A required read. An eminently just verdict. The wrong chronicler. - Rated 
Historian Deborah Lipstadt, in her 1993 book DENYING THE HOLOCAUST: THE GROWING ASSAULT ON TRUTH AND MEMORY, labeled historian David Irving a Holocaust denier. In 1995, Irving sued Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin, in the British courts, in which legal system the defendant (Lipstadt) had to prove that she told the truth rather than (as in the U.S. system) the plaintiff (Irving) prove that she lied.
In 2007, I attended a lecture by Deborah in which she summarized her 5-year experience defending her original claim. The story is also told in her 2005 book, HISTORY ON TRIAL. Having previously made sobering visits to the concentration camp sites at Dachau, Mauthausen and Auschwitz, I felt this book to be required reading.
HISTORY ON TRIAL is 305 pages long, 328 if you add "Acknowledgments" and "Notes". The core of the narrative, and the most interesting part for me, is the 187-page "Trial" section wherein the high points of the testimonies and cross-examinations during the 10-week trial at London's Royal Courts of Justice in 2000 are summarized. For any reader of historical non-fiction, what should prove instructive is the revelation how Irving, renowned for his books on Adolph Hitler, the Third Reich, and the European theater of World War II, distorted facts on a multitude of occasions in order to paint Hitler in a more favorable light, specifically, to present that the Fuehrer had no knowledge of the Holocaust and that the systematic killing of Jews was not directed from Berlin. He did this, apparently, to endear himself to contemporary white supremacist organizations. That Irving himself expressed racist and anti-Semitic sentiments, and that he was indeed a Holocaust denier, were the judgments of the court. And, moreover, the verdict was upheld on subsequent appeal.
The valuable lesson to be learned, the one for which this book needs to be read, is that historical works can't necessarily be taken at face value no matter what the reputation of their authors or the excellence of their presentations.
The old axiom has it that a physician who treats himself, or a lawyer who represents himself, is a fool. If that be the case, then Irving, who represented himself before Judge Charles Gray and is himself not a lawyer, is perhaps one of the biggest fools on Earth. As described by Lipstadt - and, again, we must remember the lesson about the selective presentation of facts - Irving demonstrates via his words spoken in court what an insidiously devious and disingenuous historian he's capable of being. A lawyer representing this plaintiff might've accomplished some damage control. But, then, this book's lesson would've been diluted to the readers' loss.
This will anger those readers of this review who idolize Deborah, but I'm going to suggest that she wasn't the best chronicler of this case. For the same reason that Irving shouldn't have represented himself, Lipstadt should've perhaps left the telling of the story, even after the fact, to one with some emotional distance from it. Her passionate involvement caused me to become increasingly annoyed with her. After all, Lipstadt didn't select the English solicitor, Anthony Julius, whose law firm team prepared her defense; Julius approached her. Lipstadt didn't pay for the legal services; the cost was covered by donations from sympathizers. Lipstadt didn't select the barrister, Richard Rampton, who presented her case in court; Anthony and Penguin did. Her contribution to the defense's pre-trial preparation was, at least as described, minimal at best. Lipstadt didn't testify on her own behalf; she was advised not to. Indeed, except for one short verbal outburst in court in response to something said by the plaintiff, she remained totally silent throughout. Occasionally in the narrative, she expresses disappointment over Judge Gray's evenhandedness, a great naivete about the British legal system, doubt about the wisdom of Rampton's tactics before the bar, and hand-wringing angst that her own professional reputation would be besmirched by Irving's counter claims. By the end of the book, I began to wonder if she had the mettle for the whole tussle. Luckily, Julius and Rampton did. Yet, after Gray read his verdict, it was, to Deborah, her battle and her triumph. Not until the Acknowledgments, which many readers may be tempted to skip, did she give due credit to Rampton, Julius, and the rest of the defense team. The 5-year ordeal was all about her, apparently, and this self-centeredness became tiresome.
Despite the flaws of HISTORY ON TRIAL, I'm awarding four stars for it's value in reminding us that great crimes against humanity, regardless of the time, place, and perpetrator, cannot, indeed must not, be forgotten or denied. The collective conscience must remain unimpaired.
When law and history collide - Rated 
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.
Fascinating and highly readable - Rated
A very well written book, most enjoyable which reads more like a novel than an account of a trial, which is to Lipstadt's credit. For a more scholarly discussion of the events I thoroughly recommend RJ Evans book 'Telling lies about Hitler'.
A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT.... - Rated 
Lipstadt is patently an intelligent author, and some of her in depth analyses bring some discrepancies to light, statistical and other, in the works of David Irving. However, any historian, journalist, or writer in general could be found to have an equal level
of faults in their works.
Irving is one of the integral historians of WW2 and Nazism. His research has probably brought more new evidence and data
to light than any single historian of this era. The bibliography of any work of note on this period in history will contain references to Irving's work. The vast amounts of data, and the unique and varied nature of his sources, have made his contribution priceless.
Lipstadt criticises his fluctuating figures, on, say the victims of Dresden. Yes, his estimates have varied, but then history in general is prone to evolution, rarely are such figures maintained as 100% accurate as decades pass. Especially the field Irving works in - what with the cold war, massive amoutns of integral material laid hidden for years, even decades.
I would also state the statistics of Auschwitz victims have fallen from 6 million to less than 1 million in the last 50 years, very gradually. This represents much wider change than Irving's figures, and illustrates the evolution of historical analysis.
The scariest part of this whole book/trial is that the expert historians who testified against Irving were paid £500,00. Very, very sinister. History, indeed, on trial. And if you're reading of it differs from what it's supposed, prepare to face annihalation. More significant is what has happened since I wrote this review for the the American Amazon website. People wonder say Irving took Lipstadt to court, not the other way round. We now see that he did this because what she was accusing him of, holocaust denial, brings great risks-Irving is now serving three years in an Austrian jail. A elderly historian who expressed views over a decade ago on holocaust figures, is now in jail. Having discovered documents realting to Adolf Eichman in the early 1990's, Irving admitted millions of Jews were murdered. Despite this, he was imprisoned. Ironically, this coincides with the 'cartoon wars', where enraged Muslims are told free speech is an integral part of European culture. What the recent Irving verdict did was to stoke the flames, leave us open to allegations of hypocrisy, and alienating already angry Muslims. Lipstadt has helped hound a pensioner into jail. History on trial, historians in prison. This is, then, a book of grim power and portent..
BATTLE FOR TRUTH - Rated
Very rarely does a book, and a non-fiction one at that, make you laugh and cry every other page, but Deborah Lipstadt's brilliant incisive account of her "day" in court with David Irving "History on Trial" does just that.
Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Jewish Studies at Emory University, takes us from Atlanta to Auschwitz and on to the Law Courts in London with a story that even though you know the end keeps you glued to the page.
Her gradual realisation that she faces real problems under Britain's strange libel laws, and the formation of a powerful defence team led by barrister Richard Rampton QC are covered in meticulous gripping detail. Her lead solicitor was Anthony Julius, Princess Diana's divorce lawyer, and her expert witnesses came from Cambridge, North Carolina and Germany.
They form a superb team that totally demolishes Irving's position on day by day, document by document basis.
This book should surely take a place in the study of antisemitism, the Holocaust and racism, and in my opinion should be compulsory reading in schools and universities in these worrying times.
|
