Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop All Amazon Fashion Summer Savings Up to 25% Off Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Oasis Learn more Shop now Learn more
Customer Review

38 of 58 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars A dangerous road to start down, 29 Oct. 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (Paperback)
I went into this text with preconceptions, having studied at length the reasons behind and story of the Holocaust. It struck me that the Author's purpose was to seek out those eccentric individuals who have made (in some cases a fairly lucrative) living out of denying the holocaust. I must give Lipstadt her due. She points out that the denial of the Holocaust is not and cannot be based on reason. The deniers rely on the ignorance of their readers and highly selective use of evidence to bolster their rather tenuous case.
Why then, am I only giving three stars? The answer lies in what I perceive as an almost manic intolerance of any deviation from her accepted version of the Holocaust. Lipstadt claims that there are many issues that 'Holocaust experts' debate - then seems to limit them to those which start from the assumption six million died, even when this is a highly tendentious figure. Some literature suggests that not all Nazis were as vehemently in favour of the Holocaust as Hitler. Does this lack of unanimity warrant a mention? I think not. There is a disturbing intolerant streak which characterises much of the writing and which vitiates what would otherwise have been a very powerful work. The blanket adoption of extreme restrictions on freedom of speech which Lipstadt seems to advocate is the thin end of a very disturbing wedge, and readers should remember this.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 4 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 15 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 20 Feb 2011 16:33:05 GMT
PC-History says:
Your reviewer "A Customer" writes that they found a "disturbing intolerant streek" that "characterises much of the writing" of this Lipstadt book. More pertinently, he should have written "hysterical" ! What I find astonishing about this whole "Holocaust industry" business in general, and the Irving-Lipstadt case in particular, is that the High Court case between the two was supposed to be all about historical accuracy and truth. Rubbish - a great deal was all about the "almost manic intolerance of any deviation" from [Lipstadt's et al] "accepted version of the Holocaust". In fact, it should not have been Iriving who brought a libel action against this writer, but the group of respected and distinguished German historians involved in that country's "Historikerstreit" a few years back whom she libelled as sailing very near to the wind of "denial". Worse, however, remains the publisher's refusal to correct the lie which it and Lipstadt continue to propagate on the back cover of the paperback edition of the book. Viz: "the death of six million Jews in Nazi concentration camps......". And that is supposed to constitute the be all and end all of "historical truth and accuracy". Do me a favour! I'm not talking about the quoted figure, which in itself has to be tantamount to a "guess" since accurate figures continent-wide for the Nazi policy of the extermination of Jews can be nothing other. No, the offending words are "in Nazi concentration camps". No, those people were not killed on that scale in those places. I'm not wasting my time or breath explaining the true facts - but it is outrageous in the extreme that Lipstadt, her publishers, and her emotionally-driven lay and so-called "academic" supporters should support a person and her book which continues to this day to propagate such an historical falsehood.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Dec 2012 19:11:10 GMT
squodgy says:
Hear Hear!

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Jan 2013 20:18:18 GMT
For someone calling themselves PC-History you display a lack of understanding of the facts surrounding the history of the Holocaust and the Holocaust denial that this book is about. You're comments illustrates the revisionist position of people like David Irvine, which in the libel case was shown to be inaccurate, biased and fundamentally anto-semitic. It is people like you who allow these type of 'historians' to pander their views of what they believe happened during the Second World War. In short it is frightening that with all the available facts, documented evidence and substantial first hand accounts of the slaughter that people like you still willful ignore the truth.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Dec 2014 21:35:02 GMT
Erroll says:
Michael Bailey opines that:

"In short it is frightening that with all the available facts, documented evidence and substantial first hand accounts of the slaughter that people like you still willful ignore the truth."

And yet when the Soviets opened up their archives around 1990 to the general public it was discovered that not one photo could be found which could substantiate the claim that gas chambers had been used to kill millions of people nor could any document be located which revealed that the Germans had built any death chamber which was used to kill so many people. As to all those alleged eyewitnesses it is curious that very few, if any, have been found which have held up to scrutiny in a court of law. To borrow from Mr. Bailey's words, it is indeed frightening to see so many people accept without question a story which has been virtually unchallenged for decades. And woe to the person who does express doubts about that as he or she will be imprisoned, physically attacked, and even killed by those Holocaust fanatics.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2015 15:25:54 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jan 2015 18:18:45 GMT
Shane Hyde says:
Always amuses me how deniers never use their real names. All deniers - whether holocaust or climate change - seem to me a bunch of cowards. They are such insecure, weedy, wimpy little morons, they hang around on amazon giving 1-star ratings to books that expose them or click 'no' to the usefulness of any review or comment they dont like. That's all they have left. Utterly pathetic little lives they lead.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2015 15:52:16 GMT
Erroll says:
To borrow from the words of S. Hyde, it is always amusing to see how the Holocaust believers are unable to refute what the revisionists have to say about their sacred story. It is also depressing to see so many revisionists thrown in prison and brutally attacked because the advocates of the official story of the Jewish Holocaust are apparently too cowardly to engage their opponents in any kind of civil and intellectual manner.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2015 16:49:03 GMT
Many revisionists have been thrown into prison? Name them? Also to be revisionist myself prove that these revisionist were 'brutally attack', in what way pry tell did they have their fantasists beliefs destroyed?

Whilst the second part of you're ill-thought and idiotic opinion states that 'advocates' of the Holocaust are too cowardly please read below:

Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt

David Irving sued Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, for libel in an English court, after she characterized some of his writings and public statements as Holocaust denial in her book Denying the Holocaust.

Although English libel law puts the burden of proof on the defendant rather than the plaintiff, Lipstadt and Penguin won the case using the justification defence, viz. by demonstrating in court that Lipstadt's accusations against Irving were substantially true and therefore not libelous. The case was argued as a bench trial before Mr Justice Gray, who produced a written judgment 334 pages long detailing Irving's systematic distortion of the historical record of World War II. The Times (April 14, 2000, p. 23) said of Lipstadt's victory, "History has had its day in court and scored a crushing victory."

Maybe the 'advocates' of denying the Holocaust should be more circumspect when throwing their distorted view of history. Of course you knew all this but why let facts get in the way of denying the victims of the Nazi Holocaust of any sympathy and respect.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2015 19:39:52 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jan 2015 19:42:33 GMT
Erroll says:
Mr. Bailey

You inquire:

"Many revisionists have been thrown into prison? Name them?"

British writer Nicholas Kollerstrom quotes Gordon Duff, who wrote for the web site Veterans Today in 2010, in his book Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust: Myth and Reality, that "Two thousand people in Europe are in prison today for questioning some part, no matter how minor, of the holocaust." He also observes: "That has to be quite an underestimate. Around fifteen thousand German citizens are tried each year for the Thought Crime, so-called 'right-wing extremism.' Kollerstrom also quotes from J. Bellinger, who writes for the Smith's Report, who points out that:

"Aside from widely publicised high-profile cases, it is impossible to definitively state the specific number of victims who have fallen under the punitive arm of Holocaust denial legislation since these laws were first enacted. It has been estimated that over 58,000 individuals in Germany alone have been persecuted for various thought-crimes during the period 1994-1999. During the course of one year, 1999, Germany's aggressive policy of enforcing these repressive laws accounted for 11,248 convictions." [all quotes taken from a footnote on page 18 of the text]

As to naming someone who has run afoul of these oppressive laws, one person who should immediately come to mind is that of writer and chemist Germar Rudolf who was kept in prison for about two and a half years in Mannheim, Germany for having committed the egregious crime of writing books [The Rudolf Report and Lectures on the Holocaust] which challenged and disagreed with the official version of the Jewish Holocaust. The German high court was so aghast at what Rudolf had done that they ordered that his books should, like something out of Nazi Germany, not only be banned but also be ground into pulp. You then write:

"Also to be revisionist myself prove that these revisionist were 'brutally attack[ed]', in what way pry [sic] tell did they have their fantasists [sic] beliefs destroyed?"

It is surprising, in that rather mangled sentence which you wrote, that you are not familiar with what happened to French professor Robert Faurisson who was indeed brutally attacked about ten times by Jewish Holocaust fanatics in the 1980s. That last beating which they administered to him almost cost him his life in 1989. And sometimes the Holocaust zealots go even further. French publisher Francois Duprat was murdered when his car was blown up by Jewish Holocaust hoodlums in 1978. His wife was a little more fortunate as she "only" had to have her legs amputated when she, also, was blown up by that car bomb.

As I attempted to point out, if the mainstream Holocaust believers wanted to show what fools these revisionists are then all they have to do is to debate them in public forums rather than savagely attacking and murdering them.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jan 2015 21:32:12 GMT
So you're using revisionist historians 'information' quotes on websites that are broadly viewed as anti-semitic and believe that 9/11 the recent attacks in France and pretty much everything wrong in the ME is casused by Israel, home of a large population of Jews!! Wow well done quote away within this select and troubled group of discredited academics, lunatics and racists.
As to Robery Faurisson being attacked, well if you start off by denying a holocaust and then making up historical facts why not about being intimidated by Jews! There is an underlining theme running throughtout you're responce which is to take fact from unreputiable sources, whilst denying substantiated facts, all directed against one group of people, guess who?
As I already stated an open debate did take place in the High Court (I would consider that a civil and interllectual manner) regarding the Holocaust, which as stated in my previous post was a crushing defeat for revisionism.

One more question:
Have you read this book, or not? I have and its people like yourself that give oxygen to people who wish to bury the truth of the Holocaust with the victims, read it and you'll see the true side of Holocaust denial. Of course I don't expect you to do so, its so much better to continue to live with the constructed narrative of a false past in order to make sense of the present.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2015 03:23:21 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Jan 2015 03:29:07 GMT
Erroll says:
Mr. Bailey

You write that:

"So you're using revisionist historians 'information' quotes on websites that are broadly viewed as anti-semitic and believe that 9/11 the recent attacks in France and pretty much everything wrong in the ME is casused [sic] by Israel, home of a large population of Jews!!"

Simply another one of your bizarre and hysterical statements as you appear to be illogically saying that if someone points out that if over 58,000 people in Germany have been prosecuted and persecuted for daring to disagree with official story of what has become known as the Jewish Holocaust then that person must somehow hate Jews. How about the figure of over 11,000 Germans who were convicted of those charges? Are you saying that that figure was made up also? Or how about Germar Rudolf? Are you going to claim that he never went to prison for writing critically of the Jewish Holocaust? Or perhaps your next trick is to state that there is no such person as Germar Rudolf. I also have absolutely no idea what 09/11 and the recent attacks in France have to do with any of this since I made no reference to any of those events in my comments. You then write:

"As to Robery Faurisson being attacked, well if you start off by denying a holocaust and then making up historical facts why not about being intimidated by Jews!"

Here we have yet another one of your obscure and odd statements as it is once again difficult to know what exactly you are attempting to say here. Are you trying to say that Faurisson somehow got what he deserved or are you saying that you believe that he was not viciously attacked at all? In point of fact the French professor was most certainly assaulted by Holocaust thugs, all because he committed the unpardonable crime of questioning the greatest taboo in Western culture-the Jewish Holocaust. Even the name does not make any sense since a holocaust means death by fire or burning. But one of the main tenets of the official story is that the vast majority died in gas chambers instead of being burned at the stake. You then go on to proclaim that:

"There is an underlining theme running throughtout [sic] you're responce [sic] which is to take fact from unreputiable [sic] sources, whilst denying substantiated facts, all directed against one group of people, guess who?"

You still have failed to explain why an historical event like the Jewish Holocaust is not allowed to be carefully examined just like any other historical event in a democratic country is allowed to be scrutinized. You write of "substantiated facts" which support this story. Pray tell, what exactly are these substantiated facts? That would not be a written order by Hitler which shows Hitler ordering millions of Jews to be murdered since no order by Hitler has ever been found. It would not be the claim that six million Jews, a figure which the corporate media and Jews have used since the beginning of the last century, died at the hands of the Germans since, despite your claim, there is no evidence at all which can back up that assertion. And there is certainly no photo or drawing which can show the existence of any homicidal gas chamber which was allegedly used to kill people. Finally you write that:

"As I already stated an open debate did take place in the High Court (I would consider that a civil and interllectual manner) regarding the Holocaust, which as stated in my previous post was a crushing defeat for revisionism."

If you are referring to your heroine Ms. Lipstadt then it is instructive to see what she has to say concerning this issue as she writes that:

"When I received invitations to debate deniers I consistently declined, explaining that while many things about the Holocaust are open to debate, the existence of the event is not." [History on Trial p. 301] She also believes that engaging in debate with Holocaust skeptics "would give them a legitimacy and stature they in no way deserve. It would elevate their anti-Semitic ideology-which is what Holocaust denial is-to the level of responsible historiography-which is what it is not." [Denying the Holocaust p. 1]

Now one would logically think that the Traditionalists such as Ms. Lipstadt would be quite eager to demonstrate how foolish and wrongheaded their opponents are. But yet she does not do this which then lends more legitimacy to the revisionists than she cares to admit. Also, your claim that an open debate took place during that trial is false because of the simple reason that Deborah Lipstad's attorney did not allow her to testify during that trial. Perhaps the reason for this is that her solicitor, Richard Rampton, did not wish for Ms. Lipstadt to run the risk of being grilled by Irving who could have asked her, among other things, how she can basically claim that revisionists are anti-Semitic while in her book Denying the Holocaust she cited on page 187 an article by a noted expert on political extremism, Laird Wilcox, who pointed out that possibly 25 % of Holocaust revisionists are neo-Nazi which then logically means that 75 & of them are not.

Here is the bottom line. One would logically that if people are not allowed to read books in relation to a certain subject then this must be taking place in a totalitarian country. But the astonishing thing is that these draconian laws are taking place in countries which claim to be democratic. At last count there are 17 countries [including, of course, Israel] which have laws on the books prohibiting people from writing critically about the Jewish Holocaust. But as a number of people have accurately noted, this is not the way in which free and open societies should operate. A few quotes will help bring this out:

"Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction."-American Library Association

"Restrictions of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions."-former United States Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

"To prohibit free speech is the first act of terrorism."-Spinoza
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›