Press resources, historical reviews and commentary

“…takes his place in the first rank of historical chroniclers with this magisterial study.”

“Mr Irving’s book about the German V-weapons is remarkable…”

“David Irving knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War.”

Keegan praised Irving’s archival knowledge while disagreeing with important conclusions.

“This one is scholarly, fair and highly informative.”

Taylor contrasted this book favourably with what he saw as weaknesses in Irving’s earlier work.

“Mr. Irving has turned up a great deal of half-forgotten but fascinating information.”

This source opens the dated TimesMachine issue; access may require a New York Times subscription.

“A fascinating and meticulously documented account.”

“Mr. David Irving has analysed in an objective manner the causes and results of this gratuitous act.”

The review assessed the original 1963 edition; the current edition is revised and retitled.

“No praise can be too high for his indefatigable scholarly industry.”

Trevor-Roper praised the research and readability while challenging Irving’s method and central argument in the same review.

“Constantly exciting... consistently absorbing.”

“His fellow historians can take nothing but pleasure in a work that adds so greatly to their knowledge of the period.”

“Superb narrative history, rendered with an intimacy that transcends print.”

“When he puts his mind to it, as in his description of D-Day on Omaha Beach, the result is very good.”

A hostile review overall: Middleton criticised the book’s emphasis, coherence and sourcing while singling out its Omaha Beach narrative for praise.

“Irving’s research effort is awesome.”

“Göring is an informative and sobering account — an indictment really — of a man with no redeeming virtue.”

“The book is a goldmine for aficionados of Nazi Germany ... the verifiable details are fascinating.”

Watt also warned that not every detail in the biography should be accepted uncritically.

“Irving’s undoubted merits — his enormous ... mastery of the sources and his ability to maintain a sweep of narrative.”

Watt praised the archival detail and narrative command but delivered a strongly qualified verdict and cautioned readers about bias and reliability.

“With a journalist’s instinct, Irving can examine the technical details of the plane crash minutely…”

Wocker credited the investigation of the crash evidence but concluded that the cause of Sikorski’s death remained unresolved.

Irving Books translation from the original German; the ellipsis marks where the source sentence continues.

“The tale of Irving’s arrest is quite captivating and reads like the Mickey Spillane novels…”

Widmann praised the opening account but criticised later prison chapters as repetitive and self-promotional, and challenged omissions in the book.

This review appeared within the Holocaust-revisionist movement; it is included as part of the published reception record, not as a mainstream verdict.

“His research, as always, is superb, and it is a scandal that this book has failed to find a British publisher.”

Zametica found much of interest and value, especially on diplomatic relations, while rejecting the book’s principal arguments about Churchill.

“He used the sources made available by the Public Record Office, London and other archives with skill, giving a full picture…”

Raina called Irving controversial and discredited, but specifically credited his archival work and noted that the underlying sources were open to verification.

This is a scholarly assessment in the preface to another Hess study, not a contemporary book review.

“Nuremberg, as David Irving says at the end of his well researched book, set no real precedent in international law…”

Fallon considered the book alongside a biography of Albert Speer. A later letter criticised the review for not discussing Irving’s reputation.

“Irving documents in consistently absorbing fashion how the Admiralty misread intercepted signals…”

Kirkus reviewed the revised edition after the original book’s litigation and publication history, praising its archival and eyewitness narrative.

“That this position is untenable is now demonstrated by the Englishman David Irving in his book.”

The favourable review appeared in a newspaper serving East Prussian expellee communities and supported the book’s interpretation of the plan.

Irving Books translation from the German review on page 10 of the linked issue.

“The book reads like a thriller and is tough to put down.”

Widmann praised the pace and primary-source base while calling the short book a ‘thin appetizer’ beside Irving’s larger historical works.

This specialist review appeared within the Holocaust-revisionist movement; that affiliation is material context for weighing it.

“Without a strong interpretive component, pointless and eventually boring.”

A negative review: Kirkus questioned the medical interpretation, the reliability of Morell’s diaries and the lack of wider historical context.

“For all his reliance upon interviews, diaries, and other primary sources, Irving presents nothing of substance that has not been said repeatedly before.”

A hostile review overall: Kirkus challenged the book’s interpretation, documentation and treatment of disputed claims.

“Cantering along, one gets a clear portrait of Himmler.”

The review credited the portrait that emerges but questioned the consistency of authorship, academic format and endnotes.

This is an independent personal blog, not an edited newspaper or academic journal.

“The result is a narrative which is extraordinarily powerful, indeed compelling.”

The surviving FPP compilation identifies the publication and preserves the review extract, but not the exact issue date.