In her acclaimed 1993 book Denying the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt called putative WWII historian David Irving "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial." A prolific author of books on Nazi Germany who has claimed that more people died in Ted Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz, Irving responded by filing a libel lawsuit in the United Kingdom -- where the burden of proof lies on the defendant, not on the plaintiff. At stake were not only the reputations of two historians but the record of history itself.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review. In a much-publicized case, David Irving, the author of numerous books about WWII, sued Emory University historian Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin, for libel. Lipstadt had called Irving a Holocaust denier in a book about the Holocaust denial movement, and Britain's libel laws put the burden of proof on her to show that the charge was true. Did that mean proving the Holocaust had happened? Was Lipstadt, as Irving claimed, trying to restrict his freedom of speech, or was he restraining hers? Was the courtroom the proper place to examine historical truth? The press hotly debated these issues, but as Lipstadt relates in this powerful account, she and her adept lawyers felt they simply had to discredit a man who had said that "no documents whatsoever show that a Holocaust had ever happened." In 2000, Judge Charles Gray decided in Lipstadt's favor, finding it "incontrovertible" that Irving was a Holocaust denier. The drama of the book lies in the courtroom confrontations between an evasive and self-contradictory Irving (serving as his own lawyer) and Lipstadt's strategically brilliant barrister, Richard Rampton, and the scholars who testified in her defense. Lipstadt herself is a reluctant heroine, a feisty, outspoken woman forced to remain silent (she did not testify in court) and let her lawyers speak for her. No one who cares about historical truth, freedom of speech or the Holocaust will avoid a sense of triumph from Gray's decision—or a sense of dismay that British libel laws allowed such intimidation by Irving of a historian and a publisher in the first place.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From School Library Journal
Adult/High School–In Denying the Holocaust (Penguin, 1994), Lipstadt called Irving, an English author of books on World War II and the Third Reich, the most dangerous Holocaust denier because his works were reviewed in mainstream journals and he commanded a certain level of respect and influence in the field. Irving later sued her and her publisher, Penguin UK, for libel. Under English law, the burden of proof in a libel case rests with the defendant. The core of the book is the trial itself, combining a page-turning eyewitness account and a close look at the mind-set and dubious research methods of a neo-Nazi. Irving served as his own lawyer and constantly courted press coverage. Among his assertions: Hitler did not order the Kristallnacht violence but attempted to stop it; the Allies were responsible for typhus epidemics in the concentration camps; Anne Frank's diary is a romantic novel; more people died in Ted Kennedy's car at Chappaquidick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Ultimately, Irving's case collapsed under the weight of evidence and expert testimony provided by the defense. In addition to possible use with the curriculum, this book will appeal to teens interested in modern history, historiography, and law.–Sandy Freund, Richard Byrd Library, Fairfax County, VA
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
38 of 49 people found the following review helpful
By Book Freak
Format:Hardcover
Professor Lipstadt's account of her trial for libel brought by disgraced writer David Irving manages to be full of suspense even though I knew what the judgement was. She describes the origins of the lawsuit, the months of build-up to the trial, the trial itself, and the judgement, which vindicated her of libel, and showed David Irving to be more than a Holocaust denier, but a liar and anti-semite amongst other things. The fear that although they might win, she and Penguin books would not win absolutely, is well described. I did not find Lipstadt to be humorless, just serious about what were a harrowing few years of her life. The pace of the book is excellent, it is well written and clear, and the insights into the difference between English and American law are thought-provoking. The book also shows that the British "old-boy" system is still alive and well for some people, notably Keegan with his odious writing in the Daily Telegraph, but refreshingly not so in the defence's team nor in the judge. The reactions from survivors and plain Brits - taxi drivers, restaurant patrons, hotel employees, are a heart-warming counter to this. Professor Lipstadt is remarkably restrained in her descriptions of Irving, merely letting his words and actions, as well as the judgement, get across what he is like, which is quite sufficient.
There is a lot to learn from this book, not least importantly that one must be very careful about believing what one reads in newspapers and books. Many of the journalists writing about the trial made basic mistakes and put them in print, and the C-Span debacle has made it clear that even when money is not a motive, a tv channel purporting to be independent of ratings may want to entertain rather than inform.
There is a lot to learn from this book, not least importantly that one must be very careful about believing what one reads in newspapers and books. Many of the journalists writing about the trial made basic mistakes and put them in print, and the C-Span debacle has made it clear that even when money is not a motive, a tv channel purporting to be independent of ratings may want to entertain rather than inform.
27 of 35 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover
definitely a quick and entertaining read. I started reading when I got on a bus at 1 PM, and finished the book at about 6 or 7 (despite napping for an hour or so in the middle of a journey).
Other reviewers have adequately discussed this book's coverage of the Irving/Lipstadt trial: but I was also interested in learning about the toll litigation can take on the time and energy of even a victorious party.
After reading this book, I am definitely more supportive than before of American libel law (which typically places the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show falsity, and provides that public figures can only recover if they show that their opponent was truly reckless): Britian's pro-plaintiff libel law, by encouraging libel suits, caused both Mr. Irving and Ms. Lipstadt to subject themselves to levels of scrutiny that I suspect few scholarly reputations could survive.
One minor point: I wish Lipstadt had included some of the relevant documents (in particular, Irving's initial complaint) in the appendix so readers could follow exactly what the parties needed to prove.
Other reviewers have adequately discussed this book's coverage of the Irving/Lipstadt trial: but I was also interested in learning about the toll litigation can take on the time and energy of even a victorious party.
After reading this book, I am definitely more supportive than before of American libel law (which typically places the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show falsity, and provides that public figures can only recover if they show that their opponent was truly reckless): Britian's pro-plaintiff libel law, by encouraging libel suits, caused both Mr. Irving and Ms. Lipstadt to subject themselves to levels of scrutiny that I suspect few scholarly reputations could survive.
One minor point: I wish Lipstadt had included some of the relevant documents (in particular, Irving's initial complaint) in the appendix so readers could follow exactly what the parties needed to prove.
21 of 29 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
Want a true life legal thriller that reads like fiction? Want a plot so outlandish that it is hard to remember that it is real? Something that will make you think, laugh, get angry, and make you proud, all in the same story?
Well, here it is. This is an acocunt of the case whereby Deborah Lipstadt was asked to prove in a British court of law that the Holocaust happened!
The plaintiff: David Irving - a British historian who makes claims such as that no gassings took place in Auschwitz and that Hitler was unaware of the "final solution." The defendant: Deborah Lipstadt - an American historian sued by Irving for writing a book that, in its pages, takes Irving to task for practicing bad history. Irving sued for libel and, per the backwards legal system of Britian, put the burden of proof on Lipstadt to prove that libel DID NOT occur. The only way to do this? Prove that the things Irving has said about the Holocaust are not only untrue, but that Irving willfully distorted the facts. She must, in other words, prove the Holocaust.
This book is Lipstadt's first-hand account of the trial. In so reading, we gradually witness Irving's "history" being held under a microscope by various witnesses who meticulously demonstrate Irving's less-than-honest methods of "history." We watch how Irving quotes only very select passages from documents (and not others), mistranslates words, phrases, and dates, discredits disfavorable evidence as bogus (while being all too ready to accept more 'favorable' evidence without question), etc.
What this all leads to is one doozy of a circumstantial case that Irving's "mistakes and errors" were deliberate misrepresentations. As the prosecution liked to put it, mistakes are mistakes, but when 500 mistakes all move towards one and only one conclusoion - exculpation of Hitler - one can be sure that they are "calculated mistakes." (At one comically sad point in the book, historian Richard Evans says something to this effect whiloe being cross-examined by Irving. Irving, seemingly oblivious to the indictment, comments something like, "You mean, like a waiter who consistently gives back wrong change, always in his favor?" He had no idea he was indicting himself!)
The book is of interest, then, in two different ways. First, it is strangly entertaiing for such a grave subject. (The Scopes trial has nohting on Irving/Lipstadt.)Lipstadt does a great job telling the story. Second, it is of interest to all who care about history. We get to see how history is done, and how history is not to be done. In so many words, we witness the difference between academic historians and con-artistic ideologues.
As this trial recieved remarkably scant attention in the states, it is fun to read of what was a "front page" trial in Britian. We had OJ - they had Irving v. Lipstadt. So, if you are ever in a position to read a gripping true-life courtroom drama, skip the books on the OJ trial, and read Lipstadt's "History on Trial." The truth IS stranger than fiction (even the fiction David Irving calls the truth.)
Well, here it is. This is an acocunt of the case whereby Deborah Lipstadt was asked to prove in a British court of law that the Holocaust happened!
The plaintiff: David Irving - a British historian who makes claims such as that no gassings took place in Auschwitz and that Hitler was unaware of the "final solution." The defendant: Deborah Lipstadt - an American historian sued by Irving for writing a book that, in its pages, takes Irving to task for practicing bad history. Irving sued for libel and, per the backwards legal system of Britian, put the burden of proof on Lipstadt to prove that libel DID NOT occur. The only way to do this? Prove that the things Irving has said about the Holocaust are not only untrue, but that Irving willfully distorted the facts. She must, in other words, prove the Holocaust.
This book is Lipstadt's first-hand account of the trial. In so reading, we gradually witness Irving's "history" being held under a microscope by various witnesses who meticulously demonstrate Irving's less-than-honest methods of "history." We watch how Irving quotes only very select passages from documents (and not others), mistranslates words, phrases, and dates, discredits disfavorable evidence as bogus (while being all too ready to accept more 'favorable' evidence without question), etc.
What this all leads to is one doozy of a circumstantial case that Irving's "mistakes and errors" were deliberate misrepresentations. As the prosecution liked to put it, mistakes are mistakes, but when 500 mistakes all move towards one and only one conclusoion - exculpation of Hitler - one can be sure that they are "calculated mistakes." (At one comically sad point in the book, historian Richard Evans says something to this effect whiloe being cross-examined by Irving. Irving, seemingly oblivious to the indictment, comments something like, "You mean, like a waiter who consistently gives back wrong change, always in his favor?" He had no idea he was indicting himself!)
The book is of interest, then, in two different ways. First, it is strangly entertaiing for such a grave subject. (The Scopes trial has nohting on Irving/Lipstadt.)Lipstadt does a great job telling the story. Second, it is of interest to all who care about history. We get to see how history is done, and how history is not to be done. In so many words, we witness the difference between academic historians and con-artistic ideologues.
As this trial recieved remarkably scant attention in the states, it is fun to read of what was a "front page" trial in Britian. We had OJ - they had Irving v. Lipstadt. So, if you are ever in a position to read a gripping true-life courtroom drama, skip the books on the OJ trial, and read Lipstadt's "History on Trial." The truth IS stranger than fiction (even the fiction David Irving calls the truth.)
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Thank you, Dr. Lipstadt
I have read this book every last page. Once I started, I could not put it down. I intend to read it again, after I read the books written by the witnesses and read all 2,700... Read more
Published 1 month ago by Larry Reynolds
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent Insights regarding Holocaust and its non-believers
This is a very well written, detailed account of a court case in which a person, who writes and speaks positively about Hitler and denies that the Holocaust took place, sues for... Read more
Published 17 months ago by Daniel Carroll
5.0 out of 5 stars
Very Important Read
This a a very insightful and well written book. It exposes the reader to many new and unfamiliar British court proceedings. Read more
Published on March 3, 2011 by Rup Sarkar
5.0 out of 5 stars
Superb
That Holocaust denial thrives today is depressing (and troubling) in the extreme. That for so many years an insidiously subtle form of it spilled from the pen of a celebrated... Read more
Published on January 5, 2010 by Librum
4.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent read, but could have been better
I really enjoyed this book. Aside from the satisfaction of reading about how David Irving shot himself in the foot, Lipstadt's account of her libel trial (it can't be said often... Read more
Published on December 21, 2009 by Nick Dowling
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent book!
Excellent book!
Places the Holocaust deniers and minimizers in their deceptive realm.
Places the Holocaust deniers and minimizers in their deceptive realm.
Published on November 24, 2009 by Paul D. Harvill
1.0 out of 5 stars
HER day in court? More like her 42 lawyers & Speilberg's money
I have no idea what she was trying to accomplish, other than the despicable deeds she did after temporarily "winning" in court and seizing all Irving's possessions... Read more
Published on October 9, 2009 by V S
5.0 out of 5 stars
Shame On Emory
it is gratifying to know that there is some sanity in this world. Dr. Lipstadt stomped the holocaust denier David Irving into the ground, and we can all be thankful of it. Read more
Published on September 20, 2009 by JohnThrobs
2.0 out of 5 stars
Using the courts to enforce scholarship
There is nothing ideologues like better than a rousing food fight--hurling epitaphs at each other with reckless abandon--endlessly seeking to score a better direct hit, and fearing... Read more
Published on May 25, 2009 by T. Holzel
5.0 out of 5 stars
A brave book by a brave woman.
Deborah Lipstadt is an outstanding and courageous scholar. When she wrote her book, Denying the Holcaust, she dissected the work of David Irving, a bigot masquerading as an... Read more
Published on May 9, 2009 by John Kendall
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
So You'd Like to...
Look for Similar Items by Category
- Books > History > Europe > Wales
- Books > History > Historical Study & Educational Resources > Historiography
- Books > History > World > Jewish > Holocaust
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > International & World Politics > European
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Specific Topics > Human Rights
