Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust and the David Irving Trial [Hardcover]

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.

I have been a big admirer of David Irving's for a long time, and still believe that he is head and shoulders above all other WWII historians when it comes to his writing skills and mastery of the German primary source material. While Anglo-American court historians were content to write books based on the secondary source "research" of other court historians, David Irving learned the German language and went to the primary sources: the Nazi archives in Europe, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and to the surviving members of Hitler's entourage, who had shockingly been ignored by his lazy, and usually monolingual, peers. He has contributed invaluable, original research to his field of study. He has been a free speech martyr on 3 continents and has actually been imprisoned because of his words. My own public library system has a slew of David Irving books that are listed as "missing" because they've been stolen or destroyed by organized Jewish groups who publicly boast of their censorship. I admire him for his work, his sacrifices and because anyone who has such loathsome enemies must be doing something right. However, after reading this book, even I have to conclude, as much as I don't want to, that David Irving lied.

The author, Richard Evans, is a distasteful left-wing academic who obviously has an agenda and who raises a good deal of niggling objections to Irving's work. However, he also proves rather conclusively that Irving has deliberately lied in several of his books, whether through distortion of historical facts or flat-out invention. It might be worth it to detail one example.

When I first read Irving's original 2 volume magnum opus, "Hitler's War", in the mid 90s, the one thing that really caught my attention was Irving's assertion that Hitler had actually ordered Himmler_not_to liquidate the Jews. Irving's thesis was that the SS actually massacred the Jews on their own initiative, contrary to Hitler's direct orders and express wish to simply expel them after the war. In his introduction, Irving writes, "...the incontrovertible evidence is that Hitler ordered on November 30th 1941 that there was to be 'no liquidation' of the Jews." The relevant passage of the books reads:

"On November 30th, he (Himmler) was summoned to the Wolf's lair for a secret conference with Hitler, at which the fate of Berlin's Jews was clearly raised. At 1:30 p.m. Himmler was obligated to telephone from Hitler's bunker to Heydrich the explicit order that Jews were not to be liquidated; and the next day Himmler telephoned SS overall General Oswald Pohl, overall chief of the concentration camp system, with the order: 'Jews are to stay where they are.'"

Needless to say, I sat up and took notice. What a historian! What a discovery! Hitler actually wanted to protect the Jews from his bloodthirsty subordinates! Unfortunately, Irving's account is not at all accurate.

First of all, the relevant phrase in Himmler's notes was, "Judentransport aus Berlin. Keine Liquidierung" which means "Jew transport from Berlin. No Liquidation." It should be obvious to anyone, even without the fluency in German which Mr. Irving has, that the phrase refers to a single, specific transport of Jews from Berlin. Somehow, Irving extrapolated that order into a general prohibition against the liquidation of all Jews. Even more damning to his case, Irving had correctly translated the word "judentransport" as singular in a 1974 letter, so what was the justification for the mistranslation 3 years later?

Such an extrapolation is even more bizarre considering the two lines which preceded the mention of the Jew transport, which Irving chose to completely ignore. They are: "Verhaftung Dr. Jekelius/ Angebl [ich] Sohn Molotows" which mean "Arrest Dr. Jekelius. Presumably Molotov's son." This means that is was believed that one of the prisoners on that transport from Berlin was believed to be Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov's son, who would conceivably be a valuable bargaining chip for the Nazis, and who would have been automatically liquidated on his transport's arrival at its destination, unless some higher-up ordered his removal.

In addition, Himmler made this phone call an hour before he even met with Hitler, so it was misleading to say he was "obligated" by Hitler to spare this trainload of Jews, let alone Jews in general. The next part of this passage was the order that "Jews are to stay where they are." The relevant order says, "Verwaltungsfuhrer des SS haben zu bleiben" which actually means, "Administrative leaders of the SS are to stay where they are". There was no mention of Jews anywhere in Himmler's log that day. Irving says these were mistakes. For an expert in his field, who is fluent in German, these seem like the mistakes of someone who is either deliberately falsifying the historical record or who is so blinded by a desire to exculpate Hitler from all wrongdoing that he can't tell when he is extracting totally baseless interpretations from a document.

Evans looks into several other instances in Irving's work, such as the Dresden death toll, that couldn't have been anything but deliberate lies. I can't judge Irving's motivation. Perhaps he really does want to rehabilitate Hitler. It is a fact that there are more lies about Hitler and WWII that are accepted as common knowledge than there are for any other historical subject. Yet Irving had to have known that he'd be caught eventually. Maybe he did it for purely promotional purposes. Such revelations would surely sell books, but again, he had to know he'd eventually be found out. I don't know, but it's unfortunate that what amount to just a few lines in a man's work can ruin his reputation. However, if you can't trust someone in one area, can you really trust him in others? Those of us who are in favor of "revisionist" (i.e. "true") history have to be able to recognize and expose historical lies, even when they're told by our side. Objective truth has to be the touchstone for our allegiance, not ideological kinship.

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.