Which of this man's books are real history and which of them are revisionist bullshit?
I've heard conflicting things about him and his historiography. He's a lone voice of sanity in a field of people trying to demonize Hitler. He's a neo-nazi who tries to hide it behind a mask of scholarliness. He's the first to have figured out about ULTRA cracking the Enigma code, before it was declassified, his books are full of unsubstantiated stuff he just made up to make the allies look bad, etc.
the word "revisionism" doesn't necessarily imply that something is false
>>1244046
his arguments are shit, his bias is entirely out there but he wont admit it, his politics show his leans and his leanings are jacking off on Hitlers grave. there was no 'scholarly' attempts at putting hitler in a different light and there really didn't need to be. he was also a huge dick to the person that called him out on all his shit. 0/10 would not bang.
the JIDF is strong in this thread.
>>1244046
>>1244085
>>1245499
We went through one of his books in one of my higher level history classes (the destruction of Dresden I think it was) and id say his sources were about 50/50. Some of the things he would say he was citing, once you referenced them it wouldent have what he cited in it at all. I'm not sure he had all of these fuck ups because of his bias or because hes retarded.
>>1244046
>real history
The ones you agree with.
>which of them are revisionist bullshit
The ones you don't agree with.
There, now you don't have to examine your beliefs.
