/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19482899]

I ordered this book like 6 months ago because it sounded like an interesting read. I kind of forgot about it and thought I just got ripped off and was over it but then it randomly showed up at my door yesterday.
I know full well that David Irving is something of a schizo and to take everything in here with a grain of salt, but I still like reading different perspectives on things.
I just have to say though, this is easily the nicest book I own. The whole thing is printed on the kind of thick, glossy paper used for coffee table books and is absolutely filled with color photos and annotations out the ass. Say what you will about the author and whatever his message is here, he spared no expense with his book. He even signed it.

Have you read it?
What did you think?
Pls don’t turn this into a shit flinging thread I just want to talk about the book

[Anonymous No.19482914]

>>19482899
This should probably be in /his/ I guess

>The whole thing is printed on the kind of thick, glossy paper used for coffee table books and is absolutely filled with color photos and annotations out the ass

This genuinely sounds bad to me, why would you want glossy paper in your book

[Anonymous No.19482947]

>>19482914
I’m pretty sure a lot of art books have that kind of paper, if this is the kind of glossy paper I think OP is talking about. I think it might be better for the pictures? I’m not certain on the reason but it’s no better or worse than regular paper IMO.

[Anonymous No.19482954]

>>19482947
Yes this is what I mean, it’s paper that allows for high-res photos

[Anonymous No.19483133]

>>19482899
>I know full well that David Irving is something of a schizo
then you know nothing. that's literally just slander.

[Anonymous No.19484473]

>>19482899
>I ordered this book like 6 months ago
>thought I just got ripped off
I would be mad if someone took 50 dollars from me, man. MAD AS HELL

[Anonymous No.19484486]

I like the little swastika in the apostrophe.

[Anonymous No.19484503]

>>19482899
Why do you think he is some kind of schizo?

[Anonymous No.19484629]

well let us know what you think of it when you read it

[Anonymous No.19484640]

>>19483133
>>19484503
Because he's been refuted over and over and over. He's even conceded, saying that the Holocaust did happen.

[Anonymous No.19484671]

>>19484640
Do you think he wrote books denying the holocaust?

[Anonymous No.19484716]

>>19484640
I hope this is bait

[Anonymous No.19485343]

>>19482899
I bought that from him a few years ago, too. He accidentally sent me two copies, so I donated an extra $100 to him. It's a fantastic book. No he doesn't get everything right (his use of Table Talks as a source has proven a mistake), but when he was in court he had his books scoured by the opposition for "lies". In 30 books they found 7 genuine errors. This is high tier historiography any way you slice it.

>>19484640
>He's even conceded, saying that the Holocaust did happen.
He still denies the official narrative, which catches him all the same shit that denying it entirely catches, plus he's lost the support of "revisionists" so he catches flak from them, too. He supports the Holocaust by bullets theory, which has equally absent evidence to support it, however I respect his stubborness against outside pressure.

[Anonymous No.19485491]

Irving schizos are so annoying. Ironically nobody behaves more “Jewishly” than Holocaust “revisionists”—a project I frankly don’t even understand the point of. As a rhetorical tactic Holocaust denial is never going to actually rehabilitate National Socialism, and if you take it seriously you’re just making a travesty of Nazism and betraying the very ideals of the regime you supposedly adore by minimising their “achievements”. Holocaust denial consists in ignoring hundreds of thousands of pieces of documentary and witness evidence on the basis that an impossibly high standard of evidence (never applied to any other historical event) has not been met (“a written direct order from the Führer”, etc. even though as has been pointed out many times Irving accuses Churchill of similar things in the absence of said evidence, sometimes even pointing to said absence as evidence of his claims). Things like the Wannsee conference, the Posen speeches, Goebbels’ diaries, the testimony of high ranking officials, camp guards, etc. won’t cut it, apparently. Which is hilarious given how much anti-Semitic worldview relies on insinuation and a “where there’s smoke there’s fire” mentality. It’s apparently licit to infer it from their behaviour (rather than from documentary proof) that the Jews are engaged in pernicious schemes such as genociding the white race. But when roughly six million Jews disappear in Europe in territory occupied by Germany (whose government was openly anti-Semitic and had been repressing Jews from the moment of its inception) and where roughly 2.7 million of them were sent to camps—nothing suspicious!

[Anonymous No.19485554]

>>19485491
>Irving schizos are so annoying. Ironically nobody behaves more “Jewishly” than Holocaust “revisionists”—a project I frankly don’t even understand the point of. As a rhetorical tactic Holocaust denial is never going to actually rehabilitate National Socialism, and if you take it seriously you’re just making a travesty of Nazism and betraying the very ideals of the regime you supposedly adore by minimising their “achievements”. Holocaust denial consists in ignoring hundreds of thousands of pieces of documentary and witness evidence on the basis that an impossibly high standard of evidence (never applied to any other historical event) has not been met (“a written direct order from the Führer”, etc. even though as has been pointed out many times Irving accuses Churchill of similar things in the absence of said evidence, sometimes even pointing to said absence as evidence of his claims). Things like the Wannsee conference, the Posen speeches, Goebbels’ diaries, the testimony of high ranking officials, camp guards, etc. won’t cut it, apparently. Which is hilarious given how much anti-Semitic worldview relies on insinuation and a “where there’s smoke there’s fire” mentality. It’s apparently licit to infer it from their behaviour (rather than from documentary proof) that the Jews are engaged in pernicious schemes such as genociding the white race. But when roughly six million Jews disappear in Europe in territory occupied by Germany (whose government was openly anti-Semitic and had been repressing Jews from the moment of its inception) and where roughly 2.7 million of them were sent to camps—nothing suspicious!

"Muh Holocaust of the gaps"

[Anonymous No.19485611]

>>19485491
>Wannsee conference
Nothing in there about extermination. Even high positioned jews deride the retards that push this narrative:

>“The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at. ”
>- Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli professor of "holocaust studies"
https://newspapers.lib.sfu.ca/cjn2-5693/page-8

>Posen speeches
Again, nothing in there about genociding jews, you illiterate faggot.

>Goebbel's Diaries
Not even real.

Absolutely pathetic.

[Anonymous No.19485828]

>>19485611
>“The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at.”
This is a different claim from “The Holocaust was discussed at the Wannsee conference”, which is true. He is not saying the Wannsee conference does not offer proof of the Holocaust (which would be confusing since the topic of the conference was the Final Solution). He’s saying the Wannsee conference isn’t “the meeting” where the Germans decided to carry it out. Hence the line:
>But it was not made at Wannsee, the Czech scholar said
in your link
>>Goebbel's Diaries
>Not even real.
Holy cope. I haven’t heard this one before

[Anonymous No.19485842]

>>19485491
>you take it seriously you’re just making a travesty of Nazism and betraying the very ideals of the regime you supposedly adore by minimising their “achievements”.
You're surely aware that in every public statement they ever made about it, they claimed they just wanted to relocate them? How would that be making a travesty of the regime and its ideology when it's what they openly stated they wanted to do the entire time?

[Anonymous No.19485937]

>>19482899
It's a well-written and thoroughly-researched history. If you bought from the publisher, it is literally one lady who ships all the orders. She reached out to me to clarify what type of building I lived in so that she had the address correct and the book arrived 6 days later.

[Anonymous No.19485976]

>>19482899
It's a very good book on Hitler's perspective of WW2. Unfortunately it arrives at some conclusions that do not fit into the already established narrative and hence was branded taboo. In particular there was outrage regarding the fact that the evidence seemed to point to Hitler being unaware of the extent of holocaust, both due to being deceived and due to not wanting to get involved as he was too busy with the war.

[Anonymous No.19486420]

>>19484640
>nooooooooo muh wrongthink whatever you do dont read it
You're obviously acting in bad faith but it's pretty pathetic that you're too scared to read the book and draw your own conclusions.
>the trial
Trying to debate a polemical concept like "holocaust denial" in a court of law is a joke. As for the discredited sources, any work that relies on thousands of sources will have a handful that prove questionable. This is how the process of writing and improving histories works.

[Anonymous No.19487125]

i really dont understand the hitler dinduist movement

[Anonymous No.19487152]

>>19487125
It's literally the exact same logic that the nazis used to justify Germany getting BTFO in the first world war

[Anonymous No.19487326]

>>19482899
>The whole thing is printed on the kind of thick, glossy paper used for coffee table books and is absolutely filled with color photos and annotations
Oh my god... its even got a signature...