Customer Reviews

Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory

5 star:		(21)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

This is a good book on a subject whose importance is clear and evident. Professor Lipstadt targets the deniers and presents superb arguments that they are motivated by hate and bigotry. The author, a confident character, faced the trial against her courageously and won.

Lipstadt's outlook, however, is Euro-centered: She only studied holocaust denial in Europe and North America. Characters like Irving and Garaudy are very popular in the Arab world, especially in Egypt. Moreover, Prof Lipstadt ignored Arab individuals who deny the holocaust in the Arabic media. These individuals are considered intellectuals in Arab society, and their message of hate is very popular, primarily because almost all writing about the Holocaust by scholars like Elie WIesel, Walter Laqueur, and Martin Gilbert, is censored, and certainly never ever translated into Arabic. In fact, after the Irving trial, Al Ahram, the most prestigious daily in Egypt and the Arab world, published an interview with David Irving. The interviewers presented David Irving as a victim attacked by sharks, with Professor Lipstadt, whose picture was shown, as one of the sharks. Al Jazeera television network regularly hosts Arab and other holocaust deniers.

Though she is confident, Professor Lipstadt does not seem to be aware that she is being abused in prestigious papers such as Al Ahram and AlJazeera television station. She needs to realize that this is a grave matter, and she cannot afford to be so Euro-centered. She should add a chapter on Arab Holocaust deniers and republish the book. Not only that, she should arrange to have her book translated into Arabic, so that the 300 Million Arabs get a chance to read the truth.

Her study of Arab journalists and scholars should also include another phenomenon related to the Holocaust that is almost exclusively Arab: Applauding the Final Solution. Al Akhbar's Ahmed Ragab, probably the most popular columnist in Egypt, very recently thanked Adofph Hitler for embarking on the final solution and killing nearly six million Jews, but chastised him for not doing a complete job. Applauding the Final Solution coexists very comfortably with denying the Holocaust in Arab milieus, as absurd as this may sound.

Having read more than 200 books involving the Holocaust, I find Lipstadt in general to be somewhat unique in the sense that some of her work shows great insight, for example her essay in the Non-Bombing of Auschwitz book, kudo's.
On the other hand at times she seems somewhat troublesome, for example calling Jimmy Carter a "soft core" denier because he did not discuss the Holocaust in his book about Isreali/Palestenian relations, well it's simple over the top. While many disliked Carter's book (or mainly the title, little pith between the pages) to call him a "soft core denier" is to diminish what denial really is. Has she ever read David Ben-Guiron's memiors ?? He to does not discuss the Holocaust, does this make him a "soft core" denier, hardly so.

Now onto the book, what first troubled me was her treatment of the earlist so-called deniers and her description of events imediately after the war. There were people that were extremely vocal about what the allies were doing. The Expulsion and the fact that many supported the Morganthau Plan (which was at least partially initiated) was at the time controvesial to say the least. Yet rather than laud those who stood against our intial tyranical policies, she diminishes the atrocities the allies committed, and conflates people like Freda Utley with "true deniers" like Arthur Butz ???...

Her discussion of the "college ads" controveries was also somewhat puzzling. On one hand she is an advocate of free speech, which I applaud, on the other she seems to fail to realize that free speech means some will adopt the shady tatics the ads employed. However where she really missed the boat is that she acknowdelges that on every campus that the controversies took place, enrollment in Holocaust history courses INCREASED. She failed to understand, that the deniers engage in tactics that actually helped people learn aout the Holocaust, not deny it.

Her discussion of "relativism" is also somewhat troublesome. While Ernst Nolte is certainly controversial, and I don't admire him, she sweeps up Joachim Fest into the equation too ?? Yes while it is wrong to equate the Holocaust with the Expslion, it is equally wrong to suggest that one is a denier for doing so. In this sense she is arguing moral equivalencies, not historical facts. If this is the case one could suggest: What is worse, Evil (Nazi's) committing evil ?? or Good (Allies) also comitting evil (albiet a different type of evil) ??.

Lastly, today, to her cresit she has acknowleged that her postion on the uniqueness of the Holocaust has "lessened somewhat". Yet this book seems to be wriiten at a time prior to that. Like Yehuda Bauer, today she suggests "unpreceedented" rather than "unique". While the two are somewhat synonymous. Yehuda Bauer in his book "Rethinking the Holocaust" does a masterful job of stating his case. But most importantly he takes great care not to diminsh other victims of other genocides. While I SERIUOSLY DOUBT, Lipstadt intended to diminish other victims of other genocides, her comparative analysises nonethless, at least to me, came of that way. For example, while she acknowledges the Stalin killed more victims (which is actually debatable), she claims his violence was "random", which in fact is incorrect and shows little insight or compassion. While I find the Holocaust to be unique, one must exercise great care not to make falacious arguements that diminish others.

Sadly, based on many of the one star reviews this book has recieved, it shows how important the topic IS. I applaud her passion in combating denial, but question whether she casts too wide of a net. At times she shows great insight and at others fails to see the forrest for the trees. Perhaps a three star review is too harsh, but then agian perhaps I had higher expectations.

Those who deny or attempt to "revise" the history of the holocaust like us to believe that there is a vast conspiracy. As Lipstadt shows in this book, they commonly discount evidence discordant with their views as the product of a vast conspiracy of Jews and their minions. Eye witnesses lied. Documents were forged. It was a conspiracy of Jews (unless the evidence confirms their viewpoint, and then they don't question its legitimacy!) So Lipstadt's book is an exercise in irony. It takes those who cry, "conspiracy," and shows that it is actually they, rather than those they accuse, of perpetrating a conspiracy.

Thus, let me stress at the outset that this book is not an attempt to historically rebut the 'revisionists.' (That has been done so many times it is sad!) This book is literally an attempt to expose those revisionists who claim neutrality ("I'm just interested in historical scholarship.") and shows their true motives.

Just like "intelligent design theorists" who are trying to inject a bit of old-time religion into biology by claiming the scientific impartiality of their God hypothesis, Holocuast revisionists have been bombarding the general public with a revamped, quasi-intellectual image designed to make them look credible. But, as Lipstadt shows through some serious detective work, hardly any (if any at all) of these 'thinkers' are neutral at all.

Some are smart but have ill motives (like Ernst Zundel, who has a very blatant history of being a neo-nazi). Others might not have ulterior motives, but practice shoddy scholarship (like Fred Leuchter, who's "scholarship" and credibility brought to nill here.) Otheres are both, like Arhtur Butz, who expresses much anti-Jewish sentiment, writes as a historian, but teaches only electrical engineering! Hmm.)

To be sure, this book is quite literally a two hundred page ad hominem attack. As mentioned, Lipstadt doesn't delve into very much historical debunking of these revisionists. This book attacks their character and (lack of) methodology. It is an attempt to show that, contrary to their protestations, these scholars are very little interested in objective historical truth. They are phonies at worst and neo-nazis operating under a lame subterfuge at best.

And this is why I deduct a star. As interesting as this book is, it is easy to see that Lipstadt has every bit as much of an agenda as do her subjects. She is just as passionate as they. And it is hard to see this book as always fighting fair: it is, after all, a continued attack not on deniers' history, but on their character. (And as others have pointed out, Lipstadt hypocritically chastizes these 'historians' for not having training in history, even though she holds no PhD in the subject either.)

Be that as it may, I can only deduct one star becasue as whiny as Lipstadt can occasionally be, her subjects deserve what they are getting here, as they play the character assault game as much, if not more, than she does. (Remember how historians and eye-witnesses are frequently dismissed in their work as biased towards the Jewish conspiracy!)

To close, I should note that a great companion work to this one - that does tackle the 'revisionist' history - is Richard Evans' "Hitler on Trial." For those who don't know, Evans served as a historian in defense of Lipstadt when she was sued by 'revisionist,' David Irving. He was charged with going through Irving's works and debunking them point by point, which he did easily and well. As shown is Lipstadt's subsequent book detailing the trial, Evans was unbiased going into the trial, and thus, cannot be accused of having motives other than accurate history. (He told Lipstadt that he would review Irving's work, but could not garauntee that his history was bad, until or unless he found evidence that it was.) Where Lipstadt's book takes on the motives, Evans' book is a fascinating look at their (mis)use of history.

Buy both. And if you want, buy some books by revisionists, but I think you will be wasting as much time as buying a book on biology by a theologian.

I picked up this book because of the hype that it is "the" one to destroy revisionism.Instead,it gave me a feeling that revisionism needs to be investigated.Ms. Lipstadt uses an approach of extreme political advocacy,instead of detached scholarship.Lots of name-calling,and her assertions that those whom she attacks should not be allowed any forum to respond to her charges or express opposing viewpoints is absolutely frightening.Advocating the complete supression of opposing beliefs not only goes against the very ideas of freedom on which this country was founded,but is also the main tactic of those who fear debate.If you have the truth on your side,you should invite,or indeed insist on debate,not oppose it with all of your being.She calls her opponents "fascists", yet it is she who comes across as an almost Hitler-like totalitarian.She accuses revisionists of being mentally unstable conspiracy theorists,while trying to convince the reader that they are all involved in a giant evil conspiracy.To think that Ms. Lipstadt commands any respect at all as a scholar is baffling,as her work,at best,could be described as that of a political propagandist,and not a particularly good one at that.Now that I have finished her book,I feel compelled to seek out the works of those whom she attacks,scrutinize their positions,and make my own judgement.I must admit though,that Ms. Lipstadt has given me a new outlook on the possibility that the revisionists may be on to something.

I recently reread "Denying the Holocaust" after reading "Lying About Hitler" by Richard Evans, who was one of the witnesses for the defense in the libel trial brought by British writer and holocaust denier David Irving against Deborah Lipstadt and her UK publisher Viking Penguin.

Lipstadt provides here a valuable, concise, well-documented history of the phenomenon of holocaust denial, which was rooted partly in antisemitism and partly in the original World War I revisionism movement that between the wars attempted to prove that Germany was not responsible for WWI. After World War II, antisemitics, neofascists, and philoGermans gradually came out of the woodwork to peddle their wares cloaked in the guise of revisionist history. They are still active today.

The book, which is 9 years old now, could really use an updated edition; it would be interesting to have Lipstadt's reflections on the David Irving trial, recent developments in denial, and, as a few other reviewers here have pointed out, for her to take a critical look at the subject of epidemic holocaust denial in the Arab world. I might add that holocaust denial among Arabs is not just a problem overseas, it unfortunately exists here as well. I work for a publisher that in a merger acquired a book about the holocaust aimed at advanced high school students. The decision was made to backlist the book in spite of the fact that it was at the time only a year old. When I asked why this had happened, I was told that it was to avoid complaints from Arab Americans (the book was eventually transferred to the college book division of our company. I have no idea what they have since done with it).

An important book well worth anyone's time.

Holocaust denial is a function of several unfortunate trends. The first and foremost unfortunate trend is the general disdain for rational thought and inductive logic amply demonstrated by the public at large. The preference for emotional reactions over intellectual analysis is prevalent and growing (witness the Oprah-zation of the print and visual media). The second dangerous trend is the moral relativism of the politically correct, disguised as "objectivity". From Stanley Fish at Duke to Hillary Rodham, the denial of a moral hierarchy and the rejection of evil has produced a moral vacuum. If all cultures are equal (multiculturalism), then what is wrong with the culture that existed in Germany between 1933-1945? Ask the victims (20 million+). If you think this type of deep thinking is solely restricted to defenders of fascism, please [see]. . .Jasper Becker's Hungry Ghosts. . ., which detailed the extermination of 30 million Chinese and Tibetans. The book was dimissed as "ethnocentric", the battle cry for moral relativists who don't want to be bothered with the results of their philosophy (like mountains of slaughtered bodies). Finally, the general historical ignorance of the public has provided fertile soil for propogators of the most idiotic babble, from Holocaust Denial to the butter-soft treatment of Communist butchers (Castro, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mengitsu, etc.). Please purchase this book and attempt to interest your associates in its contents.

Read "Nature's Eternal Religion" by Ben Klassen for the complete story on this book of hogwash. Also, the "Trial of Ernst Zundel" that will show there is no
evidence for the claims made by the Holocaust automatons.

Those calling on Dr. Lipstadt to "refute" the points of self-proclaimed "revisionists" miss the point entirely. The book's purpose was to show the historical and political place of Holocaust denial in western politics and academics. Attempting to "refute" the "points" of deniers is akin to demanding an evolutionary biologist to debate the "facts" of Creationism. It isn't that Creationism isn't believed by many people, it's that its epistemological basis cannot be reconciled with that of evolution. Dr. Lipstadt rightly points out that engaging in debate over the EXISTENCE of the Holocaust is like debating the EXISTENCE of the 1940s.

Historical revisionism is about reexamining the MEANING of historical events like, say, Colombus' journey across the Atlantic -- heroic adventure or opening act of genocide or both? Holocaust deniers do not want to debate the *meaning* of the Holocaust because they would be exposed as nazi apologists, so they attack the existence. That puts them outside the academic world of historical revisionism because they try to "revise " the historical event out of existence. There is no basis for debate. Dr. Lipstadt's work, by exposing the roots of Holocaust denial, discredits any claim they have to a place in legitimate academic work.

This book has again been 'in the news' lately with the recent unsuccessful libel action of 'Revisionist' David Irving against the author - with that in mind I took the opportunity to read through it once more, and again I found a well- researched, strongly argued piece which with exquisite precision exposes the activities and motivations of those who would deny the existence of the holocaust, and contend that it is a gigantic fabrication designed to promote the nebulous concept of 'Zionism' ( a sobriquet for Israeli interests)

Lipstadt's strength lies in the fact that she knows well the range of holocaust deniers. Men such as Ernst Zundel, A self-styled 'free speech martyr' who once appeared in a Canadian court with his face covered in shoe polish on the grounds that 'only blacks are entitled to freedom of speech' are fairly easily dismissed. Much more insidious are the work of three more 'respectable' revisionists, Arthur Butz, Harry Elmer Barnes and the late Paul Rassinier.

Butz is an engineering professor - and thus knows well how to make his work appear cogent to the uninformed. Lipstadt brilliantly exposes his selctive use of evidence and seizure of isolated fragments of allied documents which 'jusify' Nazi actions. Barnes, whose work on destroying the myth of German War Guilt in the First World War is worthy, then decides to pursue a similar task with regard to the Holocaust, and the author again exposes the fallacies of his arguments with considerable cogency.

Possibly the only revisionist who comes out only partially tarnished is the so-called 'father' of Holocaust denial - the original 'sinner who cast the first stone in this 'war'. Paul Rassinier is unique in that, unlike every other author, he was there - a French resistance fighter, he spent nearly a year in Buchenwald and as such, Lipstadt's observations on his motives are necessarily less convincing than on those of modern day deniers.

That Holocaust denial is a monstrous aberration is not in question - and those that argue that by failing to engage these people in a debate, Lipstadt is somehow conceding credence to their views is laughable. The only thing I would say, is that from the tone of the views expressed previous to this review, there is an unhealthy obsession with keeping the holocaust on a pedestal, a sacred object which is unable to be debated in any degree. What would Lipstadt make of historians who say, postulate only FIVE million dead Jews, or who argue that some countries (Denmark,for example) escaped lightly due in some part to the somewhat lukewarm attitudes of certain German officers. Are those studying the Holocaust made aware of the many non-Jews that died (2 million Soviet Prisoners of War)? - As long as the Holocaust is treated as a uniquely Jewish tragedy, such people as are exposed in these pages will continue to seize on it as a cloak for attitudes which are either anti-semitic or concerned with the rehabilitation of the Nazi vision.

That said, this is still a seminal work, and vital reference for educators and students of the Holocaust alike. I am informed, that in the wake of the Irving libel a New edition is planned - I would recommend purchase to anyone.

Deborah Lipstadt clearly has a high opinion of her own cleverness and the "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong" attitude she adopts, particularly at the start of the book, is irritating. To compound this, the editing is woefully sloppy, resulting in, among other things, far more misprints than should be the case in works at this level.

These are serious flaws, but once the reader gets past them, the naivety, wilful blindness and downright cruelty of those who would rehabilitate the Nazis are shown in frightening relief and detail. Books like this should keep us all on our guard. Thank goodness she won that British libel case. Recommended, but with reservations.