Dangers of Holocaust denial

DEBORAH E. LIPSTADT

When I first learned that David Irving was considering suing me for libel, I laughed. In my book I had devoted about 300 words to Irving, describing him as "the most dangerous Holocaust denier," a Hitler partisan and someone who knew the truth but who bent it until it fit his anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi ideology. I made it clear that I thought him to be an anti-Semite who kept company with right-wing extremists.

Who, I then wondered, would take this garbage seriously?

As it turned out, I was wrong on all accounts. There were people who took it seriously. And Irving pursued this case very seriously. In fact, I was at a decided disadvantage. Defamatory words are presumed under English law to be untrue until proven true. British law placed the onus on me, the defendant, to prove the truth of what I had written. Had I not fought, I would have been guilty of libel and Irving's definition of the Holocaust determined to be legitimate.

Irving may have anticipated that I would find this fight an overwhelming burden and would "settle" by apologizing, paying him and agreeing to withdraw my book from circulation.

I was entirely wrong to assume that Irving's lawsuit was going to be just a nuisance. But he was far more wrong than I if he thought that I would give in.

Deniers have developed sophisticated tactics. They depict themselves as driven by a "deep dedication to the cause of truth in history," and a desire to expose historical totems that were manipulated by secret vested interests.

But more disturbing than Holocaust denial has been the fuzzy reaction in certain circles to deniers. In the 1980s and 1990s, student newspapers on various American campuses accepted ads denying the Holocaust. Some papers justified their decision to accept the ads on the First Amendment, apparently unaware that it stipulated that government does not oblige a newspaper to accept an ad. Some papers published the ads despite their paper's policy not to run ads that were racist, sexist or hostile to a minority, ethnic or religious group.

Few of these papers seemed to grasp that Holocaust denial was not a viewpoint, but propaganda that had been repeatedly discredited.

I found the same confusion about the parameters of historical debate in the media. I watched with dismay as hosts of radio and television talk shows treated denial as an intriguing idea.

During the months of preparation for the trial I began to hear from the doubters in both the scholarly and Jewish communities. When various academics asked why I was doing this, I bristled. I patiently explained that I was the defendant, fighting to clear my name, and to prevent Irving's version of history from being legitimized by the Royal High Court of Justice.

Deborah E. Lipstadt is the author of "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory.'' She won a historic libel trial in London in 2000 against David Irving, who sued her for calling him a Holocaust denier.

Home