FREE DENIAL: HOLOCAUST HISTORY ON TRIAL PDF Deborah E. Lipstadt | 400 pages | 12 Jan 2017 | HarperCollins Publishers Inc | 9780062659651 | English | New York, United States Denial: Holocaust History on Trial by Deborah E. Lipstadt, Paperback | Barnes & Noble® He sued her for defamation in the high court, alleging, correctly enough, that what she had written damaged his reputation as a popular writer on Nazi Germany and the Second World War. Moreover, I had to swear in court that I had written my report objectively and without any fear or favour, and sign an affidavit to the same effect. Together with my team of researchers, I discovered a huge number of manipulations and falsifications of the historical record in his work, with words inserted into or taken out of documents where they were not present in the original, mistranslations, mistranscriptions, misdatings and much more besides. But the effect was anything but random, indicating that the mistakes were deliberate and not accidental. All of this can Denial: Holocaust History on Trial read in the transcripts of the trial, available online, and in my book Telling Lies About Hitler Verso, The case received massive and worldwide publicity and became the subject of several books apart from my own. It had a powerful educative effect, as all the newspapers carried detailed reports of the factual aspects of the Holocaust, Auschwitz, the gas chambers and the role of Hitler in ordering the extermination of the Jews. That got his attention. He got up and I explained who I was. He remembered the occasion. Not long after this, Ridley Scott started to Denial: Holocaust History on Trial together a movie on the case, commissioning the playwright Ronald Harwood to write a screenplay. Harwood had just won an Oscar for The Pianist and knew a lot about the Nazi period, which he had covered in a number of plays and movies. As someone who was present for most of the three-month Irving trial, I can testify to the fact that trials are mostly tedious in the extreme, with lengthy periods of acute boredom punctuated only briefly by the occasional moment of high drama. These were very few and far between in the Irving v Lipstadt case. Also, there was no individual, personal story on which to hang the action. Movies need a human figure or figures on which to focus and with whom the audience can identify, and in a large and complex legal action there seemed to be nobody who could fit the bill. The book is her own, very personal, account of the trial, beginning with her consternation at being served with an English high court writ, and going on to depict her Denial: Holocaust History on Trial with the lawyers who handled her defence, the solicitor Anthony Julius and the barrister Richard Rampton in the lead. Lipstadt described in detail, often movingly, the frightening experience of a lone author with little or no means being sued for a large sum of money, and facing a complete loss of academic reputation if she Denial: Holocaust History on Trial. He came to see me as part of a series of interviews of participants in the Irving v Lipstadt trial and, as his assistant took copious notes, we talked for two hours about my memories and impressions of a case that now lay more than a decade in the past. In the film we see her shocked and dismayed when the writ is so unexpectedly served, and we follow her determination to defend herself in court as she makes her way to London. Once there, she is shocked all over again when Julius and Rampton tell her she will not be allowed to go onto the witness stand or indeed to say anything at all either inside the courtroom or outside it until the trial is over. Anything that distracted from this would allow him to shift this focus away and muddy the waters. The burden of the defence must rest on the contributions of the expert witnesses, they declare. Reluctantly, Deborah Lipstadt agrees. As we set to work on going through his writings, we became progressively more astonished at what we found. None of this sense of outraged surprise made it through to the movie. When Van Pelt arrived Denial: Holocaust History on Trial Canada, heavily jet-lagged, and took the witness stand, Irving ambushed him towards the end of the day with a specious point that would have taken a good deal of time to refute, much to our consternation. In addition, since movies of course need a touch of glamour, the role of Laura Tyler, a young paralegal assistant who helped prepare and organise the defence, is strengthened by scenes from her private life. The courtroom scenes are taken directly from the trial transcripts, as they ultimately had to be. Some of the dialogue surrounding the trial is invented, and the personality traits of some Denial: Holocaust History on Trial the characters are exaggerated Richard Rampton, for example, was, and is, a bit of a wine buff, but to have him appearing in virtually every scene outside the courtroom clutching a bottle of claret seemed to be rather over the top. But none of this, apart from the initial remarks of myself and my researchers at the preparatory conference, seems to me to betray the essence of what the trial was about or Denial: Holocaust History on Trial it was fought. Her allegations also affected his earnings, since his reputation was built not only on his racy and readable prose style but also on his claim to have discovered more original sources and to be more accurate and thorough than other historians were. That is where I came in. In the event, I found that Irving was indeed a Holocaust denier, at least after the late s. If Irving had merely Denial: Holocaust History on Trial careless, then his mistakes of fact and quotation would have had a random effect on his arguments, some telling for them, some against. The trial was also the subject of a hastily put together drama-documentary on Channel 4 television, in which I appeared in the witness box as an old man with a Denial: Holocaust History on Trial beard, which was evidently what the television people thought Cambridge professors Denial: Holocaust History on Trial like. Some time later, however, there was a more considered documentary on BBC Two, Holocaust on Trialfor which the producers phoned me up beforehand to ask me my age, height, weight and hair colour, with a view to casting an actor who at least looked vaguely like me. The programme was an effective and intelligent mix of archive footage, talking heads and courtroom scenes. Media interest in the case did not die down after the broadcast. The problem, I guess, was that it is notoriously difficult to make courtroom dramas work on the big screen. I told him I felt by this time that it had been a kind of black comedy: it was an action that should never have been brought, with many absurdities Holocaust denial being the most obvious, but Denial: Holocaust History on Trial no means the only oneat the same time as it dealt with the most profound and disturbing of historical issues. Hare commented that everyone he had talked to had Denial: Holocaust History on Trial the trial in a different light. As the two lawyers explain in the film — with the stiff-upper-lip Britishness contrasted with American brashness — the aim of the defence is Denial: Holocaust History on Trial focus exclusively on Irving and his writings and speeches. In a series of meetings to prepare for the trial we assembled a starry cast of experts including Christopher Browning, the leading American specialist on the Holocaust, Robert Jan van Pelt, the Dutch-Canadian historian of Auschwitz and its buildings, and Peter Longerich, author of the major German work in the field. David Hare reduced this team to just Van Pelt and myself. What it did do very well was to transform the tedious and often pedantic detail of the courtroom proceedings into a brief and dramatic summary. In fact, Van Pelt recovered strongly the next day, though this does not really come across on the screen. Perhaps all this means is that indeed, as David Hare had pointed out to me, everyone involved in the trial had a different perspective on it. Understandable though her anxieties were in retrospect, none of us on the defence side had the slightest doubt that we would win; the only question was by how much. Overall, the film is, I think, true to the spirit and mostly also true to the letter of the whole affair. The movie also — perhaps inevitably — plays on the familiar stereotypes of the feisty American and the restrained Brit. Professor Richard J Evans was regius professor of history at the University of Cambridge from until his retirement in What the film did very well was to transform the tedious and often pedantic detail of the courtroom proceedings Denial: Holocaust History on Trial a brief and dramatic summary. Your guide to the Roman empire: when it was formed, why it split and how it failed, plus its most colourful emperors. More on: United Kingdom. You may like. Second World War. The big questions of the Holocaust. How has public memory of the Holocaust changed over the years? The long shadow of Adolf Hitler. New views on the Holocaust and s Britain. Holocaust Denial On Trial: The Real Story Of Irving V Lipstadt In 'Denial' - HistoryExtra The court ruled that Irving's claim of libel relating to Holocaust denial was not valid under English defamation law because Lipstadt's claim that he had deliberately distorted evidence had been shown to be substantially true.