you are a shitposter
plain and simple
here fuckwad
read this book then come back
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
By William Shirer
yeah if by one sided you mean he was an eyewitness to much of his reporting and stuck to the facts
that book was meticulous and detailed and based - among thousands of cited primary sources - upon notebooks shirer kept over the years of the events described in the book
no serious scholar has questioned the accuracy and integrity of that HISTORY book
cuz i tried to find out if shirer was jewish and could not - no source i found
can you?
i want to know
it is relevant
DAVID IRVING IS A FUCKING LOSER
SAUCE
On 5 September 1996, Irving filed a libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and her British publisher Penguin Books for publishing the British edition of Lipstadt's book, Denying the Holocaust, which had first been published in the United States in 1993.[108] In the book, Lipstadt called Irving a Holocaust denier, falsifier, and bigot, and said that he manipulated and distorted real documents.
Lipstadt hired the British solicitor Anthony Julius to present her case, while Penguin Books hired Kevin Bays and Mark Bateman, libel specialist from media firm Davenport Lyons. They briefed the libel barrister Richard Rampton QC and Penguin also briefed junior barrister Heather Rogers. The defendants (with Penguin's insurers paying the fee) also retained Professor Richard J. Evans, historian and Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, as an expert witness. Also working as expert witnesses were the American Holocaust historian Christopher Browning, the German historian Peter Longerich and the Dutch architectural expert Robert Jan van Pelt. The last wrote a report attesting to the fact that the death camps were designed, built and used for the purpose of mass murder, while Browning testified for the reality of the Holocaust. Evans' report was the most comprehensive, in-depth examination of Irving's work:
Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about … if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian.[109]
The BBC quoted Evans further:-
Irving (…) had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics. (…) Irving has fallen so far short of the standards of scholarship customary amongst historians that he does not deserve to be called a historian at all.[110]
Not only did Irving lose the case, but in light of the evidence presented at the trial a number of his works that had previously escaped serious scrutiny were brought to public attention. He was also ordered to pay all of Penguin's trial costs, estimated to be as much as £2 million (US$3.2 million) though it is uncertain how much of these costs he will ultimately pay.[110][111] When he did not meet these, Davenport Lyons moved to make him bankrupt on behalf of their client. He was declared bankrupt in 2002,[112] and lost his home, though he has been able to travel around the world despite his financial problems.[113]
NO in fact i purposely left out the many other charges against him that could be considered political
this was a private LIBEL case HE brought and he lost big just like stormy daniels
nuff said