Translator: Mohamed Gaafar Checker: Nada Qanbar
I came to you today to tell you about liars, issues and laughter.
The first time I heard about the denial of the Holocaust, I laughed.
Holocaust denial?
The Holocaust, which has no doubt that it is the best document of genocide in the world?
How can one believe that it never happened?
Think about it?
If the wicked are right, who would be wrong?
First and foremost victims –
The survivors who told us their horrific stories.
Who will also be wrong?
Onlookers.
Humans living in mazes towns, villages and cities on the eastern front
Who saw their neighbors’ gathering of men, women, children, young people, and adults
They go to the outskirts of town to shoot them and leave them dead in trenches.
Or Poles who lived in villages and cities around death camps.
Who were watching day after day
Trains crowded with people enter and exit empty.
But before all this, who would really be wrong?
The aggressors.
People who say, “We did this, I did it.”
Now they may be making a runaway.
They say “I had no choice, I was forced to do this.”
But before this they say “I did this.”
Think about it.
There has been no trial of a war crime since the end of World War II
That said the aggressor of any nationality never “did not happen this”
Again, they might say “I was forced” but they never said it did not happen.
When I thought about this, I decided to put Holocaust denial out of my agenda.
I have bigger things to pay attention to, write and research
So I put it all back.
After more than a decade, two of my greatest scientists continued to contact me
Two of the most famous historians of the Holocaust continue with me saying:
“Deborah, we’ll have coffee together, we have a research idea that we think is perfect for you.”
I am impressed and feel that they came to me with an idea and thought I deserved it,
I asked them: “What is it?”
They replied, “Holocaust denial.”
She laughed for the second time.
Holocaust denial?
Believers that the earth is flat?
Or those who believe that Alves is still alive?
Should I study them?
But the two said, “Yes, we are passionate.”
What they believe? What are their goals? How do they convince people what they say? “
So I thought, if they think it’s worth it,
I can go into this briefly –
Perhaps a year, or two or three, perhaps even four years –
In the academic term, this is a brief period.
(Laughter)
We are working very slowly.
(Laughter)
I looked at them.
I ordered it. I finished the research, and went out several things
I wanted to share with you two of them today.
The first: the evil ones are wolves disguised in the skin of the lambs
Just like the Nazis, the neo-Nazis
You have the freedom if you want to put the word “new” there or delete it.
But when you studied them
I did not see any uniforms similar to those of special death squads
Or symbols such as the square star on the walls,
Or the salute of the Hitlerite “Hayal”
None of this.
But instead found
People who march as if they are respected academics.
What do they have? They had an institute. “Institute for Historical Reviews”
They have a quarterly newsletter – an elegant bulletin –
Bulletin “Historical Reviews”
It is full of pages, pages full of sliders.
They became a new name as well.
Not neo-Nazis
And not anti-Semitic
Corrective.
“We are corrective.
We went out to accomplish a single task: correct errors in history.
But all we had to do was to dig a little deeper under the surface
And what will you find there?
The same hypocrisy (Hitler), the glorification of the Third Reich,
Anti-Semitism, racism and intolerance.
That’s what intrigued me.
They were supporters of anti-Semitism and racism pretending to be rational discourse.
The other thing I discovered –
We have seen a slide that illustrates the difference between facts and opinions
Many of us have learned to differentiate between facts and opinions
After studying the deniers, I began to think differently.
There are facts and there are opinions and there are lies.
What the deniers want to do is to put their lies,
In the clothing of opinions perhaps as a kind of extreme views,
Or some kind of innovative views outside the Fund
But then, if those are views, they must become part of the conversation.
And then they dig on the facts.
I publish my work, and then publish the book,
“Holocaust denial, a growing attack on truth and memory.”
It has been published in many countries, including (Penguin) in the UK here,
I have finished these people and resolved to move forward.
However, I received a letter from the town of Benguen in the United Kingdom.
She laughed for the third time
by mistake
The letter opened
I learned from the letter that (David Irving) will file a lawsuit against me
in the UK.
Because I called him a Holocaust denier.
Will you judge me (David Irving)?
Who is David Irving?
(David Irving) is a historical writer, most of whom revolve around the Second World War,
All his work has often adopted the position that the Nazis were not so bad,
And that the allies were not so virtuous.
And that the Jews, whatever happened to them, deserved it somewhat.
He knows the documents and knows the facts
But he bent her neck in some way to reach his point of view.
He was not a Holocaust denier throughout his life.
But he embraced this thought in the late 1980s,
I embraced him with great passion.
The reason I was also embarrassed was that this guy
He was not only denying the Holocaust.
But he seemed proud of it.
Here stands a man, and I convey it literally,
“The ship will be sinking (Auschwitz),” he said.
Here the man stands
Who pointed to the numbers that were tattooed on the arms of the survivors and said:
“How much money did you make from marking this figure with a tattoo on your arms?”
Here stands the man who said:
“More people have died in Senator Kennedy’s car in Chabakwedek,
About those who died in gas chambers in (Auschwitz). “
This is an American reference, but you can search for this.
This man did not seem to be ashamed at all or hiding
Being one of the Holocaust deniers.
Now, he points to many of my academic colleagues
“Oh, just ignore it (Deborah).”
But when I told them that you could not ignore a libel suit,
They said, “Who will believe him anyway?”
But the problem:
English law puts the burden of proof on me
To prove the sincerity of what I said
Contrary to what would have been the case in the United States of America
Many other countries would have had the burden of proof.
What did this mean?
If I do not fight, I’ll win automatically.
If he wins automatically, he can legitimately say,
“David Irving’s interpretation of the Holocaust is a legitimate one.
Deborah Lebstadt was convicted of lying
When she called me a denier of the Holocaust.
Indeed, I (David Irving) are not Holocaust deniers. “
What is this version?
That there was no plan to kill the Jews,
And that there is no gas chambers,
There was no mass murder,
And that Hitler had nothing to do with the suffering and suffering
And that the Jews made up all this
To get money from Germany
In order to obtain a state,
They did this with the help, support and encouragement of allies
They have planted documents and evidence
I could not let this happen
I was confronted by a survivor after that or the children of a survivor.
I could not let this happen
I considered myself a responsible historian.
So we fought.
I say to those who have not seen “denial” before
Warning Luminous:
We won.
(Laughter)
(clap)
The judge decided that David Irving was a liar
Racial and anti-Semitic and his historical theories were tendentious,
I have lied, distorted –
And more importantly
He did this deliberately.
We have introduced a system of more than 25 different major events.
Not many small things – many of the attendees are authors of books
Or write books,
And always make mistakes, and therefore we are happy to issue the second editions:
We correct the errors.
(Laughter)
But these have always been moving in the same direction:
Blaming the Jews and defaming the Nazis.
But how did we win?
What we have done is to follow his e-mail back to his sources.
What did we find?
In most cases, and in most cases,
But every time he referred to the Holocaust,
His proposed guide was different,
Half truth,
Change dates,
Change the sequence
Put someone in a meeting you did not attend.
In other words, he had no evidence.
His guide did not prove the order.
We did not prove what happened.
But we proved that what he said is that it happened
This applies to all deniers as it is either transferred from them
Or that they relied on their arguments
It was not true.
What they claimed
They did not have proof to prove it.
So what makes my story more than a story
For a difficult and perplexing issue spanning six years,
An American university professor dragged into courtrooms
By a person declared by the court in its judgment
Is he a pro-neo-Nazi?
What is the significance of this?
I think it is in the context of searching for the truth
Is of fundamental significance.
Because today, as we all know well,
That truth and facts are under bombardment.
Despite all the benefits of our social networks
But it allowed the difference between facts-facts-and-lies alike.
Third: Extremism
You may not see Cox’s Klan coats.
You will not see burning crosses
Perhaps you will not hear directly terms that transcend the white race.
They may go through names like “right-alternative” or “national front” -who chose what suits you.
But in essence, it is the same extremism that I found in denying the Holocaust
And his demonstration as a rational discourse.
We live in an age where the right of defense is taken.
I remembered a cartoon from New York.
A competition program recently appeared in The New Yorker,
Where the host of the contest program for one of the contestants
“Yes, Madam, I answered the right answer.
But your opponent cried louder than you. So he got the points. “
what can we do?
first and foremost,
We can not allow ourselves to be deceived by rationality
Must look at the depths,
We will find extremism there.
Second,
You should know that the right is not relative.
Thirdly, we must start with an attack, not a defense.
When a person makes a disgraceful allegation,
Even if they hold the highest positions in the country
If not in the world
We must tell them,
“Where does it prove?
Where is the guide? “
We must put them on a hot tin.
We must not treat their lies as facts.
As I said earlier, the right is not relative.
Many of us grew up in the academic world
Enlightened and liberal ideas,
Where we learned that everything is available for cash.
But this is not the case here.
There are certain things real.
There are irrefutable facts –
Objective facts.
Galileo taught us centuries ago?
Even after the Vatican forced him to deny that the earth was moving around the sun,
We went out, and what he said he said
It remains influential so far
The land is not flat.
The climate is changing.
And (Alves) is not alive.
(Laughter)
(clap)
Most importantly,
That truth and facts are under bombardment.
The work ahead,
The task before us,
The challenge we face
Great.
Battle time is short.
We must act now
Otherwise it will be too late.
Thank you so much.
(clap)
I came to you today to tell you about liars, issues and laughter.
The first time I heard about the denial of the Holocaust, I laughed.
Holocaust denial?
The Holocaust, which has no doubt that it is the best document of genocide in the world?
How can one believe that it never happened?
Think about it?
If the wicked are right, who would be wrong?
First and foremost victims –
The survivors who told us their horrific stories.
Who will also be wrong?
Onlookers.
Humans living in mazes towns, villages and cities on the eastern front
Who saw their neighbors’ gathering of men, women, children, young people, and adults
They go to the outskirts of town to shoot them and leave them dead in trenches.
Or Poles who lived in villages and cities around death camps.
Who were watching day after day
Trains crowded with people enter and exit empty.
But before all this, who would really be wrong?
The aggressors.
People who say, “We did this, I did it.”
Now they may be making a runaway.
They say “I had no choice, I was forced to do this.”
But before this they say “I did this.”
Think about it.
There has been no trial of a war crime since the end of World War II
That said the aggressor of any nationality never “did not happen this”
Again, they might say “I was forced” but they never said it did not happen.
When I thought about this, I decided to put Holocaust denial out of my agenda.
I have bigger things to pay attention to, write and research
So I put it all back.
After more than a decade, two of my greatest scientists continued to contact me
Two of the most famous historians of the Holocaust continue with me saying:
“Deborah, we’ll have coffee together, we have a research idea that we think is perfect for you.”
I am impressed and feel that they came to me with an idea and thought I deserved it,
I asked them: “What is it?”
They replied, “Holocaust denial.”
She laughed for the second time.
Holocaust denial?
Believers that the earth is flat?
Or those who believe that Alves is still alive?
Should I study them?
But the two said, “Yes, we are passionate.”
What they believe? What are their goals? How do they convince people what they say? “
So I thought, if they think it’s worth it,
I can go into this briefly –
Perhaps a year, or two or three, perhaps even four years –
In the academic term, this is a brief period.
(Laughter)
We are working very slowly.
(Laughter)
I looked at them.
I ordered it. I finished the research, and went out several things
I wanted to share with you two of them today.
The first: the evil ones are wolves disguised in the skin of the lambs
Just like the Nazis, the neo-Nazis
You have the freedom if you want to put the word “new” there or delete it.
But when you studied them
I did not see any uniforms similar to those of special death squads
Or symbols such as the square star on the walls,
Or the salute of the Hitlerite “Hayal”
None of this.
But instead found
People who march as if they are respected academics.
What do they have? They had an institute. “Institute for Historical Reviews”
They have a quarterly newsletter – an elegant bulletin –
Bulletin “Historical Reviews”
It is full of pages, pages full of sliders.
They became a new name as well.
Not neo-Nazis
And not anti-Semitic
Corrective.
“We are corrective.
We went out to accomplish a single task: correct errors in history.
But all we had to do was to dig a little deeper under the surface
And what will you find there?
The same hypocrisy (Hitler), the glorification of the Third Reich,
Anti-Semitism, racism and intolerance.
That’s what intrigued me.
They were supporters of anti-Semitism and racism pretending to be rational discourse.
The other thing I discovered –
We have seen a slide that illustrates the difference between facts and opinions
Many of us have learned to differentiate between facts and opinions
After studying the deniers, I began to think differently.
There are facts and there are opinions and there are lies.
What the deniers want to do is to put their lies,
In the clothing of opinions perhaps as a kind of extreme views,
Or some kind of innovative views outside the Fund
But then, if those are views, they must become part of the conversation.
And then they dig on the facts.
I publish my work, and then publish the book,
“Holocaust denial, a growing attack on truth and memory.”
It has been published in many countries, including (Penguin) in the UK here,
I have finished these people and resolved to move forward.
However, I received a letter from the town of Benguen in the United Kingdom.
She laughed for the third time
by mistake
The letter opened
I learned from the letter that (David Irving) will file a lawsuit against me
in the UK.
Because I called him a Holocaust denier.
Will you judge me (David Irving)?
Who is David Irving?
(David Irving) is a historical writer, most of whom revolve around the Second World War,
All his work has often adopted the position that the Nazis were not so bad,
And that the allies were not so virtuous.
And that the Jews, whatever happened to them, deserved it somewhat.
He knows the documents and knows the facts
But he bent her neck in some way to reach his point of view.
He was not a Holocaust denier throughout his life.
But he embraced this thought in the late 1980s,
I embraced him with great passion.
The reason I was also embarrassed was that this guy
He was not only denying the Holocaust.
But he seemed proud of it.
Here stands a man, and I convey it literally,
“The ship will be sinking (Auschwitz),” he said.
Here the man stands
Who pointed to the numbers that were tattooed on the arms of the survivors and said:
“How much money did you make from marking this figure with a tattoo on your arms?”
Here stands the man who said:
“More people have died in Senator Kennedy’s car in Chabakwedek,
About those who died in gas chambers in (Auschwitz). “
This is an American reference, but you can search for this.
This man did not seem to be ashamed at all or hiding
Being one of the Holocaust deniers.
Now, he points to many of my academic colleagues
“Oh, just ignore it (Deborah).”
But when I told them that you could not ignore a libel suit,
They said, “Who will believe him anyway?”
But the problem:
English law puts the burden of proof on me
To prove the sincerity of what I said
Contrary to what would have been the case in the United States of America
Many other countries would have had the burden of proof.
What did this mean?
If I do not fight, I’ll win automatically.
If he wins automatically, he can legitimately say,
“David Irving’s interpretation of the Holocaust is a legitimate one.
Deborah Lebstadt was convicted of lying
When she called me a denier of the Holocaust.
Indeed, I (David Irving) are not Holocaust deniers. “
What is this version?
That there was no plan to kill the Jews,
And that there is no gas chambers,
There was no mass murder,
And that Hitler had nothing to do with the suffering and suffering
And that the Jews made up all this
To get money from Germany
In order to obtain a state,
They did this with the help, support and encouragement of allies
They have planted documents and evidence
I could not let this happen
I was confronted by a survivor after that or the children of a survivor.
I could not let this happen
I considered myself a responsible historian.
So we fought.
I say to those who have not seen “denial” before
Warning Luminous:
We won.
(Laughter)
(clap)
The judge decided that David Irving was a liar
Racial and anti-Semitic and his historical theories were tendentious,
I have lied, distorted –
And more importantly
He did this deliberately.
We have introduced a system of more than 25 different major events.
Not many small things – many of the attendees are authors of books
Or write books,
And always make mistakes, and therefore we are happy to issue the second editions:
We correct the errors.
(Laughter)
But these have always been moving in the same direction:
Blaming the Jews and defaming the Nazis.
But how did we win?
What we have done is to follow his e-mail back to his sources.
What did we find?
In most cases, and in most cases,
But every time he referred to the Holocaust,
His proposed guide was different,
Half truth,
Change dates,
Change the sequence
Put someone in a meeting you did not attend.
In other words, he had no evidence.
His guide did not prove the order.
We did not prove what happened.
But we proved that what he said is that it happened
This applies to all deniers as it is either transferred from them
Or that they relied on their arguments
It was not true.
What they claimed
They did not have proof to prove it.
So what makes my story more than a story
For a difficult and perplexing issue spanning six years,
An American university professor dragged into courtrooms
By a person declared by the court in its judgment
Is he a pro-neo-Nazi?
What is the significance of this?
I think it is in the context of searching for the truth
Is of fundamental significance.
Because today, as we all know well,
That truth and facts are under bombardment.
Despite all the benefits of our social networks
But it allowed the difference between facts-facts-and-lies alike.
Third: Extremism
You may not see Cox’s Klan coats.
You will not see burning crosses
Perhaps you will not hear directly terms that transcend the white race.
They may go through names like “right-alternative” or “national front” -who chose what suits you.
But in essence, it is the same extremism that I found in denying the Holocaust
And his demonstration as a rational discourse.
We live in an age where the right of defense is taken.
I remembered a cartoon from New York.
A competition program recently appeared in The New Yorker,
Where the host of the contest program for one of the contestants
“Yes, Madam, I answered the right answer.
But your opponent cried louder than you. So he got the points. “
what can we do?
first and foremost,
We can not allow ourselves to be deceived by rationality
Must look at the depths,
We will find extremism there.
Second,
You should know that the right is not relative.
Thirdly, we must start with an attack, not a defense.
When a person makes a disgraceful allegation,
Even if they hold the highest positions in the country
If not in the world
We must tell them,
“Where does it prove?
Where is the guide? “
We must put them on a hot tin.
We must not treat their lies as facts.
As I said earlier, the right is not relative.
Many of us grew up in the academic world
Enlightened and liberal ideas,
Where we learned that everything is available for cash.
But this is not the case here.
There are certain things real.
There are irrefutable facts –
Objective facts.
Galileo taught us centuries ago?
Even after the Vatican forced him to deny that the earth was moving around the sun,
We went out, and what he said he said
It remains influential so far
The land is not flat.
The climate is changing.
And (Alves) is not alive.
(Laughter)
(clap)
Most importantly,
That truth and facts are under bombardment.
The work ahead,
The task before us,
The challenge we face
Great.
Battle time is short.
We must act now
Otherwise it will be too late.
Thank you so much.
(clap)
Please follow and like us: