Rating: 
Summary: Let's think about this for a moment
Review: As far as I can tell, most of the negative reviews could easily have been writted by people who simply objected to a summary description of the book, even if that isn't the case. They all bemoan the silencing of someone who would "dare" to reexamine the official version of historical events. It seems that these people keep missing a rather obvious point. Irving was the PLAINTIFF in the trial, NOT THE DEFENDANT. No one put Irving on trial; rather, Irving was trying to destroy the career of a person who had dared to doubt HIS version of Holocaust events. So all of those reviews complaining that this book is yet another attempt to silence an historian who breaks from the official line are totally missing the point: it was Irving who was attempting to silence academic discourse. Which makes most of the defenses of him shown in these reviews completely moot. Had Irving respected the right of others to disagree with him, even to very vocally and bitterly disagree with him, his career would be intact and this book would never have been written. And to the reviewer who claimed that Evans only wrote the book to make money: How, exactly, do you think academics earn their living?
Rating: 
Summary: A glimpse into the world of the deniers
Review: Holocaust deniers are an enigmatic group in the modern world. One that insists, for various reasons, that one of the greatest tragedies of the modern age was a mere hoax. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary these people insist the Holocaust simply did not happen; how can they say this? this book by Richard J. Evans about his experiences as a material witness for the defense in David Irving's Libel case against Deborah Lipstadt sheds some light on how denier's history works. Evans' job during the trial basically consisted of checking over David Irving's writings and determining if he was just a 'revisionist historian' (which the deniers all claim to be) or if he was in fact a holocaust denier, an anti-semite, and a falsifier of history.
Evans findings are hardly surprising to those familiar with the denial movement. He showed with sufficient force to convince a supreme court justice that Irving was all of these things. Reading this book can give a person an excellent impression of what the deniers are like; unfortunately that can include arrogant, racist, and unrepentant. These persons all believe in the absolute accuracy of what they say despite the fact that they have to obfuscate their sources, take quotes out of context, and literally ignore mountains of contrary evidence (including eyewitness testimonies, both Jewish and Nazi alike) to make these claims.
Irving is something of a celebrity in this world. With the possible exception of Rassinier or Faurisson he is denial's most prolific writer; certainly he is its most prolific English writer. The most amazing feature of this book is how it portrays Irving. He certainly seems like an utter creep from the portrayal here. He argues forcefully, eloquently, and convincingly to the unwitting public and yet when faced with actually defending his 'revisionist' view of the Holocaust before actual historians he is defeated on virtually all fronts. In the end it is some justice that this man sued Lipstadt for printing a few pages of material he considered to be libelous and he came out of the trial with an over three hundred page judgement handed down by a Supreme Court Justice of England (also available from Penguin publishers under the title, 'The Irving Judgement')upholding Lipstadt's claims as well as many others and a fine of around two million pounds.
The judgement was more damaging to Irving's reputation than anything Lipstadt said and I believe the world owes a big thank you to Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Publishers for taking this case to court. Rather than settle out of court they chose to fight a long and expensive legal battle; they must have known from the beginning that, even if they won, they would probably never see any major portion of the money they spent back again. My hat goes off to them all for fighting a long and arduous legal battle that in the end would net them nothing more than a small boost to their already fine reputation.
This book is easy to read and entertaining; the lay reader will find it not overly complex though some familiarity with the history of the third reich would be helpful. Evans has an excellent command of history and a good sense of humour. For those looking for an introduction to the world of holocaust denial this illustrates perfectly how badly the deniers manipulate evidence to suit their own ends
Rating:
Summary: A glimpse into the world of the deniers
Review: Holocaust deniers are an enigmatic group in the modern world. One that insists, for various reasons, that one of the greatest tragedies of the modern age was a mere hoax. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary these people insist the Holocaust simply did not happen; how can they say this? this book by Richard J. Evans about his experiences as a material witness for the defense in David Irving's Libel case against Deborah Lipstadt sheds some light on how denier's history works. Evans' job during the trial basically consisted of checking over David Irving's writings and determining if he was just a 'revisionist historian' (which the deniers all claim to be) or if he was in fact a holocaust denier, an anti-semite, and a falsifier of history.
Evans findings are hardly surprising to those familiar with the denial movement. He showed with sufficient force to convince a supreme court justice that Irving was all of these things. Reading this book can give a person an excellent impression of what the deniers are like; unfortunately that can include arrogant, racist, and unrepentant. These persons all believe in the absolute accuracy of what they say despite the fact that they have to obfuscate their sources, take quotes out of context, and literally ignore mountains of contrary evidence (including eyewitness testimonies, both Jewish and Nazi alike) to make these claims.
Irving is something of a celebrity in this world. With the possible exception of Rassinier or Faurisson he is denial's most prolific writer; certainly he is its most prolific English writer. The most amazing feature of this book is how it portrays Irving. He certainly seems like an utter creep from the portrayal here. He argues forcefully, eloquently, and convincingly to the unwitting public and yet when faced with actually defending his 'revisionist' view of the Holocaust before actual historians he is defeated on virtually all fronts. In the end it is some justice that this man sued Lipstadt for printing a few pages of material he considered to be libelous and he came out of the trial with an over three hundred page judgement handed down by a Supreme Court Justice of England (also available from Penguin publishers under the title, 'The Irving Judgement')upholding Lipstadt's claims as well as many others and a fine of around two million pounds.
The judgement was more damaging to Irving's reputation than anything Lipstadt said and I believe the world owes a big thank you to Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Publishers for taking this case to court. Rather than settle out of court they chose to fight a long and expensive legal battle; they must have known from the beginning that, even if they won, they would probably never see any major portion of the money they spent back again. My hat goes off to them all for fighting a long and arduous legal battle that in the end would net them nothing more than a small boost to their already fine reputation.
This book is easy to read and entertaining; the lay reader will find it not overly complex though some familiarity with the history of the third reich would be helpful. Evans has an excellent command of history and a good sense of humour. For those looking for an introduction to the world of holocaust denial this illustrates perfectly how badly the deniers manipulate evidence to suit their own ends
Rating: 
Summary: Ahh, Dresden
Review: I fear that Amazon.com censorship will remove any points which could be regarded as "holocaust denial" so I will refrain from posting them here.A lot of this book is about Dresden. Whether or not the civilian casualty rate was quite what Irving states is irrelevant. It speaks volumes of the truth that the Germans never firebombed Great Britain. You will find no cities in England reduced to smoldering rubble by German warplanes, its entire population killed. Firebombing is a tremendously brutal method of attack, one which for whatever reasons, the Germans did not employ to the extent the British did. Perhaps Hitler was a fool, missing a golden opportunity to reduce London to ash. If the Germans had begun their attack on London with such weapons, the war would have turned out quite differently.
Rating:
Summary: A kangaroo trial indeed
Review: I would not put too much trust into the veracity of whatever Richard Evans says, as he has proven to be time and again a third rate hisorian, liar and plargiarizer to boot.
The fact that he helped won the case against Irving regarding the latter's alleged denial does not mean that he's a good historian, truthful witness or impartial bystander. Far from that, he's, like that senile Ian Kershaw, just some money grubbing mercenaries at the service of the highest bidder.
Btw, what has he written that we don't know of from other more industrious and eminenet historians> NOTHING!
Rating: 
Summary: Lying about who?
Review: If the word "Holocaust" is mentioned in conversation visuals of swastikas and concentration camps full of Jewish inmates come to mind. At least this is what could be said about the majority of the population. There are also those that when the Holocaust is mentioned the idea that the systematic extermination of the Jews never happened. With both of these views being considered though there is one commonality; the Holocaust stands apart as a unique historical occurrence.
How unique is the Holocaust though? Certainly one could say that the exact same thing has never occurred before, but what about genocide? This act is nothing new. How then are there seperate groups of people attempting to prove that this event in history did or did not happen and/or was a unique event? In a cross examination of an inspection of a Holocaust denier, presented by Richard Evans and an evaluation of a `uniquely Jewish Holocaust perpetuator' by Ward Churchill, there are a few startling similarities in the techniques of both groups of deniers and perpetuators.
First of all it seems that both of the historians under attack, David Irving (denier) and Deborah Lipstadt (perpetuator) felt that they were deconstructing harmful binaries that opposed their own ideas. In many cases though they were constructing and perpetuating new binaries in place of those they discredited.
The idea that Lipstadt and Irving were creating new binaries was not extraordinary, especially when considering the recent ideas of the postmodernist's views of history. According to the book Telling the Truth About History, postmodernism contains the idea that, "The discipline of history does not disengage its practitioners from the demands of politics, nor does the objectivity of science guarantee benign applications." (206). Thus it would seem natural that a certain amount of bias would be passed along to the audience by the historian. What makes Lipstadt and Irving different is their personal ideas that they were not bias-they were simply providing the "truth" to their audience.
Lipstadt and Irving were both proven to have reshaped evidence in order to back up their own ideas. In a seemingly weak move they did so under the banner of the long outdated ideology of the Enlightenment era. The Enlightenment era contained the idea that history was a science and thus an absolute truth could be found. Lipstadt and Irving both back themselves up by presenting solid evidence as an attempt to prove that if there is hard evidence there must be truth (oh and let us just hope that no one double checks that "hard evidence").
If it has been proven that both Irving and Lipstadt are mistreating historical evidence and feeding their audiences falsified information then why are their materials still considered viable in a historical sense? In another striking similarity both Lipstadt and Irving abuse what the postmodernists would label as "signifier and signified." This is the idea that every word is a signifier, and it signifies a specific thing. Both parties in this case labeled themselves with the signifier of historian when neither one was really the signified. Unfortunately the general public seeing the signifier `historian' is apt to credit the signified with academic credibility without thorough investigation. Telling the Truth About History points to postmodernists Jacques Derrida idea, "Reality is always shrouded by language, and the workings of language are in turn veiled by the operations of cultural codes." (213).
Now we can see the methodological and theoretical ways in which Irving and Lipstadt formed their views on the Holocaust, but how did they help in making the Holocaust stand apart as a unique occurrence? Going back to my introduction I laid out a few examples of how the word "Holocaust" functions as a signifier. All of those ideas are being perpetuated by people like Irving and Lipstadt.
The average reader would probably not think twice when looking over my introduction but my wording specifically singled out Jews as the victims of the Holocaust. Jews in fact were only one of many groups of people to be victimized by World War II, yet the work of historians like Lipstadt and Irving has shaped the word "Holocaust" in to a signifier that in no way brings to mind a holistic view of the events of World War II.
Perhaps the questions of postmodernists, "can there really be objectivity" is one to keep in mind when approaching history. Especially in this modern age where technology brings so many sources to the fingertips of millions with such ease, a person should be aware that their author always has a political and social background which will to an extent impact their work. If such a prolific event linked with World War can be so easily twisted and reformed, it just goes to show how fragile history can really be.
Rating:
Summary: Beware the Professors
Review: The raison d'etre for this book is a tremendous amount (I presume) of compensated time by a very distinguished professor of history at Cambridge University....who was hired by the defense (Penquin Publishing House and one of their authors) in a libel case brought by David Irving, another historian, who was suing because of charges that he was a "Holocaust Denier"....something that is conisidered amongst some historians a brand of disrepute and, worse, unobjectivity. The previous line is something you see frequently in German literature...the on and on sentence, with the point (or the verb) at the end....hence as one professor told me, the "AHA" or Gestalt experience.... Nonetheless, Professor Evans, being a credentialed tenured scholar, has an amply (and I mean nearly sentence by sentence) footnoted bibliography, given the indulgence to take a great deal of time, and use research assistants, to investigate Irving's work. At one point, he finds ample justification to ignore Irving's work prior to about 1987...and later, about 1992. This has to do with the publication (and in many languages) of the 2nd edition (which did not get translated into as many languages) of Irving's book about Adolf Hitler. Irving, an "independent" historian, had assuredly given perhaps misguided credit to some of his source material, which Professor was able to uncover, and attack dispassionately. I personally quarrel with neither writer. Also, Evans explains well why such a libel suit was possible in England yet would never occur (dare we thank Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington for the difference between our legal system and England, despite our 20th and 21st century alliances?)...The point is, they show the inherent flaw in all historical research and method. If YOU cannot read or check the sources, you are reading INTERPRETATION. When another language is involved, you take on a double risk of being misled. Arnold Schwarzenegger, recently elected governor of California (and he can never become President, because he is a naturalized citizen), experienced similar attacks of his statements when he was 25 years old about Adolf Hitler, out of context. He said he admired a man (yes he was also clearly an evil man) who rose from poverty to the highest political echelons of his era--and now, so has Mr. Schwarzenegger. What was revealed only within 24 hours of the election, after the Associated Press sent presumably biligual (I don't know) reporters to Austria (or so I heard on the "unbiased" news), and they found Jews in Mr. Schwartzenegger's home town who not only praised his philanthropy toward Jews in their town in Austria, but recalled he fought neo-Nazis in the streets as a teenager. WHY he did that (given that his father was a party member at one time) is not relevant. What is relevant--and here comes MY BIAS, is the contextual nature of so-called FACTS. THAT is the lesson of Professor Evans' work, the books of Irving, and any book written with the intent to make money. And there are many that are not.
Rating:
Summary: The Truth About David Irving.
Review: This book has two parts: The first is the Evan's meticulous examination, as an expert witness for the defense, of Irving's books and public statements, analyzing their value (or lack thereof) as historical research. The second is a more personal account of his experiences during the trial and how it felt to confront Irving face to face.
The first part is excellent. It proves that Irving consistently, indeed almost invariably, bends every tiny detail he can to make Hitler look good and the jews (or allies, or Soviets, etc.) look bad. Every excuse, justification, propaganda, or denial made by the nazis is accepted as gospel truth. On the other hand, all evidence for nazi crimes, including contemporary admissions by the perpetrators, is suddenly subjected to "skeptical analysis" in the name of "historical truth", and then instantly rejected if it doesn't fit Irving's worldview (e.g., that the holocaust didn't happen).
For example--one of numerous ones--when a certain nazi general denied knowledge of the holocaust after the war, that statement is believed implicity; but when the same general admits to other war crimes, Irving writes that he was "afraid" of torture or otherwise coerced into saying it. Or, Irving accepts as gospel truth the claim that "30,000" jews were involved in insurance fraud in 1932, before Hitler came to power--a claim based on nothing more than an antisemitic propaganda speech by a nazi functionary (the real number of ALL those prosecuted for such fraud in 1932, jews and non-jews, was less than 100); but he glibly rejects all surivor's testimony as coming from "ASsociation of Survivor of AuscHwitz and Other LiarS", or "ASSHOLS". Ha-ha.
Such examples can--and are--multiplied indefinitely. This is, in fact, the most important contribution this book makes: it is a thorough analysis of Irving's historical research and conclusions, and a definitive proof that it is totally worthless, not much more than neo-nazi antisemitic propaganda in the garb of "historical research".
The second part of the book is the one that got all the media attention: Evan's experience in the dock as he confronted Irving, and his impressions of the trial, Irving, the media circus around it, and so on. This part is less impressive, for an obvious reason: while, as an historian dealing with the documents, he is in his element as an expert, on the trial and the media around it he is writing as a layman.
Evans is intelligent and articulate as a layman, to be sure, and his observations on the trial and the media coverage are often worth reading. But here he does not tell us something that is really new or could not be skimmed from the (better) newspaper reports of the trial.
So read the book--and read both parts of it. Only remember that the first part is the real "meat" of the book, while the second, his experiences in the dock, is somewhat disappointing and polemical--although understandably so.
Rating:
Summary: A Valuable and Necessary Book
Review: This book is an outcome of the libel trial brought by David Irving against Penguin Books (in general) and Deborah Lipstadt (specifically). A historian and modern social commentator, Deborah Lipstadt had referred to Irving as a Holocaust denier (and a poor historian) three or four times in a nearly 600-page book. Irving took exception and sued her for libel. He waited to sue her in England where the burden of proof is on the defendant, not the Plaintiff. Evans was one of the many historians asked, by the defense, to prove that Lipstadt was not committing libel when she called Irving a Holocaust denier.
Evans has consequently built up a massive body of evidence to show that Irving continually, and with knowledge, suppressed historical facts and documents to support his position. Evans presents both the process of his investigation and the conclusions that he reached. Evans makes a formidable case. He points successfully to incident after incident where Irving knew that information was incorrect and still used it. Evans also points out that Irving's "mistakes" were all in one direction, not chaotic as one might expect from a researcher that didn't have enough time on his hands or was uncertain about his material.
Lying About Hitler clarifies a number of issues, the first being that Irving was not the defendant (I thought so when I first heard about the case). Irving was suing Lipstadt, not the other way around. It was Lipstadt's freedom of speech (and Penguin Books') that was under attack. If Irving had won, he and others like him would have been able to stop (or attempt to stop) anyone who called them liars or disagreed with their position. Another issue Evans deals with is the "but history is so hard to interpret" argument. Evans points out, again and again, that this trial was not about the interpretation of historical facts but the misuse of historical documentation (either invented or avoided). Evans' chapter on Irving's research of the bombing of Dresden is fascinating in this regard. This kind of book confirms the importance of historical research for its own sake. History is so easily (and so often) manipulated for political purposes (on both sides of the fence). It is so much more important to figure out what happened and why as objectively as possible than to "prove" political agendas. Recommendation: Buy it in paperback or hardcover. If you don't have the cash, take it out of the library. It is definitely worth a read.
Rating:
Summary: Two Books in One
Review: This is a marvelous book based on the author's work as an expert witness in the David Irving libel trial. Irving is a non-academic historian of Nazi Germany, and the author of numerous popular World War II histories based on "extensive" and "original" research in German archives. Super-litigious, in the late 1990s he sued an American academic who had accused him of admiring Adolf Hitler and of conducting sloppy and biased historical research. Cambridge historian Evans was hired by the defense to compare Irving's claims with the historical record, to see if the books could stand up to scholarly scrutiny. The results were devastating. In this book (which is based on Evans' expert report to the court), Evans simultaneously demolishes Irving's pretensions to objectivity while delivering a primer on historical methodology. Anyone interested in history -- or in seeing a fraud get his just deserts -- will enjoy it.
|
