Tuesday, March 1, 2005

Emory Wheel on Lipstadt Presentation

http://www.emorywheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/25/421e04f24cee0

Prof confronts case with Holocaust denier

By Jessica Rudish
Contributing Writer
The Emory Wheel

February 25, 2005

Five years after defending herself against a libel suit by British Holocaust denier David Irving, Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies Deborah Lipstadt used sarcasm and jokes to elicit laughter as she recalled the experience.

Lipstadt published her latest book on Holocaust denial earlier this month.

History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving focuses not on the history of Jews in World War II, as did her last scholarly work, but on her own personal history in a battle to air the truth.

Speaking to a crowd of about 70 people in the Woodruff Library Jones Room on Wednesday, Lipstadt related her intensely personal experience of the trial.

“I think it’s the story of a professor, well known, but not on a world stage, suddenly being thrown into a very public defense of her own work,” Lipstadt said before the event.

In her latest release, Lipstadt chronicles her legal encounter with Irving, a man she called one of the most dangerous Holocaust deniers in her 1993 book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory.

Because he so clearly seemed to be a Holocaust denier — he said that the Holocaust was a legend and that Adolf Hitler was the German Jews’ best friend — and because she had dedicated only a few hundred words to him in her book, she thought the matter would be quickly resolved.

As a result, she did not take the lawsuit seriously and laughed when she heard about it.

“I thought the whole thing was stupid,” she said. “Very quickly I learned otherwise, that this was a very serious thing.”

She was in for a rude awakening, because Irving filed suit in London against both Lipstadt and her United Kingdom publisher, Penguin Books Ltd., and the trial began in January 2000. Unlike in America, British libel laws place the burden of proof on the defendant, not the plaintiff, making Lipstadt’s case more difficult to defend.

Lipstadt searched for various ways to prove her case, finally coming to one conclusion: she had to discredit Irving as a historian.

“I didn’t want this to become a ‘Did the Holocaust happen?’ trial, but a ‘Deborah Lipstadt told the truth’ trial,” she said.

She set out to reveal the falsifications in Irving’s works, including his 1977 book Hitler’s War, in order to show that he is a Holocaust denier.

By following his footnotes and checking their accuracy, it was revealed that many of the facts in his books were purposely misleading and falsified, even when describing nonHolocaust-related events, she said.

Lipstadt said his description of the Allied bombing of Dresden, Germany toward the end of the war claimed that the Allies killed hundreds of thousands of people, when the actual figures are closer to 20,000 or 30,000.

As an example of the dangers posed by Irving’s writings, Lipstadt pointed to Kurt Vonnegut’s 1969 novel Slaughterhouse-Five, which drew from Irving’s work on Dresden.

“That’s how lies and distortions enter the public arena,” she said.

Although she had to face the four-month trial and three subsequent appeals, Lipstadt felt it was worth it.

“The trial devastated deniers’ arguments as they stood until the year 2001,” she said. “It just laid waste to them.”

Although mostly faculty and staff, some Emory students came to hear Lipstadt’s presentation, including College sophomore Joanna Green, who was encouraged by a Holocaust survivor to research deniers in high school.

“I want to get a book signed by her so that I can give it to a Holocaust survivor,” she said. “That’s what began my inquiry into this subject.”

Lipstadt must still face Irving in yet another legal battle, scheduled to take place in two weeks in London. Irving is suing her for the cost of the trial, something the court ordered him to pay her.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

We are so excited that on the day your book was released, you confirmed your participation in Limmud-Oz 2005 in Sydney.
Peta Jones Pellach,
Convenor,
Limmud-Oz.

Anonymous said...

Ms Lipstadt is like a barnacle attatched to David Irving's backside. Can't she move on? This blogg simply consists of strident boasts of how Lipstadt, "demolished" Irving, how he was, "devastated" etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum. Are you working on anything of original academic merit?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Irving is a skilled manipulator with a large audience in highly technological, industrialized, modern nations.Irving is nothing of the kind. Irving is simply a shameless self-promoter who loves the lime-light or more importantly loves money.

He'll say anything to sell his books and his reputation, such as it is, rests mainly on controversy.

The fact is that Irving's sales figures were already in sharp decline before he decided to sue DL. My guess is he anticipated an out of court settlement with the chance to boost himself back in the public eye, but was unprepared for the tenacity of DL's defence.

Now DL's reputation rests on not anything she has written, but on her court action against Irving!

What a tacky bunch of individuals historians are.

Anonymous said...

Mr Lippman, Irving "launched the suit" in response to a printed attack made by Lipstadt. Lipstadt chose to innagurate a conflict with Irving, probably secure in the knowledge that she could depend upon heavy financial backup from her friends in the Jewish establishment.

You talk about the "truth". Truth is established through debate and the free exchange of information. Debating the holocaust is verbotten in most European countries.

Thanks for your pop-psychology analysis of "deniers" motives. I find it a bit of a contradiction for you to claim that "deniers" wish to disprove the holocaust in order to rehabilitate Nazism and, at one and the same time, long for a second holocaust, or should that be first holocaust? Who can tell, because you have slung so many ad hominems it's hard to say what point you are trying to make.

"Ms Lipstadt had to remain silent throughout the trial" . May I provide an English translation? Ms Lipstadt refused to take the stand against Irving, choosing to let her expensive legal team represent her.

For Mr Gherig's information, barnacles attach themselves to working ships and vessels, and have to be periodically scrapped off.

Anonymous said...

Jared:

"You talk about the "truth". Truth is established through debate and the free exchange of information. Debating the holocaust is verbotten in most European countries."

Well, it's not in US. Did that change anything?

"Thanks for your pop-psychology analysis of "deniers" motives. I find it a bit of a contradiction for you to claim that "deniers" wish to disprove the holocaust in order to rehabilitate Nazism"

Not true for all deniers, but surely true for the majority.

"May I provide an English translation? Ms Lipstadt refused to take the stand against Irving, choosing to let her expensive legal team represent her."

And why not? Rather, I think her motive was as follows: she had said that one shouldn't debate deniers, so it would be contradictory if she debated with Irving, even in court.

"For Mr Gherig's information, barnacles attach themselves to working ships and vessels, and have to be periodically scrapped off."

That much is true. Irving is not a working vessel, though. He is a pathological liar and a very dumb person. He continuously proves it by posting lies on his site.

Anonymous said...

I think Jared has raised a good point. If as David H Lippman implies, revisionists like Irving are motivated by anti-semtitic feelings and their arguments are so easily discredited and their motives exposed, why is holocaust denial a criminal offense in some countries?

Surely making holocaust denial a 'crime' feeds world conspiracy pseudo theories and puts freedom of speech on the side of crypto-fascists?

In other words, it lends credibility to where ordinarily there would be none.

To quote the phrase: What sort of truth is it that needs protecting? If necessary with the full penalty of the law?

Anonymous said...

Paul makes quite a silly point. What do these laws have to do with difficulty or ease with which deniers can be refuted? Hate literature like the "Protocols" is also prohibited. Does that mean there it is largely true? That it can't be refuted?

Or is it because it is - quite simply - hate literature?

Anonymous said...

Yes well that really depends on how sincere one is in wanting to put an end to holocaust denial instead of creating politically incorrect martyrs.

As you yourself have just pointed out:

the courtroom splattering Irving took being a perfect example of what open inquiry can do.I don't think I'll bother with "anonymous'" pointless comment.

Anonymous said...

"I don't think I'll bother with "anonymous'" pointless comment."

Of course you won't, Pollie. You can't refute the good argument.