Neither History Nor Justice - Rated 
Conspiracy theories are fundamentally flawed and the one track minds that believe in them frequently go off the rails. Unfortunately, their irrationality tends to infect all around them and that includes this account of the David Irving libel case. Indeed, if Irving wanted validation for believing in the discredited theory that Jewish interests rule the world, Guttenplan's book provides him with plenty of "evidence" with which to feed his distorted view of reality.
No one reading this book with an open mind could regard it as being a balanced account of the events leading up to the trial or the contents of the trial itself. Guttenplan is too anxious to pursue his own agenda to allow for neutrality. Which is a pity because Irving's arrogance (and pride always goes before a fall) was sufficient of itself to have buried his reputation without Guttenplan's foot stamping indulgences.
In addition to reading the book, I undertook further research and was surprised at the contents of Lord Justice Gray's verdict. While denying that the courtroom is the place to determine issues of historical dispute Justice Gray did precisely that in his judgement.
The definition of Irving as a Holocaust denier is given in terms of a strict definition of "Holocaust". In practice, Irving does not deny that extermination of Jews took place under the Nazis. He denies that it was systematic; he denies its incidence (much of it was caused by disease); he denies its extent (about one tenth of the figures claimed by traditional historians); and he denies Hitler had prior or ongoing knowledge that it happened. I have no doubt he is wrong on all accounts and that, in common with many historians, he sees what he wants to see and disregards what is inconvenient.
In reality the verdict was as much a condemnation of Irving's views about Jews in general as about the Holocaust which, as a military historian, was not his main field of interest. Irving was guilty of creating and believing a version of history which is deemed to be politically incorrect. That doesn't make him less of a historian simply a subjective one - and he's far from being alone in that respect!!
Irving's mistake was not in spouting ridiculous views about the extent of Hitler's knowledge of the "Final Solution" or of downplaying its systematic nature and severity (which in my opinion, as a trained historian, he does) but in failing to recognise that in a free society suing for libel does not enrich freedom of speech, only the pockets of lawyers.
According to Guttenplan "Thanks to Deborah Lipstadt and her lawyers the facts about the Holocaust are indeed safer". That is debatable. Indeed, it can be argued that it's thanks to David Irving that facts about the Holocaust are safer. It was his decision to put his unconvincing version of events into the courtroom which has safeguarded the substantiated version of the Holocaust. It was not his intention but it was the outcome.
Irving's activities since he lost the libel case have increased his popularity rather than diminished it, especially in the United States. Guttenberg claims that Irving's project is to rehabilitate Fascism, a claim open to substantial objection as it adopts the Stalinist characterisation of Nazism which was a political construct as artificial as Irving's own theories.
Reading pro and anti-Irving websites was not a pleasant task and served as a reminder of the Nazi's own notorious film about the "Eternal Jew" However, the perceived right wing threat which is so often raised by politicians and journalists tends to peter out when prosperity comes.
There is, of course, the possibility that Irving has begun to believe in his own self-appointed role as the finder and purveyor of absolute historical truth. In his most recent interview with the Independent he claimed he was appointed by Hitler to write the dictator's biography - and he wasn't laughing when he said it either!!! His mind has become as one-tracked as his opponents and frankly neither of them have contributed to a furtherance of understanding between humankind.
This book is by no means the worst example of such misunderstanding but it's by no means the best example of how to deal with history in the interests of truth or justice.
A Spectator's View of the Irving Trial - Rated 
'Lying About Hitler', by Professor Richard J. Evans was the first book I read regarding the trial of David Irving. Professor Evans was part of the defense team, and he prepared a sweeping indictment of David Irving and his writings that were an integral part of Irving losing the suit he had brought. Mr. D.D. Guttenplan author of, 'The Holocaust On Trial', describes himself as a reporter. This man was not only present at the trial, but on several occasions spoke with David Irving, and was allowed access to his files. The idea that a trial was needed to prove that the Holocaust did take place despite the writings of the anti-Semite David Irving is almost beyond belief. I highly recommend both of these books, for while they cover the same event, the first is from a participant, while the second is from an observer.
Mr. Guttenplan does much more than report on this trial. He takes the reader through the difficulties of why proving history is so difficult. The idea of proving historical events, especially one as prominent as the Nazi Programs of WWII would seem absurd. Absurdity is quickly dismissed when a judge is brought into a courtroom along with history, and the record of past events must meet legal thresholds. Again this would seem to be an astonishingly easy case to make; however the opposite is true.
Eyewitness survivors were never put on the stand, for a legitimate lapse in memory of whether a set of doors opened inward or outward can mean the difference between documenting an accepted fact, and stating an error that is meaningless in the eyes of anyone except those that exploit these missteps to place widely held, accurate beliefs into question. These are the deniers of history, the intentional revisionists like David Irving who either takes pieces of information and presents them in a distorted manner, or when there is nothing to distort, he and his like will fabricate whatever lies are necessary, to falsify history in the hopes of sensationalizing their works of fiction, and the sales thereof. The trial exposed David Irving for what he is, a self-promoting anti-Semite, who while having excellent secretarial skills and a man who has amassed prodigious records, is still, in the end nor more than a anti-Semite and a historical hack.
Mr. Guttenplan also raises and discusses other issues that are sure to be controversial with some people. He raises some consequences that occur when a group becomes defined by a single event, and when the same group selectively includes their group as victims while not mentioning the others that shared the same fate. History needs above all to be accurate, and the fact that the number of non-Jews killed in camps is measured in 7 figures is no less important a matter than the number of Jews who perished. That the intent to destroy the Jews as a people is historically accepted, was unique, and especially depraved. Some estimates state 20 million civilians died during the war, all must be remembered, and to do so in no way diminish what was distinctly horrific about the specific plans for the Jewish People.
There is a quote that many will be familiar with that is from the German Pastor Martin Niemoller. His words were meant to document how The Third Reich of Hitler methodically came and took away groups as others did not help, as they were not a part of the group. The familiar lines end, 'Then when they came for me, there was no one left who could stand up for me'. The pastor refers to 5 groups in a very specific order, why would anyone try to change the man's words? He spoke of horror without hierarchy, why would it be changed, and why would anyone believe a change would be beneficial? The list of publications that have routinely misquoted the Pastor's words will surprise any reader. The fact that the quote was manipulated and then enshrined in The United States Holocaust Museum, is not only troubling, it plays into the hands of those who seek any point to minimize history, to discredit those who manipulate it.
The order that the Pastor listed was as follows, 'first they came for the Communists', then the, 'Social Democrats', 'then came the trade unionists', 'and then the Jews', 'and then they came for me'. So why would a people who have suffered as the Jews had, hand to their opponents material to harm them with? Why were the first people mentioned, the Communists, eliminated from the version at The Holocaust Museum'? Why are the Jews routinely moved to the first that, 'they came for'? What difference does it make? It certainly does not change what happened, the violence, the crimes. Mr. Guttenplan offers the following explanation that is troubling, ' 'because arguments about the Holocaust have always been about politics as well as history'.
The truth honors all of those that were killed. I have yet to read any truth that would damage the memory of the victims.
Sound overview that lacks philosophical clout... - Rated
While a lucid and even-handed account of the personalities and chronology of the trial itself, Guttenplan's book is less interesting on its epistemological and historiographical implications; his approach is such that, without irony, he can categorise the notoriously thorny questions surrounding the interpretation of historical documents as 'tidy' (p. 35). Hopefully the forthcoming book by the historian Richard Evans (an expert witness at the trial and author of the classic 'In Defence of History') will be more satisfying in this department.
This should be a school textbook - Rated
DD Guttenplan's book is surprisingly easy to read, given the subject matter. The writing is spare, lean and clear and the story of the trial is as gripping as any thriller. The trial was felt to be so important that the likes of Steven Spielberg funded Deborah Lipstadt's trip to defend herself against [...] David Irving. It is an important and worthy volume, that deserves the widest readership. I suggest that OFSTED place it on the history syllabus. It knocks the socks off most history textbooks.
Excellant shows the holes in people like irvings theories - Rated
This book tries to be as neutral as it can though i don't believe it achives this 100% it gets close. Guttenplan was at all the court procedings and had access to both the defence and the prosicution and the judge. In this book the holes in the theories of people like david irving are exposed.
|
