's claim), the German dictator stated they will still be around after the war is over (as he had no plans to exterminate them en masse), and they will have to emigrate to a new land outside Europe. This decision was "unalterable," that is, not subject to change. And, this Luther memo gives no indication that there was any change in policy during the time between the enunciation of Hitler's Jewish policy to Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff in November 1941, and the creation of said memo in August 1942.
Nor can one fall back on Longerich's view that the "Schlegelberger memo" is insignificant, for here we have an important August 1942 memorandum underscoring the Hitler orders of the "Schlegelberger note" of March 1942.
Paul Grubach, Hitler, the 'Final Solution,' and the Luther Memorandum: A Response to Evans and Longerich https://codoh.com/library/document/hitler-the-final-solution-and-the-luther/en/
Evans is a fraud. There is no other way of saying it. He is untrustworthy when it comes to representing the documentary record. However, there is more. Because he is also a man with deep Communist sympathies. He is thus a hypocrite too!
Evans you see, wrote a glowing biography of Stalin apologist, and Marxist-Communist, Eric Hobsbawm.
In a wonderful slaying of Evans for his obvious hypocrisy and lack of academic scruples, a blog titled “Useful Stooges” wrote a wonderful article. Quoting David Pryce Jones who wrote in his review of the Evans biography
“Eric Hobsbawm: A Life in History makes Evans
"look either a dupe or a fool of the higher sort, in any case earning him a reputation no historian would want to have.”See: https://archive.vn/hysAj
I recommend you read this article to see how people like Richard Evans use history as nothing more than political propaganda.
The article makes a mince meat mockery of Evans:
If we’re returning now to the subject of Hobsbawm, it’s because another famous historian, Richard J. Evans, FBA, FRSL, FRHistS, FLSW, has published an 800-page biography of him. Evans is best known for his three-volume history of the Third Reich – which has been described as definitive – and for his court testimony defending a writer’s characterization of David Irving as a Holocaust denier.
In all his writings on Hitler’s regime, Evans has made it clear that he is not a fan. He sees Nazism for the evil that it is. He does not buy into the notion that, in writing about a Nazi, you can set aside his Nazi beliefs, or contextualize them or relativize them, depicting them as just a minor or incidental part of his personal makeup. You can’t conclude that, his Nazi convictions notwithstanding, the most important thing about him is that he was a devoted husband and father, a good friend and neighbor, a man who loved his pets and was, as the British say, clubbable. No, a Nazi is, first and last, a Nazi. Evans understands that.
Confronted with the case of Hobsbawm and Hobsbawm’s Communism, however,
Evans is able to take a totally different approach. In a blistering review of Evans’s book for the June issue of the New Criterion, yet another historian, David Pryce-Jones (who, as it happens, is also an FRSL), laments that Eric Hobsbawm: A Life in History makes Evans “look either a dupe or a fool of the higher sort, in any case earning him a reputation no historian would want to have.” Describing Hobsbawm as “the foremost Communist apologist in the Britain of his day,” Pryce-Jones observes that
if Hobsbawm had been a Nazi, “Evans surely would have thrown his doctrine back into his face. Instead, he defends the indefensible with this hagiography.” Although Hobsbawm, after joining the Communist Party as a student at Cambridge, “never deviated from the Party line,” Evans “can still write this utter absurdity: ‘there was no sense in which [Hobsbawm] was an active or committed member of the Party.”
See: https://archive.vn/hysAj
Evans' Third Reich Trilogy has been responded to as well, in part, by revisionists on many of his other falisifications:
The latest effort to combat “denial”, i.e. Holocaust revisionism Part 1.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191121131348/https://revblog.codoh.com/2011/02/the-latest-effort-to-combat-holocaust-revisionism-i-e-denial/The latest effort to combat “denial”, i.e. Holocaust revisionism Part 2.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191121131341/https://revblog.codoh.com/2011/02/the-latest-effort-to-combat-denial-i-e-holocaust-revisionism/
