My courtroom battle with a Holocaust denier | Dr. Deborah E. Lipstadt | TEDxSkoll

Summary

Deborah Lipstadt recounts her experience confronting Holocaust deniers, who she describes as wolves in sheep's clothing, masquerading as revisionists. Initially dismissing the idea of studying them, she later engages deeply, revealing their bigotry and the lies they attempt to pass off as opinions. After winning a libel suit against David Irving, a notorious Holocaust denier, she emphasizes the importance of defending truth in an era where facts are increasingly challenged.

Takeaways

• 😄 The speaker initially laughed at the idea of Holocaust denial due to the overwhelming evidence supporting the historical event.
• 🔍 Holocaust deniers are described as 'wolves in sheep's clothing', presenting themselves as respectable academics with an 'Institute for Historical Review' and a journal.
• 📚 Deniers aim to disguise their lies as opinions to insert them into the discourse, thereby encroaching on established facts.
• 📖 The speaker's book 'Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory' was published in various countries, including the UK.
• 🚫 David Irving, a known Holocaust denier, sued the speaker for libel in the UK, where the burden of proof lies with the defendant.
• 🛡️ The speaker had to fight the lawsuit to prevent Irving's distorted version of the Holocaust from being legitimized.
• 🏆 The court found Irving to be a liar, racist, and anti-Semite, whose historical views were deliberately distorted and false.
• 🔗 The speaker's victory relied on tracing Irving's footnotes to his sources, revealing consistent patterns of distortion and falsehood.
• 🌐 The case highlights the broader issue of truth and facts being under assault in the age of social media and the rise of extremism.
• 💬 The speaker emphasizes the importance of not being beguiled by rational appearances and the need to challenge outrageous claims with evidence.
• 🌟 The speaker calls for action to defend truth and facts, recognizing that some truths are objective and indisputable.

Q & A

What was the speaker's initial reaction to Holocaust denial?

The speaker initially laughed when she first heard about Holocaust denial, considering it absurd given the extensive documentation of the Holocaust.

Who would have to be wrong if Holocaust deniers were right?

If deniers were right, the victims and survivors who shared their stories, bystanders who witnessed the atrocities, and the perpetrators who admitted to their crimes would all have to be wrong.

What was the speaker's attitude towards Holocaust denial before being approached by two senior scholars?

The speaker dismissed Holocaust denial as not worth her time and had bigger things to worry about, write about, and research.

What did the two senior scholars propose to the speaker that led her to research Holocaust denial?

The scholars suggested that the speaker investigate the motives, objectives, and methods of Holocaust deniers to understand how they persuade people to believe their claims.

What did the speaker discover about Holocaust deniers when she started her research?

The speaker found that deniers often present themselves as respectable academics with institutes and journals, using the term 'revisionists' to disguise their true beliefs of anti-Semitism, racism, and prejudice.

How does the speaker redefine the distinction between facts, opinions, and lies in the context of Holocaust denial?

The speaker argues that there are not only facts and opinions but also lies, which deniers attempt to pass off as edgy or out-of-the-box opinions to be included in the conversation and encroach on established facts.

What was the outcome of the libel lawsuit brought against the speaker by David Irving?

The speaker won the lawsuit, with the judge finding David Irving to be a liar, a racist, and an anti-Semite, and that his historical views were tendentious, distorted, and deliberate.

How did the speaker and her team win the libel case against David Irving?

They followed Irving's footnotes back to his sources and demonstrated that in every instance where he referenced the Holocaust, his supposed evidence was distorted or false.

What broader message does the speaker believe her experience with the libel lawsuit conveys about the nature of truth in today's society?

The speaker believes it conveys the message that truth and facts are under assault, and that there is a need to be vigilant against the erosion of truth by lies and misinformation.

What advice does the speaker give for dealing with those who spread lies and misinformation?

The speaker advises not to be deceived by rational appearances, to understand that truth is not relative, and to go on the offensive by demanding proof and evidence from those making outrageous claims.

What does the speaker emphasize as the importance of recognizing and upholding objective truths?

The speaker emphasizes that there are indisputable facts and objective truths that must be defended and upheld, regardless of attempts to distort or deny them.

Outlines

00:00

😃 The Absurdity of Holocaust Denial

Deborah Lipstadt discusses her initial reaction to Holocaust denial, emphasizing the absurdity of denying the Holocaust, the most documented genocide in history. She questions who would need to be wrong for deniers to be right, including survivors, bystanders, and perpetrators. Despite initially dismissing Holocaust denial, she was later approached by prominent historians to study it, finding deniers to be pseudo-academics masking deep-seated prejudices.

05:04

😲 The Deception of Holocaust Deniers

Lipstadt reveals her findings on Holocaust deniers, describing them as Nazis and Neo-Nazis hiding behind a facade of respectable academics. They use institutions and journals to spread their lies, presenting them as legitimate opinions. She highlights the danger of these lies encroaching on established facts and recounts her journey from researching and publishing her findings to being sued for libel by Holocaust denier David Irving.

10:05

😠 The Battle Against David Irving

Lipstadt details the libel suit brought against her by David Irving, a Holocaust denier who twisted historical facts. She emphasizes the challenge of British libel laws, which placed the burden of proof on her. Lipstadt explains the importance of fighting the suit to prevent Irving's version of the Holocaust from gaining legitimacy. She describes the trial's outcome, where Irving was found to be a liar and racist, and how they exposed his deliberate distortions of historical evidence.

15:06

⚖️ The Importance of Defending Truth

Lipstadt underscores the broader significance of her lawsuit, stressing the current assault on truth and facts. She warns against the rational appearance of extremism and the dangers of treating lies as equal to facts. Lipstadt calls for proactive defense of truth, demanding evidence for outrageous claims, and rejecting the idea that truth is relative. She concludes with a call to action, emphasizing the urgency of defending objective truths against the growing threat of misinformation.

Keywords

💡Holocaust denial

Holocaust denial refers to the rejection or distortion of the historical fact that six million Jews were systematically exterminated by the Nazis during World War II. In the video, the speaker initially laughs at the absurdity of Holocaust denial, given the overwhelming evidence, but later recognizes it as a serious issue that distorts truth and memory. The concept is central to the video's theme, highlighting the danger of denying established facts.

💡Facts vs. opinions vs. lies

The speaker distinguishes between facts, opinions, and lies, emphasizing that not all opinions are valid if they are based on falsehoods. Holocaust deniers attempt to present their lies as legitimate opinions to distort historical facts. This distinction is crucial to the video's message about the importance of defending truth in the face of deliberate misinformation.

💡David Irving

David Irving is a British writer and Holocaust denier who sued the speaker, Deborah Lipstadt, for libel when she called him out for his denialism. The video discusses the legal battle in which Lipstadt successfully proved that Irving deliberately distorted historical facts. Irving represents the figure of a Holocaust denier whose manipulation of evidence was exposed in court.

💡Libel suit

A libel suit involves a legal claim for defamation, where someone asserts that false statements have damaged their reputation. In the video, David Irving sues Deborah Lipstadt for libel after she called him a Holocaust denier. The case is significant because British law placed the burden of proof on Lipstadt to prove that her statements were true, which she did successfully. The suit serves as a backdrop for discussing the importance of defending truth.

💡Revisionists

Revisionists, in the context of the video, are individuals or groups who claim to be correcting historical 'mistakes,' but are actually denying or distorting established facts, particularly about the Holocaust. The speaker exposes Holocaust deniers who label themselves as 'revisionists' to give their false narratives an appearance of legitimacy. This term is key to understanding how denialism is disguised as scholarly inquiry.

💡Evidence distortion

Evidence distortion refers to the manipulation or alteration of facts to fit a particular narrative. In the video, the speaker describes how David Irving and other Holocaust deniers twist evidence, change dates, and misquote sources to deny the Holocaust. This concept is central to the discussion of how deniers operate and the importance of rigorously challenging their claims.

💡Neo-Nazis

Neo-Nazis are individuals or groups who support the ideologies of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime, often involving anti-Semitism and white supremacy. In the video, Holocaust deniers are described as 'wolves in sheep's clothing,' who may not outwardly appear as Neo-Nazis but share the same extremist views. The mention of Neo-Nazis highlights the underlying hate that fuels Holocaust denial.

💡Objective truths

Objective truths are facts that are universally acknowledged and not subject to personal opinions. The video stresses the importance of defending objective truths, such as the reality of the Holocaust, against those who try to undermine them. The speaker argues that truth is not relative, and some things, like historical facts, are indisputable.

💡Extremism parading as rational discourse

This phrase refers to the tactic used by extremists, like Holocaust deniers, to present their radical views as reasoned arguments. The speaker warns that beneath the surface of seemingly logical discourse lies dangerous extremism. This concept is important for understanding how denialists manipulate conversations to spread hate under the guise of academic debate.

💡Burden of proof

The burden of proof refers to the obligation to provide evidence to support a claim. In the context of the video, British law placed the burden of proof on Deborah Lipstadt to prove that her statements about David Irving being a Holocaust denier were true. This concept is critical to the video's discussion on how truth must be defended, especially in legal and public arenas where the consequences of failing to do so can be severe.

Highlights

The speaker initially dismissed Holocaust denial as absurd, considering it to be as nonsensical as Flat Earth theories.

Holocaust denial is not just a fringe belief but is often propagated by individuals who present themselves as respectable academics.

Deniers use sophisticated means, such as creating institutes and journals, to lend credibility to their false narratives.

Holocaust deniers aim to recast their lies as opinions, and then as alternative facts, encroaching on historical truths.

The speaker was sued for libel by David Irving, a known Holocaust denier, which necessitated proving the truth of her statements in court.

British law placed the burden of proof on the speaker, unlike in many other countries where the plaintiff must prove falsehood.

The court case revealed that Irving consistently distorted evidence, lied, and altered facts to support his Holocaust denial.

The legal victory demonstrated that Holocaust denial lacks factual basis and that such claims are fabricated.

The case underlines the importance of distinguishing between facts, opinions, and lies, especially in an age where truth is under assault.

The speaker warns against the normalization of extremist views, which may not always appear overtly but are still dangerous.

Truth is not relative; there are objective truths that must be upheld against false narratives and misinformation.

In the face of outrageous claims, especially from influential figures, it is crucial to demand proof and evidence.

The fight for truth requires active engagement and cannot be passive or delayed.

The speaker emphasizes that the Earth is not flat, the climate is changing, and Elvis is not alive—highlighting the importance of recognizing established facts.

The urgency of defending truth and facts against deliberate distortions and lies is a critical message of the talk.

Transcripts

Translator: Camille Martínez Reviewer: Krystian Aparta

I come to you today to speak of liars,

lawsuits

and laughter.

The first time I heard about Holocaust denial,

I laughed.

Holocaust denial?

The Holocaust which has the dubious distinction

of being the best-documented genocide in the world?

Who could believe it didn't happen?

Think about it.

For deniers to be right,

who would have to be wrong?

Well, first of all, the victims --

the survivors who have told us their harrowing stories.

Who else would have to be wrong?

The bystanders.

The people who lived in the myriads of towns and villages and cities

on the Eastern front,

who watched their neighbors be rounded up --

men, women, children, young, old --

and be marched to the outskirts of the town

to be shot and left dead in ditches.

Or the Poles,

who lived in towns and villages around the death camps,

who watched day after day

as the trains went in filled with people

and came out empty.

But above all, who would have to be wrong?

The perpetrators.

The people who say, "We did it.

I did it."

Now, maybe they add a caveat.

They say, "I didn't have a choice; I was forced to do it."

But nonetheless, they say, "I did it."

Think about it.

In not one war crimes trial since the end of World War II

has a perpetrator of any nationality ever said, "It didn't happen."

Again, they may have said, "I was forced," but never that it didn't happen.

Having thought that through,

I decided denial was not going to be on my agenda;

I had bigger things to worry about, to write about, to research,

and I moved on.

Fast-forward a little over a decade,

and two senior scholars --

two of the most prominent historians of the Holocaust --

approached me and said,

"Deborah, let's have coffee.

We have a research idea that we think is perfect for you."

Intrigued and flattered that they came to me with an idea

and thought me worthy of it,

I asked, "What is it?"

And they said, "Holocaust denial."

And for the second time, I laughed.

Holocaust denial?

The Flat Earth folks?

The Elvis-is-alive people?

I should study them?

And these two guys said,

"Yeah, we're intrigued.

What are they about?

What's their objective?

How do they manage to get people to believe what they say?"

So thinking, if they thought it was worthwhile,

I would take a momentary diversion --

maybe a year, maybe two, three, maybe even four --

in academic terms, that's momentary.

(Laughter)

We work very slowly.

(Laughter)

And I would look at them.

So I did.

I did my research, and I came up with a number of things,

two of which I'd like to share with you today.

One:

deniers are wolves in sheep's clothing.

They are the same: Nazis, Neo-Nazis --

you can decide whether you want to put a "Neo" there or not.

But when I looked at them,

I didn't see any SS-like uniforms,

swastika-like symbols on the wall,

Sieg Heil salutes --

none of that.

What I found instead

were people parading as respectable academics.

What did they have?

They had an institute.

An "Institute for Historical Review."

They had a journal -- a slick journal --

a "Journal of Historical Review."

One filled with papers --

footnote-laden papers.

And they had a new name.

Not Neo-Nazis,

not anti-Semites --

revisionists.

They said, "We are revisionists.

We are out to do one thing:

to revise mistakes in history."

But all you had to do was go one inch below the surface,

and what did you find there?

The same adulation of Hitler,

praise of the Third Reich,

anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice.

This is what intrigued me.

It was anti-Semitism, racism, prejudice, parading as rational discourse.

The other thing I found --

and we saw a slide earlier about facts and opinions --

many of us have been taught to think there are facts and there are opinions --

after studying deniers,

I think differently.

There are facts,

there are opinions,

and there are lies.

And what deniers want to do is take their lies,

dress them up as opinions --

maybe edgy opinions,

maybe sort of out-of-the-box opinions --

but then if they're opinions,

they should be part of the conversation.

And then they encroach on the facts.

I published my work --

the book was published,

"Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory,"

it came out in many different countries,

including here in Penguin UK,

and I was done with those folks and ready to move on.

Then came the letter from Penguin UK.

And for the third time, I laughed ...

mistakenly.

I opened the letter,

and it informed me that David Irving was bringing a libel suit against me

in the United Kingdom

for calling him a Holocaust denier.

David Irving suing me?

Who was David Irving?

David Irving was a writer of historical works,

most of them about World War II,

and virtually all of those works took the position

that the Nazis were really not so bad,

and the allies were really not so good.

And the Jews, whatever happened to them,

they sort of deserved it.

He knew the documents,

he knew the facts,

but he somehow twisted them to get this opinion.

He hadn't always been a Holocaust denier,

but in the late '80s,

he embraced it with great vigor.

The reason I laughed also was this was a man

who not only was a Holocaust denier,

but seemed quite proud of it.

Here was a man -- and I quote --

who said, "I'm going to sink the battleship Auschwitz."

Here was a man

who pointed to the number tattooed on a survivor's arm and said,

"How much money have you made

from having that number tattooed on your arm?"

Here was a man who said,

"More people died in Senator Kennedy's car

at Chappaquiddick

than died in gas chambers at Auschwitz."

That's an American reference, but you can look it up.

This was not a man who seemed at all ashamed or reticent

about being a Holocaust denier.

Now, lots of my academic colleagues counseled me --

"Eh, Deborah, just ignore it."

When I explained you can't just ignore a libel suit,

they said, "Who's going to believe him anyway?"

But here was the problem:

British law put the onus, put the burden of proof on me

to prove the truth of what I said,

in contrast to as it would have been in the United States

and in many other countries:

on him to prove the falsehood.

What did that mean?

That meant if I didn't fight,

he would win by default.

And if he won by default,

he could then legitimately say,

"My David Irving version of the Holocaust is a legitimate version.

Deborah Lipstadt was found to have libeled me

when she called me a Holocaust denier.

Ipso facto, I, David Irving, am not a Holocaust denier."

And what is that version?

There was no plan to murder the Jews,

there were no gas chambers,

there were no mass shootings,

Hitler had nothing to do with any suffering that went on,

and the Jews have made this all up

to get money from Germany

and to get a state,

and they've done it with the aid and abettance of the allies --

they've planted the documents and planted the evidence.

I couldn't let that stand

and ever face a survivor

or a child of survivors.

I couldn't let that stand

and consider myself a responsible historian.

So we fought.

And for those of you who haven't seen "Denial,"

spoiler alert:

we won.

(Laughter)

(Applause)

The judge found David Irving

to be a liar,

a racist,

an anti-Semite.

His view of history was tendentious,

he lied, he distorted --

and most importantly,

he did it deliberately.

We showed a pattern, in over 25 different major instances.

Not small things -- many of us in this audience write books,

are writing books;

we always make mistakes, that's why we're glad to have second editions:

correct the mistakes.

(Laughter)

But these always moved in the same direction:

blame the Jews,

exonerate the Nazis.

But how did we win?

What we did is follow his footnotes back to his sources.

And what did we find?

Not in most cases,

and not in the preponderance of cases,

but in every single instance where he made some reference to the Holocaust,

that his supposed evidence was distorted,

half-truth,

date-changed,

sequence-changed,

someone put at a meeting who wasn't there.

In other words, he didn't have the evidence.

His evidence didn't prove it.

We didn't prove what happened.

We proved that what he said happened --

and by extension, all deniers, because he either quotes them

or they get their arguments from him --

is not true.

What they claim --

they don't have the evidence to prove it.

So why is my story more than just the story

of a quirky, long, six-year, difficult lawsuit,

an American professor being dragged into a courtroom

by a man that the court declared in its judgment

was a Neo-Nazi polemicist?

What message does it have?

I think in the context of the question of truth,

it has a very significant message.

Because today,

as we well know,

truth and facts are under assault.

Social media, for all the gifts it has given us,

has also allowed the difference between facts -- established facts --

and lies

to be flattened.

Third of all:

extremism.

You may not see Ku Klux Klan robes,

you may not see burning crosses,

you may not even hear outright white supremacist language.

It may go by names: "alt-right," "National Front" -- pick your names.

But underneath, it's that same extremism that I found in Holocaust denial

parading as rational discourse.

We live in an age where truth is on the defensive.

I'm reminded of a New Yorker cartoon.

A quiz show recently appeared in "The New Yorker"

where the host of the quiz show is saying to one of the contestants,

"Yes, ma'am, you had the right answer.

But your opponent yelled more loudly than you did,

so he gets the point."

What can we do?

First of all,

we cannot be beguiled by rational appearances.

We've got to look underneath,

and we will find there the extremism.

Second of all,

we must understand that truth is not relative.

Number three,

we must go on the offensive,

not the defensive.

When someone makes an outrageous claim,

even though they may hold one of the highest offices in the land,

if not the world --

we must say to them,

"Where's the proof?

Where's the evidence?"

We must hold their feet to the fire.

We must not treat it as if their lies are the same as the facts.

And as I said earlier, truth is not relative.

Many of us have grown up in the world of the academy

and enlightened liberal thought,

where we're taught everything is open to debate.

But that's not the case.

There are certain things that are true.

There are indisputable facts --

objective truths.

Galileo taught it to us centuries ago.

Even after being forced to recant by the Vatican

that the Earth moved around the Sun,

he came out,

and what is he reported to have said?

"And yet, it still moves."

The Earth is not flat.

The climate is changing.

Elvis is not alive.

(Laughter)

(Applause)

And most importantly,

truth and fact are under assault.

The job ahead of us,

the task ahead of us,

the challenge ahead of us

is great.

The time to fight is short.

We must act now.

Later will be too late.

Thank you very much.

(Applause)