Deborah Lipstadt: The Adolf Eichmann Trial

In 1961, Deborah Lipstadt (Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish History and Holocaust Studies, Emory University)-then only 13 years old-sat transfixed in front of the television with her family as Adolf Eichmann was accused of being the chief operational officer of the Final Solution. More than 30 years later, Lipstadt found herself at the center of another highly publicized Holocaust trial, this time as a Holocaust historian accused of libel. In the Eichmann trial, survivors’ courtroom testimony-which was itself not without controversy-played a central role in convicting Eichmann. Lipstadt discusses the raw anti-Semitism that provided fertile ground for Eichmann’s commission of the crimes, crimes that Irving later denied.

[@susannebuchholz785]

Thank you very much for sharing this interesting lecture!!!

[@tenplus1025]

Thank you for providing this gem 💎

[@Lanark83]

Very compelling talk.

[@jaminavestajugo3456]

So interesting to hear sprinklings of Hebrew through the lecture. Just wondering, how common is it among Jewish communities in the US to learn Hebrew?

[@elyjane6078]

It is the norm to learn and speak Hebrew through religious studies then usually spending time in Israel

[@lizgichora6472]

Thank you for this detailed lecture, pursuing Justice is liberating not only oneself but also ones opponent.

[@amoshtael1844]

Brilliant!!

[@baerlauchstal]

It would have been interesting to hear more about the London libel trial. My understanding is that the defence team made a very deliberate decision *not* to go down the road that the prosecutors at the Eichmann trial had: no harrowing witness testimonies and so on. Instead, they calculated that the most important thing was to play to win, because a loss would be a gift to antisemites everywhere, and because a win, given England's libel laws, was far from nailed on. (There's also the fact that English judges tend to have a strong preference for this kind of undemonstrative, businesslike, just-the-facts approach on the part of counsel; this always strikes me as at odds with the over-the-top theatricality of everybody's costumes!) So the defence was remorselessly factual and focused, showing meticulously that Irving had made statements about the Holocaust, in his capacity as a supposed expert, that were untrue and that he must have known, or ought to have known, were untrue. They did a fantastic job in what was actually quite a tight spot, is my understanding.

[@t.l.1610]

She has written a book about the Irving trial, as well as done many speeches. One of her primary motivations for not having survivors testify is that Irving was representing himself & would be cross examining them. You really should look up her other talks. They did a great job with that trial. Irving should never have sued.