Author of this article: Autumn leaves drift zero
How could Auschwitz be merely a defense?
Film review: The "Holocaust" genocide perpetrated by the Nazis did not exist at all?
The British film Denial was filmed in 2016 and is based on true events, directed by Mick Jackson. The film revolves around a defamation lawsuit, with limited scenes, monotonous pictures, uncomplicated characters, and no twists and turns in the storyline. But it's wide-ranging and thought-provoking.
Let's start with the plot. Deborah Lipsstadt, a female teacher at a university in Atlanta, not only spoke about the Holocaust of World War II in class, but also gave a speech on Retired Soldiers' Day, pointing out that David Owen's books ignore historical facts. Unexpectedly, the person refuted it on the spot, and then took the female teacher to court on the charge of defamation. The two sides (either themselves or in a lawyer) engaged in a court of debate in the Royal Court of Justice, and the words of war were tit-for-tat. The lawsuit lasted eight months and cost three million pounds, creating a social sensation. In the end, Deborah won.
The title is striking and concise, and there are several layers of meaning: Irving's denial of the Holocaust, which leads to Deborah's denial of his historical theory, Owen denies Deborah's denial with defamation, and finally the court's denial of the prosecution's so-called defamation. Conclusion: The Holocaust is an unquestionably brutal and true history.
This is the common sense of modern history, and it is necessary to argue again and again. Looking at the two stirring crowds gathered at the entrance of the courthouse, we know that this is a war without smoke and smoke that must be answered and must be won. Otherwise, heaven forbid!
Owen was abandoned by his father at the age of four and idolized Hitler at the age of eight. Self-taught, idolatrous, and in the book denies the Holocaust. Investigated, the initiator is the irresponsible father. Weak and cowardly, psychologically depressed and perverted, often worship the so-called strong. If it is due to the revenge psychology of the predecessors who were liquidated after the war, the problem is simpler. So many people outside the courthouse, all descendants of the Nazis? No way.
Neo-Nazism, skinheads and the like, blatantly defined the victory or defeat of the post-World War II reversal, what is the motive? I think it was the cultural malaise of Western society, anti-Semitism, that Hitler exploited this long and pervasive tradition of racial discrimination.
The wisdom of the Jews is universally recognized. In the past century, 17% of the Nobel Prize list and 40% of the economics list have made outstanding contributions to the development of human culture. What exactly does this bias come from? Some people say that because of Judas who betrayed Jesus, wasn't Jesus also a Jew?
The Jews do not recognize this account, their Bibles only have the Old Testament, the Savior is God Jehovah, and do not recognize Jesus as the Christ (Savior). And the Old Testament makes it clear that the Jews are God's chosen people and will eventually be redeemed for their souls. This is very different from christianity, which preaches that all believers are saved, so it is difficult to become a universal religion.
In reality, Jews also disagreed on religious issues. I have been abroad to tall Catholic churches, ornate Orthodox churches, simple Protestant churches, but I can't get into synagogues. An acquaintance who had taken care of his daughter-in-law brought him to see it, but he was rejected. I guess either the contrast between the sense of doctrinal superiority and the reality is too great—more than two thousand years of displacement, provoking ridicule and hostility from outsiders. It's complicated, it's not good to say.
There is also a mutual denial within a homogeneous and heterogeneous culture, which is manifested between Deborah and the British team of lawyers who defended him. At first, Deborah was confident: I had two advantages, a woman and a Jew. The former, is the ladies of the gentleman's society priority? The latter needless to say, the victim represents, and facts speak louder than words.
Unexpectedly, the polite British gentleman did not let her speak in court at all, and she repeatedly stressed that I was a teacher with a strong mouth and kung fu, and not appearing in court would be regarded as a coward, and the other party said: "This is the price you have to pay for winning this lawsuit."
Why did you go to England to fight a lawsuit? This is Owen's ghost idea to throw the puzzle to the opponent. In the United States, the prosecution seeks evidence to prove that what the other party says is false, while in the United Kingdom, the defense proves that what it says is true. In the opening scene, Owen yells: There is no massacre at all, where is the evidence? The female teacher said in class: The Nazis made sure no one had ever filmed Jewish footage of the gas chambers. Tricky!
The head of the legal team is anthony anthony, a well-known lawyer who has represented Diana in the divorce case. Julis, who was young and powerful, declared that he would not appear in court, and hired an old man, Richard, who said that he was the most defense-minded barrister in Britain. The old man asked Deborah and the others to go to Auschwitz together. The sky is overcast, only the barbed wire and ruins, a slip of the steps, leading to the underground. Before the end of the war, the German army blew up and burned all the buildings that were slaughtered, and it could only be judged according to the layout drawings of the surviving painters, where were the stripping rooms, gas chambers, etc. Escort reminder: Keep an eye on your feet, "Here is a temple". Deborah didn't see anything famous, and she was in vain.
Before the trial, Anthony proposed not to have a jury, asking: Are you willing to drag a passerby who has not read your book but talks nonsense? Owen nodded foolishly. They also came to Owen's diary for 20 years and worked extensively on desks to check for clues.
At the trial, Owen did not hire a lawyer, 80% of the people with brains were unwilling, the brainless added to the chaos, shirtless to fight for themselves to defend themselves. Reporters gathered, and Spielberg, the director of "Schindler's List," is said to have come to observe. Deborah is being guarded, someone is scaring her life, and Anthony reminds you that the best route to run every day is different.
Owen said that the defendant had influenced his career and that the publisher had abandoned him. Richard held up the book unceremoniously: he was not a historian, he was a liar. Previously published acknowledgments of the Holocaust were later denied because of Lloydt. The man stole the remnants at Auschwitz and tested them to say that the gas was used to kill lice and that Jews died of infectious diseases.
In an adjournment, a Jewish woman stopped Deborah and rolled up her sleeves to show her tattoo number: As survivors, we must let the world hear our voices. The female teacher burst into tears: I swear! Tell Anthony that they will not allow it, they have walked in hell, the wounds have not healed, "judgment is not healing." Why? Deborah was furious, and Richard rolled up his sleeves and left. Anthony showed her the video: Owen viciously mocked the poor woman, how much money did you make with this tattoo?
The focus of the court debate is, is there a gas chamber? Owen first denied that it was the laborer's residence, and there were no hollow pipe pillars to cast poison gas. After the change, yes, is to disinfect the sick and dead. Richard asked: Is it necessary? The corpses that will be burned. Owen changed his tune: it was an SS bomb shelter. It's 2.5 miles away, don't you think it's too far? Owen sophistry: I studied Hitler and didn't know much about the Holocaust. So why are you spewing all over this issue?
Deborah then understood that the old man was late that day, and he was going to step to measure the distance. Back at the hotel, she gladly apologized to the old man and took Auschwitz.1 Saying that he grew up doing things with conscience, Richard said: Sometimes feelings are not the most effective. The dialogue between the two involves the relationship between motive (purpose) justice and procedural (method) justice. Enthusiasm for justice does not guarantee success, but requires objective evidence, cool head, rigorous logic, sound judgment, meticulous reasoning, and so on.
The team of English lawyers pays great attention to every aspect of the legal process. First, deborah was not allowed to appear in court to defend herself. "We're going to target Owen and 'starve' him to death. When you play, you 'feed' him." My understanding is that, as a woman, it is more emotional; as a Jew, it is easy to be emotional. Second, the surviving Jews were not allowed to testify. Because of time and pain, memories are inevitably wrong, and it is difficult to give people a handle. Third, do not juries, mixed fish, avoid blind attachment. To dig and search for clues and traces of history and the details of the daily words and deeds of opponents, we must not shout blindly without any reason, higher than the voice of anyone. Only the indisputable details of facts can be cast into irrefutable ironclad evidence.
Sure enough, they found the black and white letters in Owen's diary and sang anti-Semitic nursery rhymes to their 9-month-old daughter. Owen left it alone, it was written by someone. The judge was dumbfounded: no defamation lawsuit was filed! Richard pointed out that the 25 errors in the European documents were not accidental but deliberately distorted history to exonerate Hitler.
Seeing that he was about to win a great victory, the judge suddenly asked: If Owen is an extreme anti-Semite who believes his historical accounts completely, how can he accuse him of lying? Deborah was dumbfounded on the spot, asking left and right. It is an acknowledgement that his motives are sincere, and sincerity does not equal correctness. Motivation is subjective, and whether it is correct or not is not up to one's own decision, but by the result or the facts, good intentions may also do bad things. If someone justifies a serious consequence or even a crime on the grounds of good motives, of course, it is not true, and the motive cannot cause harm, only the behavior and the result. If you want to achieve the original intention of good by evil means by any means, it is even more whimsical. Once evil deeds are taken, they are in the opposite direction of good, and they become outright evil in themselves.
Final Verdict: Owen was driven by desire to describe it in a way consistent with his ideology and beliefs, even if it involved distortions and falsifications of historical facts. That is, he self-righteously published historical theories that contradicted the facts. Thus, the defence was founded and the defendant won. There is a detail, the first time the trial began, Deborah did not bow to the judge on the grounds that "I am American", and later bowed her head in greeting. This is not a utilitarian pandering to the local customs, but in many court battles, the rigorous and rigidity of the British is sincerely admired.
Rao was so, Owen also openly claimed that he won the case, and the woman had not been afraid to show her face. In the past, I denied the Holocaust, and now I deny the verdict — or the Holocaust. This kind of blind bastard, still allowing him to speak out of books and nonsense? You can't silence what you say because of choking, what is his freedom, believe it or not is your choice, you must use your own brain to think and judge, in the midst of public opinions to distinguish between true and false. There is no perfect justice, and the conclusions drawn in due process are also relative. For example, in the ruling of 690,000 yuan and a daughter, money is only a substitute for justice.
At the press conference, Deborah made a generous statement: Some people say that this verdict threatens freedom of speech, and I have been fighting those who abuse it. Not all opinions are equal, and free speech doesn't mean you can lie and be irresponsible. In other words, freedom is also relative, with bottom lines and boundaries.
(Image from the Internet, copyright belongs to the original author)