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.