The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Someone has read Hitler's war and realized that, “eh this is not what I expected!” We know Irving and his integrity regarding WW2 archives and revinionism, but man does anyone else feel this way? "Why the Gleiwitz Incident? Why is He pursuing war for world domination? Why is there this and that!?? I know him as another revisionist!"

He's an honest historian, but we know that what he wrote in his great book is what we think of as WW2 narratives by contemporary historian.

This book is on my list, but I haven't read it yet. Only bits of it. It's available for free online, but for books this long I like to get a nice physical copy.

Are you saying you expected it to be more favorable to Hitler? Remember, this book was originally from Viking Press, a mainstream publisher. The spin you get from the media is that Irving is like the modern day head of Hitler's propaganda ministry, but these things are relative. If you are even vaguely objective they will smear you like that. It seems Irving's work was controversial in 1977 but then in the 90s when he became perhaps the famous "Holocaust denier" his past work which had sold well and had been tolerated was purged retroactively.

If you want to write a book that's taken seriously, you do need to maintain some objectivity. If there's too much spin, you start getting more into activism/apologetics rather than scholarship.

What do you mean by purged retroactively? Who purged it? Can you explain it to me? Best regards

I am about 300 pages (and some other random sections over the years) into Hitler’s War and I have greatly enjoyed it, as someone who is apt to ‘defend’ or objectively analyze German foreign policy and similar topics. I paused my reading about 2 months ago, so certain things are not fresh on my mind, but the details and anecdotes that he includes are second to none.

There won’t ever be a book that defends Hitler’s every move, because the diplomatic sources are not as anti-Hitler as many think, but also not as pro-Hitler as some may think (or wish). I think Irving does a good job with the book. Where Irving really steps up is his views on the war in the summer of 1940, not necessarily a differing view on 1939. He does, if I remember correctly, maintain a revisionist view on the Anschluss, but notes the German war-plans against the Czechs. From one of his lectures: ‘Hitler wanted a small war, not a world war’ (or war with the western allies, I can’t remember).

I do wish Irving commented more on the Historikerstriet and Hitler’s ultimate plans and goals. On his website, he has highlighted Hitler’s persistent goal of invading the Soviet Union, going back to the early 1930s. Perhaps a new dive into all of his videos could refresh me.

Eco wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2025 2:17 pm Someone has read Hitler's war and realized that, “eh this is not what I expected!” We know Irving and his integrity regarding WW2 archives and revinionism, but man does anyone else feel this way? "Why the Gleiwitz Incident? Why is He pursuing war for world domination? Why is there this and that!?? I know him as another revisionist!"

He's an honest historian, but we know that what he wrote in his great book is what we think of as WW2 narratives by contemporary historian.