History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving [Hardcover]

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.

A fascinating personal insight into an American caught up in the British legal system, I found this immensely readable (and much more so than I had expected). I have to admit that when this legal action first came to my attention, it seemed that here was a respected (albeit maverick) historian (Irving) challenging some of the detail around the holocaust (rather than the fact itself!), supposedly based on valid evidence, and being 'shouted down' by those who would espouse the 'orthodox' view (e.g. Lipstadt). My reaction then was 'well let's hear the evidence from both sides' so we can make our own minds up. Of course, Irving got to do just that in court and lost badly, in the process exposing both his anti-semitism and deliberate manipulation of evidence. Adding to the publicly available judgment, this account puts an engaging personal story on the case, bringing to life the characters involved in the case, from the legal team to expert witnesses, and even public attendees.

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.