Irving's writing is excellent, and I trust him for the hardship he's endured, and continues to endure for upholding the facts as they are, as well as for his methodology. The book is unique in its portrayal of Hitler. If there's a more in depth and honest look into how the man thought, I don't know of it (I wouldn't consider books written by Hitler to be honest representations of Hitler, as people who worked with him for years claimed not to really know him).
Hitler was a driven man, a fanatic in the truest sense. He made many mistakes, but so would anyone attempting what he attempted. There are many moral debates one could have concerning how he ran things, and whether certain decisions were intelligent or not, but I would argue vehemently against anyone who would claim Hitler did not want the best for his people, or that the war he fought against the Allies was not just. The workload he took on was tremendous, and yet his competence in the areas he focused on was impressive. Frequently his generals opposed strategy laid out by Hitler that, in retrospect, many claimed would have been the better route, and may likely have seen Germany the victor.
There's some hints at degeneracy on the part of the Fuhrer that tarnish the sparkly image of him that propaganda like "The Greatest Story Never Told" promotes. Stuff like his incestuous relationship with his niece, Geli, and his promiscuity in earlier years. He also would take his Reich controlled newspaper's word for it when an article claimed something distasteful about a citizen, and this could easily result in the citizen's execution without trial, leading to the death of innocents. You will always get horrors when you give a fallible being dictatorial power.
The centerpiece of controversial data this book displays is Hitler's position towards the jews (as well as his knowledge that jews were being killed), which, as we know, the (((mainstream))) represents as vicious genocidal intent. If you trust in the author, though (or do your own archival excavation), you will find Hitler not only never giving an order to execute jews by the millions, but also going as far to stop his underlings from "liquidating" them by the trainload. Pretty much every time there was organized violence against jews (apart from their use as slave labor; a fate not at all unique to them, proportionally or otherwise) Hitler stopped it when news reached him. He wanted jews gone, but he had no intent of portraying himself as a mass murderer (righteousness was very much a driving force behind his actions, I believe). His demand, unless jews resisted, was that they were to be relocated to a warm climate, like Africa, to spare the world any genetic improvement of jewery via the incentives of survival through harsh winter. Certainly Hitler was no fan of jews, but it can't be said he intended the worst for them. He just wanted them reduced to nigger status, an aspiration he had for any non-german race it seems.
Based off all the information I've read thus far, I'd say it wouldn't necessarily be fortuitous for all whites for Germany to have won the war. I still agree with the philosophy of National Socialism, at least as far as looking out for your people first and foremost.