Irving versus lipstadt: a historian's view of the case

Readers of David I rv ing 's H i t l e r ' s w a r 1 might consider it unjust that he has been described as a Holocaust denier. The book is a his tory of the Second World War seen from Hitler 's standpoint, and most of it is concerned with purely military history. I rving 's argument about the fate of the Jews is that Hitler 's policy was to resettle them in the east; that doing so in war t ime created appalling conditions; that Hitler 's subordinates considered his virulent antisemitism sufficient authorisation to put Jews to death rather than let them die of s tarvat ion and disease; and that Hitler did not become aware of his subordinates ' actions until October 1943 or possibly later, by which time the process was largely a f a i t a c c o m p l i . So the Holocaust happened, and Hitler bears a heavy responsibil i ty for it, but he did not actually order it. Hitler 's slovenly habits, his preoccupat ion with the war, and the ramshackle nature of the Nazi state, make this thesis not entirely implausible. Irving argues that it is convenient for Germans to put all the blame on one omnipotent lunatic whom it was death to disobey, but that the guilt was much more widely spreadL Irving does not hold a salaried academic post: he is a professional writer entirely dependent on the sale of his books, and he charged that false accusations of Holocaust denial were destroying his career and means of livelihood by alienating publishers, booksellers and readers. His most influential accuser, Deborah Lipstadt, refused to debate the matter with him. 'There is no debate' , she said: 'I refuse to lower myself to debating with the revisionists. '2 In Germany and some other countries what is