Irving v. Lipstadt - a lawsuit in the UK , which took place from 1996 to 2000. Parties to the process were British writer David Irving as the plaintiff and American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books as defendants . Irving accused his opponents of defaming and damaging his scientific and business reputation.
The court hearing began on January 11 and ended on April 11, 2000. The court ruled that Lipstadt and the publisher were right. The process has attracted great public attention, and not only in the UK.
Content
Conflict
In 1993, the American historian Deborah Lipstadt published the book “Holocaust Denial: An Increasing Attack on Truth and Remembrance” [1] , dedicated to Holocaust deniers and their arguments, in particular David Irving. She described Irving as one of the most dangerous neo-Nazis and deniers of the Holocaust, since he is much smarter and more educated than ordinary marginal followers of Hitler and promotes his views much more subtle and thoughtful.
At first, Irving’s only reaction to the book was the appearance at one of Lipstadt’s speeches in Atlanta , where he repeated his long-standing promise to give out $ 1,000 to anyone who would prove the historical credibility of the “ final solution to the Jewish question ” [2] .
In 1996, Irving filed a lawsuit in a British court against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books , accusing him of libel and damage to his scientific and business reputation. Irving emphasized that he did not oppose the right of his opponents to have their own opinion and attack someone else's, but against slander and accusations of neo-Nazism [2] .
Given the fact that the burden of proof in the British court rested with the defendant, Deborah Lipstadt and the publisher had a hard time [3] [4] . The problem was that in order to win the case, the defendants had to prove that Irving deliberately distorted historical facts, that is, that the Holocaust was a real historical event [5] .
Lipshtadt hired Richard Rampton, Anthony Julius and James Libson to participate in the trial, while the publisher hired libel lawyers Kevin Bays and Mark Batman.
The court hearing began on January 11, 2000 [6] .
Forensics
The defendants invited as an expert the British historian Richard Evans , who specialized in the history of the Third Reich . He examined Irving's books, publications, and speeches to find out whether Holocaust denial was the result of deliberate manipulations triggered by Irving's political interests and beliefs. Evans found in Irving's works a number of cases in which he used false documents, ignored documentary evidence, selectively quoted sources, taking phrases out of context [7] .
In particular, Irving greatly exaggerated the death toll from the Allied bombing of Dresden and downplayed the death toll from the Holocaust. At the same time, he constantly used incorrect comparisons between these bombings and the Holocaust, using as genuine documents about which it was reliably known that they were fake.
Irving claimed that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust. Evans proved this to be untrue, and that Irving ignored dozens of reliable sources in favor of interviewing biased individuals like Hitler's personal driver. Evans also found that the incorrect method by which Irving conducted the interview allowed him to obtain evidence confirming Irving's position.
Irving argued that there was no Holocaust as a system of destruction. Irving also claimed that the death toll from the Holocaust is less than 1 million, and that most of these deaths were the result of disease, not targeted destruction. Evans showed that this was not true, demonstrated Irving's distortion of historical documents: he rejected many reliable sources in favor of certain controversial and doubtful ones. Irving rejected the authenticity of historical documents that refuted his position even when there was no reason to doubt them. In particular, he repeatedly claimed that Anne Frank’s diary was fake, even after a forensic examination that confirmed the authenticity of the document.
Irving argued that no gas chambers created to exterminate Jews and other prisoners of Nazism had ever existed. Evans proved this to be false, and demonstrated how Irving came to this conclusion. Irving relied, in particular, on Goebbels diaries without taking into account the context. In particular, he alternately used the original and the translation into English in such a way that, taken out of context, quotes confirmed his position.
In addition, Evans revealed links between Irving and well-known anti-Semitic organizations. He discovered numerous examples of direct racist and anti-Semitic statements by Irving.
A number of other experts also addressed the process [8] :
- Professor Peter Longerich , German lecturer at Holloway College, University of London , specialist in Nazism and the history of the Third Reich. He testified about the existence of a special policy for the extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis and about the role of Hitler in the persecution of Jews.
- Robert Ian van Pelt , professor of architecture at the School of Architecture at the University of Waterloo ( Canada ). He presented the court with a conclusion on the construction and use of Auschwitz as a death camp .
- Christopher Browning , an American professor of history at the Pacific Lutheran University (Tacoma, WA). He gave testimonies about the methods of "the final solution of the Jewish question ", including the execution of Jews in the East and their asphyxiation in the death camps (in addition to Auschwitz).
- Haito Funke , professor of political science at the Independent University of Berlin. He presented a conclusion on Irving's relations with the right and neo-Nazis, including in Germany.
The findings of Richard Evans and other experts allowed the defense to win the process. Subsequently, Evans wrote a book about the case entitled “Lie about Hitler: History, the Holocaust, and the Court with David Irving” ( Eng. Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial ). Evans book called English. David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial is available on Emory University website [9] .
Court Summary
On April 11, 2000, Judge Gray announced a 333-page verdict. [3] Irving's claims were rejected, he received a demand to pay 3 million pounds in compensation for legal costs [10] [11] .
The court found that Irving repeatedly made statements to downplay the Holocaust. According to the court, Irving intentionally manipulated the data and this was due to his anti-Semitism [7] [12] . In the judgment, Irving was called an anti-Semite and a racist associated with neo-Nazi organizations [13] .
Is Irving a Holocaust denier.
I find it undeniable that Irving is a Holocaust denier. He not only denied the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz and claimed that not a single Jew was strangled there, he did this very often, and sometimes in a very insulting manner. His claim that more people died in the back seat of Kennedy's car in Chappakwidik than in the gas chambers of Auschwitz; his rejection of eyewitness accounts as liars or suffering from mental illness; his reference to the association of survivors in Auschwitz as deceivers, etc.
Irving made more general statements to downplay the Holocaust. For example, he argued that Jews in the East were shot by individual bandits and criminals and that there was no directive or policy of mass extermination. The statement made by Irving, which the defendants identified as Holocaust denial, is false in the sense that they do not rely on any evidence.
So, it was proved that the execution of Jews in the East was systematic and was sent from Berlin, and Hitler knew about the executions and approved them; that there were gas chambers in several Reinhardt camps and that hundreds of thousands of Jews died in them (during the Irving process admitted this) and that there were gas chambers in Auschwitz, where hundreds of thousands of Jews were strangled.
I conclude that Irving's denial of these assumptions is contrary to evidence.
Is Irving anti-Semitic and racist.
It seems to me that most, if not all of Irving's statements, are clear evidence that Irving is an anti-Semite.
His words are directed against the Jews (individually or collectively) in the sense that they are hostile, critical, offensive and mocking with regard to their characteristics and appearance. A few examples are enough: Irving argues that Jews are deservedly disliked; that they themselves incurred the Holocaust; that Jewish financiers are dishonest; that Jews provoke anti-Semitism by their greed and deceit; that the Jews are human scum; that the Jews are fleeing and hiding stealthily, unable to bear daylight ...
Irving justified his remarks, explaining them as an attempt to warn the Jews so that they would not set the public against themselves by their behavior. If he wanted to say just that, I do not believe that he would use such an offensive manner ...
I agree that Jews can be criticized in the same way as others. But it seems to me that Irving regularly crossed and crosses the line between reasonable criticism and the reproaches of the Jewish people based on prejudice.
The conclusion that can be drawn from what Irving said and wrote is that he is an anti-Semite.
The conclusion that Irving is a racist is made for similar reasons. This is not surprising, since anti-Semitism is a form of racism.
Original textWhether Irving is a “Holocaust denier”Even so, it appears to me to be incontrovertible that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier. Not only has he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and asserted that no Jew was gassed there, he has done so on frequent occasions and sometimes in the most offensive terms ... his claim that more people died in the back of Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz; his dismissal of the eye-witnesses en masse as liars or as suffering from a mental problem; his reference to an Association of Auschwitz Survivors and Other Liars or “ASSHOLS” ...
Irving has also made broader claims which tend to minimize the Holocaust. For example he has claimed that the Jews in the East were shot by individual gangsters and criminals and that there was no direction or policy in place for mass extermination to be carried out ... It is part of the Defendants' case on justification that the statements made by Irving which are apostrophised by the Defendants as Holocaust denials are false in the sense that they are unsupported by the evidence.
I have already made findings that the evidence supports the following propositions: that the shooting of the Jews in the East was systematic and directed from Berlin with the knowledge and approval of Hitler; that there were gas chambers at several of the Operation Reinhard camps and that (as Irving during the trial admitted) hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed in them and that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz, where hundreds of thousands more Jews were gassed to death . It follows that it is my conclusion that Irving's denials of these propositions were contrary to the evidence.
Anti-semitism
It appears to me to be undeniable that most, if not all, of the statements set out in paragraph 9.5 reveal clear evidence that, in the absence of any excuse or suitable explanation for what he said or wrote, Irving is anti-semitic. His words are directed against Jews, either individually or collectively, in the sense that they are by turns hostile, critical, offensive and derisory in their references to semitic people, their characteristics and appearances. A few examples will suffice: Irving has made claims that the Jews deserve to be disliked; that they brought the Holocaust on themselves; that Jewish financiers are crooked; that Jews generate anti-semitism by their greed and mendacity; that it is bad luck for Mr Wiesel to be called 'Weasel'; that Jews are amongst the scum of humanity; that Jews scurry and hide furtively, unable to stand the light of day; that Simon Wiesenthal has a hideous, leering evil face; and so on.
In the preceding paragraph I did introduce the caveat that the evidence of Irving's anti-semitism is clear in the absence of any excuse or sensible explanation for his words. It is possible to envisage circumstances in which words, which on their face are anti-semitic, turn out on analysis to be susceptible of innocent explanation. Irving did advance a number of reasons why he claims it is unreasonable to regard him as an anti-semite. I have summarized them at paragraphs 9.9 to 9.17 above.
The principal explanation or justification offered by Irving for his comments about Jews is that he is seeking to explain to Jews why anti-semitism exists and not himself adopting the anti-semitism. But I do not think that this was the message that Irving was seeking to convey to his audiences and it was certainly not the sense in which his remarks were understood. Irving advances a similar justification of his characterization of the Jewish stereotype as an attempt to warn Jews not to enhance by their conduct the negative public perception of them. If this were Irving's objective, I do not believe that he would have used such offensive language. If (as Irving claims) his remark about Wiesenthal was a joke, it was an anti-semitic joke.
I have more sympathy for Irving's argument that Jews are not immune from his criticism. He said that he was simply expressing legitimate criticisms of them. Irving gave as an example what he claimed was his justified criticism of the Jews for suppressing his freedom of expression. Another legitimate ground of criticism might be the manner in which Jews in certain parts of the world appear to exploit the Holocaust. I agree that Jews are as open to criticism as anyone else. But it appears to me that Irving has repeatedly crossed the divide between legitimate criticism and prejudiced vilification of the Jewish race and people. I can well understand too that, because of his perceived views, Irving and his family have from time to time been tested to extreme pressure, for example when his flat house was besieged by rioters in 1994 (see paragraph 9.14 above). In the heat of the moment ill-considered remarks are often made. But it is in just such circumstances that racial prejudice manifests itself. In my view that is what occurred in 1994.
The inference which in my judgment is clearly to be drawn from what Irving has said and written is that he is anti-semitic.
Racism
I have concluded that the allegation that Irving is a racist is also established for broadly analogous reasons. This is unsurprising for anti-semitism is a form of racism.
Appeal
Irving did not agree with the findings of the court and appealed. She was considered in court in July 2001, he himself was not present at the trial. Irving Davis's lawyer claimed that his client could have been negligent as a historian, but he did not intentionally lie. However, the appellate judges concluded that Judge Gray's verdict was a model of “completeness and style” and upheld [6] . Irving's appeal was rejected; he himself did not appear at court [15] .
On May 21, 2002, the judge ruled that Irving’s lack of credit would not help him escape responsibility before the law. [16] Irving was forced to sell his house in England to pay legal fees, and also declared bankrupt. [17] [18]
Responses
The process has attracted great public attention, and not only in the UK [3] . As a result of the process, journalist David Guttenplan published a book in which he outlined the views of both sides. Many major newspapers commented on the trial and the court verdict. In particular, the New York Times wrote [6] :
This verdict leaves no stone unturned by the claim that Irving is more than Hitler’s homegrown defender
The court decision was actively discussed in the academic community. So, the British historian David Caesarani welcomed the verdict. He believes that this is not only about the past, but also about the future. In his view, Holocaust denial is an attempt to rehabilitate Nazism. American historian Daniel Goldhagen believes that historical issues are not resolved in court, and Irving should not be taken seriously: the discussion of whether the Holocaust was really absurd as a discussion of whether slavery was in the USA or whether the Second World War was a historical fact [19] .
Notes
- ↑ Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Penguin, New York, 1993; London, 1994
- ↑ 1 2 Tsvetkov A. What we tell children // Radio Liberty . - 02.29.2000.
- ↑ 1 2 3 Kushnir B. One, but fiery passion // Bulletin: journal. - March 5, 2003. - No. 5 (316) .
- ↑ Reznik S.E. Industry of riveting // The Seagull: Journal. - Seagull Publications Corporation, August 1, 2001. - No. 7 (7) .
- ↑ Taylor C. Evil takes the stand (Eng.) // Salon. - May 23, 2001.
- ↑ 1 2 3 Irving v. Lipstadt (Unavailable link) . Holocaust Denial on Trial . Emory University . Date of treatment July 11, 2014. Archived October 1, 2014.
- ↑ 1 2 Evans, Richard. Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, London. Perseus Books, 2002,
- ↑ M. Altman, 2001 , p. 76-77.
- ↑ Richard J. Evans. David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial . Holocaust Denial on Trial . hdot.org. Date of treatment July 11, 2014.
- ↑ Poklep industry
- ↑ David Irving - Guilty Archived March 30, 2007 on Wayback Machine
- ↑ RJ van Pelt, The case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, Indiana University Press, 2002
- ↑ In Austria, a “Holocaust denier” detained . BBC. Date of treatment July 11, 2014.
- ↑ M. Altman, 2001 , p. 78
- ↑ London judges dismissed the appeal of anti-Semitic historian David Irving (Link unavailable) . jewish.ru (07.21.2001). Date of treatment July 11, 2014. Archived July 14, 2014.
- ↑ Court ruled against Holocaust denier Archived July 14, 2014 on Wayback Machine
- ↑ Holocaust denier bankrupt . BBC News (March 4, 2002). Date of treatment July 11, 2014.
- ↑ One taboo, two taboo
- ↑ History's verdict on Holocaust upheld . The Guardian. The appeal date is July 15, 2014.
Literature
- Altman M. M. Appendix 2. The trial: D. Irving v. Deborah Lipstadt. // Holocaust denial: history and current trends / I. A. Altman (composition.). - M .: The Holocaust Foundation , 2001. - S. 75-78. - 88 p. - (Russian Holocaust Library). - 1500 copies - ISBN 978-5-8989-7008-6 .
- Richard J. Evans. Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial. - New York: Basic Books, 2001 .-- 336 p. - ISBN 978-0465021529 .
- D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust on Trial, WW Norton and Co, New York, London, 2001
- Marouf Hasian, Jr. Holocaust Denial Debates: The Symbolic Significance of Irving V. Penguin & Lipstadt (Eng.) // Communication Studies. - 2002. - Vol. 53 , no. 2
- Schneider, Wendie Ellen. Objective Historian Standard Applied to Determine Libel in Irving V. Penguin Books Ltd (English) // The Yale Law Journal. - 2001. - Vol. 110 , no. 8
- Henderson, A. Scott. Fighting for the Past: Lessons from the David Irving Trial (English) // Social Education. - 2008 .-- Vol. 72 , no. 6
Links
- Irving v. Lipstadt (Link not available) . Holocaust Denial on Trial . Emory University . - Materials of the conflict. Date of treatment July 11, 2014. Archived October 1, 2014.