The Holocaust on Trial: History, Justice and the David Irving Libel Case [Paperback]

D D Guttenplan is a US journalist who sat throughout the libel trial in 2000 between David Irving and Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books over her book, "Denying the Holocaust". I have not read this book and I suspect that had it not been for the trial, it would have been largely forgotten and been regarded as merely a book of academic interest.

In this book, Deborah Lipstadt had named a number of historians who had publically written in ways to deny that the Holocaust had ever happened. David Irving was among this number.

The irony is that David Irving is a military historian who does not have a particular interest in the treatment of Jews by the Nazis. Most of what he wrote about the Holocaust was largely taken from people like Robert Faurisson and Arthur Butz. Indeed there is not much in Deborah Lipstadt's book that concerned David Irving directly.

However, David Irving felt strongly enough about the slight to his reputation as a respectable and popular historian that he decided to sue for libel. I was not aware until reading this book that there are differences in the way that libel is treated in the US and the UK legal systems. In the US, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (i.e. Irving) to prove that he has been libelled. In the UK, the burden of proof is on the defendent (i.e. Lipstadt) to prove that she had NOT libelled the plaintiff.

The stakes were high on both sides. If Irving had won his case, Deborah Lipstadt would not be able to make any statement regarding Irving's views on the Holocaust without suffering criminal sanctions. Furthermore, it would also bolster the claims of Holocaust deniers thoughout the world turning our conventional undertanding of the history of this period on its head. For Irving, defeat would mean that his reputation as an historian would be permanently tainted and he would probably be bankrupted if he could not afford to pay the enormous legal costs of bringing the case to trial.

The case was perhaps more difficult for the defence because they had to attest that David Irving had deliberately falsified the documentary evidence and that he had done so for anti-semitic reasons. If they could be shown to have been merely honest mistakes, the defence case would have collapsed. The defence team had some very illustrious players like Richard Rampton QC and Anthony Julius: David Irving acted alone, without legal representation. However, with litigants in person, judges tend to be lenient, tending to "lean over backwards" to help them.

The trial went completely against Irving on every count.

This book is an engrossing and enlightening read. I learned an enormous amount from it and it made me reflect on a number of areas. One particular aspect is the amount of trust you have to place on a writer. When you read a history book, you are not looking at the source documents but the writer has. You have to rely on the writer's skill and integrity because you do not have the time or opportunity the writer had. David Irving was savaged by Richard Evans and his team of researchers who had pored over everything that Irving had written and checked every item of source material in Irving's possession. Evans had found that Irving had distorted and misquoted and ignored evidence in order to present an unreliable version of history. This is devastating to Irving's reputation.

Guttenplan's description of the proceedings is highly entertaining and colourful and I thought as I was reading the book that it would make a brilliant film.

This is not the only book on this trial. Deborah Lipstadt and Richard Evans have both written their accounts of the trial. They will have their own angles as they are by participants rather than observers - I must get round to reading them.
Highly recommended.

'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.

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.