Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust Holocaust And The David Irving Trial (Hardcover)

~ (Author) "What is historical objectivity?..." (more)
Key Phrases: gassing facilities, second defendant, objective historian, Second World War, David Irving, Third Reich (more...)

Editorial Reviews

From Library Journal

As an expert witness for the defense in last year's Irving-Lipstadt trial, Evans (history, Cambridge Univ.) was charged with determining whether David Irving was, as Deborah Lipstadt asserted, a Holocaust denier. Evans spent two years researching Irving's work, tracing his sources, and then evaluating his publications and public speeches. Moving easily from analysis of Irving's abuse of primary documents to a discussion of what constitutes legitimate historical methodology, Evans presents compelling proof that Irving is a Holocaust denier and why he should not be considered a legitimate member of the historical profession. Evans's depiction of the trial and of Irving's behavior in court is followed by an assessment of the implications of the judgment in Lipstadt's favor. Evans's point that some commentators seemed to forget that it was Irving who was attempting to silence Lipstadt, rather than academic historians and "Jewish interest groups" attempting to stifle free speech, is well worth remembering. Evans eloquently argues that what was really on trial was history itself. Fortunately, history won. Ironically, Evans's carefully documented book has not yet been published in the U.K., as Irving's threats to bring a libel suit have already caused one company to drop publication. Highly recommended. Frederic Krome, Jacob Rader Marcus Ctr. of the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist

When Deborah Lipstadt's Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (1993), a groundbreaking book about the disturbing movement to refute the reality of the Holocaust, was published, one of the writers identified as a Holocaust denier, the Englishman David Irving, sued Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin, for libel. Although Irving never earned a degree, he has written nearly 30 books about Hitler and other related subjects. His contention, therefore, was that Lipstadt had denigrated his work as a historian by accusing him of distorting the historical record to support his extreme anti-Semitic politics. The defense had to prove that Irving, in fact, had deliberately misrepresented the contents of relevant documents to conform to his sympathetic view of Hitler and his belief that nothing on the order of genocide occurred under Nazi rule. Evans, a Cambridge-based historian who specializes in modern German history, was retained by the defense as an expert witness, and he chronicles his arduous research effort with impressive lucidity. At question was the very bedrock of history: Is there such a thing as historical objectivity? Or, as Evans writes, "How do we know when a historian is telling the truth? . . . Wasn't it all a matter of interpretation?" Sensitive to these conundrums and the high emotional valence attached to the Holocaust, Evans was scrupulous in his examination of thousands of pages of documents, assiduously evaluating Irving's interpretation of such primary sources as Goebbels' diaries, always on the lookout for evidence of inaccuracies and bias. He found plenty, and he describes his discoveries with quiet and contagious excitement. By sharing his vast insider's knowledge and recounting his surreal experiences on the stand as Irving, who represented himself, conducted his chaotic cross-examinations, Evans enables readers to fully appreciate the significance of both Lipstadt's victory and Irving's exposure as exactly what he claimed not to be. There is such a thing as truth, and history, responsibly practiced, will reveal it. Donna Seaman
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 336 pages
• Publisher: Basic Books (March 6, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0465021522
• ISBN-13: 978-0465021529
• Product Dimensions: 9.1 x 6.2 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (46 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #940,519 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

79 of 111 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Valuable and Necessary Book, July 3, 2002

By	Katherine Woodbury "Woody" (Portland, ME) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

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.

23 of 32 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars A Tiny Bit of Perspective, January 6, 2008

By	Only-A-Child - See all my reviews (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)

This review is from: Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial (Paperback)

Many of the comments about this book appear to have been written by people who have never read a David Irving book and have little (if any) interest in military history (or any history). So let me let try to add some perspective to the discussion.

I am not in Holocaust denial; I pretty much accept everything Saul Friedlander details in his two volumes about "Nazi Germany and the Jews". But I am also a long-time reader of Irving's books, not all of them but more than just a representative sampling. Irving is not in the top tier of military historians but he is an entertaining writer and his books are well organized and relatively easy to follow. More importantly he brings a fresh perspective for those seeking to better follow and understand WWII, this is the perspective of someone willing to acknowledge that the Nazi leadership can be best understood by illustrating events from their point of view. Not exactly a popular idea which is why he is the only game in town.

This point of view stuff has been exhaustively done for the American and British leaders, and we now probably know about 80% of their side of the story. The German and Russian sides are still pretty gray; probably 60% that we don't know much about. But Irving has shed a lot of light on that unknown German portion. Yes he has an agenda and there is a bias to his research, but so does almost any historian. If a historical subject really interests you, you read several interpretations and sort it out in your own mind. A reader simply make allowances for Irving because his stuff is the best we've got on at this time on certain aspects of the war. Irving has always been a self-promoter but I'm not sure you could technically call all his stuff revisionist, because he was the first one to methodically examine most of his topics. As has been said he is a "useful irritant" and lately seems to take an increasing delight in playing devil's advocate (or maybe he is just getting senile as he gets older).

Since the trial he has become the favorite bete noir of the Holocaust set. What is unfortunate is that interested readers may avoid his books because he has been labeled a "denier", a broad term that in his case seems highly exaggerated. In most of his books he frequently acknowledges the event. Even his 1996 biography of Goebbels, which publishers were pressured into suppressing because of alleged bias, is full of allusions to and details about the Holocaust. Here are some references from just one section. Page #420: mentions Goebbels frequent statements that for the top Nazis there is not going back; they can expect nothing (from surrender) but the gallows. Page #424" Goebbels writes (in early 1943) "we have committed ourselves so far as the Jewish problem, for us there is no escape anymore, none whatsoever". Page #426: A movement and a party that have burned their boats fight more ruthlessly than those which still have an avenue of retreat. Page #456: Goebbels mentions Himmler telling senior officers how he had killed off the Jews; "If people ask me why did you have to kill the children I say I'm not such a coward that I leave for my children something I can do for myself".

While people have latched onto the denial accusation, Irving's actual denial (at least until very recently) has been about the degree of Hitler's knowledge of the extermination camps. Although I think this wishful thinking on his part, it hardly amounts to a denial that the Holocaust actually occurred.

The other area that fits into the denial framework is Irving's assertion that Auschwitz was not an extermination camp but rather the most brutal of Himmler's slave-labor camps and the one with the highest mortality rate. Again, while this is unlikely it hardly amounts to a denial of the Holocaust. It simply challenges the accepted classification for Auschwitz; contending that it was more like Dachau than like Chelmno or Treblinka.

43 of 61 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Let's think about this for a moment, July 2, 2004

By	B. Baker "reading rugger" (Maryland) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial (Paperback)

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?