Honoring fakeology scholarship in discerning forgery

[SaiGirl]

The infamous “Hitler Diaries” hoax, that fooled establishment historians and harvested billions for the tabloids.

But David Irving was never fooled. He called it out as a hoax from the very first day.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... in-germany

QUOTE
=====================

The reputation of English historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, who specialised in Nazi history and was an independent director of the Times, was damaged after he declared the works to be authentic. Writing in the Times in April 1983, he said he believed that the accounts of some historic events might even have to be revised as a result of the diaries. But at the press conference to advertise their publication, Trevor-Roper said he was no longer convinced they were genuine. Other historians had also expressed their doubts about them.

One of the reasons the diaries were widely believed to be authentic was the fact they were so extensive. Trevor-Roper later said: “Who, I asked myself, would forge sixty volumes when six would have served his purpose?”

When he later backtracked, an editorial in the Guardian praised him for showing “moral courage” by admitting his mistake.

Among the early doubters was the Holocaust denier David Irving, who asked how Hitler had managed to write his diary after his arm had been injured in the unsuccessful 20 July 1944 plot to kill him. Another doubter said it was a puzzle that Hitler, who had suffered from palsy and wrote in pencil as a result, had penned the diaries in ink.
===================================
QUOTE

[aSHIFT.]

Neither Irving nor his "conclusion" from the OP imho classifies as "Fakeology".

Irving is a plant, a gatekeeper who needed to become known to the general public by falling to Debby Lipstadt, but the conclusion why the Hitler Diaries were fake pushes the idea that the falssassination (false + assassination) plot was real, presenting the faux reality of the Hitler figure.