Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial: Amazon.co.uk: Richard J. Evans: Books

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, and more.

› Visit Amazon's Richard J. Evans Page

Product Description

Synopsis

In ruling against the controversial historian David Irving in his libel suit against the American historian Deborah Lipstadt, last April 2000, the High Court in London labeled him a falsifier of history. No objective historian, declared the judge, would manipulate the documentary record in the way that Irving did. Richard J. Evans, a Cambridge historian and the chief advisor for the defense, uses this pivotal trial as a lens for exploring a range of difficult questions about the nature of the historians enterprise. For instance, dont all historians in the end bring a subjective agenda to bear on their reading of the evidence? Is it possible that Irving lost his case not because of his biased history but because his agenda was unacceptable? The central issue in the trialas for Evans in this bookwas not the past itself, but the way in which historians study the past. In a series of short, sharp chapters, Richard Evans sets David Irvings methods alongside the historical record in order to illuminate the difference between responsible and irresponsible history. The result is a cogent and deeply informed study in the nature of historical interpretation.

Inside This Book (Learn More)

First Sentence
What is historical objectivity? Read the first page

Explore More
Concordance

Tags Customers Associate with This Product

(What's this?)

Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.

jewish truth(1)

Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

Customer Reviews

1 Review

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

Average Customer Review

5.0 out of 5 stars (1 customer review)

Share your thoughts with other customers:

Create your own review

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

16 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?, 16 April 2004

By

N. J. Mazonowicz - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)

This review is from: Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial (Hardcover)

"You know that David Irving? He's completely made up. He didn't happen at all". So said Stephen Fry.
In April 2000, David Irving took the author Deborah Lipstadt to court over allegations that he had systematically distorted evidence to fit in with his own ideas of holocaust denial. Evans was expert witness for the defence and in this utterly fascinating book, he shows us step by step how he was able to prove that David Irving did systematically distort the evidence. He also explores how the trial was able to turn from a mere libel case into something bigger; a trial which was seen as putting not only the Holocaust on trial, but even accepted notions of truth and falsehood.
Before this book, David Irving had a (slightly tarnished) reputation as a controversial but diligent researcher with an astonishing grasp of primary material. The picture of Irving that emerges from this book is that of an increasingly deranged demagogue; constantly interupting witnesses in his interogations, spending time trying to show the anti-semitism of 19th century writers in a startling display of irrelevance and addressing the judge as 'Mein Fuhrer'. However, a particularly strange atmosphere surrounding this trial; at times it seemed like it was Irving himself who was on trial; portraying himself (and being portrayed in some quarters) as fearlessly resisting the might of the Jewish-Zionist lobby attempting to supress him (as if it was Lipstadt who had launched the libel suit), a factor which Evans captures well.
In his examination of the evidence in this book, Evans limits himself to a few key case studies; which may be fustrating to the casual reader wanting more, nevertheless this is an utterly fascinating account of an untterly fascinating case.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews

Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

Report abuse | Permalink

Comment Comments (2)

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See the customer review...

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com ^(beta)

Amazon.com: 3.7 out of 5 stars (55 customer reviews)

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Quintessential Historical Methodology, 25 Oct 2011

By M. Miles "miles120" - Published on Amazon.com

This review is from: Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial (Paperback)

If you are interested in understanding how history is "done", then this compelling narrative about David Irving's libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt has got to be on your short list. Evans is an important scholar who is brought in as an expert witness to analyze Irving's attacks against Lipstadt. The trial takes place in England, which has much less restrictive libel standards, and Irving's reckless accusations set the stage for a fascinating examination of what constitutes good historical research.

History has a deep rhetorical lineage, but it nevertheless maintains a discipline and methodological rigor that is subject to criticism from within the profession. Despite what some reviewers have asserted, the Irving trial was not a witch hunt (it was brought by him), and Evans is meticulous in defining how respectable history is performed. Interestingly, the events occur at the beginning of the age of the Web, and Evans documents the role of the echo chamber in granting Irving authority long after he should have been debunked.

In short, buy the book. Learn how history is done. And beware next time you hear people attacking historians for partisan positions.

26 of 37 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars The Truth About David Irving., 13 Jan 2005

By Avital Pilpel "classics_lover" - Published on Amazon.com

This review is from: Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial (Paperback)

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.

6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Irving Exposed For What He Is, 21 Aug 2011

By Richard Hill "WWII Historian" - Published on Amazon.com

This review is from: Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial (Paperback)

I have studied Hitler, WWII, and the Holocaust for over a decade. I've even read Irving's books, which while not being accurate or serious are entertaining. They remind me of the narrative books now popular about Washington DC where authors try to make you feel like you are in the room while history was being made.

The problem with Irving is he leaves out well known facts and misinterprets often. To me, it seems like Irving believes Hitler and the German side in general has not gotten a fair shake re the historical record. I think most can agree this is true, the historical record of WWII and how things happened leans toward the victors- as it always does. But Irving seems to be out to correct this by swinging the pendulum too far the other way, painting Hitler as he was in 1935- even knowing what he did from 1935 to 1945. The facts Irving leaves out while painting these narratives are ones well known to any historian familiar with these subjects, but I can see how he could easily fool those new to them.

Irving's ultimate vomit of nonsense, that Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust because there is no order to kill all the Jews in the world with his name on it, is truly laughable. Hitler lied about everything in his life, and regularly hid issues he felt the public not ready for. (eg The future plans for destruction of the church, the murder of the mentally retarded or "life not worthy of life")

In addition, Hitler often ordered things verbally, with no paper documents, and Borman Himmler or Speer would follow through. If anyone knows how ridiculous "not finding an order to kill the Jews with Hitler's name on it" would be, it should be Irving. In addition, Hitler regularly read "the brown papers" or the transcripts of numerous wire taps. Literally nothing happened in Germany that Hitler did not know about, as Borman routinely stated.

Re initiation of the Holocaust, all historical evidence points to Hitler handing the ball off to Goering and Heydrich, to "solve the Jewish problem" with "transports to the east" to prevent getting his hands dirty. It's very sad Irving threw always his many talents as a writer and researcher to try and claim otherwise. He has embarrassed himself, and his family. He should apologize, and come clean instead of continuing this charade. He must truly believe everyone to be stupid, to continue along his path of self delusion.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 55 reviews 3.7 out of 5 stars

Were these reviews helpful? Let us know