Buy used:
$14.54
Delivery Thursday, November 7. Order within 14 hrs 57 mins
Or fastest delivery Wednesday, November 6
Condition: Used: Very Good
Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
Added to

Sorry, there was a problem.

There was an error retrieving your Wish Lists. Please try again.

Sorry, there was a problem.

List unavailable.
Kindle app logo image

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.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Follow the author

Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving Hardcover – February 1, 2005

4.8 4.8 out of 5 stars 163 ratings

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.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Starred Review. In a much-publicized case, David Irving, the author of numerous books about WWII, sued Emory University historian Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin, for libel. Lipstadt had called Irving a Holocaust denier in a book about the Holocaust denial movement, and Britain's libel laws put the burden of proof on her to show that the charge was true. Did that mean proving the Holocaust had happened? Was Lipstadt, as Irving claimed, trying to restrict his freedom of speech, or was he restraining hers? Was the courtroom the proper place to examine historical truth? The press hotly debated these issues, but as Lipstadt relates in this powerful account, she and her adept lawyers felt they simply had to discredit a man who had said that "no documents whatsoever show that a Holocaust had ever happened." In 2000, Judge Charles Gray decided in Lipstadt's favor, finding it "incontrovertible" that Irving was a Holocaust denier. The drama of the book lies in the courtroom confrontations between an evasive and self-contradictory Irving (serving as his own lawyer) and Lipstadt's strategically brilliant barrister, Richard Rampton, and the scholars who testified in her defense. Lipstadt herself is a reluctant heroine, a feisty, outspoken woman forced to remain silent (she did not testify in court) and let her lawyers speak for her. No one who cares about historical truth, freedom of speech or the Holocaust will avoid a sense of triumph from Gray's decision—or a sense of dismay that British libel laws allowed such intimidation by Irving of a historian and a publisher in the first place.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From School Library Journal

Adult/High School–In Denying the Holocaust (Penguin, 1994), Lipstadt called Irving, an English author of books on World War II and the Third Reich, the most dangerous Holocaust denier because his works were reviewed in mainstream journals and he commanded a certain level of respect and influence in the field. Irving later sued her and her publisher, Penguin UK, for libel. Under English law, the burden of proof in a libel case rests with the defendant. The core of the book is the trial itself, combining a page-turning eyewitness account and a close look at the mind-set and dubious research methods of a neo-Nazi. Irving served as his own lawyer and constantly courted press coverage. Among his assertions: Hitler did not order the Kristallnacht violence but attempted to stop it; the Allies were responsible for typhus epidemics in the concentration camps; Anne Frank's diary is a romantic novel; more people died in Ted Kennedy's car at Chappaquidick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Ultimately, Irving's case collapsed under the weight of evidence and expert testimony provided by the defense. In addition to possible use with the curriculum, this book will appeal to teens interested in modern history, historiography, and law.–Sandy Freund, Richard Byrd Library, Fairfax County, VA
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. 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
  • Customer Reviews:
    4.8 4.8 out of 5 stars 163 ratings

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Deborah E. Lipstadt
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read book recommendations and more.


Customer reviews

4.8 out of 5 stars
163 global ratings

Customers 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

17 customers mention "Readability"17 positive0 negative

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

12 customers mention "Narrative style"12 positive0 negative

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

11 customers mention "Writing quality"11 positive0 negative

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 from the United States

Reviewed in the United States on December 9, 2014
This is one of the most gripping courtroom dramas I ever read, and I have read it a number of times.

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.
12 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on January 27, 2007
After the trial was over an editorial cartoon appeared in the Daily Telegraph that showed a man holding up a book entitled "That Libel Trial Never Happened", by David Irving. After reading about the trial you can easily picture Mr. Irving making such a denial. Deborah Lipstadt was involved in a libel suit brought against her by David Irving who claimed his character was defamed by her calling him, in essence, a Holocaust denier.

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.
14 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on February 4, 2024
I was pleasantly surprised when I received this book. It was supposed to be in good condition yet when I opened the package I found not only a book in what I would consider NEW, but also one signed by the authors herself in what must have been one sold at a book signing event. While it was signed specifically to someone else I'm happy it was in such good shape and signed as well. It is a riveting book and I'm in the first two chapters. I wish I was more of a reader when I went to high school but this wasn't written until several decades later. Highly recommend this and other written about our destructive past and how easily history can and does change once the calendar is flipped month to month.
One person found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on July 12, 2024
Lesson in how some take history, distort it, lie about it, mislead, and try to erase it and the courage of one woman who took these "frauds" and made them pay for all the rest of us who believe history should be factual not fanciful. Great recounting of the debunking of the "Holocaust Deniers" and the garbage they try to spread. Reads like the movie

Top reviews from other countries

Translate all reviews to English
Amazon Customer
5.0 out of 5 stars As riveting as the movie enactment
Reviewed in Canada on February 13, 2021
Well written, easy for the novice to understand both the historical and the legal complexities of this court battle, and it's importance in educating future generations on the repercussions of repeated lies and propaganda.
Miloslav Bilik
5.0 out of 5 stars Un livre remarquable
Reviewed in France on April 5, 2017
Excellent livre où Deborah Lipstadt explique comment elle a été obligée de se défendre contre David Irving, qui la poursuivait pour diffamation en Angleterre : elle aurait pu perdre une fortune par défaut si elle ne le faisait pas, la loi britannique étant à l'avantage de Irving par défaut. Au lieu de quoi, elle a réussi à prouver la mauvaise foi de Irving déniant la Shoah, ses liens avec les milieux néo-nazis et négationnistes, son antisémitisme.. et c'est Irving qui ayant perdu sur tous ces points, a du payer d'importants frais de procès et d'experts. Au passage, une vraie leçon pour les personnes qui s'interrogeraient de bonne foi sur les arguments négationnistes et qui pourraient échapper à la désinformation forcenée de tous ces néonazis et autres.
D. J. Folland
5.0 out of 5 stars HISTORIANS SHOULD TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on April 24, 2015
I found this a very interesting book at many levels and is brilliantly written. Firstly, I came to appreciate that it is important that the reader should exercise discernment, even when reading history books of supposed renowned historians. Some years ago, I read Irving's book of Goring which I found surprisingly sympathetic to one who was number 2 in this most evil of regimes. In the course of the trial, it was revealing that all of Irving's errors and editing were always skewed in one direction and many of his observations callous in the extreme. Irving claims that Hitler never knew about the Holocaust, although it is evident that anti-semitism was at the very foundation of his political agenda. This stance remained right to the end in his "Political Testament" made on 29th April 1945 where he makes the veiled confession that he had the Jews killed in revenge for the part he (wrongly, of course) supposed they had played in starting the war.

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!!
JMI29
5.0 out of 5 stars Definitely like new
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on February 13, 2024
I'm really pleased with this book, received today and earlier than expected. I bought this as used-like new and to be honest it looks like a new book. I haven't read the book yet, but I have started reading and I find it totally captivating and hard to put down an excellent read(if you have watched 'the denial' movie definitely read this).
J0n G
5.0 out of 5 stars When law and history collide
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on September 12, 2006
I confess I haven't quite finished reading this book, but I find it absolutely riveting, and not a book to rush. So far, the only factual error I have found is a reference to "High Heyburn" (instead of Holborn) when describing her visit to London to meet her legal team. If anyone was under the mistaken impression that this was an unequal fight between a maverick historian (Irving) and a wealthy "establishment", the book should dispel that notion. Ms Lipstadt faced the possibility of having to find 1.6 million dollars to fund her lawyers, or do the lawyerly thing and settle out of court by offering Irving a retraction and apology - this to a man who once said to a concentration camp survivor "how much money have you made out of that tattoo since 1945?" and who, though commended by the trial judge for his skills and attention to detail as a military historian, has consistently downplayed all the evidence about the existence of gas chambers and the death toll at Auschwitz, claiming that he is doing no more than exercising the judgment of a historian. Ms Lipstadt is emotional (pausing to speak some prayers at Auschwitz) where her counsel Richard Rampton is practical and hard headed ("this is not a sentimental journey. It's for forensics") and this excellent book should be read in conjunction with the full judgment of Mr Justice Gray from April 2000, available on the web at the Bailii website.

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.