I spent the entire day in the air-conditioned comfort of the library. (I'm not kidding- I mean, like the ENTIRE day, from 2pm to 9pm.) I read the most amazing book called, "History on Trial" by Deborah E. Lipstadt, which is an account of her defense against David Irving*, who sued her in a British court for libel. She wrote a book about Holocaust deniers called, "Denying the Holocaust", in which she accused him of being such a denier. It was barely 100 words in a larger piece of work, but he took offense and sued. In Britain, the onus is on the defendant to present a defense that backs up their claim, not the other way around. (In the US, it is up to the plaintiff to prove the words are NOT true.) I already knew the outcome, having read references to the case in other Holocaust books, but that wasn't the point anyway.
(*David Irving had long been a respected historian who wrote some very compelling books about World War II.)
The point was many, really. As was the author, I too was shocked to read how many of her contemporaries flat-out asked why she was going to go through with the trial.
One of the leading Holocaust historians told me that my biggest mistake was in not ignoring Irving's charges. When I explained that I didn't have a choice, that if I didn't fight Irving would win, the response was, "So what?" The argument is, of course, if you fight them publicly, you're giving credence to their views.
However, you can't take the stance that if you ignore them, they will go away. Silence is consent.
And how can you remain silent when you read something like this:
(When asked why he had taken out all mention of the Holocaust in his 1991 revised book, "Hitler's War", Irving responded thusly-) You won't find the Holocaust mentioned in one line, not even in a footnote. Why should you? If something didn't happen, then you don't even dignify it with a footnote."It is shocking to read that there are historians who may not support the anti-semitic slant of David Irving, but actually lament the fact that his loss sends a shiver down the spine of every historian who might have made a factual error. (I believe Irving was proven to make at least
26 factual errors in a variety of history books he wrote.) As if the two can be separated- that is, he can somehow write a concise book about World War II AND separate it from his anti-semitic views at the same time.
It is an interesting read, because it shows the very basic premise of a denier's argument- it is not to show evidence that contradicts the existing evidence, nor is it to show an alternate theory to events as they have been presented to us for the last 60 years. It is simply to say, "Prove this one particular point," whether that be a document signed by Hitler saying, "Kill all the Jews", or one singular piece of evidence proving gas chambers were used to kill people and not just to "de-louse" them. (For the record, there is no singular piece of paper signed by Hitler saying, "Start the war." Does that mean World War II never happened?) As with the book "Denying History", which I spoke of
in this entry, we don't come to a conclusion based on one piece of evidence, for any event in history. It is a "convergence of evidence", meaning we take bits of evidence from a multitude of sources and if they all converge on the same point of reference, then we extrapolate that that event happened. Not having one particular piece of "evidence" doesn't discount the hundreds of OTHER pieces of evidence that point to the same conclusion.
Reading about the trial, it is hard not to wonder how these deniers come to be who they are; how they come to the "conclusions" they do. Because ultimately, Lipstadt's lawyers meticulously tore apart every single shred of "evidence" David Irving had, to the point where, had the subject matter not been so serious, his stance would have seemed laughable. (For instance:
Irving argued that, if the elevator was piled with corpses 'six or seven high... the doors would not close.' Robert Jan, speaking very deliberately, said, "There were no doors". Irving... looked up in surprise: "There were no doors?" He pursed his lips and then, after a moment's thought, smiled slightly -one could almost see the light bulb go off over his head -and, in a rush of words, said, "That would be even worse then. The bodies would presumably get jammed against the side of the lift shaft if they piled them too high." Once again, Irving had unself-consciously turned his argument around. First the problem was that the doors wouldn't close. Then it was that there were no doors.) He contradicted himself at every turn (he represented himself, because as he said, "Lawyers may know the law, but I know the subject"), and easily fell into verbal traps set by the defense. His own words and his own actions (some lovely stuff he put on his website *sarcasm*) painted him as the racist, anti-semitic bigot that he is.
Near the end of the book, Deborah Lipstandt makes a very poignant and important note-
Our all-encompassing victory notwithstanding, this was not the last battle against deniers or, for that matter, against antisemites, because antisemitism itself cannot be "defeated". It will wither away, or not -probably the latter -of its own accord. Since antisemitism and, for that matter, all forms of prejudice are impervious to reason, they cannot be disproved. Therefore, in every generation, they most be fought.On a related note, though money indicates this is unlikely, I hope Hollywood turns its back on Mel Gibson. Beyond his anti-semitic drunken slur, he has never once tried to distance himself from his father's (Hutton Gibson) Holocaust denials. In fact, quite the contrary. In a Reader's Digest article that focused on his father's denials, Mel said, "My father never lied to me in his life." When posed with the question, "The Holocaust happened, right?" he replied, "Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. World War Two killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps."
"World War II killed tens of millions of people"? World War II is an event, not a sentient thing. "Killed"? Yes, but I think the word you're looking for, in regards to the Jews, is "murdered". Or perhaps, "systematically exterminated". "Some of them?" How about 4-6 MILLION? This kind of "soft denial" is just as reprehensible as flat-out denying the Holocaust.
And it is the very reason such views must continue to NOT be left unchallenged.
busy