Don't buy Peter Padfield's trash bios

[heinz kling]

I have read through his trashy, so called biographies on Himmler, Hess and Dönitz. All I can say is that he does no primary researches, arrives at no new insights, and is a popular pseudo historian in the ilk of Ian Koscher and Richard "the Nose" Evans.

[behblc]

Heinz , you place Mr. Padfield in good company which fails to insult him.
The references you have borrowed to insult and poke what you see as scorn on Professor Richard Evans and Sir Ian Kershaw comes from an on line site which you frequently direct folks to for " Real History" , your term " pseudo" and " conformist" also travel from this site. These terms say little and mean nothing.
This shows something of a lack of wit and imagination on your part if you have to "borrow" what is at best poor humour , is obviously sour grapes and is at best poor propaganda.
Have not read any of Mr. Padfields books but your put down of him is in itself a postive endorsment that it may be worth reading.
Thanks for the recommendation.

[michael kenny]

All of Heinz's posts seem to consist of insults or put-downs of anyone who dares in any way to make a negative comment about his beloved SS. Perhaps he should stay on his revisionist sites and leave those of us with a less myopic outlook to make our own minds up.

[Richard Hargreaves]

This really is getting silly and not the least insulting. It seems Herr Kling is either devil's advocate...or maybe devil incarnate.
I fear for his comments when my book finally comes out next year.
Anyhow, Padfield's biog of Donitz is first rate, draws almost solely on primary material (KTB, BdU files, captured Skl and OKM files) and revises the image of Donitz which he presented in his ghost-written memoirs. If it's such a poor biography, why do most naval historians of WW2 quote it? And no, it's not because we're lazy.
As for the Himmler book (I've not read the Hess one), from memory there's less primary material admittedly, but it's still a powerful indictment of the man, his regime, the Allgemeine SS and all it stood. Hell, why defend the indefensible?

[Wurger]

Well, given Kling's prurient interest in the likes of Irving's work, I can see why he doesn't like Padfield's books. I rather enjoyed Padfield's book on Himmler.

To each his own, Heinz. You're just going to have to accept that some of us don't sleep with a copy of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" under our pillows.

I do agree with the post above though - a book has got to be worth reading if Heinz hates it. How come you haven't got an anti-Semitic nickname for Padfield yet? Still waiting for your Grand Wizard, (Gruppenfuehrer, whatever) to dictate the official party line for you?

Wurger - Resident Leftist Thug
"The best thing about skinheads is that they're biodegradable."

[behblc]

I completely agree with you Wurger...if a certain "History site " is looked over the slight on Mr. Padfield is probably there as well .
Heinz is such an automaton that he cannot think for himself....."party line" and nothing else.
Still the "world order" must be maintained even if it means leaving your marbles on the mantelpiece in a glass jar. , then so be it.
BTW :Latest "news" news is that a much praised and well written biography of the "Hubris" is alleged the result of "plagiarism." CLAPTRAP
As I said before such as this is "BS" , but at least its top quality "BS".

[heinz kling]

This really is getting silly and not the least insulting. It seems Herr Kling is either devil's advocate...or maybe devil incarnate.
I fear for his comments when my book finally comes out next year.
Anyhow, Padfield's biog of Donitz is first rate, draws almost solely on primary material (KTB, BdU files, captured Skl and OKM files) and revises the image of Donitz which he presented in his ghost-written memoirs. If it's such a poor biography, why do most naval historians of WW2 quote it? And no, it's not because we're lazy.
As for the Himmler book (I've not read the Hess one), from memory there's less primary material admittedly, but it's still a powerful indictment of the man, his regime, the Allgemeine SS and all it stood. Hell, why defend the indefensible?

In his Donitz biogrpahy. he's reading thoughts into the latter without any substantiation. Yes he mentioned KTB etc, but in the fine print you can see that all he does is recycling and regurgitating other people's works a la Koscher. Look at his list of references and you know that this guy is a fraud like Nose Evans.

[heinz kling]

Well, given Kling's prurient interest in the likes of Irving's work, I can see why he doesn't like Padfield's books. I rather enjoyed Padfield's book on Himmler.

To each his own, Heinz. You're just going to have to accept that some of us don't sleep with a copy of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" under our pillows.

I do agree with the post above though - a book has got to be worth reading if Heinz hates it. How come you haven't got an anti-Semitic nickname for Padfield yet? Still waiting for your Grand Wizard, (Gruppenfuehrer, whatever) to dictate the official party line for you?

Wurger - Resident Leftist Thug
"The best thing about skinheads is that they're biodegradable."

The best thing about being pink is thast it marks you out.

[behblc]

Heinz , once again your most "informed" reply to both Wurger and to Halder "breaks new ground" , life must be tough being a "torch bearer" for the "world order".
What do you mean by "Pink" , "the Pink" in Manchester is a well known football news sheet published in time for end of Saturday games , do you have some other "Pink" in mind.

To go back on topic again.......your ability to be objective in your critical remarks is lacking , you always say "breaks no new ground" what you forget is that the "new ground" you speak has to be based on fact and sound fair use of the facts and secondary sources.
Professor R.Evans has shown how this can be how shall I say "be over looked" , but then what you regard as fact and what educated historians of international reputation regard as fact is usually quite different.
Can you cite specific examples where Mr. Padfields text is falling short of the mark and be so kind as to "fill in the missing information".
Likewise if you would wish to do the same with anything of some of the other men of good stature you have slighted with your borrowed , secondhand and groundless scorn we ( I) would all be interested in what you have to say.
But please Heinz do it without having to resort to quoting Mr. Irving , your own thoughts for a change , that is if you have any.

[heinz kling]

Just that we think alike and I enjoy his books very much. Btw, if you are going to defend our beloved Pansy Pestfill, do read his trash first. But make sure you buy them from a second hand bookstore, or better still, rummage through the rubbish bins for near brandnew ones.

[behblc]

No I don't think so.
Defend. To see something so slighted with so little explaination does beg for a reasonable answer.
Although you have not quoted Irving on this occasion you have provided no answer nor have you advanced your review in any way.

[Richard Hargreaves]

In his Donitz biogrpahy. he's reading thoughts into the latter without any substantiation. Yes he mentioned KTB etc, but in the fine print you can see that all he does is recycling and regurgitating other people's works a la Koscher. Look at his list of references and you know that this guy is a fraud like Nose Evans.

Hmmm, that's a pretty cynical look at it. I've seen a lot of Padfield's source material. It's not fake. It's real. Some was held by the IWM in London, others by the NHB in Whitehall. A lot has been returned to Freiburg. Go take a look. It was captured Skl files from the war's end. The Allies photocopied or microfilmed it (mainly the latter).

Kershaw uses far fewer primary material sources. It's still a good two-volumed biog, but it's not a patch on Irving as a piece of literature or as an insight into Hitler and the workings of the senior Reich officials. That said, I still don't like his politics...

[behblc]

I will keep an open mind on the way the sources may have been used , or not used as the case may be.

[behblc]

I will keep an open mind on the way the sources may have been used , or not used as the case may be.
Some wise man said " that Hitler was the best friend that the Jewish People had in Hitlers Germany".....pardon me if I reach for the salt.

[heinz kling]

In his Donitz biogrpahy. he's reading thoughts into the latter without any substantiation. Yes he mentioned KTB etc, but in the fine print you can see that all he does is recycling and regurgitating other people's works a la Koscher. Look at his list of references and you know that this guy is a fraud like Nose Evans.

Hmmm, that's a pretty cynical look at it. I've seen a lot of Padfield's source material. It's not fake. It's real. Some was held by the IWM in London, others by the NHB in Whitehall. A lot has been returned to Freiburg. Go take a look. It was captured Skl files from the war's end. The Allies photocopied or microfilmed it (mainly the latter).

Kershaw uses far fewer primary material sources. It's still a good two-volumed biog, but it's not a patch on Irving as a piece of literature or as an insight into Hitler and the workings of the senior Reich officials. That said, I still don't like his politics...

Pestfill did list primary sources, though he hardly uses them in his books, which means most probably he has not cared to read them, and depends on other secondary sources to embellish his psychobabbling narrative.

Ian koscher works, as pointed out by you, hardly make uses any primary resources, and he is mostly profiting from others' hard work.

That says a lot about the semi literate , uncritical readers of the trashy Penguin paperbacks.