Most Helpful Customer Reviews
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A thought provoking study, April 22, 2002
This review is from: The Holocaust on Trial (Hardcover)
Over Christmas I took this book and "Lying about Hitler " by Professor Richard J Evans with me to read whilst on vacation. I also had with me a copy of the judgment delivered by Justice Charles Gray in the case: "Irving v Lipstadt and ano." Whilst on vacation, other members of my household " looking for something to read " picked out this book for perusal. As a result I now find that most of my library on the Holocaust has disappeared and I have had a number of rivetting discussions with younger members of my household who have become interested in the Holocaust as a consequence of reading this book. It is important to acknowledge what this book is not. I suspect the book has been deliberately called " The Holocaust on Trial" rather than " The David Irving Trial". Whilst much of the book provides an entertaining description about the David Irving trial the book does not investigate the primary source material of the trial itself. American readers may not be familiar with a tradition of English trial reporting as in such series as Notable British Trials . In those books extracts from the transcripts, speeches by Counsel and final judgment are reproduced. You will not find that type of detailed treatment here. What you will find, however, is sufficient information for the lay reader to understand the issues that were involved with the trial. What the book does provide, however, are thought provoking questions about the Holocaust, about the study of history and the application of the law to resolve complex historical disputes. These questions, which must have been formulated by the author after much thought and research, are in my view the great strengths of the work. One of the earlier reviewers suggested that the David Irving trial will not be relevant in 10 years time. That might be so but I suspect that the questions asked by Mr Guttenplan will remain relevant a century from now. Another reviewer was critical that Mr Guttenplan did not deal more extensively with the questions raised. The author has been careful to identify the origins of his questions. If the reader so desires the reader can investigate further using the information the author has provided. The other members of my household who have also read "Lying about Hitler" by Richard Evans and "The case for Auschwitz" by van Pelt have nominated this book to be the best of the three. This book therefore appears to be a good entree for the novice to understand the issues involved with the Holocaust debate and the David Irving trial. What I admire most about the author is his courage in acknowledging that some sections of the Jewish community have exploited for their own purposes the memory of the Holocaust. One rarely sees comments like this committed to print. A test I sometimes use to rate a book is to ask myself: `would I ask the author to a dinner party - is the author that interesting ?' In this case the answer would be a resounding yes!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
30 of 38 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Informative journalistic account, but unsatisfying., May 5, 2001
This review is from: The Holocaust on Trial (Hardcover)
IRVING v. PENGUIN and LIPSTADT (2000) was a remarkable law suit, pitting Holocaust denier David Irving against the noted scholar Deborah Lipstadt (author of DENYING THE TRUTH) and her publisher. Under the British law of libel, Irving could force Lipstadt and Penguin to prove the truth of their claims that he was a Holocaust denier who distorted history in the service of his racist agenda, instead of a respected historian who dared to take a revisionist view of Hitler's responsibility -- or lack of responsibility -- for the Holocaust. The story that D.D. Guttenplan tells is often informative and occasionally riveting, but unfortunately it does little more than what you'd get from a thorough journalistic account of the case, which is what this book originally was. Guttenplan does not do an adequate job of assessing the phenomenon of Holocaust denial -- or of the laws that several European nations and Canada have passed making Holocaust denial a crime. He is usually good on the cut-and-thrust of the trial, but, having actually read Judge Charles Gray's mammoth and devastating opinion, I wish that Guttenplan either had given more room to analyzing it or had reprinted it as an appendix for the reader. In sum, there are other, better books on the phenomenon of Holocaust denial, and I regret that this book was not better. -- R.B. Bernstein, Adjunct Professor of Law, New York Law School
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
One Part Eichmmann; One Part Scopes!, April 12, 2005
For those who like gripping court dramas that touch on historiography, epistemology, WWII history, and politics, D.D. Guttenplan has written your kind of book. "Holocaust on Trial," is a 'gavel to gavel' account of the David Irving v. Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Book Co. trial.
Irving, a non-PhD'd historian, writes books purporting to show that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, that far fewer Jews died there than is thought, and that Hitler had no knowledge of the 'final solution to the Jewish question.' Lipstadt is an Emory University professor of Jewish Studies who wrote a book, called "Denying the Holocaust," in which she brands Irving as a 'dangerous' holocuast denier. Upon the release of Lipstadt's book Irving sued Lipstadt for libel in his home country of England where the libel laws are such that (contra US law) it is the defendent that must prove that libel did NOT occur and that everything she said was accurate. Thus, to show that she didn't libel Irving, Lipstadt must show that everything she writes about him is accurate. In order to do that, she has to, in a court of law, prove that the holocaust happened the way most historians believe - gas chambers and all. And, she must prove that Irving knowingly distorted evidence to arrive at a contrary conclusion.
Guttenplan's book does a good job recounting the trial with journalistic detail. We get a good feel for who David Irving (who argued his case himself) and who the defendants are (though as Lipstadt doesn't speak at all in the trial, she is certainly the most absent of the characters). We get a good feel for the grave stakes each side is playing for. Should the defense lose, shock waves will flow through the entire historical community, who are watching with baited breath. Should the prosecution lose, Irving will prove himself to be a historical quack. This book does well at painting the picture of a tense, yet spectacular, trial.
While Guttenplan tries to be journalistically objective, never dismissing Irving as may be tempting, he certainly doesn't get a good impression of Irving. (Of course, Guttenplan is also quick to point out that just as Irving is not a PhD'd historian, neither is Lipstadt, who's PhD is in Jewish Studies.) Even readers who don't know how the real trial ended are likely to get the continual feeling that Irving is to be outmatched. In this sense, the book is anti-climactic; but just like watching "Titanic," the fun is not in finding out how it ends, but in finding out how it gets there. Basically, Lipstadt wins and exposes Irving as a fraudulent historian with questionable motives and you, the reader, get to see how she pulled it off!
Other readers have noted that this book is long on journalism, and short on philosophical rumination. What is proper historiography? How much of history is evidence and how much is inference? How do we know what 'historical truth' is anyhow? None of these questions are discussed at any length. If that is what you want, Deborah Lipstadt and Richard Evans (a historian the defense used to debunk Irving's historical claims) both have books out that touch on these questions. This book is the journalism; not the philosophy.
Anyhow, this is a very solid book about a tial all of Britian was watching (oddly, it got little publicity in the states). For those concerned with history and the mechanisms by which historians tell the good from the bogus, this is a book worth reading and thinking about.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
