The title of my blog post today is the last sentence in a news article, about a new movie, which tells the story of David Irving’s lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/movies/denial-review-rachel-weisz-denial.html?_r=0
Irving lost the case because he made the mistake of arguing the case himself, instead of hiring a lawyer to represent him.
David Irving is like a walking encyclopedia: he knows the Holocaust backwards and forward, but he is getting on in years and his memory is not what it used to be. He should have hired a lawyer.
I think that the photo above gives a wrong impression of David Irving. On the two occasions, in which I have met David Irving in person, he wore a three piece suit, not a sweater. The actor, who is playing the part of Irving, does not resemble Irving at all. David Irving is much better looking than this actor; at least in his younger days, Irving was better looking than this actor.
The photo below shows what David Irving looked like the last time that I saw him, a few years ago.
The following quote is from the news article:
[The movie entitled] “Denial” begins with Mr. Irving loudly interrupting one of Ms. Lipstadt’s lectures at Emory University in Atlanta, where she teaches history, by offering $1,000 to anyone who can prove the Nazis gassed Jews at Auschwitz. It’s a tense moment for Ms. Lipstadt, who has vowed never to debate with anyone like Mr. Irving, a notorious gadfly who has built a lucrative career by claiming the Holocaust didn’t happen.
David Irving does not claim that “the Holocaust didn’t happen.” No, he claims that the Holocaust didn’t happen the way that the Jews claim that it did. I agree with everything that David Irving says about the Holocaust.
The news article continues with this quote:
Shortly after his visit, Mr. Irving brought a lawsuit in Britain against Ms. Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz), and her publisher, Penguin Books, for calling him a Holocaust denier and hurting his reputation as a historian. In his writings, Mr. Irving, an admirer of Hitler, insists there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz and that any deaths there were the results of illness and starvation.
But in Britain, where libel laws differ from those in the United States, the burden of proof is on the defendant. To Ms. Lipstadt’s chagrin, she and her legal team must focus on disproving Mr. Irving’s evidence.
Surely the creators could have found some compelling drama in the characters’ personal lives. But “Denial” rarely ventures outside its narrow journalistic parameters. Once the verdict is rendered, there is no judicial post-mortem, only an exhausted sigh of relief. As the world knows, the court ruled in Ms. Lipstadt’s favor.
In my humble opinion, I think that it is a crying shame that David Irving’s illustrious career ends this way. The Jews have won the case, but at what cost!