Spoilers ahead.

I recently got around to watching "Denial." It's a movie based on Deborah Lipstadt's book "History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier." The movie was released in September of 2016.

The book/movie revolves around the Irving v Penguin Books Ltd court case. David Irving, a Holocaust denier, sued Deborah, a Holocaust scholar, and her publisher for libel in her book "Denying the Holocaust." The case began in 1996 and the judgment was presented in 2000.

The case is taken into the UK in which the people who have to prove themselves is the accused. So Deborah and her legal team have to prove that the accusations in her book are true. She called him a Holocaust denier and said that he intentionally distorted evidence in favor of his viewpoints.

Initially, Deborah is displeased with the fact that neither she nor will the Holocaust survivors be taking the stand. Her lawyer argues with her over the fact that Irving would just humiliate them during his cross-examination. Especially if they make one wrong move such as saying a door was on one side when it really was on the other. In all fairness, he had a good point. Initially, I was confused as to why he wouldn't want the survivors to testify, because who would be better to explain what really happened, but when he said that, I understood.

The lawyers wanted to keep the case on track. They didn't want it to become a trial on whether or not the Holocaust really happened because that wasn't the issue. The trial was about Lipstadt's claims about Irving and they intended to keep it that way.

They take a visit to Auschwitz and the sight of it just took my breath away. Being Jewish myself this movie really touched me and Deborah's passion about it and the horrors that happened during this time was incredible. They talk about how Auschwitz is at the center for Holocaust proof so it's also the center for Holocaust denial. The main one being that of the gas chambers.

"No holes, no Holocaust." A phrase that flooded the media. According to testimony and drawings, there were supposed holes in the roofs in which the Zyklon B gas crystals would be introduced.

They showed the difference between translations in Irving's books, proving that he changed things. They talked about how he was a racist. My favorite is at the end of the trial the judge says one thing, what if Irving believes what he's saying? As offensive and untrue as his statements are if he believes them, is he really lying? Deborah looks around at her legal team and just says, "What the fuck just happened?" Which was exactly what was going through my mind.

I can only imagine the agonizing wait for his judgment to be released. However, when it was, it was in favor of Lipstadt. The lawyer says he knows it was hard for her to be silent during the trial, but in the end, it was her writings that gave them the advantage.

I know that a movie about a court case sounds a little boring, but it wasn't. This movie was well made and with it being on a topic so huge and talking about the Holocaust and Hitler and to what extent he was involved, it keeps your attention. I found myself wishing I was there because I just wanted to yell. I wanted to give my opinion, I wanted to say something, anything. I mean, I just don't understand how someone could talk about the Holocaust like it was no big deal.

I highly recommend watching this movie. Or even just researching the court case itself and learning about it and what happened.

"Irving is one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial. Familiar with historical evidence, he bends it until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda. A man who is convinced that Britain's great decline was accelerated by its decision to go to war with Germany, he is most facile at taking accurate information and shaping it to confirm his conclusions. A review of his recent book, "Churchill's War", which appeared in "New York Review of Books," accurately analyzed his practice of applying a double standard of evidence. He demands "absolute documentary proof" when it comes to proving the Germans guilty, but he relies on highly circumstantial evidence to condemn the Allies. This is an accurate description not only of Irving's tactics but of those of deniers in general."