David Irving - Hitler----s War-la Guerra De Hitler -castellano-.pdf 〈No Ads〉

This public link is valid for 7 days and shares a thread, including any personal information you added. This link or copies made by others cannot be deleted. If you share with third parties, their policies apply. Can’t copy the link right now. Try again later.

The Spanish edition, La guerra de Hitler , was published in Spain by Editorial Planeta in 1980. The translation was performed by Andrés Bosch. The Spanish version is a faithful translation of Irving's original English text, including its controversial footnotes and conclusions.

It is a book to be handled with tongs: a testament to the fact that good writing can be used to pave the road to hell, and that the most convincing lies are often those wrapped in the thickest layers of archival dust. This public link is valid for 7 days

Irving's core argument in Hitler's War is that Hitler was fundamentally unaware of the systematic, industrialized murder of the Jews. Irving contends that if Hitler did find out about the killings, which he speculates may have been as late as 1943 or 1944, he would have opposed them. This thesis is the central pillar of the book and the primary source of its condemnation.

The book sparked an immediate firestorm because of its central argument, which challenged the established historical consensus. Can’t copy the link right now

"David Irving - Hitler’s War / La Guerra de Hitler (Castellano)" is a Spanish translation of a 1977 work that presents World War II from Hitler's perspective, claiming he was unaware of the Holocaust and portraying him as a rational leader. Mainstream historians consider the book historical negationism, and it was legally deemed in the UK to deliberately misrepresent evidence to whitewash Hitler's reputation. You can read a Wikipedia overview of the book's background at

No. Following the 2000 libel case, he was legally and professionally discredited as a historian who deliberately manipulated evidence. He is widely considered a Holocaust denier and pseudo-historian. The translation was performed by Andrés Bosch

Irving utilized thousands of pages of primary documents, including unpublished diaries and private correspondence of high-ranking Nazi officials (such as Goebbels and Himmler), to reconstruct a day-by-day account of Hitler's decision-making.

While initially praised by some for its depth of research, the book eventually led to Irving’s professional downfall:

Furthermore, the book challenges the reader to become a detective. It forces you to ask: How do we know what we know? It highlights the difference between "primary sources" and "interpretation."

Methodologically, Irving commits several cardinal sins of historiography. He engages in confirmation bias —cherry-picking evidence that supports his thesis while ignoring contradictory documents. He also relies heavily on argument from silence , inferring Hitler’s ignorance from the absence of written “extermination orders” that, as functionalist historians argue, were never necessary because the Nazi regime operated through euphemism and verbal communication. Moreover, Irving dismisses survivor testimonies and postwar confessions as unreliable unless corroborated by contemporaneous German documents—a standard he does not apply to exculpatory evidence.