- Paperback: 368 pages
- Publisher: Penguin Books Ltd (27 July 2000)
- Language English
- ISBN-10: 0140298991
- ISBN-13: 978-0140298994
- Product Dimensions: 19.8 x 13 x 2.5 cm
- Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (2 customer reviews)
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 1,242,250 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details |
Product Description
Product Description
"Denying the Holocaust" by Deborah Lipstadt was originally published in the US in 1993 by The Free Press. It was published in paperback in the UK by Penguin books in 1994. David Irving first complained about the reference to him in the text in letter to Penguin Books during November 1995. He issued a writ claiming damages for libel in September 1996, naming Penguin, Profesor Lipstadt and four individual Waterstones's booksellers as defendants. The writ was in due course served on each of the defendants, although the action against the four booksellers was later dropped. In view of the complexities of the evidence, the parties agreed that the action should be tried by a judge alone and Mr Justice Gray was assigned the case. The trial opened in the High Court in London on Tuesday 11 January 2000 and closing speeches were heard on Wednesday 15 March 2000. Mr Justice Gray delivered his judgment in favour of the defendants on Tuesday 11 April 2000. This text docments the trial.
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organise and find favourite items. |
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
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
The remarkable judgement recorded in this book exposed David Irving as a Hitler-loving, Holocaust-denying anti-Semite and racist, who falsified evidence to promote his fascism.
In 1994 Penguin Books published Professor Deborah Lipstadt's book Denying the Holocaust. Irving complained that certain passages in the book accused him of being a Nazi apologist and an admirer of Hitler who had resorted to the distortion of facts and the manipulation of documents in support of his contention that the Holocaust did not take place.
In 1996, Irving issued a writ claiming damages for libel, naming Penguin Books and Professor Deborah Lipstadt as defendants. The trial opened in the High Court in London on 11 January 2000. The Hon. Mr Justice Gray delivered his judgement in favour of the defendants on 11 April 2000.
Mr Justice Gray reminded the Court that Hitler said to the Reichstag on 30 January 1939, "if international Jewry within Europe and abroad should succeed once more in plunging the peoples into a world war, then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the world and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."
And on 12 December 1941, "He had prophesied to the Jews that if they once again brought about a world war they would experience their own extermination. This was not just an empty phrase. The World War is there, the extermination of Jewry must be the necessary consequence." Hitler talked again of exterminating Jews on 1 and 30 January 1942, and on 14, 22 and 24 February 1942.
Mr Justice Gray said, "I find that in most of the instances which they cite, the Defendants' criticisms are justified. In those instances it is my conclusion that, judged objectively, Irving treated of the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian. Irving in those respects misrepresented and distorted the evidence which was available to him."
He said, "I have found that, in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence."
He said, "In my opinion there is force in the opinion expressed by Evans [Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University] that all Irving's historiographical `errors' converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler and to reflect Irving's partisanship for the Nazi leader. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency. I accept the Defendants' contention that this convergence is a cogent reason for supposing that the evidence has been deliberately slanted by Irving."
Mr Justice Gray concluded, "The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."
In 1994 Penguin Books published Professor Deborah Lipstadt's book Denying the Holocaust. Irving complained that certain passages in the book accused him of being a Nazi apologist and an admirer of Hitler who had resorted to the distortion of facts and the manipulation of documents in support of his contention that the Holocaust did not take place.
In 1996, Irving issued a writ claiming damages for libel, naming Penguin Books and Professor Deborah Lipstadt as defendants. The trial opened in the High Court in London on 11 January 2000. The Hon. Mr Justice Gray delivered his judgement in favour of the defendants on 11 April 2000.
Mr Justice Gray reminded the Court that Hitler said to the Reichstag on 30 January 1939, "if international Jewry within Europe and abroad should succeed once more in plunging the peoples into a world war, then the consequence will be not the Bolshevization of the world and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the contrary, the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."
And on 12 December 1941, "He had prophesied to the Jews that if they once again brought about a world war they would experience their own extermination. This was not just an empty phrase. The World War is there, the extermination of Jewry must be the necessary consequence." Hitler talked again of exterminating Jews on 1 and 30 January 1942, and on 14, 22 and 24 February 1942.
Mr Justice Gray said, "I find that in most of the instances which they cite, the Defendants' criticisms are justified. In those instances it is my conclusion that, judged objectively, Irving treated of the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian. Irving in those respects misrepresented and distorted the evidence which was available to him."
He said, "I have found that, in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence."
He said, "In my opinion there is force in the opinion expressed by Evans [Richard Evans, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University] that all Irving's historiographical `errors' converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler and to reflect Irving's partisanship for the Nazi leader. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency. I accept the Defendants' contention that this convergence is a cogent reason for supposing that the evidence has been deliberately slanted by Irving."
Mr Justice Gray concluded, "The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."
4 of 7 people found the following review helpful
David Irving took umbrage at... his critic, Prof. Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University, by suing her for libel. Unable to shake any loose settlement change down from Lipstadt or her publisher, Penguin, Irving earlier this year went into the High Court to make his case.
Both sides agreed beforehand that the case would be decided without a jury. The judge, Charles Gray, heard many weeks of testimony and saw literally thousands of pages of expert reports. And after carefully assessing this mountain of evidence... Gray spelled out his reasoning in great detail in the judgment, and it's a pleasure to read...Now Penguin has published the judgment as an inexpensive paperback, with proceeds going to a children's hospital. So purchasing this book has three rewards -- the opportunity to see the comprehensive demolition by Justice Gray of the central arguments of the Holocaust deniers, the chance to congratulate Penguin for not caving in to a bully, and -- not the least -- a chance to make an indirect contribution to the charity Penguin Books has designated.
@%<
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
1 review
The Scales of British Justice tipped against Mr Irving
11 Aug 2011
This reprints the verdict in a famous libel trial in London in 2000. David Irving had sued American author Deborah Lipstadt and her UK publisher Penguin Books for hostile remarks about him in her Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (1994). Judge Charles Gray's judgement is here reproduced here by Penguin and is perhaps the most authoritative book to have come out of the case, being the opinion of an impartial, trained forensic mind who sat through all the evidence.
The trial became a major rehearsal of arguments about the 'Holocaust' up to that date and received considerable media coverage. It cemented or made the public reputations of several witnesses, many of whom also issued books discussing the evidence they gave. These include Richard Evans' Lying About Hitler (2001) and Robert van Pelt's poorly typeset The Case for Auschwitz (2002). Much of the verbatim exchanges and evidence is still (2011) available on Irving's Focal Point website together with his own bitter ruminations. However, Gray summarises the case accurately.
Gray is persuaded by Evans' examples of Irving's manipulation of historical evidence with respect to Hitler's attitude to the Jews and the death toll in the Dresden air raid in 1945. However, the traduced documents about Hitler and the Jews in Irving's Hitler's War (1977 edition) are all identified by Irving himself in his introduction and are not random samples. Gray rejects as "too sweeping" Evans' claim that Irving was "not a historian". He confesses himself surprised at the scant evidence for gassings at Auschwitz, on which the 'holocaust denier' part of the case hinged. However, he is persuaded by van Pelt that Irving's interpretations of evidence were unsound. He describes Irving as 'anti-semitic', 'racist' and lacking objectivity, cavalier and arrogant in his treatment of evidence, but with some merit as a military historian. Irving's reputation received a severe blow as a result. Evans commented that the months in court gave a fuller opportunity for debate than brief academic seminars and this is reflected in the high quality of Gray's judgement, which is good place to start studying the subject. Highly recommended.
The trial became a major rehearsal of arguments about the 'Holocaust' up to that date and received considerable media coverage. It cemented or made the public reputations of several witnesses, many of whom also issued books discussing the evidence they gave. These include Richard Evans' Lying About Hitler (2001) and Robert van Pelt's poorly typeset The Case for Auschwitz (2002). Much of the verbatim exchanges and evidence is still (2011) available on Irving's Focal Point website together with his own bitter ruminations. However, Gray summarises the case accurately.
Gray is persuaded by Evans' examples of Irving's manipulation of historical evidence with respect to Hitler's attitude to the Jews and the death toll in the Dresden air raid in 1945. However, the traduced documents about Hitler and the Jews in Irving's Hitler's War (1977 edition) are all identified by Irving himself in his introduction and are not random samples. Gray rejects as "too sweeping" Evans' claim that Irving was "not a historian". He confesses himself surprised at the scant evidence for gassings at Auschwitz, on which the 'holocaust denier' part of the case hinged. However, he is persuaded by van Pelt that Irving's interpretations of evidence were unsound. He describes Irving as 'anti-semitic', 'racist' and lacking objectivity, cavalier and arrogant in his treatment of evidence, but with some merit as a military historian. Irving's reputation received a severe blow as a result. Evans commented that the months in court gave a fuller opportunity for debate than brief academic seminars and this is reflected in the high quality of Gray's judgement, which is good place to start studying the subject. Highly recommended.
Was this review helpful?
Let us know
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
