What do you think?
Rate this book
The Holocaust on Trial
Based on exclusive access to many of the participants, the inside story of the trial that made headlines around the world by questioning the existence of the Nazi death camps during World War II urges readers to question what we can and do know about history. 25,000 first printing.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2001
6 people are currently reading
132 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
October 18, 2022
This book deserves a review which I neglected to do.
I thought many people saw the film but realized this book is equally important as social media seems to over power documented history.
Lipstadt is in the middle of giving a lecture when she is set up by Irving who is also an author seated in the crowd, stands up using a bit of grandstanding and accuses her of libeling him in her book .
Lipstadt- taken by surprise has some tough decisions ahead of her.
"English libel law puts the burden of proof on the defence".
In her book Denying the Holocaust published in the UK in 1994, called Irving a Holocaust denier and a falsifier of history which he was famously known for. He sued her for defamation in the high court, alleging that what she had written damaged his reputation as a popular writer on Nazi Germany and the Second World War.
Irving lost.
There is important detail in this book that was left out of the film (s)- That alone made this
read extremely worth it and I felt Guttenplan did a great job writing the book.
I thought many people saw the film but realized this book is equally important as social media seems to over power documented history.
Lipstadt is in the middle of giving a lecture when she is set up by Irving who is also an author seated in the crowd, stands up using a bit of grandstanding and accuses her of libeling him in her book .
Lipstadt- taken by surprise has some tough decisions ahead of her.
"English libel law puts the burden of proof on the defence".
In her book Denying the Holocaust published in the UK in 1994, called Irving a Holocaust denier and a falsifier of history which he was famously known for. He sued her for defamation in the high court, alleging that what she had written damaged his reputation as a popular writer on Nazi Germany and the Second World War.
Irving lost.
There is important detail in this book that was left out of the film (s)- That alone made this
read extremely worth it and I felt Guttenplan did a great job writing the book.
April 15, 2013
I discovered this book through someone else's review at the library where I work. I was doing a bit of research into Holocaust denial and saw this title.
It changed my way of thinking. I gave it five starts because it truly was amazing.
This is the detailed account of a libel lawsuit in which a historical author sued another author and the Penguin publishing company because of a book which stated he was a Holocaust denier. He sued in Britain where libel laws are harder on the defendant and there is no 1st Amendment. This placed a huge burden on the defendants and the book goes into great detail about the efforts involved.
What makes this book so amazing is Guttenplan's dedication to the truth and the facts. He gives a play by play description of the trial and also provides additional background material as well as informing the reader if the various statements being made were accurate. It is abundantly clear that he took great pains to do his research, to speak to various parties personally and he quotes them verbatim where he is allowed.
The issues at stake in this lawsuit are very serious ones and Guttenplan explains this brilliantly. I must admit I'm a bit ashamed that I'd never even heard of this lawsuit but had certainly heard some of the ideas that were presented such as the suggestion that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. I've always dismissed such ideas and allegations as ridiculous to say the least. Guttenplan explains why it's important to take a look at how these ideas can play out when presented by a convincing "authority" and how such things can and should be examined. These examinations can lead to eye opening conclusions about how such ideas can take root and that it's not simply radical extremists who may give them credence which can make them seem more credible.
I've heard the theory (credited to Hitler in Mein Kampf) about telling a big lie to make it more convincing. He attributed this method to the Jews but seemed quite adept at using it for his own means. I find it interesting that Irving (the plaintiff in the case) used a series of small lies to craft one big lie in relation to Hitler: that he did not play the part in the Final Solution with which is is often credited. Read this book and you'll see that the judge involved certainly regarded Irving as an intentionally misleading historian (if he could even be called by that title at this point). That may seem like a spoiler but it's not as much about who won or lost but how the judge got to the decision and what all of it means in the big picture.
I recommend this book to anyone and everyone. I would make it required reading for a variety of classes. I cannot give this book more praise or a higher recommendation. It may seem dry to some people but I never lost interest for a moment. Find a copy and read for yourself.
It changed my way of thinking. I gave it five starts because it truly was amazing.
This is the detailed account of a libel lawsuit in which a historical author sued another author and the Penguin publishing company because of a book which stated he was a Holocaust denier. He sued in Britain where libel laws are harder on the defendant and there is no 1st Amendment. This placed a huge burden on the defendants and the book goes into great detail about the efforts involved.
What makes this book so amazing is Guttenplan's dedication to the truth and the facts. He gives a play by play description of the trial and also provides additional background material as well as informing the reader if the various statements being made were accurate. It is abundantly clear that he took great pains to do his research, to speak to various parties personally and he quotes them verbatim where he is allowed.
The issues at stake in this lawsuit are very serious ones and Guttenplan explains this brilliantly. I must admit I'm a bit ashamed that I'd never even heard of this lawsuit but had certainly heard some of the ideas that were presented such as the suggestion that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. I've always dismissed such ideas and allegations as ridiculous to say the least. Guttenplan explains why it's important to take a look at how these ideas can play out when presented by a convincing "authority" and how such things can and should be examined. These examinations can lead to eye opening conclusions about how such ideas can take root and that it's not simply radical extremists who may give them credence which can make them seem more credible.
I've heard the theory (credited to Hitler in Mein Kampf) about telling a big lie to make it more convincing. He attributed this method to the Jews but seemed quite adept at using it for his own means. I find it interesting that Irving (the plaintiff in the case) used a series of small lies to craft one big lie in relation to Hitler: that he did not play the part in the Final Solution with which is is often credited. Read this book and you'll see that the judge involved certainly regarded Irving as an intentionally misleading historian (if he could even be called by that title at this point). That may seem like a spoiler but it's not as much about who won or lost but how the judge got to the decision and what all of it means in the big picture.
I recommend this book to anyone and everyone. I would make it required reading for a variety of classes. I cannot give this book more praise or a higher recommendation. It may seem dry to some people but I never lost interest for a moment. Find a copy and read for yourself.
December 3, 2016
Update - Re-read in 2016. Love Guttenplan's even handedness and analysis about the issues. Honesty, this is a really good overview of the trial.
This book is about the Irving vs. Penguin/Lipstadt trial, but unlike Evans, this account is written from an outsider’s point of view. This allows the reader to have both a look at all the sides and the way the wheels of the trial were moving. It is reporting in the sense of the word with a look at what should be done if anything about denial, and placing the trial in content for a non-participate. And while it doesn’t answer the question it raises, it does raise an important one. Lipstadt was sued because the libel laws in England are not as favorable to the writer as they are in say America. But it also allows for the voicing of hateful and hurtful words. That whole sticks and stone rhyme, bullshit. Complete and other bullshit. Nothing hurts more than words.
This book is about the Irving vs. Penguin/Lipstadt trial, but unlike Evans, this account is written from an outsider’s point of view. This allows the reader to have both a look at all the sides and the way the wheels of the trial were moving. It is reporting in the sense of the word with a look at what should be done if anything about denial, and placing the trial in content for a non-participate. And while it doesn’t answer the question it raises, it does raise an important one. Lipstadt was sued because the libel laws in England are not as favorable to the writer as they are in say America. But it also allows for the voicing of hateful and hurtful words. That whole sticks and stone rhyme, bullshit. Complete and other bullshit. Nothing hurts more than words.
October 31, 2017
Interesting, but not as gripping as Guttenplan aimed for - this is, after all, a book centered around polite courtroom testimony regarding historical documents. The importance of the topic and the pressure on Lipstadt’s defense team to prevent Holocaust Denier David Irving from claiming any victory add weight to the proceedings.
Detours at times into what I’m sure can be considered important context for understanding the full picture of the trial and its place in history, but mostly just centers around a who’s who of British intellectuals of the 1990s, and who was on what side of the different philosophical approaches towards history of the era.
I think Guttenplan was far too easy on Irving, giving him far more benefit of the doubt than he deserved. Anyone who actively makes the case - and obfuscates and misrepresents to bolster his case - that Hitler didn’t intend to systematically murder all the Jews in Europe doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt anywhere except under the law. Also, considering Deborah Lipstadt was the main defendant, the book essentially ignores her part in the proceedings. She didn’t take the stand, so she never came to her own defense over the course of the trial, but her book discrediting Irving’s theories and writings was the impetus for the trail, and both she and her work deserved more attention.
At one point a Professor Richard Evans delivers my favorite quote of the book, under cross-examination by Irving (who represented himself): “... you see, I have a problem, Mr. Irving, which is that, having been through your work, I cannot really accept your version of any document, including passages in my own report, without actually having it in front of me, so I think this may be a problem for us.” Dignified British Historian burn!!
Detours at times into what I’m sure can be considered important context for understanding the full picture of the trial and its place in history, but mostly just centers around a who’s who of British intellectuals of the 1990s, and who was on what side of the different philosophical approaches towards history of the era.
I think Guttenplan was far too easy on Irving, giving him far more benefit of the doubt than he deserved. Anyone who actively makes the case - and obfuscates and misrepresents to bolster his case - that Hitler didn’t intend to systematically murder all the Jews in Europe doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt anywhere except under the law. Also, considering Deborah Lipstadt was the main defendant, the book essentially ignores her part in the proceedings. She didn’t take the stand, so she never came to her own defense over the course of the trial, but her book discrediting Irving’s theories and writings was the impetus for the trail, and both she and her work deserved more attention.
At one point a Professor Richard Evans delivers my favorite quote of the book, under cross-examination by Irving (who represented himself): “... you see, I have a problem, Mr. Irving, which is that, having been through your work, I cannot really accept your version of any document, including passages in my own report, without actually having it in front of me, so I think this may be a problem for us.” Dignified British Historian burn!!
September 10, 2016
Guttenplan provides a fairly concise, yet thorough account of the players and proceedings involved in the English libel case David Irving v Penguin Books Ltd and Deborah Lipstadt, which irrevocably wrecked the reputation (such as it was) of popular historian/Holocaust denier David Irving.
While Guttenplan is lucid on the procedural as well as theoretical concerns underlying the legal and historiographic disputes, his desire to ratchet up the drama leads him to create suspense where none (from what I have read in other sources) really existed. So to take one example, even though there is a strong consensus that Professor Richard J. Evans' defense brief and testimony were absolutely, crushingly, and indisputably devastating to David Irving's case--showing that Irving was, without a doubt, someone who deliberately falsified, mistranslated, and concealed evidence where it conflicted with his sympathetic views of Hitler specifically, and the Nazis in general--Guttenplan instead chose to nitpick the epistemological underpinnings of Evans' previous work, In Defense of History . Apparently, Evans is guilty of the sin of thinking that responsible historians can work with primary sources and physical evidence to come up with a plausible reconstruction of past events; to me, this seems pretty reasonable, because Evans doesn't make extraordinary claims about what we can or cannot know about the past. To Guttenplan, however, Evans appears to be committing some sort of positivist apostasy. This is to say nothing of Guttenplan's uncharitably journalistic (and ultimately, irrelevant) assessment of Evans' demeanor and literal physical appearance while on the witness stand.
All in all though, an essential account of this episode from an outside observer who interviewed all of the principals and attended every court session.
While Guttenplan is lucid on the procedural as well as theoretical concerns underlying the legal and historiographic disputes, his desire to ratchet up the drama leads him to create suspense where none (from what I have read in other sources) really existed. So to take one example, even though there is a strong consensus that Professor Richard J. Evans' defense brief and testimony were absolutely, crushingly, and indisputably devastating to David Irving's case--showing that Irving was, without a doubt, someone who deliberately falsified, mistranslated, and concealed evidence where it conflicted with his sympathetic views of Hitler specifically, and the Nazis in general--Guttenplan instead chose to nitpick the epistemological underpinnings of Evans' previous work, In Defense of History . Apparently, Evans is guilty of the sin of thinking that responsible historians can work with primary sources and physical evidence to come up with a plausible reconstruction of past events; to me, this seems pretty reasonable, because Evans doesn't make extraordinary claims about what we can or cannot know about the past. To Guttenplan, however, Evans appears to be committing some sort of positivist apostasy. This is to say nothing of Guttenplan's uncharitably journalistic (and ultimately, irrelevant) assessment of Evans' demeanor and literal physical appearance while on the witness stand.
All in all though, an essential account of this episode from an outside observer who interviewed all of the principals and attended every court session.
February 22, 2024
AN EXCELLENT ACCOUNT OF DAVID IRVING’S ATTEMPT TO SUE DEBORAH LIPSTADT
Journalist D.D. Guttenplan wrote in the Introduction to this 2001 book, “This is the story of a trial. It is also a book about the Holocaust. In July 1996 British writer David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt, an American academic, for libel… In her book ‘Denying the Holocaust’ … Lipstadt portrayed Irving as a key figure in what she described as a movement to rehabilitate the Nazis by denying the historical reality of their crimes… Far from being a reputable historian, wrote Lipstadt, Irving is an extremist and a liar… The trial began on January 11, 2000… By suing in London, Irving put Lipstadt at a multiple disadvantage… [she] had to fight her case without the benefit of the First Amendment. In an American court Irving would have to prove that what Lipstadt wrote about him was false… In Britain the libel laws favor the person suing… it would be up to Lipstadt to prove that what she wrote was true… Lipstadt and her lawyers were, in effect, forced to prove the reality of the Holocaust… If David Irving won, a British court would have lent its imprimatur to his version of events…. How serious was the danger of this happening? Serious enough for Penguin Books to spend over a million pounds on lawyers’ fees, and hundreds of thousands more hiring expert witnesses…” (Pg. 1-2)
He notes, “Of the 8.5 million Jews living in Europe in 1939, fewer than three million were left alive [after the war]… A few hundred thousand managed to escape, mostly to the United States or Palestine… But the vast majority … had been murdered by the Nazis in their effort to eliminate European Jewry. Most of those killed were not gassed… some 1.3 million Jews, Russians and Poles, were murdered by shooting…. Other Jews were worked to death… For the victims… the manner of killing was ultimately of little consequence.” (Pg. 4-5)
He points out, “The problem is, what everyone knows about the Holocaust isn’t always true. There is a gas chamber at Dachau, but it was never used. There were no gas chambers at Belsen… The grisly tale of human beings rendered into soap… has long been rejected by historians.” (Pg. 10-11)
He says of Irving’s argument that Himmler issued an order [‘Jew transport from Berlin---no liquidation’] protecting the Jews, “far from being a general prohibition against the liquidation of the Jews, it was merely an order that the particular train load of Berlin Jews in question was not to be killed on arrival from Riga.” (Pg. 33)
In the trial, Irving was asked if he accepted “that the Nazis killed, by one means or another---and I am not talking about hard labor or … typhus… shot, murdered, gassed, kicked to death millions of Jews during World War II?” Irving replied, “Yes, whether it was of the order of millions of not, I would hesitate to specify, but … it was certainly more then one million, certainly less than four million.” He said of the Leutcher Report, “Leuchter … is something that I am not going to rely on at all… the Leuchter report is flawed. We now have very much better expertise.” (Pg. 112-113)
Irving also testified that “massacres were done by [Nazi] criminal gangsters… in the East without the approval, consent or knowledge of the people in Berlin.” Confronted with a 1992 lecture at the Institute for Historical Review in which he called the gas chambers ‘Hollywood legends,’ he said that he did not know that opinion was wrong until “I began studying the documents for this case in detail.” (Pg. 120-121) Asked about gas trucks at Chelmno, Irving said, “There were these gas trucks…that were disposing of people at some time during the war..” (Pg. 142) Asked “Is it systematic, huge scale, using gas trucks to murder Jews?” Irving replied, “This is systematic… No question at all.” (Pg. 146)
He explains, “If Irving ever planned to ‘go for broke’ on the Leuchter report he certainly knows better now. He does make a few references to a document he calls the ‘Rudolf Report’---a later attempt by the German chemist Germar Rudolf to duplicate Leuchter.” (Pg. 153)
In the trial, “on the question of whether Irving’s doubts that Hitler gave an explicit order for the extermination of the Jews are tantamount to Holocaust denial, [historian Christopher Browning said] “[Hans] Mommsen and [Martin] Brozat have argued for a long time, as you have, they do not think that Hitler gave an explicit or formal order…The argument over whether Hitler gave an order or not is not commonly part of the issue of Holocaust denial.” (Pg. 212)
But Browning added, “In the area of Poland … there were at least statistics in terms of ghetto populations and these ghettos were liquidated completely, so we can come to a fairly good rough figure of Polish Jews. We also have a fairly reliable prewar census and postwar calculations so that one can do a subtraction. So, in terms of Holocaust victims from Poland�� We are coming to a fairly close approximation. Where historians differ and where you get this figure of between five and six [million] is because we do not have those figures for the Soviet Union.” (Pg. 213)
Irving’s book ‘The Destruction of Dresden’ was also demolished: “Irving (1) fabricated a strafing attack on German civilians and refugees by British and American pilots… (2) knowingly took an account of a bombing run on Prague and pretended the events happened over Dresden, (3) derived his own initial estimate of 135,000 dead from … [a] lone source who supplied no documentary evidence… (4) raised the count to 204,040 on the basis of … a document which later turned out to be a forgery, (5) refused to modify the figure even when the man who supplied the document .. wrote Irving to complain that he … ‘only heard of the numbers third-hand’ (6) suppressed internal evidence suggesting the document was a fake, and (7) also suppressed testimony… who put the number at just over 30,000, (8) grudgingly acknowledged the discovery of an official ‘Final Report’ that estimated … The authentic total was 20,204---the forgers simply added an extra zero!” (Pg. 225-226)
Asked about the Institute for Historical Review, Irving testified, “[The IHR] consists of some elements which are cracked anti-Semites… some of the officers of that organization, I would regard them as cracked anti-Semites.” (Pg. 227)
Guttenplan concludes, "Thanks to Deborah Lipstadt and her lawyers the facts about the Holocaust are indeed safer.' (Pg. 307)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying the Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, and David Irving.
Journalist D.D. Guttenplan wrote in the Introduction to this 2001 book, “This is the story of a trial. It is also a book about the Holocaust. In July 1996 British writer David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt, an American academic, for libel… In her book ‘Denying the Holocaust’ … Lipstadt portrayed Irving as a key figure in what she described as a movement to rehabilitate the Nazis by denying the historical reality of their crimes… Far from being a reputable historian, wrote Lipstadt, Irving is an extremist and a liar… The trial began on January 11, 2000… By suing in London, Irving put Lipstadt at a multiple disadvantage… [she] had to fight her case without the benefit of the First Amendment. In an American court Irving would have to prove that what Lipstadt wrote about him was false… In Britain the libel laws favor the person suing… it would be up to Lipstadt to prove that what she wrote was true… Lipstadt and her lawyers were, in effect, forced to prove the reality of the Holocaust… If David Irving won, a British court would have lent its imprimatur to his version of events…. How serious was the danger of this happening? Serious enough for Penguin Books to spend over a million pounds on lawyers’ fees, and hundreds of thousands more hiring expert witnesses…” (Pg. 1-2)
He notes, “Of the 8.5 million Jews living in Europe in 1939, fewer than three million were left alive [after the war]… A few hundred thousand managed to escape, mostly to the United States or Palestine… But the vast majority … had been murdered by the Nazis in their effort to eliminate European Jewry. Most of those killed were not gassed… some 1.3 million Jews, Russians and Poles, were murdered by shooting…. Other Jews were worked to death… For the victims… the manner of killing was ultimately of little consequence.” (Pg. 4-5)
He points out, “The problem is, what everyone knows about the Holocaust isn’t always true. There is a gas chamber at Dachau, but it was never used. There were no gas chambers at Belsen… The grisly tale of human beings rendered into soap… has long been rejected by historians.” (Pg. 10-11)
He says of Irving’s argument that Himmler issued an order [‘Jew transport from Berlin---no liquidation’] protecting the Jews, “far from being a general prohibition against the liquidation of the Jews, it was merely an order that the particular train load of Berlin Jews in question was not to be killed on arrival from Riga.” (Pg. 33)
In the trial, Irving was asked if he accepted “that the Nazis killed, by one means or another---and I am not talking about hard labor or … typhus… shot, murdered, gassed, kicked to death millions of Jews during World War II?” Irving replied, “Yes, whether it was of the order of millions of not, I would hesitate to specify, but … it was certainly more then one million, certainly less than four million.” He said of the Leutcher Report, “Leuchter … is something that I am not going to rely on at all… the Leuchter report is flawed. We now have very much better expertise.” (Pg. 112-113)
Irving also testified that “massacres were done by [Nazi] criminal gangsters… in the East without the approval, consent or knowledge of the people in Berlin.” Confronted with a 1992 lecture at the Institute for Historical Review in which he called the gas chambers ‘Hollywood legends,’ he said that he did not know that opinion was wrong until “I began studying the documents for this case in detail.” (Pg. 120-121) Asked about gas trucks at Chelmno, Irving said, “There were these gas trucks…that were disposing of people at some time during the war..” (Pg. 142) Asked “Is it systematic, huge scale, using gas trucks to murder Jews?” Irving replied, “This is systematic… No question at all.” (Pg. 146)
He explains, “If Irving ever planned to ‘go for broke’ on the Leuchter report he certainly knows better now. He does make a few references to a document he calls the ‘Rudolf Report’---a later attempt by the German chemist Germar Rudolf to duplicate Leuchter.” (Pg. 153)
In the trial, “on the question of whether Irving’s doubts that Hitler gave an explicit order for the extermination of the Jews are tantamount to Holocaust denial, [historian Christopher Browning said] “[Hans] Mommsen and [Martin] Brozat have argued for a long time, as you have, they do not think that Hitler gave an explicit or formal order…The argument over whether Hitler gave an order or not is not commonly part of the issue of Holocaust denial.” (Pg. 212)
But Browning added, “In the area of Poland … there were at least statistics in terms of ghetto populations and these ghettos were liquidated completely, so we can come to a fairly good rough figure of Polish Jews. We also have a fairly reliable prewar census and postwar calculations so that one can do a subtraction. So, in terms of Holocaust victims from Poland�� We are coming to a fairly close approximation. Where historians differ and where you get this figure of between five and six [million] is because we do not have those figures for the Soviet Union.” (Pg. 213)
Irving’s book ‘The Destruction of Dresden’ was also demolished: “Irving (1) fabricated a strafing attack on German civilians and refugees by British and American pilots… (2) knowingly took an account of a bombing run on Prague and pretended the events happened over Dresden, (3) derived his own initial estimate of 135,000 dead from … [a] lone source who supplied no documentary evidence… (4) raised the count to 204,040 on the basis of … a document which later turned out to be a forgery, (5) refused to modify the figure even when the man who supplied the document .. wrote Irving to complain that he … ‘only heard of the numbers third-hand’ (6) suppressed internal evidence suggesting the document was a fake, and (7) also suppressed testimony… who put the number at just over 30,000, (8) grudgingly acknowledged the discovery of an official ‘Final Report’ that estimated … The authentic total was 20,204---the forgers simply added an extra zero!” (Pg. 225-226)
Asked about the Institute for Historical Review, Irving testified, “[The IHR] consists of some elements which are cracked anti-Semites… some of the officers of that organization, I would regard them as cracked anti-Semites.” (Pg. 227)
Guttenplan concludes, "Thanks to Deborah Lipstadt and her lawyers the facts about the Holocaust are indeed safer.' (Pg. 307)
This book will be “must reading” for anyone studying the Holocaust, Holocaust Denial, and David Irving.
January 13, 2019
This was an ok book. I found Guttenplan's language to be obtuse. It's almost as though he was writing it to display his prodigious vocabulary rather than really detailing the story more easily. On the whole it was a pretty good book covering the trial. The end chapter was where I really diverge with Mr. Guttenplan. He claims that the creation of Israel was a result of the world's guilt over the Holocaust which it most certainly is not. He injects too much of his personal opinion into some of the aspects of the trial and the results.
April 21, 2023
How Do We Know History Happened?
While others focus on the events of the trial, I find the account more interesting when it discusses the nature of historical proof. Few historical events can be known with certainty, so "a convergence of evidence" must be used instead. In this particular case, there are two competing hypothesis about the Holocaust, and it was up to the court to determine if one hypothesis was supported only by manipulated information. In an age of alternative facts, this is a useful case study.
While others focus on the events of the trial, I find the account more interesting when it discusses the nature of historical proof. Few historical events can be known with certainty, so "a convergence of evidence" must be used instead. In this particular case, there are two competing hypothesis about the Holocaust, and it was up to the court to determine if one hypothesis was supported only by manipulated information. In an age of alternative facts, this is a useful case study.
October 23, 2019
Interesting accounting and detailed commentary of Irving's trial
Guttenplan would have better off shaving down his use of elite vocabulary, so that he could better get his points across to average college graduates. That is, unless he wants to limit the readership to historians and erudite writers.
Guttenplan would have better off shaving down his use of elite vocabulary, so that he could better get his points across to average college graduates. That is, unless he wants to limit the readership to historians and erudite writers.
April 28, 2019
Greatttt summation of the David Irving Trial !!!!!
March 21, 2021
Interesting read!
September 29, 2014
A very interesting book that gives much food for thought. How much do we really know about the holocaust? Can all sources be trusted?
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews