One day, anxious for some escape, I decided to go rent some videos. On impulse—and apparently having forgotten that I was looking for an escape—I selected Charlie Chaplin’s The Great Dictator and Mel Brooks’s The Producers, two highly effective spoofs on Adolf Hitler. The clerk—who, much to my amazement, actually knew something about films—asked: “You interested in comedy or Hitler?” I shrugged my shoulders and said, somewhat tentatively, “Both, I guess.”
While I was watching the films, I recalled a manuscript Anthony had written during the trial. He had been asked to deliver a series of endowed lectures at the University of London on Jewish art. Regarding artists who attack their opponents with irony and ridicule, he had written: “To defeat your adversary and bury him is one thing. To dress him in a jester’s costume and have him perform for you is another, more crushing blow. He survives to give witness to his own powerlessness.”16 This is what both Chaplin and Brooks did to Hitler.
At that point, I understood not only my choice of movies, but also what was and was not important about my battle. Repeatedly during the trial, David Irving was left exposed, not just as a falsifier of history, but as an irrational and foolish figure. Since the trial, whenever his name appeared in the press, it was almost invariably accompanied by some variation on the adjectival phrase “the Holocaust denier whom the court branded a racist, an antisemite, and a falsifier of history.”17 Ultimately, however, he was not important. Defeating him, however, was. And therein is a lesson that can be learned by all who fight the purveyors of hatred and lies. Though the battle against our opponents is exceptionally important, the opponents themselves are not. Their arguments make as much sense as flat-earth theory.
However, in dramatic contrast to flat-earthers, they can cause tremendous pain and damage. Some of them use violence. Others, as Hajo Funke said in Berlin as we sat in the shadow of the Reichstag, use words that, in turn, encourage others to do harm. It was words that motivated those who blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, dragged an African-American down a logging road to his death, tortured a young homosexual in Wyoming, stabbed a Jewish student to death on the streets of Crown Heights, blew up Israeli families about to celebrate the Passover Seder, and flew planes into the World Trade Center.
We must conduct an unrelenting fight against those who encourage—directly or indirectly—others to do these things. But, even as we fight, we must not imbue our opponents with a primordial significance. We certainly must never attribute our existence to their attacks on us or let our battle against them become our raison d’etre. And as we fight them, we must dress them—or force them to dress themselves—in the jester’s costume. Ultimately, our victory comes when, even as we defeat them, we demonstrate not only how irrational, but how absolutely pathetic, they are.
AFTERWORD
By Alan Dershowitz
Deborah Lipstadt’s momentous courtroom victory over David Irving is one of those great moments in legal history when truth, justice, and freedom of speech are all simultaneously served. Truth does not, of course, need a judicial imprimatur to be validated. Regardless of what any court might rule, David Irving’s denial of the Holocaust will always be a lie and Deborah Lipstadt’s exposure of Irving’s lies will always be the truth. Justice, on the other hand, is not nearly as absolute and uninfluenced by human evaluation as is truth. Justice is often in the eye of the beholder, since it is a function of perception, attitudes, experience, education, and values. The great American judge Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once scolded his law clerk for complaining that a particular legal decision was not “just.” “Our job,” Holmes told his clerk, “is not to do justice; it is to apply the law.” How much better it is, however, when justice is done by applying the law, as occurred in this case.
Truth and justice are sometimes served only by compromising freedom of speech, as when nations ban Holocaust denial speech, racist speech, sexist speech, or other forms of bigoted falsehood. Had David Irving been the defendant in a case seeking to censor his lies, and had he lost, it might be argued that the loss compromised principles of free speech. But Irving was the plaintiff here. It was he who was trying to censor Lipstadt’s truth by suing her for defamation. Had he won, it would have been a defeat for truth, justice, and free speech. Thankfully, he lost—and he lost resoundingly and unambiguously. Truth, justice, and free speech won, and won big. Yet “some journalists called the verdict “a blow to free speech.”1 This is an absurd conclusion. Freedom of speech includes the right to expose lies, as Lipstadt did. It does not grant immunity from criticism to bigots like Irving. The marketplace of ideas must be open to all, not just neo-Nazis. Indeed, one reason why false and offensive speech is permitted in most liberal democracies is precisely because the best answer to bad speech is good speech, rather than censorship. Absent an opportunity to respond to the falsehoods spread by the likes of Irving, it would be more difficult to make the case for permitting racist liars to pollute the marketplace of ideas. Indeed, before Irving lost his case, several publishers had refused to issue books critical of Irving, out of fear of his bringing expensive and time-consuming lawsuits. That was a chilling of free speech. The chill was thawed by Lipstadt’s victory for freedom of speech.
We live at a time when Holocaust denial, Holocaust trivialization, and Holocaust minimization are increasingly being used as part of a larger anti-semitic and anti-Israel agenda. Hard-core deniers are supported and praised by people such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein, while those who seek justice for Holocaust survivors are condemned by Finkelstein and his ilk. Chomsky has, in defending his absurd view that there are no “anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust,” added the following pregnant words: “whether one believes it [the Holocaust] took place or not.” And he has praised Robert Faurisson, a hard-core Holocaust denier, as a scholar whose “findings” that the Holocaust did not occur were “based on extensive historical research.” Chomsky’s statements provide substantive support for the “finding” that the Holocaust is a debatable issue or a fraud. Perhaps on Planet Chomsky, but not in the real world, in which Nazi butchers murdered millions of Jewish children, women, and men. In a similar vein, Norman Finkelstein has praised the Holocaust-denying David Irving as a “good historian” who has made an “indispensable” contribution to our knowledge of World War II.2
At the other end of the political spectrum are people such as Patrick Buchanan, who have defended Nazi war criminals including Klaus Barbie, Karl Linnas, and the SS killers buried at Bitburg and expressed skepticism about Holocaust claims, doubting whether Jews were gassed at Treblinka.3
The work of keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive is thus not completed. Lipstadt’s victory was the most important courtroom defeat for Holocaust denial in recent history. But the struggle must persist, on university campuses, at the United Nations, in the media, in publishing houses, and wherever ideas are important. There is no excuse for silence on this important issue. The truth must be spoken again and never silenced. Deborah Lipstadt led the way. She has proved that the best response to Holocaust denial is not futile attempts at censorship, but rather active exposure of the falsehood of these bigoted claims. When Holocaust deniers speak their lies, we must respond with the truth—with the facts, the evidence, and the documentation. Truth and justice are on our side. Lipstadt has shown us that freedom of speech is also on our side. So let us exercise our collective right to tell the truth and to expose falsehood. Lipstadt has done her job, and so has the court, and they have done it well. Now it is our job to continue the never-ending quest for truth, justice, and freedom of speech.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My legal struggle stretched out over six years—the “My Day” in the title is highly euphemistic. A cadre of people assisted me, both in the courtroom and in places far from it.
I had an exceptional legal team. The architects of my defense, Anthony Julius and James Libson of Mishcon de Reya, were more than stellar so
licitors and fierce advocates on my behalf. They became—and remain—friends to whom I turn for wise counsel. People often ask about “turning points” in this case. A crucial one was when they agreed to represent me. They were skillfully assisted by Mishcon’s Juliet Loudon, Laura Tyler, Veronica Byrne, Harriet Benson, Michala Barham, and Pippa Marshall. In the aftermath of the trial, Mishcon’s Danny Davis has been a source of very wise and generous counsel. Richard Rampton is not only a uniquely gifted barrister, but the quintessential mensch. I wish we had met under different circumstances, but I am ever so grateful to have him in my life. Heather Rogers, Penguin’s junior barrister, showed great legal acumen and an uncanny ability to retrieve a document at precisely the right moment. Of equal importance was the emotional support she offered me at crucial junctures. Penguin’s legal representatives, Mark Bateman and Kevin Bayes of Davenport Lyons, were important members of this team. On this side of the Atlantic, Joe Beck of Kilpatrick Stockton offered his services with his typical giving spirit. My own lawyer and good friend, David Minkin of Greenberg Traurig, acting as a true advocate, was often more zealous in protecting my interests than I. His colleague Steve Sidman was exceedingly gracious as well.
Penguin, UK stood shoulder-to-shoulder with me during the trial. While it was the right thing for a publisher to do, I know that many publishers would not—and have not—supported their authors.
Our experts, professors Richard Evans, Christopher Browning, Peter Longerich, Robert Jan van Pelt, and Hajo Funke, constituted the historian’s ultimate dream team. Appalled by Irving’s cavalier treatment of the historical record, they made an exceptional commitment to this endeavor. I am delighted that three of their reports have been published to deservedly stellar reviews.* Our researchers, Nikolaus Wachsmann, Thomas Skelton-Robinson, and Tobias Jersak, were critically important components of our research team. We could not have done this without them.
Leslie and Abigail Wexner, demonstrating the exemplary leadership which has become their hallmark, spearheaded the drive to create a defense fund. The contributors to this fund, who gave quietly and with no fanfare, were convinced that this was their fight as much as it was mine. Much of the fundraising effort was coordinated by Rabbi Herb Friedman, Michael Berenbaum, Phyllis Cook, Robert Goodkind, Miles Lehrman, William Lowenberg, and Ernie Michel. Bruce Soll was and is a wonderful troubleshooter and treasured friend.
The American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center were all forthcoming with their assistance. The American Jewish Committee volunteered to house the defense fund and to coordinate the myriad of details associated with it. David Harris, AJC Executive Director, encouraged its expert on extremism, Ken Stern, to become an ex-officio member of the legal team. Ken calmed me down, cheered me up, and shared his wise counsel. The AJC is lucky to have him as a member of its team. I am lucky to have him as a friend. The AJC’s Rebecca Gutman attended a National Alliance meeting, a less than hospitable setting for anyone who does not share its abhorrent ideology, to hear Irving’s lecture.
In London, Daniel Levy, Sally Bulloch, Jonathan Critchard, and the staff at the Athenaeum turned a hotel into a home away from home. Many people—close friends and complete strangers—came to London for the trial. Far too numerous to name, their presence in the courtroom was like balm in Gilead. During my long absence from home, friends and neighbors performed a range of tasks—from fixing my mailbox and paying my bills to regularly calling my mother—allowing me to focus on the task at hand.
Emory University was resolute in its support. Without waiting to be asked and with no fanfare or publicity, it stepped forward. As an institution committed to academic excellence and moral engagement, Emory, under the leadership of then-president Bill Chace, was appalled by Irving’s distortions of history; attempts to quash my academic freedom; and antisemitic, racist, and extremist rhetoric. I am saddened that Joe Crooks did not live to witness the outcome. Throughout the trial, colleagues, staff, and students inundated me with support, exemplifying what it is that I treasure about this institution.
That support continued after the trial. Emory College and Graduate School supported my work on this book. In addition, the University agreed to house a Web site, www.hdot.org, to ensure that the documentary record of the trial would be available for research. This was made possible by the support of the Revson Foundation and its then-president, Eli Evans, who originated the idea. This important scholarly resource is now a joint effort of Emory’s Institute for Jewish Studies, Woodruff Library, and Information Technology Division. The AJC’s Ken Stern was a critical asset. Among those who helped plan hdot were Mark Semer of Kekst and Company, Dan Yurman, Nancy Slome, Michael Berenbaum, Ken McVay of Nizkor, Shelly Shapiro, Gail Gans of the ADL, and David Goldman of Hatewatch. At Emory the expansion and upgrade of hdot has been supported by Dean Robert Paul and overseen by Naomi Nelson, Carole Meyers, Alan Cattier, David Lower, Marcia Wade, John Ingersoll, Leah Wolfson, and Maureen MacLaughlin. Maureen not only designed educational modules for hdot but also tirelessly checked my sources and worked assiduously to make order out of the chaos which often surrounds me. She has been a critically important asset and genuine partner in this book.
Historians will long be indebted to Israel’s then-attorney general, Elyakim Rubenstein, and his advisor, Joshua Shoffman, for facilitating the release of the Eichmann diaries and to Seth Kornfield for suggesting that we ask for them.
My agent, Gary Morris of David Black and Associates, was determined to find the “perfect” editor for this book. And so he did. I could not have asked for more—or imagined that I would ever find as much—in an editor, as I did in Julia Serebrinsky. At Ecco, Gheña Glijansky, Amy Baker, Jill Bernstein, Amy Taylor, Chris Goff, Diane Aronson, and David Falk’s enthusiasm for this project was infectious.
Jamie McCarthy stepped forward as soon as he learned of this legal battle. He was subsequently joined by Harry Mazal, Danny Kerem, Richard Green, and the other members of The Holocaust History Project. They were exceptionally forthcoming with their time and expertise. Dan Yurman’s daily media digest allowed people throughout the world—myself included—to track media coverage of events in the Royal High Court of Justice. The Nizkor Project created a very helpful media record of the trial coverage.
I am deeply grateful to those who read and commented on portions of this manuscript, including Shalom Goldman, Anthony Lewis, Amelia Kornfeld, Joe Kornfeld, Nessa Rapoport, Rachel Rosenblit, Melissa Faye Greene, Marcella Brenner, David Minkin, Glenda Minkin, Laurie Patton, and Ronald Harwood. Dori Kornfeld of Houston’s Yetter and Warden provided wise editorial and legal counsel. My wonderful friend Grace Cohen Grossman, in her characteristically generous fashion, carefully commented on every line. Helen Epstein reminded me what it is an author of a memoir owes her readers. They all helped make this a better book. The shortcomings which remain are, by and large, a result of my refusal to heed their advice. In addition, I was assisted by Cynthia Forland, Neil Reinstein, Dana Adler, and Arlene Robie. Rebecca E. Rubin worked tirelessly on the photographs and illustrations.
In the midst of the writing of this book, I unexpectedly had to have a series of operations. (I may well have been the only one who considered this turn of events ‘unexpected.’) A coterie of people did more than “just” help my body heal. They ensured a healing of spirit. I remain incredulous, even now, when I reflect on their righteousness. It is impossible to list them all, but I would be remiss if I failed to thank my friends at the Wexner Foundation who provided wonderful care when I took ill. In Atlanta, Glenda Minkin and Laurie Patton oversaw a myriad of details to ensure that I was safely transported home. When I was, friends in Atlanta and my colleagues at Emory University, particularly the faculty and staff of the Religion Department and Institute for Jewish Studies, cared for me as they would a member of their family. My enduring thanks to Dr. Art Safran and to the Emory University Hospital medical staff and, in particular, to Drs. James Robeson and Shelli Bank.
&n
bsp; My family is fiercely proud of me and my accomplishments. Their love and support sustains me. Rarely, if ever, during this long, drawn-out affair did I feel that I was fighting alone. All those who reached out to me were and are a blessing. It is to them and, above all, to those who suffered so terribly during the Holocaust that I dedicate this book.
Deborah E. Lipstadt
Atlanta, GA
September 24, 2004,
Erev Yom Kippur
NOTES
PROLOGUE: THE LETTER
1.The law, under which Zündel was convicted, was eventually declared unconstitutional by the Canadian Supreme Court. Second Zündel Trial, Her Majesty the Queen vs. Ernst Zündel, District Court of Ontario, 1988, pp. 45–46, 88, 186.
2.Irving v. Penguin, Limited & Deborah Lipstadt (hereafter IvP&DL), Day 1 (January 11, 2000), p. 98.
3.David Irving, “On Contemporary History and Historiography: Remarks Delivered at the 1983 International Revisionist Conference,” Journal of Historical Review (JHR), vol. 5, nos. 2–4 (winter 1984): pp. 274–75.
4.David Irving, Statement of Claim, IvP&DL, September 5, 1996.
5.Neal Ascherson, “Last Battle of Hitler’s Historians,” Observer (London), 16 January 2000; “The battle may be over—but the war goes on,” Observer (London), 16 April 2000; Jonathan Freedland, “Court 73—where history is on trial,” Guardian (London), February 5, 2000; Stephen Moss, “History’s verdict on Holocaust upheld,” Guardian (London), April 12, 2000; Richard Evans, Lying about Hitler (New York: Basic Books, 2001), pp. 185–93.
Denial [Movie Tie-in] Page 37
