Reddit reviews Narrators of Barbarian History (A.D. 550–800), The: Jordanes, Gregory of Tours, Bede, and Paul the Deacon (ND Publications Medieval Studies)

>Germanic people all originated in Scandinavia whether it's the Angles, Vandals, Goths, Lombards, Geats, Saxons, practically everyone.

Early medieval historians popularized this narrative (as did Tacitus several crnturies before), but there's good reason to treat these accounts with a lot of skepticism. Each was much more concerned with making myths designed to influence contemporary disputes than they were with reconstructing ancient (and almost entirely unverifiable) migration routes.

You can still find a lot of texts treating Germanic migrations out of Scandinavia as established events, but the evidence to support this is extremely patchy and, at best, problematic.

The current consensus has long (since Wenskus' Stammesbildung in the 60s) moved toward recognizing that barbarian tribes are very malleable, and that new groups were formed from new leaders assembling the dispersed inhabitants whose farmsteads losely filled the forests of Germania into new coalitions, rather than these people migrating out of Scanza (etc) as ready-made people groups. For example, Kulikowski's Romes Gothic Wars (which summarizes these questions in a user-friendly manner for the origin of the Goths on the fringes if the Roman empire, rather than out of a long migration out of Scandinavia).

>I'm not familiar with Goffart

Goffart is an excellent historian and anyone dealing with medieval history should definitely read his Narrators of Barbarian History. I'm not familiar with him saying that the invasions didn't take place at all, though that doesn't seem likely to me (perhaps it was something like there is no "age of migrations"?).

But in general the last few decades have seen a push back against the traditional view (as outlined above), and there is good reason to lower the idea of massive waves of barbarians overrunning other areas. The situation is always more complex and these newer theories attempt to address that. I would think many historians today would be comfortable with a statement like that, even while differing in the details. So I would say rather than worrying about pigeon-holing different historians into different positions before you read them, just start reading what they say.

The Narrators of Barbarian History showed up on another thread. Looks promising, although it's from 1991, so perhaps not the most current of readings.