The historical consensus, however, overwhelmingly refutes this. Scholars such as Ian Kershaw, Richard J. Evans, and Christopher Browning have demonstrated that Hitler was not only aware but actively involved in the radicalization of anti-Jewish policy. Evans, who served as an expert witness in Irving’s 2000 libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, systematically dismantled Irving’s misuse of sources. For example, Irving omits key entries from Goebbels’ diaries that reference Hitler’s direct approval of deportations and exterminations. He also misrepresents the timing and content of Hitler’s speeches, such as the January 30, 1939, Reichstag address, where Hitler explicitly threatened the “annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”
Distributing or downloading David Irving’s PDFs may be legal in some countries (free speech protections in the US, for example), but in Germany, Austria, France, Poland, and Spain, Holocaust denial is a criminal offense. Furthermore, sharing Irving’s work supports an author who has served prison time in Austria for denying the Holocaust (2006). Ethically, historians urge readers to treat his books as primary sources of denialism, not as trustworthy secondary sources. Evans, who served as an expert witness in
: Readers often describe the work as highly readable and detailed, with some comparing the narrative flow to that of a novel. Historiographical Controversy Furthermore, sharing Irving’s work supports an author who
Because Hitler’s War serves as a perfect case study in the psychology of the Third Reich—and I don't mean Hitler’s psychology, but the psychology of denial. Irving captures the voice of the German General Staff perfectly; his adoption of their post-war memoirs (which blamed Hitler for everything to save their own reputations) creates a narrative that feels authentic to the German officer corps's self-image, even if it is historically false. even if it is historically false.