T R U E   H I M M L E R

T h e    R e v i e w s    

 

This book claims David Irving as its author.  Much of the text bears his signature, however, there appears to be admixture.  Early in the book, one encounters the obligatory smear on Adolf Hitler.  It is not like Irving to write of the Chancellor that he was the mentally deficient heir of a bastard.  This book is not about Adolf Hitler.  It is the lionizing biography of Heinrich Himmler.  In 496 pages.

 

On page 497, one gets hit with a vague and disjointed barrage of "author's notes."  After 106 pages of this un-scholarly, convoluted mess, there comes an index.  The whole enchilada took somebody 639 pages.  Numerologists can have their fun with that.  But for this review I will stick to my line of work.  And say that it is also not like Irving to disregard proper academic format.

 

Cantering along, one gets a clear portrait of Himmler.  Dutiful son.  Devout Roman Catholic.  Chaste.  Virtuous.  Fastidious scribbler in his diary.  Voracious reader.  Soldierly and brave.  To use Irving’s words, “ever the white knight.”

 

Yet pebbles of contradiction lay in the text.   One encounters supposed comments made by Himmler’s brother and widow about how Heinrich was a coward.  How can he lead the SS and be anything but an Alexander?  The predictable and hackneyed smears of Himmler’s enemies jump off the pages in stark relief to what should be Irving’s writing.  Those familiar with Irving’s other books will see it plainly.

 

Even the nickname that Himmler’s mother used for him, suddenly peppers the text  -- clearly meant to smear him.  Because in English it is a vulgar and derogatory term.  But in German, it is a common term of endearment for the name Heinrich.  This is not something Irving would have done.  Not scholarly.  Not like him.

 

At the end of this biography (p. 494), one gets the feeling that Irving’s text is truncated.  Stops abruptly, with “He had yet to see a single dead person.”  The reader is left hanging for more.  A sudden precipice of “where to now?  That’s it?  What about the years you have not covered before Himmler’s sadistic murder?” 

 

On the next page one slams into an epilogue that does not read like Irving.  It amounts to a hastily-written one page of damage control.  A cloven hoof print with which the Holy Roman Empire is intimately familiar.  Oh yes, my little peeps.  They play for keeps.  Hailing hard from Byzantium.  All the way back to Constantine and Saint Helen, his mother.  Holy Crosse in the sun. 

 

Where you gonna run?  Cornered like a rat. 

 

Why do you think they changed the name of Constantinople to Istanbul in 1930?  They don’t want you to know that Constantine the Great was a Roman emperor.  By one wave of his hand, corrupt and decadent Rome became the Holy Roman Empire.  And reigned for 1000 years. 

 

This Trojan horse of traitors who erases our history -- broke a sweat trying to contaminate this biography.  Subverters of all that is right and good. 

 

Let us survey the evidence.  As we shout from commie statues everywhere, “Viva Cristo Rey!”  I’m reviewing a book today.

 

Endnotes have no superscripted numbers before page 492.  Why not?  Endnotes are listed under “notes and sources” in composite fashion.  Why?  One is left with a whole page to search over.  They are listed by only the page number.  As if a reader has that much time to search and hunt for something.  Sources should be listed under “sources” and endnotes under “endnotes.”

 

On page 497, “Abbreviations Used” appears to be sources used.  And questionable ones at that.  Holocaust Museum?  The list is cryptic at best.

 

The layout for endnotes, sources and citations is a morass.  Where is the author’s bibliography?  At the hoax museum?

 

Page 523:  wrong page cited.  Page 121 should be page 122. 

 

Page 20:  wrong spelling of Luneburg.

 

Page 81:  line 11, “morning suit” should read “mourning suit.”

 

Page 93:  why is the objective truth labeled a poison because Chancellor Hitler is the one who points it out?  The next three pages are smear sheets on Adolf Hitler.  Isn’t this a biography of Himmler?

 

Page 113:  Twelve lines down, “…Inge Barco hooked-up with them.”   Here is another phrase out of character and time sync.  It is rather an Americanism in current use.

 

Page 122:  half way down the page, there is an erroneous comment about how “Turks expelled Armenians in 1915.”  It was rather jews false-flagging it.  They called themselves “the Young Turks” whilst massacring Armenians and their children.  They chopped off the hands of children and watched them run around in the desert, bleeding to death.  Ever the impostors.  Irving would not have written so gross an error.

 

Page 128:  This is not a British phrase, “when the roll is called out yonder…”  It is incorrectly stated anyway.  It is supposed to read “when the roll is called up yonder…”  A popular Christian hymn from the American South.  And one with which Irving would likely not have been familiar.

 

Page 152:  Last line, bottom of page.  What is so outrageous about Mein Kampf?  Irving would not have written that.

 

Page 178:  Twelve lines down, what is the source for the comment about a euthanasia programme?

 

Page 191:  Bottom of page, “globe-trotter” is out of character and time-sync.

 

Page 200:  Harping on Hitler again, “The whole thing was a charade…”  What about Adolf Hitler was anything but the earnest Christian truth?

 

Page 210:  Bottom of page, last paragraph, first line, “…which is why we…”  Who are “we”?  Also on pages 213 and 214, supposedly Irving uses plural possessive pronouns (we, us, our, etc.)  This occurs throughout the text, whereas in his past books, Irving uses “I, me, my, etc.”   He proudly owns his work.  But in this book he appears to have more cooks in the kitchen who are helping him with the stew.

 

Page 215:  Mid-page, comment about modern term, “Antifa-men.”  Out of time-sync and incongruent with history.

 

Page 245:  Half way down the page, “…Heydrich’s son told us…”  Who is us?

 

Page 255:  What are the sources for this smear sheet full of hooligans, homo’s and crack-pots?  Are these not Christian men?

 

Page 279:  Half way down the page.  Whoa!  “The story was…”  Where is the footnote and source citation for “how the story was?”  The story was???  How is that biography?  Nothing Irving would have written.  At bottom of page the phrase “bumped off” is used.  Another out of time-sync and out of character.

 

Page 282:  Half way down the page, “When the real killing began…”  and “Half a dozen years later…”  Why not six years later?  Who is the writer here?  What is your source for this?

 

Page 284:  Speculation and conjecture are not Irving’s style.  The phrase, “…was heard to say…”  is not Irving’s wont as a historian.  What is the source?  Where is the citation?

 

Page 285:  What nauseating alliteration, “calculating commissioner of killings…”  How can Himmler be that and also be “an eternal white knight?” 

 

Page 286:  Line 13, what is meant by, “true national socialism (that is not what it later became)”  ?? 

 

Page 295:  Lindenfycht is spelled “Lyndenficht” and “Lindenfycht” on the same page.  Half down the page and at the bottom.  Somebody does not seem to know the correct spelling.  Irving is fluent in German.

 

Page 298 and 299:  Author talks out of both sides of his mouth here.  Irving would not do that.

 

Page 299:  Bottom paragraph, claims that Reinhard Heydrich’s papers put Catholics at the top of a list of “Germany’s most dangerous enemies.”  Oh yeah?  Heydrich, Himmler and Hitler were all Roman Catholics.

 

Page 316:  Line nine, “painter Adolph von Menzel…”  no German spells Adolf like that.  Irving was fluent in German.

 

Page 321:  Why do these photos begin with Himmler’s corpse?  It is followed by chronological family photos.  Irving would not have done that.

 

Page 338:  Noting another of many phrases that Irving uses to paint a portrait of Himmler’s character, “the puritan, incorruptible Himmler…”

 

Page 371:  Bottom of page, the eight-year-old Gudrun is called “infant.”

 

Page 378:  First paragraph, “Catholic Austrians would prove more dedicated, amoral and ruthless…”   How so?  Source?  Citation?

 

Page 379:  Why is the newspaper Der Sturmer called smutty?  Source?  Citation?

 

Page 395:  Half way down the page, last sentence, “…probably quoting what Hitler actually said…”  Conjecture is not biography.

 

Pages 407 and 408:  Tops of pages, “Cut-throats and flunkies?”  Qualify that.

 

Page 430:  “homes invaded, women raped and 90 people murdered…”  Oh yeah?  Source it.  Your end notes qualify nothing.

 

Page 478:  Second paragraph, in what appears to be more from a sloppy ghost-writer, Himmler’s secretary is smeared for being the mother of his two bastard children.  No source.  No citation.  If this were true, we would have been reading about these kids on the cover of every yellow rag and magazine for the last 78 years. 

 

Page 487:  “Hitler wanted a few false-flag ops on the Polish border.”  Baloney.  He didn’t need them.  The Poles and Czechs were doing a bang-up job with real atrocities against the Germans – who were trapped on their WW1 land seizures.  Qualify this comment.  It is not in your endnotes.

 

Pages 598 and 601:  sloppy work, guys.  Endnotes got mixed up.  Chapter 38 got repeated and scooted others out of sync.

 

Throughout the text, there are too many ellipses.  Leaving readers without good context for quotes used. 

 

In summary, I believe this book is the unfinished work of David Irving that has been commandeered and corrupted.