Reviews with the most likes.
Please give my review a helpful vote on Amazon - https://www.amazon.com/review/R1WFWDJU88V744/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
This is a book that should never have had to have been written.
It should never have had to have been written because denying the reality of the Nazi Holocaust is an obviously absurd endeavor.
But, further, it shouldn't have had to have been written because issues of academic truth should not be a matter of judicial litigation.
David Irving brought this debacle on himself. It should never be forgotten that Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt for libel. The gist of his accusation was that she had spoken an untruth that hurt his reputation when she had called him a “Holocaust Apologist.”
David Irving is an non-academic historian. He acquired a reputation in the '60s and '70s for being a reliable if eccentric, historian of Hitler. After the '70s, Irving began to get a reputation for being more pro-Hitler than was seemly. In his appearances before lay groups, often, perhaps exclusively, right-wing groups, Irving would praise Hitler, make provocative statements about the Holocaust, and claim to be a fascist. For example:
“In a very real sense, indeed, he evidently conceived of himself as carrying on Hitler's legacy, just as Lipstadt claimed in her book. Speaking to an audience in Calgary, Canada, in 1991, he revealed that he had once been described as a “self-confessed moderate fascist,” and added: “I strongly object to that word ‘moderate.'” As with many apparently flippant remarks, this seemed to me to have a kernel of truth in it; after all, he had not objected to the word fascist. More strikingly still, in an interview for the television program This Week, in 1991, Irving said: “I think Adolf Hitler made a lot of mistakes. He surrounded himself with people of very very poor quality. He was a rotten judge of character. These are the mistakes that you have to avoid replicating.” 12 You in this context could only really be understood as referring to Irving himself.”
I am not sure about that last, but Irving's statements are absurd and show him to be rooting for one of the most evil men in history.
The author Richard Evans was the expert witness hired to examine David Irving's historical writings and demonstrate their falsities and errors, and, more importantly, show that these infelicities err in the direction of Irving having been a Hitler apologist.
Under American law, for a public figure like Irving to bring a lawsuit for defamation, he would have to plead and prove that the statement was knowingly false. However, under British law, a defamation plaintiff need only show that the statement hurt his reputation and the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the truth of the statement. It does not appear that there is a “public figure” defense. Evans explained the burden of proof as follows:
“By placing the entire burden of proof on the defense, it allows them to turn the tables and devote the action to destroying the reputation of their accuser. Indeed, once the defense has admitted, as Lipstadt's did without hesitation, that the words complained of mean what they say and are clearly defamatory, justifying them in detail and with chapter and verse is the only option left to them.”
In American law, while that burden would have been on the public figure plaintiff, the defendant could still argue that the plaintiff had not met the defense. This tends to discourage such lawsuits, which is undoubtedly healthier for civil liberty and academic freedom.
As an attorney, I found the foray into British law educational and bizarre. I also liked Evans novice impressions of his role and the legal system.
Ultimately, the trial resulted in the conclusion that Irving had not been defamed because Lipstadt's comments were true:
“The judge explained with great clarity and force why he considered that Irving had departed from the normal standards of objective historical research and writing. It was clear from what he had said and written that “Irving is anti-semitic. His words are directed against Jews, either individually or collectively, in the sense that they are by turns hostile, critical, offensive and derisory in their references to semitic people, their characteristics and appearances.” He was also a racist, and he had associated with militant neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists. 9 Over the past one and a half decades, he had become more active politically:”
On the whole, as much as I think that Irving is small, deluded, insane, disingenuous and, worst of all, an untrustworthy historian, I found the idea of judicial intervention into scholarship unsettling and potentially a threat to academic freedom. Dealing with people with delusions is annoying and irritating, but given the proclivity of people with power to use that power against all kinds of annoyances, and not merely the delusional, having judicial guidelines about what constitutes accepted scholarship is risky. The trial court came up with some good common-sense pragmatic rules for distinguishing biased scholarship from good-faith scholarship:
“Whilst I accept that an historian is entitled to speculate,” wrote Judge Gray, “he must spell out clearly to the reader when he is speculating rather than reciting established facts.” Irving had not done this. “An objective historian,” continued the judge, “is obliged to be even-handed in his approach to historical evidence: he cannot pick and choose without adequate reason.” Irving was not even-handed. Objective historians had to take account of the circumstances surrounding the production of a document, and Irving had not. “I accept,” wrote the judge, “that historians are bound by the constraints of space to edit quotations. But there is an obligation on them not to give the reader a distorted impression by selective quotation.” Irving had not fulfilled this obligation. In sum, “Irving treated the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian.” He “misrepresented and distorted the evidence which was available to him.” It was also “incontrovertible” that “Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier.” His denial of the gas chambers and of the systematic and centrally directed nature of the mass shootings of Jews was “contrary to the evidence.”
All of that seems true; my problem is the judicial imprimatur that speculative scholarship is not good scholarship.
Nonetheless, I must point out that Irving was the plaintiff. He “teed up” the question of his motivation, which the judge had to resolve.
I guess my real criticism is with a legal system that is not as protective of people like Lipstadt who are entitled to their speculation on matters of public interest, and by doing so, stimulate a debate on the subject.
I recently watched the movie “Denial.” I found it to be problematic in the same direction. In the movie, the Lipstadt character - like the real Lipstadt - refuses do debate Irving on the grounds that she doesn't debate Holocaust deniers, because to do so will give them more status than they deserve. Lipstadt has the right to debate anyone she chooses, and if she finds this subject too touchy, then, of course, she should desist. But I found the movie's tone of treating the Holocaust as sacred, perhaps the one subject that cannot be blasphemed against or sullied, with Auschwitz being treated as sacred ground offended against in the movie, because the barrister asks questions, to be problematic. The point of academic freedom is that it can go anywhere and question anything. I haven't noticed any reluctance by academics to question things that I might hold sacred, such as the divinity of Jesus or the historicity of papal infallibility, and, thus, I don't understand the virtue of roping off other subjects from the same rough treatment.
Truth grows flabby if it is not tested. Irving and his insane ilk are doing Lipstadt and people like her a favor by keeping the controversy alive and permitting them to demolish their infantile and delusional arguments. If Irving is cheered by his deluded fan-boys, then so what?
The ending of the movie was even more problematic when the Lipstadt character gave an interview ending with “these things are true. The Holocaust happened...the poles are melting.” And, thus, anyone who knows about the Medieval Warm Period is suddenly the equivalent of a Holocaust Denier?
A good reason that these issues should stay well away from the courts and away from people who think that debates can be ended when one side wins.
