Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
OK
History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving Hardcover – February 1, 2005
Now a major motion picture starring Rachel Weisz, Timothy Spall and Tom Wilkinson.
“A compelling book: memoir and courtroom drama, a work of historical and legal import. ” -- Jewish Week
Deborah Lipstadt, author of the groundbreaking Denying the Holocaust, chronicles her six-year legal battle with controversial British World War II historian David Irving that culminated in a sensational 2000 trial in London
In her acclaimed 1993 book Denying the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt called putative World War II historian David Irving “one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial”, a conclusion that she reached by examining his cunning manipulations of evidence, partisanship to Hitler, persistent exoneration of the Third Reich, and his confirmed celebrity among swelling ranks of anti-Semitic organizations internationally. In 1994, Irving filed a libel lawsuit, not in the U.S. courtroom—where the onus of proof lies on the plaintiff, but in the UK—where the onus of proof lies on the defendant. At stake were not only the reputations of two historians, but the record of history itself.
The four-month trial took place in London in 2000 and drew international attention. With the help of a first-rate team of solicitors and historians and the support of her UK publisher, Penguin, Lipstadt won, her victory proclaimed on the front page of major newspapers around the world. Part history, part real life courtroom drama, Denial is Lipstadt’s riveting, blow-by-blow account of the trial that tested the standards of historical and judicial truths and resulted in a formal denunciation of the infamous Holocaust denier.
Originally published as History on Trial.
- Print length368 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherEcco
- Publication dateFebruary 1, 2005
- Dimensions6 x 1.19 x 9 inches
- ISBN-100060593768
Similar items that ship from close to you
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From School Library Journal
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
From Bookmarks Magazine
Copyright © 2004 Phillips & Nelson Media, Inc.
From Booklist
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
Review
“A fascinating and meritorious work of legal―and moral―history.” — Kirkus Reviews (Starred)
“Powerful…. No one who cares about historical truth, freedom of speech or the Holocaust will avoid a sense of triumph.” — Publishers Weekly (starred review)
“Lipstadt gives a detailed account of the trial that never loses its suspense, readability or momentum. Or humor.” — Salon.com
“Fascinating.... [Lipstadt] takes us into the moment and produces a courtroom drama as enthralling as any fictional one.” — San Jose Mercury News
“Deborah Lipstadt is writing for us. And for the ages.” — Atlanta Journal-Constitution
“History on Trial is not the first book about the case....But Lipstadt’s story is more personal, compelling and intriguing.” — San Francisco Chronicle
“A well-paced, expertly detailed and fascinating account of the trial process.” — Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Washington Post Book World
“Immensely readable…. History on Trial restores one’s faith in the power of good scholarship.” — Washington Times
“A compelling book, History on Trial is memoir and courtroom drama, a work of historical and legal import. ” — Jewish Week
“Resonant.” — Baltimore Sun
“Compelling…. Lipstadt’s vigorous account is a window into a Jewish community still grappling with the loss of 6 million souls.” — Newsweek International
From the Back Cover
In 1993, Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of Jewish Studies at Emory University, published the first comprehensive history of the Holocaust denial movement. In this critically acclaimed account, Lipstadt called David Irving –– a prolific, respected, and well–known writer on World War II who had, over the years, made controversial statements about Hitler and the Jews –– one of the most dangerous spokespersons of the denial movement. A year later, when Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin UK, for libel in a London courtroom, the media spotlight fell on Deborah Lipstadt and, by extension, on the historiography of the Holocaust. Five years later, when David Irving lost his case after an intense ten–week trial, Lipstadt's resounding victory was proclaimed on front pages of newspapers worldwide. The implications of the trial, however, were far from over.
History on Trial is Deborah Lipstadt's personal, riveting chronicle of the legal battle with Irving, in which she went from a relatively quiet existence as a professor at an American university to being a defendant in a sensational libel case. This blow–by–blow account reveals how Lipstadt raised $1.5 million for her defense, which included a first–rate team of solicitors, historians, and experts, among them Anthony Julius, a literary scholar who is better known as the late Princess Diana's divorce lawyer. Lipstadt describes how in forced silence she endured Irving's relentless provocations, including his claims that more people died in Senator Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz, that survivors tattooed numbers on their arms to make money, and that nonwhite people are a different "species." She also reveals how her lawyers gained access to Irving's personal papers, which exposed his association with neo–Nazi extremists in Germany, former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, and the National Alliance, which wants to transform America into an "Aryan society." In the course of the trial, Lipstadt's legal team stripped away Irving's mask of respectability through exposing the prejudice, extremism, and distortion of history that defined his work, even his once highly regarded account of the Dresden bombing.
Part history, part edge–of–your–seat courtroom drama, History on Trial goes beyond the historiography of World War II and the Holocaust to reveal the intricate way in which extremism and deliberate historical distortions gain widespread legitimacy and help generate hatred. An inspiring personal story of perseverance and unexpected limelight, here is the definitive account of the trial that tested the standards for historical and judicial truths, a trial that the Daily Telegraph of London proclaimed did "for the new century what the Nuremberg tribunals or the Eichmann trial did for earlier generations."
About the Author
Deborah E. Lipstadt is Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies and director of the Institute for Jewish Studies at Emory University. She is the author of Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory.
From The Washington Post
Today Holocaust denial -- roughly analogous to maintaining that slavery never existed in the United States -- consists of a growing and sophisticated network of anti-Semites who either deny that there was a Holocaust or deny certain fundamental aspects of the Holocaust (such as the basic facts of Poles' or the Catholic Church's participation in crimes). Meanwhile, fellow travelers join in by radically minimizing aspects of the Holocaust or attacking Holocaust scholars or survivors as hucksters. The effect -- and the usually explicit agenda of these traducers -- is to spread suspicion and lies about Jews (in newspapers, books, speeches and all over the Internet), especially those revolving around conspiracy theories about shadowy webs of Jewish power.
This 21st-century context for the libel suit emerging from her 20th-century book (which was featured on the cover of Book World on its release) made Lipstadt's trial more than a difficult personal odyssey and more than an admirably executed exercise in exposing the fraudulence of one of a long list of scholar-masqueraders. The trial was an event, covered around the world, of substantial social and political importance. The truth of the Holocaust was in no sense on trial. Still, had Irving prevailed on the narrow legal issue -- showing that Lipstadt libeled him by calling him a denier -- anti-Semites and gullible reporters would have falsely played the verdict as casting doubt on the existence of the Holocaust itself.
Lipstadt's memoir tacks closely to the events themselves. A disciplined writer, she does not wander into long detours on the many philosophical or sociological paths along her way. Rather, she delivers a well-paced, expertly detailed and fascinating account of the trial process, including the long months of preparation and the courtroom proceedings themselves. Among other things, she provides an education in the very different character of Britain's libel laws (where the defendant must affirmatively prove the veracity of her statements), legal procedures (one kind of lawyer, a solicitor, prepares the case; another, a barrister, tries it) and rules and customs at trial. This alone will interest those by now so familiar with the American legal system.
The core of the book is the preparation for the discrediting of Irving's writings (which cannot properly be called either scholarship or history) and, ultimately, the destruction of his international reputation. Irving had until then been a popular peddler of apologetics for Hitler and German wartime crimes. Even before becoming a full-fledged denier, Irving denied -- against all evidence -- that Hitler even knew of the mass murder of Jews. Shockingly, Irving had been taken seriously by a part of the politicized historical profession that has a weakness for such exculpatory writings. Lipstadt's solicitor, the estimable Anthony Julius (who was also the late Princess Diana's divorce lawyer), was not among them. As he explained to Lipstadt early on, "We will argue that Irving subordinated the truth for ideological purposes and that his comments about the Holocaust were designed to spread antisemitism and engender sympathy for the Third Reich."
So they did. Aided by a team of expert witnesses, Lipstadt's barrister demolished both Irving's general claim that he was not a denier and his individual fabrications (including that Auschwitz had no functioning gas chambers used to exterminate Jews, and that the Germans' systematic mass shootings of Jews in the east were merely arbitrary, unauthorized "Mi Lai-type massacres"). Although this was a great team effort and a major legal victory, their task was inherently easy; Irving was the historians' equivalent of a flat-earther, and he had also previously been on record denying that the Holocaust happened. ("I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz," Irving declared in 1991 before a group of rightists and neo-Nazis. "It's baloney. It's a legend. . . . more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz.")
Lipstadt's resounding legal victory in a trial that lasted nearly three months was made still easier by Irving himself, a train wreck in the courtroom. To get the flavor of his behavior, consider another part of his 1991 speech to the neo-Nazis (his arithmetic, of course, is as inaccurate as his taste is vulgar): "There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least, because I am going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars. . . . A-S-S-H-O-L-S." Irving, we see, is an inspiration for those today who attack wholesale the truthfulness of survivors. If he were not so unlikable, so shameless in his lies, it would be hard not to squirm when reading of his courtroom buffoonery and string of embarrassing setbacks.
Lipstadt's steadfastness, which can be seen throughout this book, stood her and historical truth well. A lesser person might have wilted under the enormous financial and media pressure. Against her nature, Lipstadt followed Julius's instruction to remain silent throughout, never speaking either in court or to the media that were not entirely fair to her. Only after the verdict did the world finally hear her voice, and only with this book do we hear it fully for the first time.
Reviewed by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
Copyright 2005, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved.
Product details
- Publisher : Ecco; First Edition (February 1, 2005)
- Language : English
- Hardcover : 368 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0060593768
- Item Weight : 1.42 pounds
- Dimensions : 6 x 1.19 x 9 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,439,871 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #2,506 in Jewish Holocaust History
- #3,764 in German History (Books)
- #12,996 in World War II History (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read book recommendations and more.
Products related to this item
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonCustomers say
Customers find the book incredible, powerful, and fascinating. They describe the narrative style as riveting, detailed, and relevant to today's turbulent times. Readers praise the writing quality as well-written, beautiful, and articulated in an authentic and lively way.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Customers find the book incredible, powerful, and fascinating. They say it's a great day-by-day account of someone trying to pervert history. Readers also mention the book is exciting and a page-turning experience.
"...Prof. Lipstadt's book is a fascinating, well-written account of her side of the trial, and three aspects of it jump out at the reader: one is the..." Read more
"...first Ms. Lipstadt's might seem superfluous, but I thought this book was excellent, and highly recommend it...." Read more
"...It is a riveting book and I'm in the first two chapters...." Read more
"...of repetition and personal tangents by the author, this book is highly recommended." Read more
Customers find the narrative style riveting, detailed, and relevant to today's turbulent times. They say it teaches the facts of a terrible period in human history and provides interesting insight into the strategy used by Holocaust deniers. Readers also mention the book has a fluid narrative.
"This is one of the most gripping courtroom dramas I ever read, and I have read it a number of times...." Read more
"...It is an interesting coverage of a trial that turned out to be the longest libel trial in British history." Read more
"...Great recounting of the debunking of the "Holocaust Deniers" and the garbage they try to spread. Reads like the movie" Read more
"...This meticulously researched and notated book, with a fluid narrative, came about when a British revisionist historian sued Lipstadt for libel after..." Read more
Customers find the writing quality of the book very good. They appreciate the author's wit and ability to articulate the various stages in an authentic and lively way. Readers also mention the book is meticulously researched and notated.
"...Prof. Lipstadt's book is a fascinating, well-written account of her side of the trial, and three aspects of it jump out at the reader: one is the..." Read more
"...The book is well written and quite suspenseful even though you know how it will end...." Read more
"...And a single judge would make that decision.The book is brillantly written by Miss Lipstadt, as she is able to make the reader feel he..." Read more
"...This meticulously researched and notated book, with a fluid narrative, came about when a British revisionist historian sued Lipstadt for libel after..." Read more
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Deborah Lipstadt, an Emory University professor, wrote a book, "Denying the Holocaust," ripping the lid off of critters who distort one history's most horrific episodes of genocide and organized slaughter, turning it upside down, presenting it as a hoax, making the victims into blood-sucking liars and the perpetrators into innocents or heroes. The purpose of denying the Holocaust, of course, is to make Nazism a legitimate political force and continue Jew-hating. Remove the Holocaust, and Nazism goes from being a genocidal sadistic kleptomania to a tough, rough, but viable form of ethnic nationalism, which builds good roads and fights Communism.
After Professor Lipstadt published her book, one of the people she assailed (almost in passing), Englishman David Irving, whose career as a historian was on the downswing because of his open support of Holocaust denial, sued Prof. Lipstadt. Irving did so in a British court, which places a heavy burden on defendants -- they have to prove the plaintiff is wrong, instead of the plaintiff having to prove he is right.
As matters turned out, Prof. Lipstadt whupped Irving pretty effectively. She assembled a crack team of historians, who presented reports that ripped Irving's research and knowledge of history bloody. Her barrister, Richard Rampton, tore Irving apart on the witness stand. At the end, the judge ruled for the defendants, shredding Irving's reputation as a historian, calling him a liar and a racist.
Prof. Lipstadt's book is a fascinating, well-written account of her side of the trial, and three aspects of it jump out at the reader: one is the meticulousness with which she defended her right to free speech. (Irving offered to drop the suit for a $650 payment to a charity for disabled sailors and soldiers, as long as she and her publisher apologized and pulped the book. Prof. Lipstadt wasn't going to do that. Irving later used his "offer" as proof that he was being a nice guy, and the trial was all her fault.) Instead of buckling, Prof. Lipstadt assembled a team that said the simple thing: Irving was indeed a liar and a bully.
The second aspect was the emotional ordeal Prof. Lipstadt went through through the trial, which alternated between the horrific (cross-examination about how Auschwitz worked) and the bizarre (cross-examination about Irving's links to neo-Nazis who insist that modern dancing be banned in favor of jigs and polkas) and the surreal (Irving addressing the judge as "Mein Fuhrer"). It was an immense struggle for Prof. Lipstadt, who often was physically and mentally exhausted by the stress. I cannot even begin to imagine how she held up. Knowing that you're on the side of truth is not enough.
The third aspect was the bizarre nature of Irving's case -- throughout the text are her comments and those of her solicitor and barrister as to the strange stuff that Irving was spouting or including as evidence. The theory of his case was that Prof. Lipstadt was the pointed tip of a Jewish spear designed to destroy his reputation as a historian, but he did a fatuous job of doing so. The best he could do was produce a nutty California professor who said "Jews stick together to create chaos." Prof. Lipstadt's side didn't even bother to cross-examine him.
Irving also produced the highly esteemed British military historian Sir John Keegan, and didn't even bother to prep him, let alone meet him. Keegan took the stand and said, "I'm here under subpoena, and think your idea that Hitler didn't know of the Holocaust is absurd and defies common sense." Irving tried to then impeach his own witness, failed, and Sir John was dismissed.
In between, Irving did odd things, like present the plans for the PoW camp at Colditz, which showed a delousing shed, which somehow proved that Auschwitz "deloused" prisoners, not murder them. He also ridiculed the defense for not having a black lawyer on its team, while denouncing the BBC for having Sir Trevor MacDonald broadcasting the news (Sir Trevor is black), and saying he (Irving) had black female staffers, "who have very nice breasts." Sometimes he came off as a pompous clown. He was most upset that he could not have his Darrow-Bryan moment of confronting Prof. Lipstadt on the stand, and presumably playing the role of Clarence Darrow, hoping he could break a Jewish woman into tears and confession a la Perry Mason.
Oddly, I've read American analyses of Irving's case, and he could very easily have done better in an American courtroom. Irving, being ignorant of American law, misunderstood the Sullivan decision, and could have sued Prof. Lipstadt there. He could have hired an American lawyer on contingency to handle the case (better than Irving), and sat Prof. Lipstadt across from him during discovery to grill her about his theory that Prof. Lipstadt was the point of a Jewish conspiracy, and even cross-examined her.
Ironically, Irving's prime argument, that the Holocaust didn't happen, would not have probably flown in American courtroom. An American judge would likely have simply tossed it, saying that was taking "judicial notice" that the Holocaust happened, and the only question would be Irving proving that Prof. Lipstadt had falsely and/or maliciously libeled him.
But I don't think that Irving actually sued Prof. Lipstadt to win money or push Holocaust denial...he wasn't doing too well as a one-man book publishing enterprise, was getting negative publicity, couldn't sell his strange books too well, so he figured that by suing Prof. Lipstadt (and hopefully, winning), he could get back into the spotlight he craves, get taken seriously as a serious historian again, and sell his books. He actually did get that -- he got a lot of media interviews after the trial was over, and his catastrophic closing argument was more aimed at shoring up and impressing his supporters than winning over the judge.
But in the end, he drew more ridicule than applause, and many of his confreres in anti-Semitism were annoyed that he didn't call them to testify as "experts on his behalf. Instead of being known as a "great" historian, he's universally described as a "disgraced" or "racist" historian.
Prof. Lipstadt writes movingly and powerfully of this incredible struggle for truth and emotional ordeal, with rigor, gravitas, humor, and restraint. She showed incredible courage and determination in the face of vicious cynicism, hypocrisy, and raw evil. Hers is a book that should be read now and for all time.
The book gives us a courtroom seat for the entire trial in which Irving represented himself. While Ms. Lipstadt exhibited anxiety about the outcome, the reader of the book will probably be shaking his/her head at what seemed to be a total farce. Mr. Irving was constantly confronted with inaccuracies, incorrect data, and suppression of important facts in the books that he wrote. His response most frequently was that he had made innocent mistakes, that he was up late working and in his tired state he made trivial mistakes. He made many speeches to ultra right wing groups, and denied that he knew anything about the organizations. He denied that he was racist, and stated that he had hired "colored" people, and then talked in a belittling way about them.
The judge decides in favor of Ms. Lipstadt, and soundly criticizes Mr. Irving, although he does make a few favorable remarks about him at the very beginning of his long decision. Mr. Irving made three appeals of the decision, all of which were denied.
The book is well written and quite suspenseful even though you know how it will end. It is also interesting to read some of the other reviews of this book which are obviously written by other holocaust deniers. One reviewer presents only the initial positive remarks of the judge, and seems to be a denier of the bulk of the very long decision. One other reviewer comments that this book brings nothing new to the story and mentions two other books, one by Professor Evans who testified at the trial. Admittedly if you have read these books first Ms. Lipstadt's might seem superfluous, but I thought this book was excellent, and highly recommend it.
British libel trials are interesting affairs that are in direct contrast to American libel laws. If you find this book as fascinating as I did you might want to read this book:
"McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial" by John Vidal. This book is about a libel suit brought by McDonalds against a couple of ordinary citizens who passed out leaflets that were critical of the McDonald's operation. It is an interesting coverage of a trial that turned out to be the longest libel trial in British history.
Top reviews from other countries
Secondly, there is, of course, the deeply moving element of the responses of the survivors of the holocaust to this trial. To whitewash the perpetrators while execrating the victims beggars belief. According to Irving: "more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz. Oh, you think that's tasteless. How about this. There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past which is biologically very odd to say the least, because I am going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars for the A-S-S-H-O-L-S". I think, dear reader, you get the picture! Richard Rampton Q.C. (Counsel for the Defendants) expressed it thus in his opening speech: "Mr Irving has used many different means to falsify history, invention, misquotation, suppression, distortion, manipulation and not least mistranslation, but those all these techniques have the same ultimate effect, falsification of the truth. Moreover, the lies which the Defendants in this case will show that Mr Irving has told, concern an area of history in which perhaps it behoves any writer or researcher to be particularly careful of the truth, the destruction of the Jews by the Nazis during World War II, the Holocaust, and Adolf Hitler's role in that human catastrophe, or, as Mr Irving would have it, alleged catastrophe, for Mr Irving is nowadays a Holocaust denier. By this I mean that he denies that the Nazis planned and carried out the systematic murder of millions Jews, in particular, though by no means exclusively, by the use of homicidal gas chambers, and in particular, though by no means exclusively, at Auschwitz in Southern Poland."
This will be seen as a landmark decision and itself become an integral part of how the Holocaust is viewed: revisionists and deniers would do well to read it!
Thirdly, it was most interesting to observe the author's views on the legal system in England and Wales, which contrasts quite significantly to what she would have expected in a US court. Judges and lawyers here have their unique way of expressing themselves. Significantly, she totally misread the judge and was thus pleasantly surprised by his judgement. Going to court is a very expensive process, even if you win your case!! Professor Lipstadt well portrays the high stress levels of these proceedings with the frustration of it being decided by her legal team that she would not be giving evidence in the course of these proceedings. A very brave woman - we all (Jew and Gentile) owe her a great debt. A great book!!
Does the law have a role in upholding historical truth, and should history be a free-for-all where every opinion, however ill-founded, should compete on equal terms for public support? All very topical, in a world where anger about Israel's savage military actions often translates into hostility towards all jews, even those who died long ago in gas chambers that have been demolished and whose existence is supposedly open to question.





