How Accurate Is the Movie "Denial"?

Discussion in 'The Holocaust' started by Michael Griffith, May 1, 2022.

  1. 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."

    I'm afraid I must disagree with these descriptions of the movie. This is an awkward review for me to write because I am very pro-Israeli and have a great love for all things Jewish. I speak Hebrew and spent a wonderful summer in Israel. Plus, when it comes to Israel and combating anti-semitism, I agree with Deborah Lipstadt about 98% of the time. 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, perhaps more, 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 at least 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.

    -- In the movie, one of Lipstadt's lawyers paraphrases Irving as saying that if there were no holes in the roof of Crematorium 2 at Auschwitz, then "the Nazis didn't do any murdering; they didn't do any murdering at all." This is false. Irving never said any such thing before the trial, and has never expressed such a view since the trial. Every book that Irving wrote on Hitler and/or the Nazis before the trial made it clear that the Nazis murdered enormous numbers of people, especially Jews. The same is true of the books that Irving has written since the trial.

    -- In the movie, Lipstadt's chief lawyer, Richard Rampton, renders Irving dumbfounded and speechless when he challenges Irving's arguments on the function of Crematorium 2 at Auschwitz and when he then tells Irving that he spreads "rubbish" because he is a "rotten" and "bent" historian. This is a severe distortion of Rampton and Irving's exchanges on this issue. Anyone who reads the trial transcript can see this for themselves. For example:

    --- The movie shows Irving giving no response and looking dumbfounded when Rampton claims that there were no air raids at Auschwitz until late 1944 and that therefore there was no need for Crematorium 2 to be equipped to function as an air raid shelter in 1943. However, if you read the trial transcript, you discover that Irving answered this argument by pointing out that there was an air raid on Auschwitz in May 1943, and that Auschwitz construction department files indicated an increasing concern about the need to build bomb-tight shelters and gas-tight shelters because of the danger of conventional and gas attacks from the air.

    --- The movie shows Irving giving no response and looking dumbfounded when Rampton argues that the SS barracks at Auschwitz were 2.5 to 3 miles from Crematorium 2 and that therefore the building would have been useless as an air raid shelter because the SS troops would have been killed before they could get to it. However, if you read the trial transcript, you discover (1) that Rampton's own expert witness on Auschwitz, Professor Robert Van Pelt, said the SS barracks were 1.5 miles from the bullding, not 2.5 or 3 miles, and (2) that Irving pointed out that the German early warning radar system would have alerted Auschwitz authorities of an approaching air raid in plenty of time for the SS troops to get to Crematorium 2 from their barracks before the bombers arrived (even if their barracks had been 3 miles from the building).

    --- The movie shows Irving giving no response and looking dumbfounded when Rampton dramatically asks him why Crematorium 2 had a gas-tight door with a peep hole with double 8-millimeter-thick glass and a metal grill. However, if you read the trial transcript, you discover that Irving responded by noting that the door had the features of a standard air raid door, and that German air raid manuals included pictures of "precisely these doors with the peep holes."

    None of this proves that Crematorium 2 was not used as a gas chamber to kill Jews. There is no reason the crematorium could not have served as a killing chamber and as an air raid shelter. The two functions were not mutually exclusive. But Lipstadt's lawyers apparently felt that admitting this possibility would somehow damage their case. In any event, my point here is that the movie severely misrepresents the exchanges between Rampton and Irving on the function of Crematorium 2.

    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.

    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. This position has nothing to do with the Holocaust, and there is considerable evidence that supports it.

    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:

     
  2. CL1

    CL1 116th LAA and 92nd (Loyals) LAA,Royal Artillery

    Hello Michael

    Well as soon as the Holocaust is mentioned on this forum it turns heads particularly when it is a new members first post
    Does seem a tad that you are on his side.
    Perhaps its me lacking any academic genes in my body that cant see any further than that
    The bloke you mention is a rabid denier simple as that ,regardless of the film you mention

    I will let other members reply if they so wish to do so
     
  3. No, David Irving is not a Holocaust denier. In fact, there are videos you can watch online that show Irving arguing with real Holocaust deniers where he tells them that they're wrong and presents evidence that at least 3.5 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis.

    I disagree vehemently with Irving about Israel, and I find many of his comments about Jews to be offensive, but the man is not a Holocaust denier.
     
  4. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    My only replies would be unprintable.
     
    Orwell1984 and CL1 like this.
  5. CL1

    CL1 116th LAA and 92nd (Loyals) LAA,Royal Artillery

    Michael

    As i stated your first post re denial, most believe he is.
     
  6. Well, as we know from the trial materials, Deborah Lipstadt herself admitted twice in private correspondence that Irving had *not* denied the Holocaust. I quote from those sources in my post. Just because most people believe something does not automatically make it true, especially on a subject like this.

    Again, I could provide links to videos where Irving argues with real Holocaust deniers and tells them they're wrong for claiming that relatively few Jews were murdered, and where Irving presents evidence from primary sources that at least 3.5 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. Here's an excerpt from the transcript of one of those videos:

    Time: 1:07:19

    [After discussing the evidence that proves the Hoeffler document is genuine, Irving says the following:]

    Irving: I will say that if this document [the Hoeffler document] is genuine, it’s a terrible black eye for the extreme revisionists, who said that nothing at all happened to the Jews. . . . The short answer is that it’s genuine. . . .

    Time: 1:27:46

    Irving: That is disturbing: 33,000 children killed by the SS in seven months. . . . I suggest to you that the numbers, the ballpark figures, are about right. Up to a million killed in the police operations, I think, in the shooting-in-the-pit operations up to Barbarossa and after Barbarossa. Operation Reinhardt, 1.25 million in 1942 and the same number in 1943. That’s 3.5 million straight away, and we’re not even talking about Auschwitz. . . .

    Time: 1:39:10

    Audience: So there very well could have been 6 million Jews that were “processed” [liquidated] by the Nazis?

    Irving: Well, we’re in the ballpark. That’s why I think the revisionists make a mistake questioning those numbers, and I can understand the Jews being deeply aggrieved that these horrible numbers are being questioned by revisionists, . . .
     
  7. Chris C

    Chris C Canadian

    I found something to say which isn't swear words.

    I think that minimizing the Holocaust is just a way to soft-peddle and normalize denial. I don't think Irving needs defenders. I don't think there is merit in analyzing a Hollywood drama, even one based on fact, as if it were a documentary. I think that making this your first thread here paints you as a friend to those who would deny or downplay the Holocaust and I think that is disgusting. I want nothing to do with you and will not read any of your posts here.
     
    Orwell1984, Andsco and CL1 like this.
  8. CL1

    CL1 116th LAA and 92nd (Loyals) LAA,Royal Artillery

    Michael

    you need to bark up another tree on this forum
    sorry but you are defending him
    all the nonsense re talking Hebrew and liking Jewish people makes us smell a rat
     
  9. Orwell1984

    Orwell1984 Senior Member

    From Aug 2021:
    We Caught ‘Historian’ David Irving Denying the Holocaust on a Hot Mic

    Irving is a shite historian and an even worse person.

    On a side note, I've noticed over the years posting on various military forums that outright Holocaust deniers have faded away but Holocaust minimalizers have increased (the numbers aren't as big. it wasn't just the Jews, what about the Soviets, it wasn't as bad as it was mostly deaths from disease etc) in recent years due to this approach being more "socially acceptable " (I'm just curious, I'm just asking questions) and also as a way to avoid outright banning.

    In addition I'll add that any discussion that starts with an statement similar to " Some of my best friends are" or " I have great admiration for (blank) but" always makes my bullshit sensor ping.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2022
    Chris C likes this.
  10. Orwell1984

    Orwell1984 Senior Member

    Owen and AB64 like this.
  11. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Absolutely the favourite methodology for a long time now.
    Introduce 'doubt', twist the knife, try to sound 'reasonable'. Followed by a mewling form of passivity when confronted.
    'Oim just a poor little fella askin' questions. Oh why would you be so mean?'

    Attacking a film about Holocaust denial rather than hammering straight into Auschwitz seems a perfect example of this more indirect approach.
    I almost miss the shouty crackers style, which at least had a modicum of honesty in views rather than the oily whisperings here.

    Anyway...
    The documents, transcripts etc. from the trial are fairly easily found. No successful appeal was made, and the film received no successful writ either.
    We used to toy with these people, discuss recipes etc., as ignoring them has always been the worst possible outcome for their online games (beyond them going back to their fellow travellers able to say 'look! The fools! Only we know the TRUTH!').

    A part of that toying was to give Ron a chance to comment too, which had a certain power in itself.
    Ron's not here any more, so a nice clean banning it is, but he also used to always send a thank you message when we eventually bluntly told them to fuck off.

    So on Ron's behalf, and in his memory:
    Fuck off. 'Michael'.

    ~A
     
    davidbfpo, Andsco, Owen and 4 others like this.

Share This Page