The 2016 movie Denial, starring Rachel Weisz, has been nearly universally hailed as an important, educational film. Amazon's description of the movie says that "Deborah E. Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) battles for historical truth when renowned Holocaust denier David Irving (Timothy Spall) sues her for libel." IMDB puts it this way: "Acclaimed writer and historian Deborah E. Lipstadt must battle for historical truth to prove the Holocaust actually occurred when David Irving, a renowned denier, sues her for libel."
In actuality, the movie presents a severely distorted portrayal of the controversy and trial between Lipstadt and Irving.
This is an awkward post for me to write, partly because I am extremely pro-Israeli and have a great love for all things Jewish. I speak Hebrew and spent a wonderful summer in Israel.
But I must say that the movie is very misleading. It presents a warped, almost-fictional portrayal of the trial and that events that led up to it. Anyone who takes the time to read just the closing arguments and the judge's ruling will readily see how misleading and unfair this movie is.
Let's start with the fact that Irving proved at the trial that Lipstadt had twice admitted in writing before the trial that he had not denied the Holocaust but that he believed that Himmler initiated the Holocaust. I quote from handwritten notes that Lipstadt wrote in a 1994 lecture, which Irving entered into evidence at the trial:
Ten years earlier, Lipstadt said much the same thing in a research proposal for Israeli scholar Yehuda Bauer. I quote from the proposal, which Irving also introduced at the trial:
Yet, Lipstadt let her lawyers argue in court that Irving had denied the Holocaust, and the judge had to use a greatly expanded definition of "Holocaust denial" to find Irving guilty of it.
Specifically, Irving's position has long been that approximately 3 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, that Himmler initiated the Holocaust, that Hitler learned of it in 1943 (and perhaps earlier) and did nothing to stop it, and that Hitler was legally responsible for it because he was the head of state. A big problem with Irving's position is that he does not believe that gas chambers were the main method of killing, and that most of the Jews who died at Auschwitz were not killed by gassing but by other methods.
I disagree with Irving about Auschwitz, and I believe the number of Jews killed was closer to 6 million. However, acknowledging that 3 million Jews were murdered and that Hitler was at least legally responsible as head of state does not sound like Holocaust denial to me. And, again, Lipstadt herself admitted twice in writing before the trial that Irving had not denied the Holocaust. The movie doesn't say a word about any of this.
This is just one of many examples of the movie's distortions and omissions. Here are some other examples:
-- The movie never mentions that even the judge conceded that Lipstadt and her allies had made false statements about Irving, and some of them were egregious. For instance, in her book on Holocaust denial, Lipstadt falsely claimed that Irving had justified the imprisonment of Jews in Nazi concentration camps. Lipstadt's legal team never even tried to defend this slander during the trial.
-- The movie fails to mention that Lipstadt's legal team made no effort to defend her false claim that in 1992 Irving was scheduled to speak at an anti-Zionist conference in Sweden that was to be attended by members of two notorious radical Muslim terrorist groups (Hezbollah and Hamas).
-- The movie fails to mention that one of Lipstadt's allies and confidants, Anthony Lerman, spread the slanderous claim that Irving had supplied the trigger mechanism for the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
-- Another fact omitted in the movie is that Lipstadt's legal team painted a misleading picture of Irving's appearance at a rally in Halle, Germany, where neo-Nazis in the crowd were chanting pro-Hitler slogans. They failed to mention that a video taken of Irving's speech at the rally showed that Irving visibly and audibly rebuked those who were chanting pro-Hitler slogans. Irving's critics in Australia provided Australian TV stations with a heavily edited version of this video, a version that omitted Irving's rebuke of the neo-Nazis, giving the false impression that he approved of the chants.
Let's be clear: David Irving is not a sympathetic character. He has made offensive statements, especially about Jews. He has picked foolish, needless fights, such as arguing over the authenticity of one of the exhibits at Auschwitz because it's a replica or arguing there's a big difference between the words "exterminated" and "destroyed" in reference to violence against humans. He has voiced rude criticisms of Holocaust survivors. On a few occasions, he has appeared on the same stage with unsavory characters (although he did not voice agreement with their views). He publicly promoted the Leuchter Report without mentioning any of the serious problems with the report, problems that he acknowledged in private correspondence with fellow revisionists.
However, all this being said, Irving is not the hateful ogre that the movie portrays him to be. On several occasions, Irving has publicly told Holocaust deniers/radical revisionists that they are wrong for claiming that fewer than one million Jews were killed by the Nazis. He has also condemned extremist neo-Nazi groups and other groups that deny the Holocaust, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Most important, Irving has not denied the Holocaust, and he has not portrayed Hitler in a positive light when you consider everything he has said on the subject. Although Irving has minimized Hitler's role in certain criminal actions, especially relating to the Holocaust, he has also said that Hitler was ultimately responsible for the Holocaust and that Hitler may have known about it earlier than 1943. Moreover, Irving has condemned Hitler's conduct in numerous cases and has discussed most of Hitler's crimes in his books. But Irving has also argued, in agreement with recognized historians such as A.J.P. Taylor, that Hitler was not solely responsible for starting WW II, that England was at least partly responsible for starting the war, and that on some occasions Allied conduct during and after the war was barbaric.
Let's put it this way: If you knew nothing about Hitler and Nazi Germany and then read Irving's books, you would come away with a very negative view of Hitler and the Third Reich. You might not view Hitler as the worst monster on the planet in that time period, but you would definitely view him as an evil, immoral man who caused enormous death, suffering, and destruction. You would also learn information about the war that most books on the subject do not discuss.
Even some leading historians have acknowledged that Irving's books contain enlightening discoveries and important information. Even the trial judge, Justice Charles Gray, was willing to acknowledge Irving's expertise and contributions to historical research. I quote from the judge's decision:
If the makers of Denial had given a balanced portrayal of the controversy and trial, the movie would have been truly educational and worthwhile; however, if they had done this, the movie would not have had the effect that they wanted it to have, which was to falsely portray Irving as a neo-Nazi and a Holocaust denier.
I close by quoting from the appeal that attorney Adrian Davis submitted to the Court of Appeals on Irving's behalf:
In actuality, the movie presents a severely distorted portrayal of the controversy and trial between Lipstadt and Irving.
This is an awkward post for me to write, partly because I am extremely pro-Israeli and have a great love for all things Jewish. I speak Hebrew and spent a wonderful summer in Israel.
But I must say that the movie is very misleading. It presents a warped, almost-fictional portrayal of the trial and that events that led up to it. Anyone who takes the time to read just the closing arguments and the judge's ruling will readily see how misleading and unfair this movie is.
Let's start with the fact that Irving proved at the trial that Lipstadt had twice admitted in writing before the trial that he had not denied the Holocaust but that he believed that Himmler initiated the Holocaust. I quote from handwritten notes that Lipstadt wrote in a 1994 lecture, which Irving entered into evidence at the trial:
Ten years earlier, Lipstadt said much the same thing in a research proposal for Israeli scholar Yehuda Bauer. I quote from the proposal, which Irving also introduced at the trial:
Yet, Lipstadt let her lawyers argue in court that Irving had denied the Holocaust, and the judge had to use a greatly expanded definition of "Holocaust denial" to find Irving guilty of it.
Specifically, Irving's position has long been that approximately 3 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, that Himmler initiated the Holocaust, that Hitler learned of it in 1943 (and perhaps earlier) and did nothing to stop it, and that Hitler was legally responsible for it because he was the head of state. A big problem with Irving's position is that he does not believe that gas chambers were the main method of killing, and that most of the Jews who died at Auschwitz were not killed by gassing but by other methods.
I disagree with Irving about Auschwitz, and I believe the number of Jews killed was closer to 6 million. However, acknowledging that 3 million Jews were murdered and that Hitler was at least legally responsible as head of state does not sound like Holocaust denial to me. And, again, Lipstadt herself admitted twice in writing before the trial that Irving had not denied the Holocaust. The movie doesn't say a word about any of this.
This is just one of many examples of the movie's distortions and omissions. Here are some other examples:
-- The movie never mentions that even the judge conceded that Lipstadt and her allies had made false statements about Irving, and some of them were egregious. For instance, in her book on Holocaust denial, Lipstadt falsely claimed that Irving had justified the imprisonment of Jews in Nazi concentration camps. Lipstadt's legal team never even tried to defend this slander during the trial.
-- The movie fails to mention that Lipstadt's legal team made no effort to defend her false claim that in 1992 Irving was scheduled to speak at an anti-Zionist conference in Sweden that was to be attended by members of two notorious radical Muslim terrorist groups (Hezbollah and Hamas).
-- The movie fails to mention that one of Lipstadt's allies and confidants, Anthony Lerman, spread the slanderous claim that Irving had supplied the trigger mechanism for the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
-- Another fact omitted in the movie is that Lipstadt's legal team painted a misleading picture of Irving's appearance at a rally in Halle, Germany, where neo-Nazis in the crowd were chanting pro-Hitler slogans. They failed to mention that a video taken of Irving's speech at the rally showed that Irving visibly and audibly rebuked those who were chanting pro-Hitler slogans. Irving's critics in Australia provided Australian TV stations with a heavily edited version of this video, a version that omitted Irving's rebuke of the neo-Nazis, giving the false impression that he approved of the chants.
Let's be clear: David Irving is not a sympathetic character. He has made offensive statements, especially about Jews. He has picked foolish, needless fights, such as arguing over the authenticity of one of the exhibits at Auschwitz because it's a replica or arguing there's a big difference between the words "exterminated" and "destroyed" in reference to violence against humans. He has voiced rude criticisms of Holocaust survivors. On a few occasions, he has appeared on the same stage with unsavory characters (although he did not voice agreement with their views). He publicly promoted the Leuchter Report without mentioning any of the serious problems with the report, problems that he acknowledged in private correspondence with fellow revisionists.
However, all this being said, Irving is not the hateful ogre that the movie portrays him to be. On several occasions, Irving has publicly told Holocaust deniers/radical revisionists that they are wrong for claiming that fewer than one million Jews were killed by the Nazis. He has also condemned extremist neo-Nazi groups and other groups that deny the Holocaust, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Most important, Irving has not denied the Holocaust, and he has not portrayed Hitler in a positive light when you consider everything he has said on the subject. Although Irving has minimized Hitler's role in certain criminal actions, especially relating to the Holocaust, he has also said that Hitler was ultimately responsible for the Holocaust and that Hitler may have known about it earlier than 1943. Moreover, Irving has condemned Hitler's conduct in numerous cases and has discussed most of Hitler's crimes in his books. But Irving has also argued, in agreement with recognized historians such as A.J.P. Taylor, that Hitler was not solely responsible for starting WW II, that England was at least partly responsible for starting the war, and that on some occasions Allied conduct during and after the war was barbaric.
Let's put it this way: If you knew nothing about Hitler and Nazi Germany and then read Irving's books, you would come away with a very negative view of Hitler and the Third Reich. You might not view Hitler as the worst monster on the planet in that time period, but you would definitely view him as an evil, immoral man who caused enormous death, suffering, and destruction. You would also learn information about the war that most books on the subject do not discuss.
Even some leading historians have acknowledged that Irving's books contain enlightening discoveries and important information. Even the trial judge, Justice Charles Gray, was willing to acknowledge Irving's expertise and contributions to historical research. I quote from the judge's decision:
If the makers of Denial had given a balanced portrayal of the controversy and trial, the movie would have been truly educational and worthwhile; however, if they had done this, the movie would not have had the effect that they wanted it to have, which was to falsely portray Irving as a neo-Nazi and a Holocaust denier.
I close by quoting from the appeal that attorney Adrian Davis submitted to the Court of Appeals on Irving's behalf:
https://www.hdot.org/longskel/)[/quote]
