La credibilidad de Irving sufrió un golpe definitivo tras perder un juicio por difamación en Londres. El tribunal determinó que Irving había falsificado hechos deliberadamente sobre la Segunda Guerra Mundial y el Holocausto. La Guerra de Hitler en Castellano
Many scholars have written extensively in response to Irving's claims, providing counterarguments and refutations. For example, historians such as Martin Broszat, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, and Richard Evans have challenged Irving's interpretations, citing extensive archival research and eyewitness testimony.
| Edition Details | Information | | :--- | :--- | | | La guerra de Hitler | | Original Title | Hitler's War | | Author | David Irving | | Language | Spanish (Castellano) | | Translator | Andrés Bosch | | Publisher | Editorial Planeta (Spain) | | Year of Publication | 1980 (with later reprints) | | Number of Pages | 672 pages | | ISBN (first Spanish edition) | 978-84-320-6607-8 | La credibilidad de Irving sufrió un golpe definitivo
The book suggests that the 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) was a "preventative strike" to stop a pending Soviet attack on Europe. Critical Reception and Legal Controversy
(published in Spanish as La guerra de Hitler ) by British author David Irving remains one of the most controversial works of military history ever published. Originally released in 1977, the book attempted to describe World War II exclusively from the perspective of the German high command, specifically through the eyes of Adolf Hitler. For example, historians such as Martin Broszat, Hans-Ulrich
Published as La Guerra de Hitler by Planeta in 1980 and 1988.
: Most controversially, Irving claimed that Hitler was unaware of the Holocaust or actively tried to stop it, attributing the "Final Solution" to subordinates like Himmler or Heydrich. Controversies and Falsification Originally released in 1977, the book attempted to
The file "david irving - hitler----s war-la guerra de hitler -castellano-.pdf" is far more than a simple e-book. It is a digital ghost, carrying the weight of decades of historical negationism, legal battles, and moral outrage. For the researcher, it is an object of study, a document to be analyzed. For the right-wing extremist, it is a badge of ideological commitment. For the unwary reader, it is a potential snare, a persuasive piece of pseudo-history that could distort their understanding of one of history's most terrible chapters.