Lying
About Hitler
& The Holocaust On Trial
Reviewed by
Kenny Brechner
Napoleon once described History as "a pack of lies agreed upon." A witty statement, certainly, but the outcome of the recently concluded libel trial held in Great Britain, David Irving vs. Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, dramatically asserted that the implied relativism of Napoleon
=s statement is both dangerous and wrong.David Irving is an amateur Historian who, early in his career, built and cultivated a reputation as being particularly expert at finding and employing obscure primary documents of Nazi era Germany. Irving's books, such as Destruction of Dresden, and Hitler's War, were intially well received in the popular press.
Over time, however, accusations of Irving holding a pro-Nazi bias, of white washing Hitler
=s role in the Holocaust, and of Holocaust denial in general, steadily mounted.The undercurrents of this conflict become a mainstream public concern when St.Martin's Press, which had been aggressively promoting the US release of Irving's book, Goebels, Mastermind of the Third Reich, abruptly canceled it in the midst of a media frenzy.
In the aftermath of the St. Martin's debacle Irving sued one of his critics, Deborah Lipstadt, author of Denying The Holocaust, and its UK publisher, Penguin, for libel. Lipstadt had accused Irving of manipulating primary material until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda." She also referred to Irving as "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for holocaust denial."
British libel law favors the plaintif, and Lipstadt and Penguin had only one real line of defense, to prove in court that Lipstadt's statements were true and therefore not libelous.
The defense, which required an expert with unimpeachable credentials, and a reputation for objectivity, chose renowned scholar and author Richard Evans, Cambridge Professor of Modern German history. The trial, in which Irving represented himself, involved thousands of pages of expert reports, and gripping cross examinations both by and of Irving. In the end the judge, Charles Gray, in a decison widely praised as being well reasoned, found Lipstadt not guilty of libel.
Historic trials, the O.J. trial notwithstanding, have a history of producing great books. France
=s Drefyuss trial inspired Emile Zola's Je Accuse. The Eichman trial in Israel was marked by Hannah Arendt's masterpiece, Eichman in Jerusalem. The Irving trial will have at least six contenders to continue that tradition, two of which have just been published.D.D. Guttenplan, a journalist, clearly felt Arendt's long shadow. The Holocaust on Trial, while providing a solid narrative of the trial, is marred by Guttenplan
=s labored efforts at emulating Arendt's philosophical brilliance. Too close to his subjects, Guttenplan=s theorizing ends up lacking both authority and relevance. Richard Evans' account of the trial, Lying
About Hitler, is largely an abridgement of his expert report, and has the
merit of providing those who are interested in the nuts and bolts of the trial,
a material accounting of the historical record and Irving's manipulation
thereof. His argument that the trial was a vindication of history, and objective
standards of methodology, is well reasoned and persuasive.
