Joachim -- You quoted David Irving as saying this about the Hossbach memorandum:
As one critic has pointed out, ‘This document turned out to be a certified photocopy of a microfilm copy of a retyped "certified true copy," prepared by an American, of a retyped "certified true copy," prepared by a German, of unauthenticated hand-written notes by Hossbach, written from memory five days after a discussion led by Hitler on . November .....’ Spectator, London, December ..–.., ...., page ...
and then you asked:
what do you all think?
Here's what I think: So what?
(1) Hossbach attended a conference on 5 Nov 1937, along with Hermann Goering, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Erich Raeder, Konstantin von Neurath. It was an important conference, in which Hitler is said to have laid out his proposals for aggressive war.
(2) Five days later, Hossbach wrote down what he remembered about the conference. He showed his notes to other people at the time.
(3) After the war ended, the allies took Hossbach's notes to use as evidence for the charge of crimes against peace (waging aggressive war). They had a German type up a copy, because the notes were hand-written and a typed copy was easy to read. (They didn't have xerox machines or scanners back then -- just dirty carbon copies and mimeograph machines). The German typists and witnesses certified it to be a true copy.
(4) The notes were translated and typed up in English. The English translation was certified to be a true copy.
(5) The documents were then microfilmed, for ease in preparing duplicates.
(6) The duplicates were provided to the judges, the prosecutors, the defense attorneys and the defendants.
(7) At the IMT proceedings, the prosecution introduced the Hossbach memorandum as Document 386-PS -- US Exhibit 25.
(8) Goering, von Ribbentrop, Raeder and von Neurath got the chance to read it, and then testified about it. They were asked whether various parts of the memorandum were accurate. Some of them said yes, some of them said no, and some didn't remember.
(9) The defendants' attorneys got to argue over the accuracy of the memorandum, and the defendants got to say what they thought about it as well. All of the defendants also got to describe the purpose and sense of the "Hossbach meeting" from their point of view, and say what went on.
Which brings me to my point: So what?
Why not apply the same standards used in the Irving quote to the passage you quoted from David Irving's book? Then the Irving quote might be described like this:
‘This document turned out to be a portion of an uncertified re-posted copy of an uncertified pdf e-copy on an internet site, of an uncertified copy of the supposedly published book, prepared by an American, of a printed copy of an unauthenticated manuscript prepared by Irving or perhaps one of his English or German helpers on a word processor, from his memory of documents and notes of interviews he claimed had read some time earlier.'
If you're impressed by this sort of description, you might as well throw your uncertified copy of Irving's unauthenticated book into the trash can -- it's probably a fake.
Interested readers can review the text of the Hossbach memorandum on the thread "The Hossbach Memorandum (Text)" at: