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.