Books about the Nazism

It's... it's alright. But let's say, incomplete.

Irving's Hitler's War, Churchill's War, Goebbels biography and Bombing of Dresden paint the whole picture. And I guess Jennet Conant's The Irregulars really makes it come all together when you also want to take in the prewar American part.

For postwar, particularly Israel, I'd really recommend Benny Morrison's The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited, Alison Weir's Against Our Better Judgement (both of which are also heavy in the prewar and wartime stuff, but the added postwar stuff is also really big), and Miko Peled's The General's Son.

Though I guess that still leaves the russians, italians and japanese overall out of the picture. Anybody have anything to recommend on those three fronts?

Occult roots of nazism.

What does Veeky Forums think of my copy?

>Adolf Hitler - Youth (Age 0 - 25)
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/86086584/

>Adolf Hitler - First World War (Age 25 - 29)
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/134340484/

>Adolf Hitler - Rise to Power (Age 29 - 43)
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/150760491/

>Joseph Goebbels
archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/142878351

>incomplete
>recommends a whole library of Irving, as if he's not full of holes and errors

Requesting the "because he was a jew jewy jewy. etc." copypasta.

Point them out. I can only remember one mistranslation, I believe in Goebbels, they used heavily during his public besmirching campaign in the late 80s and early 90s, and then again during the trial. A mistranslation which was a fair mistake given he was transcribing from diaries written by hand, him having been the first person to ever transcribe them. Don't remember exactly what it was though, but it got errata'd in the second edition.

And then they stole his microfiches. Fuck, that makes on angry.

Anyway, please, do point the holes and errors out. But assuming you don't come back with those, let me add this: let's say Irving does have some holes. He doesn't really, except a prominent one, but let's say he does. He still presents an objective (as in, considering all sides) point of view you won't find in the more mainstream WWII historians. He's the only one who doesn't paint the nazis as crazed villains, and that is a sin.

>He's the only one who doesn't paint the nazis as crazed villains, and that is a sin.

This is actually true. I wanted to learn about the Fall of Berlin recently and started reading the best-reviewed book about the battle. Within 10 pages the historian had accused the Nazis of false-flagging the Reichstag fire and also described the "evil regime" and shit like that. It's disgusting.

>Lukacs argues that Irving's picture of Hitler is defective because of his tendency to confuse asserting that Hitler was a great warlord as being the same thing as proving Hitler was a military genius, which leads to a total neglect of the crucial question of why Hitler took particular decisions at particular times.[24] Lukacs condemned Irving as a historical writer for his "twisting" of evidence (i.e. labelling Adolf Eichmann's statement before an Israeli court in 1961 that he heard from Himmler that Hitler had given a verbal order for the Holocaust as mere "hearsay").[22] Lukacs described Irving in the 1997 American edition of The Hitler of History as the most influential of Hitler's apologists, and found it "regrettable" that many professional historians "relied on some of Irving's researches" and praised Irving.[25] Lukacs called Irving's historical opinions objectionable and inexcusable, and complained that too many of Irving's opinions were supported by footnotes that referred either to sources that did not exist or said something different from what Irving wrote.[26] Some of the examples Lukacs cited in support of his claim was Irving's contemptuous statement mocking the Polish cavalry for charging German tanks (a legend discredited even in the 1970s when Irving wrote Hitler's War), asserting with no source that Hitler refused a lavish banquet prepared for him in Warsaw in 1939 out of the desire to eat the same rations as the ordinary German soldier, for crediting — again with no source — a statement to Hitler in August 1940 that he would let Churchill live in peace after defeating Britain, for falsely claiming Operation Typhoon, the German drive onto Moscow in 1941, was forced on him by his General Staff, and for putting his own words in a speech of Hitler in September 1943 implying Churchill was a decadent homosexual (not something that was in Hitler's speech).[27] Lukacs asserted too many of the crucial statements by Irving in Hitler's War — such as his claim that Hitler foresaw Operation Uranus, the Soviet counter-offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad, or his claim that the Hungarian leader Major Ferenc Szálasi wanted to fight to the bitter end in 1944–45 (when he wished for a German-Soviet compromise peace) — were completely dishonest and untrue statements supported by references to non-existent documents.[28]

[1/2]

>quoting the wikipedia, which quotes a hard detractor
Give me the direct page numbers and lines where Irving was full of holes and errors, and explain in what ways he was. Don't give me a third account diatribe meant to damage someone's character.

>He still presents an objective (as in, considering all sides) point of view you won't find in the more mainstream WWII historians. He's the only one who doesn't paint the nazis as crazed villains, and that is a sin.
This is delusional. No historian can be truly objective, anyway, and we shouldn't expect them to - least of all pretend that they are when they are not. There is nothing inherently wrong with trying to approach the war from a perspective more sympathetic to the Germans and to Hitler, which Irving in his book on Dresden, and especially with Churchill's War. I don't know whether we can measure how much Irving "considers all sides", but - and there's nothing inherently blameworthy in this - he doesn't hide which side, after consideration, he comes down upon. But I think he lets it get in the way of his . Irving wasn't a professional historian when he started writing and researching, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it provides clues for where he could have gone wrong, where his more wrongheaded 'civilian' attitudes and methods toward history emerged. There's respectable historians with many opinions on Nazi Germany, and many ways of interpreting it, I don't know why you have to attach yourself to this charlatan, Irving, when there are better, particularly German, historians who could say more insightful and accurate things from a similar angle. Look up the Historikerstreit.

No, I don't have access to any of Irving's work on hand. Anything I could give you right now would simply be something copied from somewhere else. So I'm being plain, and giving you criticisms I've read that you can evaluate for yourself if you want to. If your pride cares only about debating me (random user), and not figuring out the truth on your own terms, feel free to ignore it. Since you haven't rebutted the critiques I'm assuming they're unfamiliar to you.

>I'm being plain, and giving you criticisms I've read that you can evaluate for yourself if you want to
I already have. And as I said, it's just a third account diatribe meant to damage his character

You're the one who doesn't even give the guy a chance. I bet you haven't read a single one of his books. Otherwise, you'd most likely know they're all readily available for free download from his own website, as they've been for like two decades.

You said his whole library is full of holes and errors. I'm asking you to point out said holes and errors in his library. You give me some washed up comment from the wikipedia of all places. Fuck off. I read the books I recommended, and I saw they were fair.

>This is delusional. No historian can be truly objective
No, but they can try. If they don't, they're propagandists. And when it comes to WWII, other than Irving, I only see such propagandists. Yeah, I also recommended Jennet Conant, yeah, but she's more a historian about espionage (in a gossipy manner) than a WWII historian. I also recommended Benny Morris (who is a zionist, just like Conant, but other than his conclusions, his work was extremely objective), Alison Weir and Miko Peled (who are non-zionist jews), who didn't really write about the war either, but about Israel or prewar espionage.

>I already have. And as I said, it's just a third account diatribe meant to damage his character
Except for the factual propositions Lukacs makes, which are either true or false:
1. Calling Adolf Eichmann’s testimony “hearsay”
2. Irving uses footnotes with either no mention of the claims he’s made or which don’t exist at all in some cases, such as:
a) the Polish cavalry charged GERMAN TANKS
b) Hitler refused a banquet and said or somehow or other it was known he did this in solidarity with German soldiers
c) that Hitler said he would let Churchill life after defeating Churchill in August 1940
d) that Operation Typhoon was forced on him by his staff
e) stating that Hitler claimed in a speech that Churchill was a homosexual when no mention of this is made in the speech
3. Thinks Irving doesn’t have enough evidence to back up some other major claims of his
On the topic of diatribes to damage character, Irving discredits Lukacs as a Jewish historian (as if we should discredit Germans? Take into account, yes)

How can you say the books you were recommended are fair when all you did was read them? Did you read the footnotes? Did you read criticisms of his work and evaluate them on your own? Or did you take his perspective at face value. When someone writes a history, they can seem fair minded in their words, and probably should, but there are decisions made in omission and selection.

You claimed that mainstream historians paint Nazis as crazed villains. Some do, but I don’t think you are giving the field credit as a whole. Most do not. Lukacs painting of Hitler is almost sympathetic, indeed admiring. He dispels a lot of negative myths about Hitler and The Third Reich - especially the idea that Hitler was a raving, irrational, cultureless madman, or that he “went mad” or that his strategies were all bad and he did everything wrong. He shows the distinction between the quality of life in Nazi Germany vs Soviet Union, and quotes another historian that if Hitler had died he would have been considered one of the greatest German leaders of all time.

Also Irving sued Lukacs and got criticism of him cut out of the British edition of the book, slimy fuck. Nice free speech.

*had died before the war

>Also Irving sued Lukacs and got criticism of him cut out of the British edition of the book, slimy fuck. Nice free speech.
Libel != free speech. If you wanna talk, say, the Declaration of Human Rights, there's 3 rights to discuss here:
1 - Article 2, which grants everyone all rights, no matter the case.
2 - Article 12, which grants the right to privacy and attacks upon their honor or reputation, and grants the right of protections of the law against such attacks (libel laws).
3 - Article 19, which grants the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

So while sure, Lukacs has the right to say whatever the fuck he wants, he is not except from libel laws (notice how "hate speech" laws are bullshit if we go from the declaration though), and Irving has the right to protect himself against libel, which is what he did. And he was nowhere as forceful as you're painting him. Here's his letters before action, detailing why Lukacs' work against him is libelous (skip the list of links at the top, the letters are after those), which deal with your list:
fpp.co.uk/Legal/Lukacs/index.html

...

...

...

...

Da truth, baby.