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

by Richard J. Evans (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
• Average Customer Review: 3.7 out of 5 stars See all reviews (46 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #923,973 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

77 of 106 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.

39 of 53 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?

55 of 78 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars This book should be translated into Japanese, July 19, 2001

By	Caddykitty "caddykitty" (California) - See all my reviews

After I started reading Richard J. Evans’ LYING ABOUT HITLER, I couldn’t put it down. This is a well-organized, thoroughly researched account, intellectually stimulating and yet entertaining. Based on his “expert report” as one of the expert witnesses for the defense in the Irving vs. Penguin Books/Lipstadt case, the Cambridge historian Prof. Evans meticulously shows how the British author David Irving has falsified, distorted, misinterpreted, and misrepresented historical evidence to fit it with his special agendas. Proved as a problematic “historian,” a racist, and a Holocaust denier in the British High Court, Irving lost the libel case in which HE had sued the American scholar Deborah Lipstadt (and her publisher), who had accused him of being an abuser of history and a “denier” in her 1993 book. LYING ABOUT HITLER not only explains how the author proved Irving’s intentional distortion of historical evidence, but also interweaves the reactions to the trial among the media and professional historians.[....]

This book includes seven chapters and detailed notes (good historians always use notes). Chapter 1 discusses the reputations of Irving’s works among professional historians and journalists, while explaining how Evans got involved in the case as an expert whose job was to prove Irving’s abuse of historical record. The chapter shows that although some historians have already pointed out the problems in Irving’s methodology, there are other scholars and journalists who have praised Irving’s works.

In Chapters 2, 3, and 5, Evans proves how Irving has deliberately falsified and distorted historical evidence. In order to support his favorite themes (e.g. Hitler tried to stop violence against the Jews), Irving intentionally manipulated primary sources. His methods include: claiming something that the source did not say; ignoring unfavorable parts within a document; using untrustworthy witnesses (e.g. Hitler’s sympathizers); doubting the authenticity of a document that did not support his thesis; and even using forged documentation. It was a challenging and painstaking job to examine Irving’s works (about 30 books) along with thousands of pages of documents and many other materials. Yet, Evans succeeded his task in court and in this book.

Chapter 4, “Irving and Holocaust Denial,” first defines what the Holocaust deniers (they call themselves “revisionists”) are trying to prove in order to minimize or smash the significance of the Holocaust. Then, mainly by examining Irving’s public speeches, Evans verifies Irving’s association with deniers, especially a group in California, the “revisionist” center of the US. Evans informs us that the group started with Holocaust-bashing agendas, backed by extreme right-wing figures and organizations, and has maintained itself so since.

Chapter 6, “In the Witness Box,” is quite entertaining. It includes how Evans presented his findings in court and how Irving responded in cross-examination (he represented himself). Irving’s harassing and insulting manners constantly irritated the defense witnesses and lawyers as well as the judge. As the proceeding went on, however, it became apparent that Irving was losing self-control and falling apart. On one occasion, Irving, in a slip of the tongue, addressed the judge as “Mein Fuhrer.” Everybody in court laughed. How embarrassing! That clearly showed what sort of audience Irving usually had.

Chapter 7, “Judgment Day,” includes the court decision, vindicating Lipstadt’s claim. It also shows how Irving attempted to disgrace the judgment via the media after the trial. There were some journalists who were skeptical about the trial, fearing that freedom of speech was in danger. Evans, however, points out that these journalists tended to forget who had brought the case in the first place. Irving was the one who tried to jeopardize freedom of speech by suppressing Lipstadt’s book. Evans also shows that those historians who still believed that Irving was legitimate missed the point.

What did the trial teach us? For historians, as Evans puts, “It vindicated our capacity to know what happened after the survivors are no longer around to tell the tale.” For the public, as a journalist remarked, the case “reminded people of what happened there, and educated those who did not know about it.”

Reading this book and examining the recent Holocaust “revisionism” arguments, I discovered that some issues (e.g. “Holocaust myth” and doubt of the existence of gas chambers) that a Japanese friend thought legitimate have been used as propaganda for extreme right-wing/neo-fascist/neo-Nazi/racist groups! How scary! Perhaps, people in Japan can be susceptible to the misleading arguments by the “revisionists” because: (1) NOT all the recent works on the Holocaust and its “revisionism” are available in Japanese; (2) Updates on the recent Holocaust “revisionism” disputes (e.g. the Irving trial) are NOT always known well in Japan. I hope books like LYING ABOUT HITLER will be translated into Japanese soon.

Overall, Richard J. Evans’ LYING ABOUT HITLER presents an informative source, successfully integrating today’s hot issues and historical arguments. I would also recommend this book for historical methodology courses at college.