© Focal Point 2000 David Irving
Letters to David Irving on this Website
Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate.
Dean Smith of Oklahoma City, USA, writes Wednesday, October 25, 2000
I found Hitler's War a fascinating book, but...
LET me first say that I am no historian - I am an American, college-educated high school teacher with an interest in World War 2. I have read many of the contemporary books on Hitler and the Third Reich. This is just my opinion of your book. Please feel free to comment and clarify your position or debate my opinion.
I have gotten through 'Hitler's War' and found it a fascinating book. I have never read a book written from an author who had a favorable attitude to Germany and Adolf Hitler. I had read reviews for your books that described them as dull, and dry reading as they rely on journal entries, but I found your writing style to very dramatic - I eagerly awaited reading each chapter. This was by far the best book I have read on the battles of WWII in Europe. I only wish I had a WWII battle atlas with me.
To portray Churchill as a drunken warmonger is curious. Equally curious are your pages and pages devoted to trying to impress upon the reader that Britain's leaders should have simply been relieved that Hitler would leave them alone and should be impressed that most of mainland Europe was in the hands of Germany. Yes, perhaps Britain's colonies would have been left alone, and yes, there was a great deal of hypocrisy when thinking that German conquests were somewhat different than previous British conquests. But I can think of no reason why the British government should be relieved that Hitler was in charge of Europe and that they had no LONG-TERM desire to annex the island for themselves. We may have differing opinions, but I can understand Churchill's desire to try to halt German expansion. With the exception of perhaps Austria, and some of the Soviet-threatened Baltic countries, I don't think any of the other occupied countries really enjoyed the Nazi experience. Again, that could be up to debate.
Your research to exonerate Hitler from having actual knowledge of the final fate of the Jews seems to be very comprehensive, but that said, do you HONESTLY believe (if he was indeed ignorant of the mass killings toward the end of the war) that he would have been upset with the news? While it may not be fair for any of us to read his mind, I believe that your point is largely moot when one reads the exhaustive accounts of his unending hatred towards the Jews and the forcible removal of Jews to the east. Whether having them settled in grotesque ghettoes, living as slave laborers, or executed en masse, the fact is that Hitler had a deep hatred for Jews and I believe had no fear for their extinction.
It is troublesome that there is not a balance of Axis and Allied sources - it may be Hitler's war, but many parties were involved.
I too, feel your anger at the tragic fall of Eastern Europe to the Soviets. In hindsight it is scandalous that after Germany's ravaging of the area allied leaders were foolish to cede the countries to an even more savage regime. My anger though, is reserved mostly for Hitler and the German people for getting caught up in the land grab in the first place. Hitler made the deal with Stalin in the first place and suffered the consequences from his invasion.
In summary, from your opinion it seems that if only the incompetent, cowardly generals could have followed the plans of their faultless Fuhrer then we'd see road signs in German all over Russia. After 900+ pages I am alarmed by your fawning respect and awe for the dictator. While he is undoubtedly an amazing individual and displayed certain military dignity, he was also an evil, cruel man that you do little to expose. Even Heydrich (right, with Himmler) is looked at as a hero to the Czechs in your research. If you found all those journal entries of generals gushing over how wonderful their fuhrer was, take into account how heartfelt those feelings really were. With the snooping Gestapo, were those accounts their TRUE feelings or just a defense for a future interrogation?
My own humble opinion is that Hitler went for too much too soon. His military is stretched all over Europe and they were never able to get the proper armaments and provisions in war time while the country was trying to take care of a large civilian population. Logistics were always a problem and there is no substitution for manpower. Say what you will about treacherous troops, but for many, the weariness of the Eastern Front must be numbing. Rants from Hitler may provide a few hours of motivation, but I think you are dismissing the fact that the German soldiers and generals are humans first. When that large amount of generals are prepared to pack it in, they are being sensible. There is nothing honorable about having every last person perish needlessly. Lastly, he could not have picked worse allies in his time of need.
Yes, much of this is a rant from an American who has an unabashed bias towards the allied cause of WWII. In my opinion, the Germans started the war and they had to be stopped. Lots of innocent lives were lost in Germany but there were many innocent lives lost at the hands of the Germans. War is war and to decry the bombing of Hamburg vs. the bombing of British targets is moot. Had Hitler been satisfied with his triumphs in Austria and the Sudetanland he may have gotten away w/ it, but he got greedy and took the nation down with him.
Again, this was an engrossing book to read, but I was disturbed by the bias. I looked at the introduction to 'Churchill's War' and I don't know if I can stomach your bias against him and the 'Zionist' leaders. Still, good luck with your research and I certainly respect your freedom of speech and your right to be heard. I look forward to what you have planned for the future. Your website is most informative.
Oklahoma City, OK USA