/lit/ - Literature

>>16029163
>Should I give David Irving a read
Yes, read everything, keep being critical, and come away with greater nuance.

Hello, I'm one of the people who's been discussing this recently, but yes, there's a lot of bad accounts in Shirer. He derives quite a bit from the now debunked Trevor-Roper material, additionally (and as you already pointed out) the Ilse Koch narrative has had the same treatment. There are further errors, including the gussying up of the Rascher trials, as well as the incorrect Niemoller "false flag" take on the Burgerbraukeller bombing.

This is a short list, but there are many other errors. I have picked up a lot more WWII books recently, so I'm interested to see how they portray these issues.

Moreover, as I read other accounts, I'm finding differences, e.g. per Loringhoven, Fellgiebel didn't disable the communication line between Rastenberg and Zossen during the Stauffenberg plot, but according to Shirer (not sure whose account) he did.

I feel like Loringhoven has a lot of problems itself. The book jumps around a lot and it was written in the early 2000s when Loringhoven was in his 90s. He spends a lot of time relaying that he didn't personally dislike Jews, played with them as a kid, etc.

That said, it does show some specific things: for instance, he recalls that during the Fuhrerlage, neither Himmler, his adjutant, or Kaltenbrunner ever discussed anything about the 'final solution' or exterminations. Was this an omission on the notoriously anal Hitler's part, or is it that the entire narrative about this being a sanctioned program bullshit?

I don't think he's lying, either, because he very closely recalled many of Guderian's outburts (one of the only generals who dared to speak against Hitler, along with Jodl).

>>16029612
>>16029660
Thanks for info fren very interesting and insightful. Can you suggest any further third reich reading? Evans third Reich maybe, or something like storm of steel?

>>16030158

No problem. Evans is a faggot because of his position on Irving, but if you see the books for a cheap price, it wouldn't hurt. I would not support Evans directly. Secondhand only. You can also read Browning's take on it.

There is so much WWII and holocaust lit, it'd be better to sort of whittle down to a specific thing you want to know more about.

>>16030208
Any books about life inside the third Reich for the civilian population? Pre war and during war? Shirer completely glosses over it. What about good military campaign of the third Reich books have you read Leon degrelles book? Lastly I guess Hitler table top talks or any sort of biography of the man or his top brass you could recommend? Tbh I'll give Irving a read next Hitler's war.

>>16030256

Haven't read Degrelle, yet. For 'general life' books, I'd look for memoirs, especially those of former Hitlerjugend, and other late war Volksturm fighters. BR Teicher's book is decent. Obviously you want to avoid all the standard kike-lit like Anne Frank, Striped Pajamas, Schindler's List, etc.

To add, Bessel's Life in the Third Reich might be okay. I have not reviewed it, yet. Other people were also suggesting Weimar books in our Hitlit threads, but I don't recall the titles.

>>16029163
the best book I've read about the third reich is the trilogy by richard evans. very impartial overall.

It's a fun book but it's all wrong
His depiction of how the third Reich functioned is too focused on the top and reliant on rather fishy information

>>16030256
this >>16030341 goes into a lot of detail, especially the second book.
>>16030208
irving is a faggot

>>16030341
>evans
>impartial

>>16030385

There is nobody on this godforsaken planet who knows as much as about the Third Reich and its characters than David Irving (PBUH).

>>16030389
he is or, at least, his trilogy of books is.
>>16030406
pic related

>>16030496

I'm not saying you can't read Evans, but if you think his work is the end of your learning on the Hall-of-cost, you will always be r*tarded.

While we're on Hitlit, what's the take on Zweites Buch?

>>16031156
It's good. I would buy the jew's translation, though.

>>16031212
>wouldn't*
I would make that typo

>>16031212
>>16031220

I think we had this discussion before, my man. I might grab both and compare translations.

Anyone have any thoughts on pic related?
I picked it up from a bookshop on a whim, the fact that it was written by a German historian not too long after the fact seemed interesting. The author of the introduction seems to insinuate that Bracher's analysis is more nuanced and accurate than Shirer's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsLW7VrOpA8

Anyone watched this vid on Irving's Hitler's War? If you don't wanna watch the video Richard Evans and other people say that Irving's works are turbo bullshit and he shouldn't be trusted.

>>16031472
>Richard Evans and other people say that Irving's works are turbo bullshit and he shouldn't be trusted.
Richard Evans was paid 250k british pounds and boosted in the jew media for attacking Irving.

>>16031485
Does that make what he says untrue? They're not just claims... watch the video, all the proof is in there.

>>16031472
>Richard Evans and other people say that Irving's works are turbo bullshit and he shouldn't be trusted.

These people are liars and opportunists. Irving learned German to read the source material carefully, and his knowledge of the prime characters is unparalleled.

>>16031508
Well, do you have any proof to back the claim that Evans is a liar?

>>16031527
Just look at his video game reviews.

>>16031491
>Does that make what he says untrue?
It makes his claims biased. And the video gives translations of the original texts, so how am I to know whose translation is superior? Without becoming an expert in German myself I have to use heuristics like
>Evans was paid to trash Irving
>Evans also devoutly believes in the Holocaust, despite there being 0 proof

Fuck Evans, he's a shill.

>>16031472
The first example of Irving "lying" is not conclusive. You can easily understand Hitler's words in the way Irving did from that sentence. Not watching the rest of this shit.

Friedlander has some good more recent books that deal with the Jewish communities during Nazism in a pretty down to earth way. The Years of Extermination in particular is very well researched and relies heavily on recovered diaries to present perspectives to the reader. Jewish diarists are quoted along with SS and Wehrmacht diaries.

>>16031550
>Evans also devoutly believes in the Holocaust, despite there being 0 proof
OK incel

>>16031654
Prove the Holocaust.

>>16031472
Jews like Spielberg spent millions hiring all the top researchers and historians to dig through everything Irving ever wrote and they came up with like a dozen errors he made in 30+ books he wrote. And they use that fact to this day to claim that he's a liar. And the funny thing is that Richard Evans has himself made plenty of errors.

>>16031373
Quite a few German historians took issue with Shirer's analysis. "Four critical faults" were discussed. One of them was anger at Shirer's idea that German tradition had produced Hitler, because this "cast Germany in a bad light and undermined German-American relations".

>>16031700
Spielberg hadn't heard of the holocaust until he was in his 30s and called his friend over to ask him if he had heard of it which of course he was surprised about. Spiel berg then later made those holodcuast filmns

>>16031741
>Spielberg hadn't heard of the holocaust
Neither had anyone else.

>In response to an article written about Goodson in the South African Jewish Report, which was published on 30 June 2017, Goodson explained that his disbelief of the Holocaust is predicated on the claim that in the 8,263 pages of World War II memoirs written by Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Harry S. Truman, there is no mention of millions of Jews in Europe having been annihilated.

>>16031654
there's no proof for gas chambers at all, the desire to get the jews out of germany at all costs stands though

>>16031658
I wasn't there

>>16031759
Educate yourself

>>16031767
Likewise.

>>16031781
lol

>>16031761
Even if you could credibly say that you were in Reich territory between 1933 and 1945, that still wouldn't be proof.

>>16031755

Incredible. I wasn't aware of that.

>>16031784
>lol
https://codoh.com/library/categories/holocaust-final-solution-techniques-gas-chambers/

lol

>>16031873
Nazis killed people without using gas chambers you know

>>16031977
>goalpost
>stationary
Pick one.

Also, quit denying the holocaust, goy, you sound like David Irving.

>>16031977
hm. elaborate...

>>16031977

Yes, they also used rollercoasters, masturbation machines, and lions in cages.

>>16032108
Don't forget the 180 degree Krummlauf

I don't understand, why don't they prove da hollacost when I ask them to?

>>16032411
Because most of the proof is intuitive leaps that are difficult to explicitly describe, i.e. seeing through euphemism and cloaked language to surmise the truth of events, such as when Germans describe transports of Jews as being selected for "special accomodation" or "special treatment", as well as a belief in the countless eyewitness accounts whereas a Holocaust denier will simply make the blanket assertion that every single account is just a carefully calibrated lie which is part of some grand conspiracy that extends across nations and decades all to make you believe some Jews got gassed.
So I guess in the end its the same question as to why you can't prove me wrong when I assert that China is a completely fabricated nation assembled out of a fraction of its true population who cleverly disguise all their operations and magnify a distorted lie to the rest of the world through a series of complex supervillain plots.

>>16032506
>intuitive

>>16032520
Predictable brainlet reply.

>>16032557
Predictable absence of proof.

>>16032575
I provided a sound argument, you're either too retarded or too ideologically possessed to grasp it. Likely both. This is further demonstrated by your inability to refute anything I said, instead relying on irony.

>>16032596
>I provided a sound argument
I didn't ask for a sound argument, I asked for proof, you illiterate dolt.

>>16032506
How many eye witness accounts are there which corroborate the core narrative while explicitly claiming to have witnessed "extermination," as opposed to shit conditions in camps? There have been many instances of survivors claiming extremely outlandish things - roller-coasters leading to murder chambers for instance. How many independently claimed to have explicitly witnessed what the core narrative dictates?

>>16032616
A sound argument is proof you retarded 14 year old Jew. By "proof" you obviously mean "explicit proof", something that even an unreasonable doubter such as yourself can't refute, that not even any last-ditch ad-hoc rescue or invented conspiracy can get out from under. This explict proof doesn't exist and that's what you're doing your whole pilpul maneuver to exploit. Obviously a lack of this type of proof does not mean the reasonable conclusion is to disbelieve the event happened, as your purported explanation as to explain away presented evidence is much more fantastical, complex, and unlikely than the Holocaust narrative. Nothing short of a massive, global conspiracy that has remained in place for the better part of a century. Proof of your retard claims? Probably not ever going to materialize.

>>16032648
Dude people lie about shit to get attention all the time, especially when it comes to these huge events. Many Jews are of course fucking scoundrels who would not hesitate to try and piggyback off of a literal genocide for personal benefit. These ludicrous stories don't therefore make every story false, what kind of logic is that?
For direct accounts of the extermination process Google "Sonderkommando". Many of them survived the war and provided interviews from different camps.

>>16032659
>still can't provide anything
lol

>>16032674
Been practicing your whimper of defeat? Lmfao

>>16032506
>Because most of the proof is intuitive leaps that are difficult to explicitly describe, i.e. seeing through euphemism and cloaked language to surmise the truth of events, such as when Germans describe transports of Jews as being selected for "special accomodation" or "special treatment", as well as a belief in the countless eyewitness accounts
The Germans suddenly decided not to document one of the biggest conspiracies of their entire history because reasons? The fucking Germans? The most structured motherfuckers on planet Earth? Hitler wrote about jews in his book, they documented everything when they told them to get the fuck out, there’s documents written about Germany planning to exile all jews into some third world country. But the final solution, that’s when they decided to turn their jew hate down a notch and play it cool? Do you realize how retarded you sound?
If the fucking thing happened, there would be documents everywhere. Details, methods of assassination, and a fucking kill count even. There’s nada.

>>16032747
Needless to fucking say, most witness accounts have been disproven time and time again

>>16032747
>>16032757
Reminder that no mass graves credited to Hitler's regime have ever been unearthed, but Soviet mass graves are still turning up today.

>>16032757
Eyewitness accounts don't even need to be disproved to be invalid. It's the weakest form of evidence, and needs to be corroborated with genuine documentation, and tested through cross examination. Only one of these (cross examination) was ever done, and it took till 1985 for it to happen for the first time, which resulted in absolute humiliation of the witness. Eyewitness testimony has been a rare thing in holocaust trials since.

>>16032772
While we are at it, let’s remember that the holodomor is vastly documented but often overlooked.

>>16032797
I've not researched that at all, so I won't offer an opinion.

>>16032747
Holy fuck, you are a complete fucking moron. Why the FUCK would you keep explicit documentation of literal war crimes? Even to each other the Germans referred to operations in concentration camps under coded language, deception was practiced at every level. Even when the jig was basically up the Germans still tried to deny to Jews in "selections" that they were being selected for death, instead claiming they were being "sent to another camp".
The Germans - not being complete retards - obviously understood that the rest of the world would see their actions as utterly reprehensible and strove to hide the evidence of it. An event is described in which Himmler requested documentation of a kill-count to present to Hitler. He sent the first document back because he considered the language too explicit, then presented it, destroyed the document, and ordered the statistical department to also destroy all copies. This is called "not being a fucking moron". Its absolutely amazing that you are legitimately retarded enough to think that they would explicitly document all their war crimes all to make it convenient for other nations to justify retaliation against them.
It honestly amazes me how stupid you people are, being completely sincere.

>>16032747
As a side note, I'm of the opinion, like some historians, that there was not a plan far in advance to exterminate the Jews and that it was developed in the late 30s and early 40s. Initially mere deportation and forced labor was probably the intention. Some historians take this view, some insist there was a secret plan for mass extermination from the very beginning.

>>16032747
Here's literally "babby's first Holocaust site"
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution
None of how a legitimate historian arrives at his conclusions is a "secret" dude. You can, you know, actually look into this stuff and read about instead of sitting with your thumb in your ass shitposting and lazily perusing slapped together alt-right Holocaust denial sites with highlight reels like BREAKING NEWS ELIE WIESEL ADMITS HOLOCUAST IS LIE

>>16032918
>coded language
Brainlet cope
https://codoh.com/library/document/the-final-solution-a-response-to-christopher/en/
>These scenarios also undermine another claim of Browning. Namely, that the Germans used euphemisms such as “deportation” to signify “mass murder” in order to hide their crimes. On the one hand, why would the Germans use euphemisms to hide the “homicidal gas chambers” in their private correspondence, and then on the other hand quite openly and publicly mass gas Jews in Belgrade for the entire world to see and find out about it? Why would the “ultra-secretive German murderers” use camouflage language and euphemisms in their private correspondence to hide this policy of mass murder, and then turn around and build an extermination camp in the middle of Chelmno for the entire population to see? Why attempt to hide the extermination policy in private correspondence, when very public, open-air incinerations of the “murdered Jews” are being carried out in public at Auschwitz?

>strove to hide the evidence of it
And yet they left the WEAPONS they supposedly used fully intact? Gimme a fuckin break.

>>16032938
>https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution
No sources on that site. Lets see how Yad Vashem gets their numbers:
>Any submission of a claimed victim will be accepted, even if it is entirely made up or doesn’t even make sense.
https://codoh.com/library/series/vad-vashem-and-the-number-of-holocaust-victims/en/

>>16030340
>Other people were also suggesting Weimar books in our Hitlit threads
some books on that subject i'd recommend are these
>Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider - Peter Gay
>When Money Dies: The Nightmare of Deficit Spending, Devaluation, and Hyperinflation in Weimar Germany - Adam Fergusson
these 2 books are good for the entry point of getting to understand Weimar Germany, both from the cultural/social aspect and the economic aspect

>>16032918
Coded language and euphemisms are different things, you absolute fucking retard. How fucking dumb are you?>>16032938
The one million Auschwitz figure has been already proven wrong. It’s literally on this thread. Fuck you and your “source”

>>16029163
>Should I give David Irving a read for some ussr archive information?
Read The Desert Fox. That will shed a lot of light on the truth of the relationship between Rommel and Hitler - which is probably more important than you realize. This revelation completely BTFOs the mainstream Keitel narrative - which is where Rise and Fall devolves at Barbarossa.

Has anyone here read Nasenring by Armin Mohler? The first ever English translation of parts of it (just fragments) was up on Arktos recently

https://arktos.com/2020/04/16/autobiographical-fragments/

>>16033781
give me a quick rundown on why it BTFOs keitel

>>16031472
>Anyone watched this vid on Irving's Hitler's War?
I watched seven minutes of this tripe. All this tard did was compare a translation with a summary - never once referencing the original German text. This tard probably does not even speak German.

>>16032506
>every single account is just a carefully calibrated lie
No, you need to cherry pick them to make them fit. Why did Wiesel make no mention of gas chambers in Night?

>>16032820
Just ask Jordan Peterson about it.

This thread glows

Why is there such attention to the Holocaust? I'm a Slav and I don't give a fuck about the Holocaust, because the USSR had 20 million of civil victims itself, so who cares about those 6.

>>16033879
Keitel presented Rommel as a sanctified superman that disagreed with Hitler regarding plans to defend against D-Day. Keitel stated that Rommel was told to forget his plans regarding the upcoming invasion and that that is what caused Rommel to falter so badly on D-Day. Rommel's diaries contradict this. In fact, Rommel disagreed with Hitler and, in the end, Hitler told Rommel that he was the General on the field and that Rommel needed to do as he saw fit, regardless of the misgivings that Hitler had regarding Rommel's plan. This one diary entry BTFOs several mainstream notions regarding Hitler's egomania, Hitler's shitty plan to counter D-Day, Rommel's perfect record, etc.

>>16033952
>Why is there such attention to the Holocaust?
Because the people invested in the story of the Holocaust are in control of the propaganda organs of the West.

>>16033953
This. Both Rommel, Rundstedt, and advisors opposed Hitler's conviction that the invasion was going to happen along Normandy. Not the even the first time in the war that Hitler's plans would be ignored (should have hit the oil fields instead of rushing Moscow). To be fair, though, the intel on the invasion did not hint at Normandy being the target.

>>16029163
The only decent parts are his first hand experiences

>>16029163
anybody read Collapse of the third republic by Shirer?

>>16033981
I explicitly remember in shirers book it was Hitler who said watch out for Normandy, the only major mistake he made was not sending panzer divisions like Rommel wanted after the landing because the general belief in the okw was the main landing would be in Calais like the faulty German intel suggested

>>16031992
>>16032023
>>16032108

lmao you apologists are dumb

>>16033781
Can you expand on this a bit?

>>16033981

Hitler himself was not perfect, either, though. The yugoslavia diversion almost certainly cost them better victories on the eastern front.

>>16034656
Wow you really btfo them with this one picture.
Proof to me that it was feasible for war-torn Nazi Germany to kill 6 million Jews in the span of a few years, wouldn't the resources spent on genociding them be better spent on the war effort? And wouldn't it be even more profitable for them to keep the Jews alive for slave labour?

>>16034424
This

>>16035672
Unrelated to below but I'd like to add
>We're actually fucking having a "did the holocaust happen?" thread again for the third time in a fucking week

The 6 million figure is misleading, because it's parroted by idiots but the actual 6 million number, per the US Holocaust Museum that uses it, includes killed Jewish partisans, civilian Jews killed by advancing forces for adverse conditions, deaths in ghettos, etc., not just the deaths in camps which come out to ~2 million. When you consider the horrible conditions of Germany at the end of the war, and the fact that they were slave labour period, I think it's pretty reasonable to say the Nazis directly or indirectly killed 2 million Jews over the span of, what is it penned at, 5 years?

There was a letter posted in a previous thread detailing their decision to kill prisoners incapable of further labor. So basically you have
>Mass food shortages due to allied bombings
>Leads to persistent starvation
>Constant work
>Limited protection from the cold due to probably overcrowded internment camps
>Limited supplies able to reinforce their working positions
>Can't release possible partisans back into the general population but have nowhere to put them
>Whenever they get too sick or too emaciated you kill them to preserve the available resources
I don't think it's unreasonable to hit ballpark ~500,000 casualties per year in those conditions. I don't want to do it again because I'm lazy but I remember doing the numbers before and it's pretty similar to the casualty rate of the Armenian Genocide

>>16034424

Not yet, but as soon as I find a copy, I will. I found a very nice first edition of Sinking of the Bismarck at an antique store the other day for only $5!

>>16034656

This picture is a known fake, is it not?

>>16035774

Nobody is denying that Jews died. Everybody is denying that there was a program of mass extermination (and an undocumented one at that). If you're saying that the brutality of the Waffen-SS divisions serves as proof, then you might also say they had a program of extermination for Commissars, per Halder.

Utterly utterly ludicrous.

>>16035774
This sounds more reasonable, I just dislike that the Holocaust is fabricated as the worst genocide that ever happened in human history and that a gorillion Jews were tortured and gassed. While genocides like the Armenian one or the Holodomor are never mentioned in schools.
The fact that even uttering the word "Holocaust" or "Jews" to someone in real life has an extremely negative connotation, and that denying it in some countries is illegal is insane to me.

>>16035774
>There was a letter posted in a previous thread detailing their decision to kill prisoners incapable of further labor.
Bullshit until I see the letter and proof of its having been translated correctly and not being a forgery.

After the war ended, on 8 February 1946 the Soviet's Chief prosecutor of the IMT, General Rudenko, declared in his opening speech:
>Upon investigations by the Extraordinary State Commission of the Soviet Union, it was found that at the front, behind their main line of defense, the Hitlerites had systematically constructed special concentration camps where they kept tens of thousands of children, women who were unfit for work, and old men ... I must name the concentration camps of Smolensk [Russia], Stavropol [Russia], Kharkov [Ukraine], Kiev [Ukraine], Lvov [Ukraine], Poltava [Ukraine], Novgorod [Russia], Orel [Russia], Rovno [Ukraine), Dniepropetrovsk [Ukraine], Odessa [Ukraine], Kamenetz-Podolsk [Russia], Gomel [White Russia], Kerch [Ukraine], of the Stalingrad region [Russia], of Kaunas [Lithuania], Riga [Latvia], Mariampol (Lithuania) of Kloga (Estonia) and many others..."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/02-08-46.asp

Three of these camps were described in detail in document USSR-4:
>On 19 March 1944 advancing Red Army units discovered, near the settlement of Osaritchi in the region of Polesskoy in the Bielorussian S.S.R., within the limits of German defense lines, three concentration camps in which there were over 33,000 children, women, and old men incapable of work."
https://loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/NT_Vol-VII.pdf

>Adam Czerniaków, a Warsaw Judenälteste wrote in his diary that on 1 April 1942 a convoy of "About 1000 deportees from Hanover, Gelsenkirchen etc" arrived from Westphalia and Lower Saxony and "Those aged over 68 had been allowed to stay in Germany." The convoy consisted of "Old people, many women, small children."
https://web.archive.org/web/20200624012834if_/http://www.blankgenealogy.com/holocaust/Transports/Germany/March%2031%201942%20Deportation%20Transport%20from%20Gelsenkirchen%20to%20Warsaw%20Ghetto.pdf

>>16035799
yeah that's what Stormfront says

>>16035672
>And wouldn't it be even more profitable for them to keep the Jews alive for slave labour?
yeah that's why the gas chambers were so lightly used, Einstein.

>>16036071
>gas chambers were so lightly used
Cool it with the anti-semetic remarks.

>>16036080
your brain has been atrophied with polshit

>>16036083
What makes you think that? I'm not the one denying the holocaust, unlike you.

>>16030256
Literally Evans. Keegan's take on irving is the best, his genius is in his nearly perfect memory mixed with a highly organized citation system. He is not some glorious analysis of historical trends.

>>16036091
your posts

>>16036098
What is with my posts? Stop being such a bigoted Nazi.

>>16030534
Evans is pretty revisionist on the holocaust though. He actually doesnt touch on Wannsee much, and devolves much of the blame to local militias and individual SS officers, and adds to the narrative that much of the jewish suffering in the pale of settlement was simply that they were in the bloodlands of eastern europe that hadnt had a census in 5 years. He certainly isnt a denier, but is perfectly fine with subtracting a million.

>>16036104

>>16030256
"Into the Darkness" by Lothrop Stoddard

>table top talks
Hitler's Table Talk is not attributable to Hitler.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15035

>Educate myself on holocaust denial
>"evidence" offered is usually on geocities sites by fringe writers who usually have no qualification
>pictures of a wooden door
>obvious hero worship of hitler
>every witness is a shill
>every supporting document is an obvious jew forgery
>irving himself doesnt even deny the holocaust, he denied hitler's active participation in it and its functionalist character and whether the gas chambers were a myth. he still acknowledges 4 million dead jews in camps.

On a related note, Irving's Rommel biography is fantastic.

>>16036123
Good response. Witty. Sharp. Really well thought out.
Still don't understand what you meant with this >>16036071
You are basically agreeing with me, unless you think that 6 million of them died but most of them not due to the gas chambers.

Can we all just agree that no matter what happened in the Ukraine in the 30s or in Poland in the 40s, that the Rwandan Genocide DEFINITELY happened?

>>16036166
Sounds like you never went to https://codoh.com/

>>16036193
>"Holohoax" used unironically

Would be more impressed if you cited Himmler demanding Eichmann stop shipping jews and getting ignored. Site is trash, and your arguments in this thread have not been convincing. Ive read your arguments and went to your links. Its not impressive.

>>16036193
>

Fred Schiefler was in 11 concentration camps and is still pushing the Jew soap propaganda which even official holocaust historians have confirmed was atrocity propaganda.

This is an article heading? Are you kidding me?

>>16036184
No it was made up.

>>16036212
Lets hear your refutations. My unimpressive posts should have been easy to shut down, yet you ignored them. Curious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vC1KTCgaME

>>16036064

huh? huh? huh?

>>16036093

Can't believe you're propping these faggots up. As I said previously, and I will defend this, there is nobody on this planet with a better understanding than Irving.

>>16030256
Social History Of The Third Reich by Grunberge

>>16036109

He still supports Einsatzgruppen theory. That's enough to call bullshit.

>>16034519
I think that the other anon was referencing the external lack of evidence regarding intelligence to that effect. The intelligence revealed to the General Staff was not the same as what Hitler was personally using. He had alternate sources of intelligence and he kept them close to the vest. Hitler knew what was coming and where it would hit but he was unwilling to expose his intelligence assets, so his staff did not believe in the validity of such data because they could not vet the sources.

>>16034656
I do not see rollercoasters, masturbation machines, lions in cages, or gas chambers in your image.

>>16036927

The entire mythos surrounding the high command and Overlord is tiring. It's unfortunate that we will probably never know for certain what actually transpired.

>>16035376
The Keitel narrative largely shapes the mainstream perception of Hitler, both in personality and in professional conduct. It relies on Rommel having certain attributes as a reference for its argument. Rommel's diary is critical of Rommel himself, largely validating the contents as Rommel did not tend to self-deprecate without cause. The diary largely paints a different picture of the nature of Hitler and his relationship with Rommel, especially in the N. Africa campaign and at Normandy.

>>16036985

Interesting. I'll have to take a peek at this. Any lit that sources primarily from Rommel's journal?

>>16035447
>Hitler himself was not perfect, either, though
That was not my point, nor was it anon's point in agreeing with me. The point is that clarification on these subjects can be found by referencing the diaries of such individuals as had direct interactions with Hitler and that tended to not grandstand in their diaries, but that instead tended to be candidly self critical. Hitler is widely blamed for the failure of the Normandy defense, but such narrative sits squarely with Keitel - whose testimony lacks support of evidence.

>>16037036
>nor was it anon's point in agreeing with me.
Correct. I didn't bother responding, but any honest person can agree Hitler made errors. Probably his biggest being trust in certain people despite their repeated shortcomings.

>>16037036
>>16037079

I didn't mean to imply you guys were wrong, it was more of an addendum.

>>16037021
Not that I am aware. I would love to even have the diaries freely available in actual German (the originals being in shorthanded German). The best of which I am aware is the excerpts in The Desert Fox. I believe Irving had them fully extracted to longhand but I have not seen them published.

>>16037154

Interesting, I may grab Irving's Rommel whenever an opportunity presents itself. The Desert Fox is already on my list.

>>16037151
xoxo <3

Also, a sidebar, but I just finished Loringhoven. It was fairly insightful, but there were a number of obvious editing errors that were jarring for something published so recently.

>>16037233
>obvious editing errors that were jarring for something published so recently
I find the opposite to be true. My newer texts tend to be riddled with editing errors, while my older texts tend to be very well edited. This is just a general rule and I can find a few exceptions.

>>16037509

I suppose that's true. It's the kind of thing you'd expect not to happen, though. E.g. "Fremde Heere Ost" spelled as Fremde Herre Ost, "limited" spelled as "linited." This is stuff that a spell checker would pick up, let alone a proofread. Moreover, the passages were not carefully arranged in order of date, so there was a lot of back-, and forward-, tracking that made a maze of particular events.

As I said, though, it's a decent read. The ending is more exciting, and it also reveals more about the "Holocaust" agenda that was developing post-war, and as Loringhoven began to hear about it.

>>16037509
>I find the opposite to be true. My newer texts tend to be riddled with editing errors, while my older texts tend to be very well edited.
You just agreed with him.

>>16037727
I think he was just adding his own experience.

>>16031485
>Richard Evans was paid 250k british pounds and boosted in the jew media for attacking Irving.
If anyone trashes David Irving then it's the joos?

>>16038556

Considering the man's expertise, yes.

>>16029163
>He can be anti Nazi most of the time
yeah, that tends to happen when you aren't retarded

>>16038681
>man's expertise
>holocaust denier
Lmao

>>16038723
Well you needlessly antagonistic little bitch when writing a general history of anything you should strive for objectivity

>>16039108
lmaoing @ ur life

>>16037727
>You just agreed with him.
He found it jarring to find egregious errors in a newer text, while I do not - having seen many more recently rather than earlier. It is not really a matter of agreeing or disagreeing.

>>16038556
>If anyone trashes David Irving then it's the joos?
Yes, if they happen to be Jewish.