Customer Reviews

Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(14)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

If you are interested in understanding how history is "done", then this compelling narrative about David Irving's libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt has got to be on your short list. Evans is an important scholar who is brought in as an expert witness to analyze Irving's attacks against Lipstadt. The trial takes place in England, which has much less restrictive libel standards, and Irving's reckless accusations set the stage for a fascinating examination of what constitutes good historical research.

History has a deep rhetorical lineage, but it nevertheless maintains a discipline and methodological rigor that is subject to criticism from within the profession. Despite what some reviewers have asserted, the Irving trial was not a witch hunt (it was brought by him), and Evans is meticulous in defining how respectable history is performed. Interestingly, the events occur at the beginning of the age of the Web, and Evans documents the role of the echo chamber in granting Irving authority long after he should have been debunked.

In short, buy the book. Learn how history is done. And beware next time you hear people attacking historians for partisan positions.

This book has two parts: The first is the Evan's meticulous examination, as an expert witness for the defense, of Irving's books and public statements, analyzing their value (or lack thereof) as historical research. The second is a more personal account of his experiences during the trial and how it felt to confront Irving face to face.

The first part is excellent. It proves that Irving consistently, indeed almost invariably, bends every tiny detail he can to make Hitler look good and the jews (or allies, or Soviets, etc.) look bad. Every excuse, justification, propaganda, or denial made by the nazis is accepted as gospel truth. On the other hand, all evidence for nazi crimes, including contemporary admissions by the perpetrators, is suddenly subjected to "skeptical analysis" in the name of "historical truth", and then instantly rejected if it doesn't fit Irving's worldview (e.g., that the holocaust didn't happen).

For example--one of numerous ones--when a certain nazi general denied knowledge of the holocaust after the war, that statement is believed implicity; but when the same general admits to other war crimes, Irving writes that he was "afraid" of torture or otherwise coerced into saying it. Or, Irving accepts as gospel truth the claim that "30,000" jews were involved in insurance fraud in 1932, before Hitler came to power--a claim based on nothing more than an antisemitic propaganda speech by a nazi functionary (the real number of ALL those prosecuted for such fraud in 1932, jews and non-jews, was less than 100); but he glibly rejects all surivor's testimony as coming from "ASsociation of Survivor of AuscHwitz and Other LiarS", or "ASSHOLS". Ha-ha.

Such examples can--and are--multiplied indefinitely. This is, in fact, the most important contribution this book makes: it is a thorough analysis of Irving's historical research and conclusions, and a definitive proof that it is totally worthless, not much more than neo-nazi antisemitic propaganda in the garb of "historical research".

The second part of the book is the one that got all the media attention: Evan's experience in the dock as he confronted Irving, and his impressions of the trial, Irving, the media circus around it, and so on. This part is less impressive, for an obvious reason: while, as an historian dealing with the documents, he is in his element as an expert, on the trial and the media around it he is writing as a layman.

Evans is intelligent and articulate as a layman, to be sure, and his observations on the trial and the media coverage are often worth reading. But here he does not tell us something that is really new or could not be skimmed from the (better) newspaper reports of the trial.

So read the book--and read both parts of it. Only remember that the first part is the real "meat" of the book, while the second, his experiences in the dock, is somewhat disappointing and polemical--although understandably so.

I have studied Hitler, WWII, and the Holocaust for over a decade. I've even read Irving's books, which while not being accurate or serious are entertaining. They remind me of the narrative books now popular about Washington DC where authors try to make you feel like you are in the room while history was being made.

The problem with Irving is he leaves out well known facts and misinterprets often. To me, it seems like Irving believes Hitler and the German side in general has not gotten a fair shake re the historical record. I think most can agree this is true, the historical record of WWII and how things happened leans toward the victors- as it always does. But Irving seems to be out to correct this by swinging the pendulum too far the other way, painting Hitler as he was in 1935- even knowing what he did from 1935 to 1945. The facts Irving leaves out while painting these narratives are ones well known to any historian familiar with these subjects, but I can see how he could easily fool those new to them.

Irving's ultimate vomit of nonsense, that Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust because there is no order to kill all the Jews in the world with his name on it, is truly laughable. Hitler lied about everything in his life, and regularly hid issues he felt the public not ready for. (eg The future plans for destruction of the church, the murder of the mentally retarded or "life not worthy of life")

In addition, Hitler often ordered things verbally, with no paper documents, and Borman Himmler or Speer would follow through. If anyone knows how ridiculous "not finding an order to kill the Jews with Hitler's name on it" would be, it should be Irving. In addition, Hitler regularly read "the brown papers" or the transcripts of numerous wire taps. Literally nothing happened in Germany that Hitler did not know about, as Borman routinely stated.

Re initiation of the Holocaust, all historical evidence points to Hitler handing the ball off to Goering and Heydrich, to "solve the Jewish problem" with "transports to the east" to prevent getting his hands dirty. It's very sad Irving threw always his many talents as a writer and researcher to try and claim otherwise. He has embarrassed himself, and his family. He should apologize, and come clean instead of continuing this charade. He must truly believe everyone to be stupid, to continue along his path of self delusion.

This book is an outcome of the libel trial brought by David Irving against Penguin Books (in general) and Deborah Lipstadt (specifically). A historian and modern social commentator, Deborah Lipstadt had referred to Irving as a Holocaust denier (and a poor historian) three or four times in a nearly 600-page book. Irving took exception and sued her for libel. He waited to sue her in England where the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the Plaintiff. Evans was one of the many historians asked, by the defense, to prove that Lipstadt was not committing libel when she called Irving a Holocaust denier.

Evans has consequently built up a massive body of evidence to show that Irving continually, and with knowledge, suppressed historical facts and documents to support his position. Evans presents both the process of his investigation and the conclusions that he reached. Evans makes a formidable case. He points successfully to incident after incident where Irving knew that information was incorrect and still used it. Evans also points out that Irving's "mistakes" were all in one direction, not chaotic as one might expect from a researcher that didn't have enough time on his hands or was uncertain about his material.

Lying About Hitler clarifies a number of issues, the first being that Irving was not the defendant (I thought so when I first heard about the case). Irving was suing Lipstadt, not the other way around. It was Lipstadt's freedom of speech (and Penguin Books') that was under attack. If Irving had won, he and others like him would have been able to stop (or attempt to stop) anyone who called them liars or disagreed with their position.

Another issue Evans deals with is the "but history is so hard to interpret" argument. Evans points out, again and again, that this trial was not about the interpretation of historical facts but the misuse of historical documentation (either invented or avoided). Evans' chapter on Irving's research of the bombing of Dresden is fascinating in this regard.

This kind of book confirms the importance of historical research for its own sake. History is so easily (and so often) manipulated for political purposes (on both sides of the fence). It is so much more important to figure out what happened and why as objectively as possible than to "prove" political agendas.

Recommendation: Buy it in paperback or hardcover. If you don't have the cash, take it out of the library. It is definitely worth a read.

Did you know that during the Beer Hall Putsch Hitler was firmly opposed to anti-Semitic violence and when he heard that some Nazis had attacked Jewish stores he summoned them and summarily dismissed them from the party? Well if you don't know, don't blame yourself, it's not actually true. And if you thought you knew this you have been misled by David Irving. As Richard J. Evans points out in this useful book, what Irving did was rely on the testimony at Hitler's trial of a Nazi Party member and Munich police officer. Aside from massaging various details to make Hitler look even more principled that the witness said he was, Irving ignored the fact that the witness was obviously trying to improve Hitler's image and even the amazingly indulgent tribunal agreed he was too partial a witness to be believed. As readers will find out in this book, this is not the first nor the last questionable interpretation Irving has inflicted on his readers.

This book arises out of last year's libel trial in which Irving sued the American author Deborah Lipstadt for claiming he was a Holocaust denier. He lost his case, basically because Lipstadt and her lawyers were able to show that in fact he was one. Evans, a distinguished historian of modern Germany was asked to examine Irving's work, and he produced a damning affidavit that showed that Irving had systematically distorted the evidence in order to euphemize and indulge Hitler's actions. Surprisingly, Irving went into the trial with a much better reputation than he deserved. He was able to quote prominent and respected historians who claimed that, regardless of his views on the Holocaust, his other work was often scholarly and informative. People wondered out loud whether a court was a good place to hear such a case, forgetting that it was Irving who launched the case. Evans points out that this was not the first time Irving had resorted to the courts as a substitute for scholarly debate. He was suing the journalist Gitta Sereny for libel, bullied John Lukacs' publishers with libel threats, and had lost a libel suit against an author who had attacked his sensationalistic book on the death of General Sikorski.

Evans believes justice was done, and provides an excellent case. He shows how Irving made all sorts of distortions and misleading statements. A supposedly damning statement about Jewish crime turns out to be based on Nazi propaganda. Even worse, Irving managed to distort even these statements to say Jews were responsible for 31,000 fraud cases, mostly insurance swindles in 1932 (In fact there were only 74 Gentiles and Jews charged with insurance swindles in that year). A key source for Irving's indulgent account of the Kristallnacht turns out to be based on a neo-Nazi apologist. Evans details Irving's links to Holocaust deniers, and points out the fact that he was the last person on earth to vouch for the authenticity of the forged Hitler diaries.

While many people agree that Irving may have a bee in his bonnet about the Holocaust, they say his other work is valuable. Evans helpfully deflates that view with a chapter on Irving's book on the Destruction of Dresden. Whereas most scholars suggest that at most 40-50,000 people died in the firebombing of the city, Irving has suggested that up to a quarter of a million may have died. How did he do this? Well, without any real evidence he took one estimate of 40,000 and argued that the assessor had just dropped a "1" at the beginning in response to Soviet pressure. His source for a total of 200-250,000 amount to little more than fifth-hand hearsay of a document that had been excerpted, transcribed, transcribed again and copied, and which was a fraud in the first place. Evans points out that Irving tried to exaggerate the number of people in Dresden by cited 1.25 million ration cards, except that the British had previously dropped thousands of ration cards in order to muck up the Nazi bureaucracy. And, oh yes, Evans points out that Irving ignores or minimizes contemporary German documents that show that the death total was about the tenth of his estimate. All in all, this is a very useful book, one that should help demolish the reputation of a most overrated and sinister figure.

As far as I can tell, most of the negative reviews could easily have been writted by people who simply objected to a summary description of the book, even if that isn't the case. They all bemoan the silencing of someone who would "dare" to reexamine the official version of historical events. It seems that these people keep missing a rather obvious point. Irving was the PLAINTIFF in the trial, NOT THE DEFENDANT. No one put Irving on trial; rather, Irving was trying to destroy the career of a person who had dared to doubt HIS version of Holocaust events. So all of those reviews complaining that this book is yet another attempt to silence an historian who breaks from the official line are totally missing the point: it was Irving who was attempting to silence academic discourse. Which makes most of the defenses of him shown in these reviews completely moot. Had Irving respected the right of others to disagree with him, even to very vocally and bitterly disagree with him, his career would be intact and this book would never have been written. And to the reviewer who claimed that Evans only wrote the book to make money: How, exactly, do you think academics earn their living?

I have been a big admirer of David Irving's for a long time, and still believe that he is head and shoulders above all other WWII historians when it comes to his writing skills and mastery of the German primary source material. While Anglo-American court historians were content to write books based on the secondary source "research" of other court historians, David Irving learned the German language and went to the primary sources: the Nazi archives in Europe, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and to the surviving members of Hitler's entourage, who had shockingly been ignored by his lazy, and usually monolingual, peers. He has contributed invaluable, original research to his field of study. He has been a free speech martyr on 3 continents and has actually been imprisoned because of his words. My own public library system has a slew of David Irving books that are listed as "missing" because they've been stolen or destroyed by organized Jewish groups who publicly boast of their censorship. I admire him for his work, his sacrifices and because anyone who has such loathsome enemies must be doing something right. However, after reading this book, even I have to conclude, as much as I don't want to, that David Irving lied.

The author, Richard Evans, is a distasteful left-wing academic who obviously has an agenda and who raises a good deal of niggling objections to Irving's work. However, he also proves rather conclusively that Irving has deliberately lied in several of his books, whether through distortion of historical facts or flat-out invention. It might be worth it to detail one example.

When I first read Irving's original 2 volume magnum opus, "Hitler's War", in the mid 90s, the one thing that really caught my attention was Irving's assertion that Hitler had actually ordered Himmler_not_to liquidate the Jews. Irving's thesis was that the SS actually massacred the Jews on their own initiative, contrary to Hitler's direct orders and express wish to simply expel them after the war. In his introduction, Irving writes, "...the incontrovertible evidence is that Hitler ordered on November 30th 1941 that there was to be 'no liquidation' of the Jews." The relevant passage of the books reads:

"On November 30th, he (Himmler) was summoned to the Wolf's lair for a secret conference with Hitler, at which the fate of Berlin's Jews was clearly raised. At 1:30 p.m. Himmler was obligated to telephone from Hitler's bunker to Heydrich the explicit order that Jews were not to be liquidated; and the next day Himmler telephoned SS overall General Oswald Pohl, overall chief of the concentration camp system, with the order: 'Jews are to stay where they are.'"

Needless to say, I sat up and took notice. What a historian! What a discovery! Hitler actually wanted to protect the Jews from his bloodthirsty subordinates! Unfortunately, Irving's account is not at all accurate.

First of all, the relevant phrase in Himmler's notes was, "Judentransport aus Berlin. Keine Liquidierung" which means "Jew transport from Berlin. No Liquidation." It should be obvious to anyone, even without the fluency in German which Mr. Irving has, that the phrase refers to a single, specific transport of Jews from Berlin. Somehow, Irving extrapolated that order into a general prohibition against the liquidation of all Jews. Even more damning to his case, Irving had correctly translated the word "judentransport" as singular in a 1974 letter, so what was the justification for the mistranslation 3 years later?

Such an extrapolation is even more bizarre considering the two lines which preceded the mention of the Jew transport, which Irving chose to completely ignore. They are: "Verhaftung Dr. Jekelius/ Angebl [ich] Sohn Molotows" which mean "Arrest Dr. Jekelius. Presumably Molotov's son." This means that is was believed that one of the prisoners on that transport from Berlin was believed to be Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov's son, who would conceivably be a valuable bargaining chip for the Nazis, and who would have been automatically liquidated on his transport's arrival at its destination, unless some higher-up ordered his removal.

In addition, Himmler made this phone call an hour before he even met with Hitler, so it was misleading to say he was "obligated" by Hitler to spare this trainload of Jews, let alone Jews in general. The next part of this passage was the order that "Jews are to stay where they are." The relevant order says, "Verwaltungsfuhrer des SS haben zu bleiben" which actually means, "Administrative leaders of the SS are to stay where they are". There was no mention of Jews anywhere in Himmler's log that day. Irving says these were mistakes. For an expert in his field, who is fluent in German, these seem like the mistakes of someone who is either deliberately falsifying the historical record or who is so blinded by a desire to exculpate Hitler from all wrongdoing that he can't tell when he is extracting totally baseless interpretations from a document.

Evans looks into several other instances in Irving's work, such as the Dresden death toll, that couldn't have been anything but deliberate lies. I can't judge Irving's motivation. Perhaps he really does want to rehabilitate Hitler. It is a fact that there are more lies about Hitler and WWII that are accepted as common knowledge than there are for any other historical subject. Yet Irving had to have known that he'd be caught eventually. Maybe he did it for purely promotional purposes. Such revelations would surely sell books, but again, he had to know he'd eventually be found out. I don't know, but it's unfortunate that what amount to just a few lines in a man's work can ruin his reputation. However, if you can't trust someone in one area, can you really trust him in others? Those of us who are in favor of "revisionist" (i.e. "true") history have to be able to recognize and expose historical lies, even when they're told by our side. Objective truth has to be the touchstone for our allegiance, not ideological kinship.

"Holocaust deniers" ("Holocaust revisionists") are people who either deny that the Holocaust ever happened, or try to minimize the extent and horror of it. In my opinion, calling a writer, a historian, a politician, or anyone at all, a "Holocaust denier" is almost certain to damage his reputation.

Mr. Irving agrees. That's why he took legal action. In his opening statement at the trial, David Irving vs. Penguin Books Ltd. and Deborah E. Lipstadt, Mr. Irving said, "[`Holocaust denier'] has become one of the most potent phrases in the arsenal of insult, replacing the N-word, the F-word, and a whole alphabet of other slurs. If an American politician. . .is branded, even briefly as a Holocaust denier, his career can well be said to be in ruins. If a writer, no matter how well reviewed and received until then, has that phrase stuck to him, then he, too, can regard his career as rumbling off the edge of a precipice."

Dr. Evans demonstrated to the satisfaction of the High Court in London the "falsification and manipulation of historical records" aspect of some of Mr. Irving's writing about history. At the trial, Mr. Irving described the "damage to the reputation" effect of Ms. Lipstadt's book.

I do not read German and cannot comment on Dr. Evans' contention that Mr. Irving played fast and loose with the truth in his writing based on historical documents in German archives. The statement that no document, signed by Hitler, has been found ordering the execution of Jewish people in death camps (order clearly stated, rather than implied) may be true--I don't know. But some statements don't need backing up with archives. The idea, for example, that Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust is absurd.

Beyond this, as other reviewers have been allowed to stray from commentary on Dr. Evans' book in order to discuss Holocaust denial in general, I hope Amazon.com will do the same for me.

In my opinion, Mr. Irving is a talented writer. His books are lively, fascinating, full of fire. His writing reveals a fine sense of humor, too. I do not share his biases, and I often disagree with his views. Still, I have enjoyed reading his work.

Dr. Evans has written an interesting book, and I recommend that you read his Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial--and see what you think.

My impression is that Mr. Irving does not deny that the tragedy took place. In his opening statement at the trial, Mr. Irving said, ". . .no person in full command of his mental faculties, and with even the slightest understanding of what happened in World War Two, can deny that the tragedy actually happened, however much we dissident historians may wish to quibble about the means, the scale, the dates and other minutiae."

Mr. Irving does deny or revise information about the Holocaust (regarding locations, numbers of people who suffered, numbers of people who suffered and died, scale, blame, who knew what, etc.) that most people believe to be true.

Mr. Irving also said, "[The term `Holocaust denier'] is a poison to which there is virtually no antidote, less lethal than a hypodermic with nerve gas jabbed in the neck, but deadly all the same: for the chosen victim, it is like being called a wife beater or a pædophile. It is enough for the label to be attached, for the attachee to find himself designated as a pariah, an outcast from normal society. It is a verbal Yellow Star." He further noted that, "In many countries now where it was considered that the mere verbal labelling was not enough, governments have been prevailed upon to pass the most questionable laws, including some which can only be considered a total infringement of the normal human rights of free speech, free opinion and freedom of assembly."

I agree. Let them speak. Who are we, any of us, to say that other people may not speak?

Holocaust denial is a silly idea. Denying the Holocaust is like saying that World War II never happened, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never bombed, men never landed on the moon, and the Titanic never sank.

No one in his right mind, no one who has even a smattering of knowledge about World War II, can deny that the tragedy we call the Holocaust did, in fact, take place.

Evidence of the Holocaust is overwhelming--testimonies of death camp survivors and Nazi perpetrators, material evidence, as well as documents created and records kept by the Nazis themselves. Many survivors of the camps bore, and continue to bear, witness to the reality of this dark period of 20th century history that Auschwitz survivor Elie Wiesel calls Night.

Photographs taken in the death camps and published shortly after the end of World War II are, and have been since that time, available for everyone to see.

Rational, educated people all over the world know that the Holocaust happened. Precise statistics can never be known--historians love to quibble about these--but it is known that people, Jewish and non-Jewish, who died in the Holocaust number in the millions.

People who publicly deny the Holocaust also know that the Holocaust did, in fact, happen. And they know how extensive and horrible it was. Holocaust deniers may have their own agendas: some are simply anti-Semitic and like to rail against the Jews; others seek to share the "limelight" with Jewish people who suffered in the Holocaust; and some, by erasing the memory of the Holocaust, hope to clear the way for a repeat performance.

But as an American who values freedom of thought and speech, I view with dismay the legislation some countries have enacted to prevent people from making statements which deny the extent, or even the reality, of the Holocaust.

I don't believe in shutting people up.

I share the view of the late historian Dr. Räul Hilberg, who said, "I do not agree with legislation that makes it illegal to utter pronouncements claiming that there was no Holocaust. I do not want to muzzle any of this because it is a sign of weakness, not of strength, when you try to shut somebody up. Yes, there is always a risk. Nothing in life is without risk, but you have to make rational decisions about everything."

"Revisionists" do bring attention to the Holocaust--a tragedy in history which the world must not forget. As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


Arlene Sanders

Holocaust deniers are an enigmatic group in the modern world. One that insists, for various reasons, that one of the greatest tragedies of the modern age was a mere hoax. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary these people insist the Holocaust simply did not happen; how can they say this? this book by Richard J. Evans about his experiences as a material witness for the defense in David Irving's Libel case against Deborah Lipstadt sheds some light on how denier's history works. Evans' job during the trial basically consisted of checking over David Irving's writings and determining if he was just a 'revisionist historian' (which the deniers all claim to be) or if he was in fact a holocaust denier, an anti-semite, and a falsifier of history.
Evans findings are hardly surprising to those familiar with the denial movement. He showed with sufficient force to convince a supreme court justice that Irving was all of these things. Reading this book can give a person an excellent impression of what the deniers are like; unfortunately that can include arrogant, racist, and unrepentant. These persons all believe in the absolute accuracy of what they say despite the fact that they have to obfuscate their sources, take quotes out of context, and literally ignore mountains of contrary evidence (including eyewitness testimonies, both Jewish and Nazi alike) to make these claims.
Irving is something of a celebrity in this world. With the possible exception of Rassinier or Faurisson he is denial's most prolific writer; certainly he is its most prolific English writer. The most amazing feature of this book is how it portrays Irving. He certainly seems like an utter creep from the portrayal here. He argues forcefully, eloquently, and convincingly to the unwitting public and yet when faced with actually defending his 'revisionist' view of the Holocaust before actual historians he is defeated on virtually all fronts. In the end it is some justice that this man sued Lipstadt for printing a few pages of material he considered to be libelous and he came out of the trial with an over three hundred page judgement handed down by a Supreme Court Justice of England (also available from Penguin publishers under the title, 'The Irving Judgement')upholding Lipstadt's claims as well as many others and a fine of around two million pounds.
The judgement was more damaging to Irving's reputation than anything Lipstadt said and I believe the world owes a big thank you to Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Publishers for taking this case to court. Rather than settle out of court they chose to fight a long and expensive legal battle; they must have known from the beginning that, even if they won, they would probably never see any major portion of the money they spent back again. My hat goes off to them all for fighting a long and arduous legal battle that in the end would net them nothing more than a small boost to their already fine reputation.
This book is easy to read and entertaining; the lay reader will find it not overly complex though some familiarity with the history of the third reich would be helpful. Evans has an excellent command of history and a good sense of humour. For those looking for an introduction to the world of holocaust denial this illustrates perfectly how badly the deniers manipulate evidence to suit their own ends

...is not, we would all agree, an advisable way to address a British High Court Justice! Certainly not when careers are at stake and professional reputations are in fact the very substance of the specific case. This comment made by historian David Irving is one of the more bizarre facts that emerges in LYING ABOUT HITLER. A book about the rather strange libel suit brought by Mr Irving against Deborah Lipstadt. In her book DENYING THE HOLOCAUST, Ms Lipstadt said Irving was "one of the more dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial [who] misstate, misquote, falsify statistics and falsely attribute conclusions to reliable sources" She also said that "on some level, Irving seems to conceive of himself as carrying on Hitler's legacy."

LYING ABOUT HITLER is the extended account of the deposition given by the author, Richard J Evans at the trial. Mr Evans a specialist in modern German history, was called as an expert witness by the defense. It has been generally argued by the press, court observers, and other authors of books on this trial that Mr Evans' testimomy was crucial to the outcome - the defense winning the case. There is much more here though than an account of a law suit. Three interrelated issues are explored:

(1) "What is historical objectivity? How do we know when a historian is telling the truth? Aren't all historians, in the end, only giving their own opinions about the past?" This is how Mr Evans begins his book, and the answers to these questions are central to explaining his role in the case. As the author of an earlier well respected analysis of the historical method titled IN DEFENSE OF HISTORY, his opinion was wanted on the following: objectivity and bias in historical writing, historical research, and how to obtain accurate knowledge of the past. The defense attorney said simply that these were "the central issues in the case that Irving was bringing against Lipstadt."

(2) Is Ms Lipstadt's statement that "Holocaust deniers pose a serious threat to historical knowledge and memory" an accurate claim? Are these people "connected with neo-fascist, far-right, and antisemitic political extremists" as Ms Lipstadt is quoted as saying? And what is the connection with David Irving? As this book shows, Mr Evans went back through almost all of Mr Irving's book's (over 30) and reviews of these books to convincingly argue to the Judge's satisfaction, that Mr Irving was guilty of misquotation, mistranslation, misrepresentation and gross distortion.

(3) The quirky nature of the libel laws in the UK have a role to play in the issue. The fact that Ms Lipstadt and Penguin books had to prove their innocence - the burden rests with the defense - makes the whole issue of libel and free speech a very contentious issue in the UK. Defendants only have one advantage; in the pretrail phase they can access the plaintiff's personal as well as professional documents. The defense was able to portray Mr Irving as having some rather strange sentiments. In keeping with his odd "mein Fuhrer" remark, Mr Irving had written a poem for his young daughter that read: "I am a Baby Aryan / Not Jewish or Sectarian / I have no plans to marry an / Ape or Rastafarian". It obviously didn't help his claim that he was not racist, neofascist, or a Holocaust denier.

In contrast to the US where he would have had a harder time making his case, or in Germany where denying the Holocaust is a crime, and he is in fact barred from entering the country, Mr Irving continues to take advantage of UK laws. This very book LYING ABOUT HITLER, has been withdrawn by it's UK publisher, under threat of a lawsuit by...you guessed it...David Irving!