Share <Embed>

FREE Shipping on orders over $25.00 shipped by Amazon or get Fast, Free Shipping with Amazon Prime

Arrives: Friday, Dec 18 Details

Fastest delivery: Wednesday, Dec 16 Details

Arrives before Christmas.

In Stock.
As an alternative, the Kindle eBook is available now and can be read on any device with the free Kindle app.

Ships from	Amazon.com
Sold by	Amazon.com

Details

Ships from

Amazon.com

Sold by

Amazon.com

Return policy: Returnable until Jan 31, 2021

Add a gift receipt with prices hidden

FREE Shipping on orders over $25.00 shipped by Amazon or get Fast, Free Shipping with Amazon Prime

Used: Good | Details

Sold by GreatBookMan

Fulfilled by Amazon

Other Sellers on Amazon

$12.97
+ $3.99 shipping

Sold by: Ambis Enterprises

$18.10
+ Free Shipping

Sold by: ZiFiti

$19.95
+ Free Shipping

Sold by: 2InfinitI

Have one to sell?

Sell on Amazon

Flip to back Flip to front

Listen Playing... Paused You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more

See all 2 images

Follow the Author

Richard J. Evans

Lying About Hitler Reprint Edition

by Richard J. Evans (Author)

93 ratings

See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions

Price

New from

Used from

Kindle

"Please retry"

$2.99

—

Hardcover

"Please retry"

$51.74

$50.14

$4.26

Paperback

"Please retry"

$17.50

$12.97

$3.99

In ruling against the controversial historian David Irving in his libel suit against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt, last April 2000, the High Court in London labeled him a falsifier of history. No objective historian, declared the judge, would manipulate the documentary record in the way that Irving did. Richard J. Evans, a Cambridge historian and the chief advisor for the defense, uses this pivotal trial as a lens for exploring a range of difficult questions about the nature of the historian's enterprise. For instance, don't all historians in the end bring a subjective agenda to bear on their reading of the evidence? Is it possible that Irving lost his case not because of his biased history but because his agenda was unacceptable? The central issue in the trial -- as for Evans in this book -- was not the past itself, but the way in which historians study the past. In a series of short, sharp chapters, Richard Evans sets David Irving's methods alongside the historical record in order to illuminate the difference between responsible and irresponsible history. The result is a cogent and deeply informed study in the nature of historical interpretation.

Frequently bought together

Total price: $43.49

Buy the selected items together

This item:Lying About Hitler by Richard J. Evans Paperback $17.50
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
FREE Shipping on orders over $25.00. Details
The Second World War by Antony Beevor Paperback $17.99
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
FREE Shipping on orders over $25.00. Details
With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa by E. B. Sledge Paperback $8.00
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
FREE Shipping on orders over $25.00. Details

Customers who viewed this item also viewed

Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1

This shopping feature will continue to load items when the Enter key is pressed. In order to navigate out of this carousel please use your heading shortcut key to navigate to the next or previous heading.

Natalie Zemon Davis

192

Paperback
$27.84
Richard J. Evans

266

Paperback
$22.99
Richard J. Evans

432

Paperback
$21.50
Deborah E. Lipstadt

110

Paperback
$13.53
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Richard J. Evans

3

Hardcover
$20.40
86

Mass Market Paperback
6 offers from $457.07

Special offers and product promotions

Amazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a free business account

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Superb...Evans's book, based on a 700-page report for the defense, is never less than absorbing." -- National Review

About the Author

Richard J. Evans is Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University and a noted specialist on modern German history. He is the author of In Defense of History and Death in Hamburg.

Product details

Publisher : Basic Books; Reprint edition (April 18, 2002)
Language: : English
Paperback : 336 pages
ISBN-10 : 0465021530
ISBN-13 : 978-0465021536
Lexile measure : 1520L
Item Weight : 11.6 ounces
Dimensions : 5 x 0.9 x 8 inches

Best Sellers Rank: #379,906 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #625 in Jewish Holocaust History
- #802 in England History
- #815 in European History (Books)

Customer Reviews:
93 ratings

Customer reviews

5 star		61%
4 star		23%
3 star		11%
2 star		1%
1 star		3%

How are ratings calculated?

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Museum Man

Holocaust denial deconstructed.

Reviewed in the United States on December 22, 2018

Verified Purchase

Hundreds of books have been written about controversial events throughout history.The American Civil War,the atomic bombings of Japan,Pearl Harbor,9/11-all leave a legacy of conflicting,yet mostly honest conclusions.This book should serve as a warning to those who twist the truth in support of their own biases,in this instance,Holocaust denial.The book at the heart of the storm was not the product of honest scholarship,but truly a reprehensible agenda.Lying about Hitler sheds light on the dishonesty.As the old saying goes "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

8 people found this helpful

Helpful

Comment

Tony Hardy

Good History and enjoyable reading...

Reviewed in the United States on November 25, 2019

Verified Purchase

Needed it for a college class but ended up enjoying it even more than I thought.!

One person found this helpful

Helpful

Comment

Richard Jones

I'm very disappointed in this book and the author

Reviewed in the United States on September 26, 2019

I grew up in the shadow of the aftermath of WWII and became more and more curious about how it came about. As I gained more insight, I discovered the truth in the old saying that the victors write history and the vanquished live with it. I was very excited to be able to read a balanced discussion of facts and then conclusions regarding this horrible episode. As I read this account, I became more and more disappointed, and then realized it was just another anti-Hitler diatribe using David Irving's book as the most current vehicle. I won't bother you with examples of Evans' bias. I'm just saying that if you expect an honest comparison and discussion of the history of the Holocaust, you won't find it here. Evans was hired to discredit Irving's case of liable against Lipstadt, and this is how he did it, even though he claims to have reviewed both sides with the dispassion of a professionally trained historian.

19 people found this helpful

Helpful

Comment

Allan Brain

Captivating story of History and Truth on trial

Reviewed in the United States on September 6, 2001

Verified Purchase

Professor Evans was one of the expert witnesses in one of the most important trials in history--the libel case brought by David Irving against Penguin Books. Irving claimed that Penguin, by publishing a book critical of Irving's methods and motives in books about WWII and Nazi Germany, had damaged his reputation.
This book is a compelling account of Evans' role in showing that so-called "historian" David Irving had been manipulating, mischaracterizing, and misusing historical evidence for virtually his entire career of writing about the Second World War and Nazi Germany. And Evans is devasatingly convincing in showing just what really went on in the trial, as well as how widely the trial itself and Irving's work were misunderstood by even intelligent and sophisticated commentators in the world press (some of whom thought that Irving was being somehow prosecuted for his creativity or unpopular views).
Evans' book is eminently readable, well organized, and powerful without being polemical. At the very beginning, he warns the reader that the Irving case was about more than Irving's contention that he had been libeled by being labeled a "Holocaust denier" among other things by Penguin's author Deborah Lipstadt. That is really important and seems to be Evans' larger purpose: to show that there really are some historical "truths" and that the tendency in social sciences to dismiss objective truth and to excuse wild theories by citing the preconceptions or political beliefs of the historian in question is dangerous.
Among the book's strengths are the evident sincerity of the author and his ability to describe how Irving's deception worked and fooled so many people, from professionals to laymen.
Evans is excellent in portraying how historical research is done, what standards are expected of serious historians, and how Irving's work did not meet those standards. He is also convincing in demonstrating Irving's apparent racism and anti-semitism, and he is also subtle in explaining partly the motivations of "Holocaust deniers", though doing so fully would be outside the scope of this book.
I found few weaknesses, one being the inconsistency sometimes in explanations of detail. (For example, a brief explanation in Chapter 2 of what the Nazi party tribunals that reviewed events of November 1938, so-called "Kristallnacht", were doing would be more important than identifying the proper pronunciation of one proper name in a later chapter). Another weakness is the all-too-common failure to include illustrations. It is frustrating to read descriptions of documents, or in the case of Irving, physical appearance, and not be able to see a few photographs that are surely readily available from press accounts.
But those are minor complaints (and the book publishers are apparently cutting costs like everyone else). The most important theme of the book is how this case shows that there really are truths in historical analysis, and that historians should not shrink from taking on those who would question such truths as the overwhelming evidence of the mass and systematic destruction of Jews and other minorities in Nazi Germany. Historians themselves can be dangerous actors in human history if people like Evans and Penguin do not take courageous stands as they did here.
All in all, wonderfully concise and a great read.

51 people found this helpful

Helpful

Comment

Appellate Advocate

Five Stars

Reviewed in the United States on December 17, 2016

Verified Purchase

Evans rocks!

2 people found this helpful

Helpful

Comment

Interesting book about the British Libel law and the Irving case

Reviewed in the United States on March 11, 2017

Verified Purchase

This is a book that should never have had to have been written.

It should never have had to have been written because denying the reality of the Nazi Holocaust is an obviously absurd endeavor.

But, further, it shouldn't have had to have been written because issues of academic truth should not be a matter of judicial litigation.

David Irving brought this debacle on himself. It should never be forgotten that Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel. The gist of his accusation was that she had spoken an untruth that hurt his reputation when she had called him a "Holocaust Apologist."

David Irving is an non-academic historian. He acquired a reputation in the '60s and '70s for being a reliable if eccentric, historian of Hitler. After the '70s, Irving began to get a reputation for being more pro-Hitler than was seemly. In his appearances before lay groups, often, perhaps exclusively, right-wing groups, Irving would praise Hitler, make provocative statements about the Holocaust, and claim to be a fascist. For example:

"In a very real sense, indeed, he evidently conceived of himself as carrying on Hitler’s legacy, just as Lipstadt claimed in her book. Speaking to an audience in Calgary, Canada, in 1991, he revealed that he had once been described as a “self-confessed moderate fascist,” and added: “I strongly object to that word ‘moderate.’” As with many apparently flippant remarks, this seemed to me to have a kernel of truth in it; after all, he had not objected to the word fascist. More strikingly still, in an interview for the television program This Week, in 1991, Irving said: “I think Adolf Hitler made a lot of mistakes. He surrounded himself with people of very very poor quality. He was a rotten judge of character. These are the mistakes that you have to avoid replicating.” 12 You in this context could only really be understood as referring to Irving himself."

I am not sure about that last, but Irving's statements are absurd and show him to be rooting for one of the most evil men in history.

The author Richard Evans was the expert witness hired to examine David Irving's historical writings and demonstrate their falsities and errors, and, more importantly, show that these infelicities err in the direction of Irving having been a Hitler apologist.

Under American law, for a public figure like Irving to bring a lawsuit for defamation, he would have to plead and prove that the statement was knowingly false. However, under British law, a defamation plaintiff need only show that the statement hurt his reputation and the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the truth of the statement. It does not appear that there is a "public figure" defense. Evans explained the burden of proof as follows:

"By placing the entire burden of proof on the defense, it allows them to turn the tables and devote the action to destroying the reputation of their accuser. Indeed, once the defense has admitted, as Lipstadt’s did without hesitation, that the words complained of mean what they say and are clearly defamatory, justifying them in detail and with chapter and verse is the only option left to them."

In American law, while that burden would have been on the public figure plaintiff, the defendant could still argue that the plaintiff had not met the defense. This tends to discourage such lawsuits, which is undoubtedly healthier for civil liberty and academic freedom.

As an attorney, I found the foray into British law educational and bizarre. I also liked Evans novice impressions of his role and the legal system.

Ultimately, the trial resulted in the conclusion that Irving had not been defamed because Lipstadt's comments were true:

"The judge explained with great clarity and force why he considered that Irving had departed from the normal standards of objective historical research and writing. It was clear from what he had said and written that “Irving is anti-semitic. His words are directed against Jews, either individually or collectively, in the sense that they are by turns hostile, critical, offensive and derisory in their references to semitic people, their characteristics and appearances.” He was also a racist, and he had associated with militant neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists. 9 Over the past one and a half decades, he had become more active politically:"

On the whole, as much as I think that Irving is small, deluded, insane, disingenuous and, worst of all, an untrustworthy historian, I found the idea of judicial intervention into scholarship unsettling and potentially a threat to academic freedom. Dealing with people with delusions is annoying and irritating, but given the proclivity of people with power to use that power against all kinds of annoyances, and not merely the delusional, having judicial guidelines about what constitutes accepted scholarship is risky. The trial court came up with some good common-sense pragmatic rules for distinguishing biased scholarship from good-faith scholarship:

“Whilst I accept that an historian is entitled to speculate,” wrote Judge Gray, “he must spell out clearly to the reader when he is speculating rather than reciting established facts.” Irving had not done this. “An objective historian,” continued the judge, “is obliged to be even-handed in his approach to historical evidence: he cannot pick and choose without adequate reason.” Irving was not even-handed. Objective historians had to take account of the circumstances surrounding the production of a document, and Irving had not. “I accept,” wrote the judge, “that historians are bound by the constraints of space to edit quotations. But there is an obligation on them not to give the reader a distorted impression by selective quotation.” Irving had not fulfilled this obligation. In sum, “Irving treated the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian.” He “misrepresented and distorted the evidence which was available to him.” It was also “incontrovertible” that “Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier.” His denial of the gas chambers and of the systematic and centrally directed nature of the mass shootings of Jews was “contrary to the evidence.”

All of that seems true; my problem is the judicial imprimatur that speculative scholarship is not good scholarship.

Nonetheless, I must point out that Irving was the plaintiff. He "teed up" the question of his motivation, which the judge had to resolve.

I guess my real criticism is with a legal system that is not as protective of people like Lipstadt who are entitled to their speculation on matters of public interest, and by doing so, stimulate a debate on the subject.

I recently watched the movie "Denial." I found it to be problematic in the same direction. In the movie, the Lipstadt character - like the real Lipstadt - refuses do debate Irving on the grounds that she doesn't debate Holocaust deniers, because to do so will give them more status than they deserve. Lipstadt has the right to debate anyone she chooses, and if she finds this subject too touchy, then, of course, she should desist. But I found the movie's tone of treating the Holocaust as sacred, perhaps the one subject that cannot be blasphemed against or sullied, with Auschwitz being treated as sacred ground offended against in the movie, because the barrister asks questions, to be problematic. The point of academic freedom is that it can go anywhere and question anything. I haven't noticed any reluctance by academics to question things that I might hold sacred, such as the divinity of Jesus or the historicity of papal infallibility, and, thus, I don't understand the virtue of roping off other subjects from the same rough treatment.

Truth grows flabby if it is not tested. Irving and his insane ilk are doing Lipstadt and people like her a favor by keeping the controversy alive and permitting them to demolish their infantile and delusional arguments. If Irving is cheered by his deluded fan-boys, then so what?

The ending of the movie was even more problematic when the Lipstadt character gave an interview ending with "these things are true. The Holocaust happened...the poles are melting." And, thus, anyone who knows about the Medieval Warm Period is suddenly the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier?

A good reason that these issues should stay well away from the courts and away from people who think that debates can be ended when one side wins.

12 people found this helpful

Helpful

Comment

Top reviews from other countries

Richard Ellis

The discipline of history - an object lesson

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on July 19, 2017

Verified Purchase

This book is an object lesson in the study and discipline of history, as well as being about the research which informed the defence’s case in the “David Irving trial”. I’d already seen the film “Denial”, about Irving v. Lipstadt and Penguin Books, and read Deborah Lipstadt’s book about the case. In the trial, of course, the defence strategy was to not put Lipstadt herself into the witness box, but to make the case one about David Irving the historian. Professor Richard J Evans, as the defence’s lead expert witness, is something of a cameo role in the film, but of course it was the work of him and his team, in the two years before the trial, which made victory in court possible. This is the story of that work.
Their method was to examine Irving’s use of sources in his writings about Hitler and the Holocaust, and to take another topic not related to the Holocaust – the bombing of Dresden – to see if Irving’s misuse of sources applied there too. What follows is a cool-headed and utterly absorbing forensic dissection of Irving’s work. Much of this is work which Lipstadt herself was not equipped academically to do, either as a historian or because not a few points hinged on minutiae of German translation. As Evans says, “She had never written about German history, and had never been in a German archive. Indeed, as far as I could tell, she did not even read German”.
There are some excellent reviews already here, which I won’t add to beyond saying it is an enthralling and eminently satisfying read. Ironies abound. If Irving had not sued Lipstadt and Penguin (and it was that way round, a point which escaped some of the commentators at the time), his work and reputation would not have been subjected to the scrutiny that resulted. The impact of her original book “Denying the Holocaust”, at which Irving took such offence, was probably considerably less than that of the trial, and this book.

4 people found this helpful

Robert T. Boyter

David Irving gets his comeuppance.

Reviewed in Canada on May 28, 2014

Verified Purchase

After writing history which began so well ("The Mares Nest") Irving for reasons apparent only to him, began to distort history and become a quasi-Nazi revisionist. Someone finally challenged him in the courts (as his publisher should have years before) and won the case, shutting him down. What is not reavealed in sufficient clarity however is the very wealthy cadre of crypto-Nazi sympathizers in the United States who have supported him since he was forced to pay a huge settlement. Who are they, and why are they so enamoured of Hitler that they will pay for this man's expensive and luxurious lifestyle?

One person found this helpful

sjm53

Evans puts the boot in so hard - albeit justifiably ...

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 26, 2016

Verified Purchase

Evans puts the boot in so hard - albeit justifiably so - that I even had a fleeting moment when I felt sorry for Irving. Rest assured, the moment soon passed.

5 people found this helpful

Claire Harrington

Very interesting

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on January 22, 2018

Verified Purchase

This is not my usual type of book as I’m not a fan of this sort of non-fiction (I tend to get bored about halfway through), but this was both highly readable and interesting.