David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, by Richard J. Evans

Table of Contents
<< (iv) Misrepresentation of...(vii) Conclusion >>

(v) Use of unreliable sources

1. Until now, we have only examined Irving's misrepresentation of Hofmann's testimony. But the basic question still has to be answered: is Irving right to use Hofmann's testimony as an example for Hitler intervening to protect Jewish property? To answer this question, we have to examine the reliability of Hofmann as a witness. Matthäus Hofmann was a low-ranking official working in the aliens registration office of the Munich police. He apparently left the force on 1 January 1924. Hofmann was an open supporter of the Nazi Party, and had joined the party in 1921. As a Nazi supporter in the police service, he organised a fast-track system for issuing visas to foreign Nazi sympathisers. Hofmann was also active within the Nazi party organisation. Hitler made him head of the political section of the NSDAP's intelligence unit. It appears that in this capacity Hofmann actually participated in the putsch of 8 and 9 November. There are strong indications that it was he who received the telephone message in the Löwenbräukeller announcing that the revolution had broken out. According to his own testimony, he accompanied Hitler for the rest of that   night.8 Hofmann also seems to have visited Hitler in prison while he was awaiting trial.9
2. Hofmann's testimony at Hitler's trial thus has little, if any, credibility. He was a long-standing Nazi supporter and party official, who tried hard to present Hitler in a favourable light as a law-abiding citizen. This tactic was even recognised by the lenient court. After Hofmann's testimony on Hitler's supposed opposition to violence (including Hitler's alleged sacking of the Nazi activist), which Hofmann had volunteered without any prompting from the court, the presiding judge commented: 'It's a nice testimony to you that you are speaking out on behalf of your leader.'10
3. The reason that other historians have not relied on the testimony of Hofmann is not because of their 'obsessive' views, as Irving alleges, but because the source has no historical value. It is Irving's obsessive views which make him rely on a witness who could not be more biased in favour of Hitler, and it is Irving's dishonesty which leads him to conceal the salient facts about this witness from his readers. Irving obviously knows that the witness was a Nazi Party member, and he has clearly deliberately concealed this fact and made it more difficult for others to discover his deception by failing to provide a proper footnote reference to the document in which it is revealed.


8. Gruchmann and Weber (eds.), Der Hitler-Prozeß 1924, Vol. 2, pp. 540-542. Hofmann's NSDAP membership is mentioned in G. Franz-Willing, Putsch und Verbotszeit derHitlerbewegung(Preußisch Olendorf, 1977), 173. The reference he gives is: 'Untersuchungsausschuß des Landtages, 12. Sitzung; ferner Mitgliederliste der NSDAP, Orginal, Privatbesitz'.
9. Die Polizeidirektion München an Generalstaatskommissar Kahr, 4.12.1923; reprinted in E. Deuerlein (ed.), Der Hitler Putsch. Bayrische Dokumente zum 8./9. November 1923 (Stuttgart 1962), 465.
10. Gruchmann and Weber (eds.), Der Hitler-Prozeß 1924, Vol. 2, p. 546: "Es ist em schönes Zeichen von Ihnen, wenn Sie zu Gunsten Ihres Führers aussagen'
Popups by overLIB
<< (iv) Misrepresentation of...(vii) Conclusion >>

accessed 12 March 2013