You've reached my collection of emails relating to the Irving-v-Lipstadt libel case. They are reproduced unedited, apart from some ellipses (...) to show occasional snips. I've left misspellings, to retain the flavour—it's astonishing how easy it is to misspell, typing into those little email windows. I've anonymised some people and altered their email addresses, assuming they'd prefer this. Only a tiny proportion of Net users emailed me, so please remember the hundred or so people are all self-selected. I've put my contributions in red, not necessarily as a monument to egotism, but to make things a bit easier to follow. The date column at the left includes events at the trial. The entire selection may take some time to load and format, which is one reason I've inserted this preface. - Rae West April 2000

Back to Big-Lies Home Page
Back to Irving-v-Lipstadt

DATE, TRIAL DAY, EVENTS
E-MAILS: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE RACIST.
(... not forgetting the inarticulate).
Pre-trial From: Anstellevon@aol.com — Date sent: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 — Subject: (Kein Thema) — To: holrev
great piss. fuck off.
From: Joe College — Subject: Hello — Date sent: Sun, 19 Dec 1999
You say that your website is about control of information and manipulation of it. How do I know that you aren't doing the same thing?
** It's a fair question. The answer is you don't know, strictly speaking. The best you can do is follow the principles of scientific method in deciding. Unfortunately, nobody really knows what these are. I hope this is some help!
Regards Rae West

Date sent: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 — From: Orest Slepokura — Subject: David Irving digs up Treblinka shocker
David Irving <http://www.fpp.co.uk/online.html> asks of the image posted in the Action Report page of his Focal Point website:
What is this interesting pattern? A psychedelic painting? The Lord Chancellor's latest wallpaper? No, it is a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) scan of the alleged mass grave site at Treblinka, Poland, conducted to a depth of eighteen feet by an expert in November 1999: it seems the ground has remained undisturbed for millions of years. Clever old Nazis, to have put every stone back in place where it was -- and in the panic of defeat.
[More on this during the Lipstadt trial to commence in 6 days].
TRIAL DAY 1. OPENING STATEMENTS Tues 11 Jan 2000  
TRIAL DAY 2. IRVING CROSS-EXAMINED BY RAMPTON. Wed 12 Jan From: Raeto West To: David Irving Subject: Help with your case? Transcripts? Date sent: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
    Hi David.
    Nice to see you being affable with these scribbly types; I do hope things will be OK. (I was amused at the persona change in Rampton from scornful anti-environmentalist of McLibel to supposed gravely-concerned responsible ordinariness.)
    If there's anything I can do with your transcripts, or anything else, let me know. I could ease some of your burden perhaps (on the other hand, conversion to HTML is easy enough that perhaps it wouldn't be worth the effort - I don't know.)
    Rae.
    [PS I know you don't like people saying this, but good luck!]

To: P
Date sent: Wed, 12 Jan 2000

Dear P,
[I'm afraid I don't know your name].
Thanks for your comments on my email to Bhimarama.
This trial will (probably) take a lot of time, so I'm not moving fast on it. I've offered to help Irving put the trial transcript onto Internet, as they are using the direct-entry system, so the disk is made available very soon after the various speeches. I'm hoping to relieve some of the burden from him in this way - admittedly, not much. I may also put up my own commentary, if this is legal.
    I have a feeling that, in practice, this will be decided politically. Probably, Irving will have to lose - possibly because of something like trade threats, or because it makes a lot of newspaper people, media people, teachers and historians look like corrupt fools. My personal knowledge of the courts is tiny, and I think this may be quite difficult, because, if Rampton insists on accusing Irving of lying, then of course Irving has no option but fight back. As with McLibel, the case may spiral out of official control.
    I wish I could say something more useful, but I really can't.
    You seem to be saying you're coming to London. If so, perhaps you'd like to meet? (It's a bit cold and wintry, but spring is coming!)
Regards
Rae West.
TRIAL DAY 3. IRVING CROSS-EXAMINED BY RAMPTON. Thur 13 Jan  
Fri 14 Jan From: Robert J. — Date sent: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 — Subject: Re: D.I.
    I saw your good review of the proceedings on Tues. Sorry I did not see you yesterday. ICHEE. Returning to NYC tomorrow.
    The proceedinbgs were adjorned on Thurs. c. 4.430 until Monday morning.
    The defense team numbers c. 10 people, with some 5 additional juniors observing, including 2 very good-looking c. 20-year old women.
    Irving has given examples of mas execccccutions of Jews documented in his works. And he maintains that until the Leuchter Report he believed in mass gassings of Js.
    He has demonstrated his unparalled use of original German documents. One selects from these. The defense is trying to show that his selection was a deliberate systematic attempt to mislead, misuse etc. so as to exonerate AH.
    He has only one 'assistant', an elderly man I do not know.
[This man is the author of a 2-volume work The Palestine Diary: British, American and U.N. Intervention 1914-1948 (1970). Irving's elderly assistant may have been George Stern, who occasionally writes letters to the Times ]
Sat 15 Jan  
Sun 16 Jan Date sent: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 — Subject: Germar Rudolf: "On the run" — From: ISSUE 1696 | Electronic Telegraph
Neo-Nazi accused of 'racial hatred' goes on the run By Jessica Berry and Chris Hastings
GERMANY has issued an international arrest warrant for a Holocaust revisionist who fled to Britain to escape a prison sentence for inciting racial hatred.
    Police here have joined the hunt for Germar Rudolf, who has been on the run from his home in Stuttgart since 1995. If he is arrested on British soil, he faces extradition or deportation. One source close to the case said: "Concern about this man's presence in Britain has been raised at the very highest level. The Home Secretary is likely to want to do all he can to help the Germans bring this man to justice." [etc]
TRIAL DAY 4. IRVING CROSS-EXAMINED BY RAMPTON. Mon 17 Jan Date sent: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 — From: Jana J. — Subject: THANK YOU/A GIFT FOR YOU TOO
    Wow! Rae West, thank you!--Jana J
    Here's something I wrote:
    The Reptile Report #071199 THE HOLOCAUST BELONGS TO ALL OF US
    [1989 Moscow compulsory voting anecdote snipped-RW] World War II and the Holocaust seem to have become the exclusive property of the Jews. They dictate what the facts are. They make the documentaries and the films about it. They control the publishing industry that prints the books and the textbooks on this subject. They get to tell everyone what to think about it.
    They guard the "Holocaust" the way a fox guards a hen house. But I ask you, is the fox the proper one to ask when it comes to matters concerning the state of the hens? I think not. If you want to know what's going on inside the hen house you must go inside and see for yourself. Talk to the hens, that is, if there are still any left! The fox is the last one you should ask.
    The Jews and the Holocaust represent a conflict of interest. We must separate them in order to have a REAL look at the picture. The Jews MUST GET OUT OF THE WAY. The Jews must not be allowed to OWN the Holocaust. They must not be allowed to consider it their EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY! Whatever happened there BELONGS TO ALL OF US! We have all SUFFERED because of it. We have all PAID A HUGE PRICE FOR THIS HORROR STORY and we continue to pay because it has become a tool to deprive us of our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS as in FREEDOM OF SPEECH and our GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS as in:
    Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
    Matthew 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
    I say that we take the lid off the Holocaust. I think it's time for the Holocaust to be EXAMINED THOROUGHLY under Klieg lights. I think it's time we took the whole organism apart and put it under a microscope! It's time we formed a REAL INVESTIGATING TEAM and REPORTED THE REAL STORY OF WORLD WAR II AND THE HOLOCAUST.
    What harm could this do? NONE! Sure, we probably will have to throw out most of the books and documentaries on the subject, but so what? We can write new books and make new documentaries based on THE TRUTH for a change.
    The team must be made up of those who have fresh eyes and a background beyond the range of the mink-lined laboratory rat cage set. Authors, for example, who have published works on the Holocaust and WWII must be excluded. Filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, must be excluded. Anyone connected with Hollywood or the current government must definitely be excluded especially those who only know how to speak "politically correct". [Reading list snipped-RW]
TRIAL DAY 5. IRVING CROSS-EXAMINED BY RAMPTON. Tue 18 Jan — Date sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 — From: Kenneth C. — To: Rae West — Subject: Dramatic Intervention
    Would you please give me a short resume of the background of what happened and what signifcance might be drawn from the Judge's 'dramatic intervention'? How well or badly did Irving come off on this exchange?
    Many thanks.
    Best wishes, Kenneth A. C
---------
    "In a dramatic intervention, Mr Justice Gray accused Mr Irving of "totally perverting" the sense of a key document in an article he had written."
I'm afraid I missed the trial on that day. [Day 3, pp 98-99, where it's clear that Gray wasn't accusing Irving, but was outlining what was suggested about Irving—typical misreporting-RW]. However, I'm just about to put up the complete transcripts, so you can see for yourself. My view, having sat through two consecutive days of this trial, is that Irving is running rings round the opposition.
Regards Rae West

Date sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 — From: Antonia F. — To: Rae West — Subject: remark
    " I'd imagine she has the intellect of a housewife".
    With that insulting and patronizing remark I dismissed you as not worth reading.
    Regards Antonia
Dear Anonymous,
    Lipstadt represents a racist superstition. If you're unable to face facts, or unwilling to read about the real world, that's your problem.
    Kind regards Rae West

From: Michael S — Date sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 — No subject To: Rae West
    Fantastic work...... michael s...new york city 212-xxx-xxxx
Date sent: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 — From: Ron Huttner Subject: Coverage Of The David Irving Trial
Dear Mr West,
Your site is interesting,. But its most fundamental and striking defect is its virtually total absence of any information as to just who you are, what qualifications (if any) you possess, what (if any) particular interest group or organisation you represent, and where you actually stand politically. If you are going to report on the David Irving v Deborah Lipstadt libel action, and want readers of your site to take your writings seriously, you will need to "show your hand" as to just who and what you are. Otherwise you will simply be a "nothing" - since no-one will have a clue whether you are an Irving supporter, defender, or enemy. In a case as controversial as the Irving one, no intelligent reader is going to waste time studying your lengthy pages until they know just who you are, and where you stand. Do you have the courage to tell us all ? Regards
    Ronald S Huttner LL.B.(Hons) Barrister And Solicitor Consultant And Trainer In Computer-Assisted Legal Research Lecturer In Computerised Legal Research (02.10.95 to 02.10.98) Internet Sites For Lawyers - http://www.viclf.asn.au/research.html Personal Home Page - http://www.viclf.asn.au/pers1.html
Dear Mr Huttner,
I have no idea who you are; I have never heard of you; why should I waste time reading your emails?
    Kind regards
    Rae West

Don't waste a second. I have now found all the answers to my questions, and have absolutely no further interest in your ravings on the web. I am not in the least surprised at your offensive rudeness.
Dear Mr Huttner,
My site includes materials on war crimes commtted against innocent civilians, and other material. There are no 'ravings'. I find your impudence and stupidity truly offensive. Regards Rae West
TRIAL DAY 6. IRVING CROSS-EXAMINED BY RAMPTON. Wed 19 Jan From: JC****@aol.com — Date sent: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 — Subject: Holocaust Web Site
Found your site at once helpful and informative but ultimately a little disappointing. Was not sure at conclusion whether the dispassionate objectivism which seemed to be the tone of the article at the outset was a true reflection. This is not because you finally settled on a position firmly on one side of the argument. I do not have a strong position. I have no ethnic or political background to colour my views. I do think that the events in question were a significant chapter in modern history and because of the lack of a commonly accepted account they have retained an ability to fire the very emotions that distort history. For the truly objective enquirer it is frustrating that virtually all the protagonists from both sides seem to have primary idealogical motivation - either from political right wing, anti-semitism, extreme zionism, USA atrocity apologists, jewish interest groups etc. They all seem to concentrate on the idealogical basis of their opponents. Even where detailed question and answer treatments are attempted, the vogue is for schoolboy sniping at the weaknesses in the opposing arguments rather than incisive assertion of facts and rational extrapolation therefrom.
    We are dealing with an event in living memory, the main physical sites are readily accessible. No one seems to dispute the authenticity of the demolished remains of the Birkenau crematoria and having visited the site, I would expect that a full investigation by suitable experts would produce useful information. Professional interviewing of lucid survivors and other contemporary witnesses can still be carried out to replace the usual uncontrolled reminiscences coloured by guilt, hatred, recrimination etc.
    These were dreadful traumatic events to recall but survivors owe it to mankind to cooperate with accurate historical information gathering - after all they did survive.
    We seem to be able to arrive at undisputed minutiae of ancient history more readily than we can agree on events which in the overall historical scale have 'just' happened. Where are the (idealogically unfettered) academic historians whose treatises we would accept unquestioning on other matters. They must have reasoned positions.
    You were right to be 'surprised' at the omissions of obvious historical information gathering. Surely it is not too late to rectify this. I suppose I do have a position which is not important - inevitably it lies boringly in the middle ground of the claims. I do not wish to minimise the atrocity of that time, but as your article suggested there is really no limit to mans inhumanity to man. No period, country, person has the monopoly on this sort of evil. We do need to catalogue such events as fully and as accurately as possible to ensure that the apologists have no foothold. The illtreatment, torture, killing of one innocent person is as unacceptable as the same treatment visited on millions.
    No reply expected unless you feel inclined or unless you can point me in the direction of a useful 'objective' source of information. JC
[Someone has found that there are people who don't carry out their obligations, and who tell lies. The same person states there is 'no limit' to inhumanity, and that 'killing one innocent person is as unacceptable as millions.' I don't think I replied.]
From: "vho" — Subject: Re: Irving v Lipstadt and Penguin Books — Date sent: Wed, 19 Jan 2000
    Dear Mr. Wets,
    David Botsford was so kind to draw my attention to you. I heard that you are following the Irving ? Lipstadt case very closley. I am publishing a German journal for historical revisionism (vho.org/VffG.html) and going to launch an English one shortly. For both it would be tremendously advantgeous to have a good report about the trials May I ask you if you could prepare such an article that we can use for publication after the trial has finished?
    Best greetings
    Germar Rudolf CHP@vho.org
----- Original Message ----- To: vho Sent: January 19, 2000 — Re: Irving v Lipstadt and Penguin Books
Dear Germar, Raeto West's website relating to the Irving trial is www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/irving-v-lipstadt.html. [Now obsolete; all these prestel URLS and email addresses are obsolete-RW] He's posting full transcripts of what is said on each day of the trial, which is undoubtedly a useful service. His e-mail is given as trial@big-lies.com
Yours David
Yes, I think so. I could assemble an article from my Internet notes; I mean I don't think there would be much new material. If this would do, let me know. ... Rae West
From: "Robert R" — To: Rae West — Subject: Thanks — Date sent: Wed, 19 Jan 2000
    Dear R. West, Thanks for putting together this page. R.R Chicago
Thanks for your email. I'm doing my best! ... Raeto is a Swiss name; my mother is Swiis and met my father in Britain in the last days of WW2. (I don't have much connection with Switzerland, however - for no particular reason).
    Regards Rae West

To: Raeto West — From: Bradley Smith Organization CODOH— Subject: Thanks! — Date sent: Wed, 19 Jan 2000
    > --is exceptional. The work you are trying to do with the Irving business is much appreciated--the the entire site is really quite something. --Bradley Smith
Thanks for your friendly email. I appreciate it! And am grateful. (I get quite a few fairly hostile emails, although, for some reason, not a huge number). Rae West
    [there might be a problem as regards the Irving case; I thought I'd better check with the transcribing company and it may be that they'll refuse to allow me to put the things up unless there's some sort of payment. I'll see. NB for my money, Irving is wiping the floor with his opponents. My belief is that Rampton took on the case thinking it would be a walkover - with all those 'experts' on his side - but is being unexpectedly impacted; I think he may have been misled. In fact I even wonder whether there might be unseemly events if Penguin decide not to pay him; I hope he had some of his money up front...]

    I've confused myself. Are you actually attending the trial? I wouldn't think so, but...--B
I attend some days, but not others. (I've been there 1/2 day and two full days; I put these on my site as eye-witness things). Why did you think I wouldn't?
    At the last moment, or last second, it occured to me that you would might be out in the work place, some place, the time factor and so on. Nothing more. It's absolutely remarkable that the transcripts can be gotten with the speed and apparant accuracy that is taking place in London. I was once on trial in Los ANgeles for six weeks--in 1961--and all this would have been impossible. It's just sinking in that it's become quite possible.--B

From: Jason J. — Date sent: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 — Subject: trial so far — To: Rae West
    dear rae west, can you give me your general opinion as to which side seems to be winning this case so far? thanks, jason j new york, new york, usa
Thanks for your email. I think Irving is wiping the floor with the defendants. However, the question is what the judge thinks; I know for a fact that Irving thinks the judge makes a note every time he thinks Irving concedes something. Next week the examination re Auschwitz begins; I think huge surprises are possible, depending on the evidence.
    Regards Rae West

TRIAL DAY 7. PROF WATT. AND IRVING CROSS-EXAMINED BY RAMPTON. Thu 20 Jan Date sent: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 — From: Hamshaw — Subject: enjoyment
I've really enjoyed visiting your site. I can't wait to look into it more. Thanks
Thanks. I'm grateful -- Rae West
Date sent: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 — From: ASMarques — To: Rae West — Subject: Irving vs. Lipstadt
    Congratulations on the excellent coverage of and comment on Irving vs. Lipstadt as well as on the general quality of your site which was already familiar to me.
    Keep up the good job!
    ASMarques
From: Ramboxxxx@aol.com — Date sent: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 — No subject To: Rae West
    In the United States a defendant in a criminal case does not have to testify against himself. In a civil case, like a libel case, a defendant can be called to testify by the plaintiff for purposes of cross examination.
    Is the same thing true in Britain. Could Irving call Lipstadt to the stand and cross examine her about points that had been made by her side?
    Thank you,
    Don H, Attorney at Law, Ohio
(I'm not a lawyer) but it seems certain that Irving can't call Lipstadt. She's in court, and says nothing. If he could call her, I'm sure he would, and therefore I infer that she's immune from being called. I thnik it's to do with her being American; she hasn't been accused of breaking an American law, but Penguin & her have been accused of breaking British libel law. This is nothing to do with an Amendment to a Constitution or whatever; it must be part of the law on witnesses, not necessarily anything to do with libel law, although it might be! (This isn't very elegantly worded...!) In effect, therefore, the action seems to be against Penguin. I'm afraid I still haven't been able to work out why complete disclosure was required of Irving, for the reason I put in my little piece.
    [NB I think, now, this is wrong—Irving thought near the end of the trial that Gray could have instructed Lipstadt to defend herself, if Irving had requested-RW.]
    Regards Rae West
    PS A word of advice re your email. If you give a silly anonymous address like ramboxxxx@aol, and put 'No subject' in the title, many people would just scrap your email unread.
Fri 21 Jan Date sent: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 — To: trial — From: tom m — Subject: Important point on non Holocaust fact
    David, I would assume you are aware that sometimes we can tell as much about the truth of a matter by what isn't, but should be, as much as by considering what is claimed.
    I find that one of those factors in regard to the Holocaust story is the total absence of any forensic archaeological studies ever being ordered or ever being performed.
    In spite of the fact that we have a substantial number of eyewitness claims of mass graves and mass cremations in pits which give exact locations, that in spite of photographs presented that have arrows pointing to exact locations of alleged pits, in spite of the fact that at some memorials of camps mass graves are designated, and in spite of the fact there are a number of map plans drawn by survivors that show exact locations no forensic excavations have ever been performed.
    To me this seems like a powerful indictment against the truth of the story and could be a point well worth raising during your ongoing litigations.
    Respects, Tom M
Date sent: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 — From: Kenneth C. — To: Rae West — Subject: Thanks
    As usual the 'controlled' media puts a perverse spin on everything. In fact after reading some of the transcripts on notices wilfull distortions.
    Thank you for responding to my question. I am very struck by Irvings quickness and skill in fencing off his opponent. When he goes on the offensive, I think it will be fascinating to watch. Wish it was televised or videos were available.
    Again many thanks for the good news.
    Best wishes, Kenneth C
Sat 22 Jan Date sent: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 — From: Kenneth C. — To: Rae West — Subject: An Absurd Claim
    You may have noticed that there was a great hullaballoo over an SS document that boasted of 97000 Jews liquidated by motor exaust gas using three trucks over a 5 week period.
    Looking at the statistics I have determined that if this were so, there would have to be 46 20 mile trips carrying 20 Jews per trip per DAY. This would mean loading 20 Jews into a truck, driving 20 miles and unloading the corpses in the space of about half an hour. Also it would mean each truck would have to drive 33000 miles during the 5 week period.
    David Irving chose not to expose this boast or lie for the absurdity it is but I would bet he'll spring it at them sometime later on when he feels the opportune moment presents itself.
    I'd appreciate your reading on this if you have time or inclination.
    Best wishes, Kenneth C
From: "RG." — To: "'trial@big-lies.com'" — Subject: Irving Trial — Date sent: Sat, 22 Jan 2000
    Thank you so much for your time and observations on the trial. I hope you are writing a book on it. And I hope Mr Irving's diary of the months leading to and including the trial are published in a book that will provide security for him.
    I have read some of the transcripts you post and I conclude that the judge is simply keeping a score card with four or five columns: (1) Agreement or stipulations (2)Points conceded by Plaintiff (3)Points conceded by Defendants (4)Points to be decided by Judge's own panel of researchers (5)Points that seem to be deliberate falsifications in Defendant's published material (6)Points that seem to be deliberate falsifications in Plaintiff's writings. The Judge probably has a point system, with the greatest weights going to falsifications; and then he will have to decide if a pattern of 'innocent' errors amount to a pattern on one side or the other. He, as all judges, hopes one of the parties will decide the case for him by admissions one way or the other.
    Thanks again.
    RG. -- please do not publish my name.. Atlanta GA USA
Subject: fRAUDS? — Date sent: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 — From: O*********@aol.com — To: trial
    Rae West,
I am curious, do you have other information on another site regarding "any other established fraud, and there are many, from AIDS and NASA to physics and weapons" which you mentioned on this site?
Thanks, M S
    I'm not sure what you mean by 'another site'. I've information on other parts of my own site, which you can find from its home page. (Much of this material is incomplete). I'd include many aspects of religions as fraudulent. The NASA reference is to their 'moonwalks'; there are quite a few websites on this.
    Regards Rae West

Rae West, Although it appears that our general views on many matters are opposite, a civil comment to you personally from someone who knows next to nothing about law, US or UK, and one not meant to be posted. In regards to Lipstadt's silence, as you noted: "Lipstadt. Although the author (or nominal author) of Denying the Holocaust (see below for specifically Irving references), some legal quirk—I think the jurisdiction—permits her to say nothing; I gather she will not speak at any time in this trial." Several years ago I was a witness at a felony trial in the US, (theft, total losses about 1/2 million US rough estimate) Legally the accused had the right, somehow, to remain silent throughout the trial. Apparently his lawyer thought it would be better generally if he did not speak whatsoever. The problem occurred after sworn testimony questioning the guilt of the accused was offered, by a person the accused had proffered a questionable deal. An honest retelling of that offer threw the accused in a very bad light, and by his silence he could not offer any credible defense. He was found guilty, and got 5 years, I believe. I have no knowledge other than the circumstances of that one observation, but I found then, and now, that ability to remain silent interesting, and, I suppose, a calculated risk.
    Regardless of diferences, thanks for the transcript source. MS
Sun 23 Jan Date sent: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 — From: David Irving — To: BHIMARAMA and others — Subject: Fwded.J upgrade
    You can take it from me that focalpoint on AOL is not me; my AOL address is focalp@aol.com (when I tried to get focalpoint in summer 1998 AOL told me it was "already taken").
    David Irving
Focal Point Publications 81 Duke Street London W1M 5DJ phone 0171 491 3498 fax 0171 409 7048
TRIAL DAY 8. IRVING CROSS-EXAMINED BY RAMPTON. Mon 24 Jan From: Raeto West — To: Kenneth C. — Subject: Re: A Nasty Slur — Date sent: Mon, 24 Jan 2000
    Dear Kenneth C,
    Thanks for your email. I'm afraid I don't recall even seeing David's email, and it hasn't biased me against you in any way. (Or for you!). I think he's under a lot of strain; also my impression is that he has a lowish opinion of many people (no doubt including me) and I don't pay much attention. In any case, my grasp of legal strategy is not very great, as you can see from my piece on irving-v- lipstadt; I doubt whether many people apart from lawyers can work out precisely what's happening. Rae West
    PS Thanks for not being an email saying unpleasant things about my site, which happens occasionally.

Date sent: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 — From: Kenneth C. — To: Rae West — Subject: Re: A Nasty Slur But I Supppose I Should Have Overlooked It
    Dear Mr. West,
    I appreciate your note. I know he's under tremendous strain, and even my wife thought my letter was very harsh. But his really pissed me.
    He does have a lowish opinion of many and he insults an awful lot of his supporters. He's known for this in the U S at least. He's like a raging bull in a china shop. I have been perfectly willing to humor this eccentricity of his but I particularly resent his involving other people such as yourself. This is the first time on that score.
    As I said, I'm no lawyer (thank the good Lord) but I'd like to get a feel of how he's faring. From what I can gather he's doing a great job.
    I think your site is excellent. The head of the listserve I belong to, Instauration, cited your article and praised it highly and recommended everyone read it. If you knew Keith F, you would realize that's praise coming from Caesar.
    Instauration is a White racialist list by invitation only. You probably do not have time to contribute much, but if you'd like to join I am sure you would be most welcome. [I haven't joined-RW] Our main thrust is that our Race is under relentless attack by the enemies of Truth and faces extinction unless proper counter attacks are not mounted. One such counterattack is underway under the generalship of David Irving. That's why I feel so badly about this whole episode.
    I'd like to retract my letter, but he's undoubtedly read the copy I sent him and is fuming. It's the story of our movement. Everyone is at each others throats.
    My very best wishes to you, Kenneth C
    I would like to visit your site from time to time. I thought your article was A+ Excellent! K
[This extract illustrates a typical wrangle]
From: "Patrick A" — To: Rae West — Subject: irving-v-lipstadt.html — Date sent: Mon, 24 Jan 2000
    Excellent review, marvellous style and wit.
    Patrick A (Québec)
Date sent: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 — From: Greg Raven Organization: http://www.ihr.org/ — To: trial — Subject: One other thing ...
    Thanks for collecting all this Irving trial information on one site.
    One thing you rather surprisingly do not mention in your list of topics that you think will or will not come up, is the definition of "Holocaust." I'm shocked that Irving doesn't seem to be pressing them about this, when he is being accused of "denying" it, whatever "it" is.
    I'd think he could make some good points with this question, because Lipstadt, van Pelt, and Evans all have different definitions!
    -- Greg Raven (ihr@ihr.org) http://ihr.org/index.html
From: Raeto West — To: "Holloway John" — Subject: Re: One pull down menu doesn't work — Date sent: Mon, 24 Jan 2000
Dear Sir,
The pull down menu at the top of your home page does not connect up to the site: 1. Irving v. Lipstadt etc. at least not on my PC (in Switzerland) everything else tried works well. Also the connection further down under 'Other topics' works well. Regards - John
You're absolutely right; I corrected it immediately. I'm grateful to you for pointing this out-
Rae West

TRIAL DAY 9. PROF VAN PELT. Tue 25 Jan  
TRIAL DAY 10. PROF VAN PELT. Wed 26 Jan Date sent: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 — To: trial From: Hudi B — Subject: witnesses
    Greetings,
    It's good to see such extensive coverage of this case. I just have one simple question for you. Under your "Things Which I Think Will Happen" section, under the subheading "Witnesses," you mention "socialogical evidence on Judaism."
    What does that mean?
    thanks,
    -Hudi
Date sent: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 — From: codoh — To: Rae West — Subject: Trial Coverage
    Sir,
    Just a brief note to congratulate you on a magnificent reporting and editorializing job. Now if only the minions of the press could show half as much honesty and expertise in their work as you do in yours. Shall not hold my breath waiting for that sea-change, however.
    With admiration, David Thomas
Thanks. I'm grateful! - Rae West. (I'm not holding my breath, either)
Thur 27 Jan Date sent: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 From: Greg Raven Organization: http://www.ihr.org/ — To: RaeWest — Subject: Re: Transcripts
    Obviously, the payment has been made, or the transcripts would not have been released (indeed, the court reporter wouldn't even show up without payment!). This happened in one of our suits against Carto; he was supposed to pay the court reporter, and when his check bounced, she wouldn't release the transcripts.
    Raeto West wrote: Yes, something like that must be true here. The problem is that the > payment might be quite high. I'll keep in touch on this point. > Rae
From: "Edward S" — To: RaeWest — Subject: Who is Rae West — Date sent: Thu, 27 Jan 2000
    Dear Mr. West: I am extremely grateful for your website on the Irving v. Lipstadt trial. I had heard about the trial generally but was moved to investigate further after reading a lengthy article about it by D. D. Guttenplan in the February issue of The Atlantic Monthly magazine. Concerning your website, I appreciate most the actual daily transcripts which (especially as I am a lawyer) make fascinating reading. Concerning the trail itself, I am withholding judgment, but I am impressed by Mr. Irving's conduct of the trial--he is clearly a match for Mr. Framton. I am less taken by your commentary on the trial and it set me to wondering who is Rae West? Have you formed opinion on the case, especially the matter of ovens at Auschwitz and the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust? Also, why such a low opinion of Ms. Lipstadt, including the extraordinary statement [More on this 'extraordinary statement' will probably follow-RW] that she is a racist who would not object to genocide visited on non-Jews? In a word, I would have appreciated your commentary more if it appeared less slanted in favor of Mr. Irving. In any case, I appreciate that you have made information about the trial available and I will continue to visit your website not just for the trial but for the many other matters you explore.
Thanks, Ed S Los Angeles, California USA
Date sent: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 — From: Linda N. — To: russell@big-lies.com — Subject: Greetings from Chicago
    Dear Mr. West -- Thanks so much for providing the transcripts of the Irving-Lipstadt-Penguin trial. I especially enjoy your comments, and I hope you'll continue to have time to attend the proceeding.
    Linda N Chicago
TRIAL DAY 11. PROF VAN PELT. Fri 28 Jan From: BHIMARAMA — Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 — Subject: Re: Witnesses — To: [15 or so names]
Note : Those holes ( MACRO ) that were put "by the Poles" into the roof of Krema One in that air-raid shelter in the Main Camp ( Auschwitz One - Stammlager ) in 1948 were said - both by Piper as well as by Van Pelt - in Van Pelt's book , "Auschwitz: 1270 AD to the Present " to be done as " exact replicas" of the supposed "holes in the ceiling" of the gas chambers in Birkenau ! The exact quotation from the Van Pelt book is quoted in the article by Ted O'Keefe in the new " The Revisionist" magazine [ Number 1 ] which I think is put out by the CODOH.
    Oops - sorry - I just looked it up : it is not in O' Keefe's article , but rather in the article by Ernest Sommers, and the said quotation is rendered on page 12 of "The Revisionist " to wit :
    " ... When Auschwitz was transformed into a museum after the war, the decision was taken [sic] to concentrate [sic] the history of the whole complex [ my note : This would be Auschwitz - One, Two , & Three - or the Stammlager; Birkenau; and Monowitz , respectively ] into one of its component parts [ my note - this one would mean the Stammlager , the "Main Camp" ---- as opposed to Birkenau and Monowitz. ] . The infamous crematoria where the mass-murders had taken place lay in ruins in Birkenau two miles away. The committee felt that a Crematorium was required at the end of the memorial journey and so Crematoria One was reconstructed [my note: in the Main Camp - Auschwitz One ] to speak for the history of the incinerators at Birkenau. [ Birkenau being Auschwitz - Two, about 1.5 miles - really a bit less than " two miles" - away from Auschwitz-One where this " reconstruction " was made. ] . This program of usurpation [sic] was rather detailed. A chimney, the ultimate symbol of Birkenau, was re-created [sic] : four hatched openings in the roof as if for pouring Zyklon B into the gas chamber below [ my note: THESE ARE THE MACRO HOLES IN QUESTION ! THEY WERE SAID TO BE "IDENTICAL" REPLICAS OF THE SUPPOSED ORIGINAL HOLES --- AND THEY ARE ALL QUITE MACRO IN SIZE ! ] were installed , and two of the three furnaces were rebuilt [sic] using original parts. There are no signs to explain these reconstructions [sic] , they were not marked at the time, and the guides remain silent about it when they take the visitors through this building that is presumed by the tourist to be the place where it actually happened. " - Robert Jan Van Pelt and Deborah Dwork, Auschwitz : 1270 AD to the Present P. 364 !
    Actually in the David Cole video - both the tour guide and Dr.Piper himself at one point state outright ( and both falsely and self-contradictorily ) that this room in Auschwitz One was , in fact, the ACTUAL "gas chamber " - and not merely a post-war "reconstruction" ! However, Dr. Piper ( later on in David Cole's video ) in admitting that these holes were "reconstructed" after the war - says explicitly that they were done in the "exact" same position and the exact same size - as the supposed original gas chamber holes - MACRO holes ! See: David Cole Interviews Dr. Franchesik Piper - circa 1992 video.
------------------
From: BHIMARAMA — Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 — Subject: Re: Witnesses — To: [long list]
    In a message dated 1/28/00 9:27:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, chp@vho.org writes:
    << And how could they make exact replicas if they have no clue how they looked like appart from not very detailed, contradicting eye witnesses? >>
    Dr. Francesik Piper said in his 1992 interview in the Cole video that the building in Krema One in the Main Camp ( which Van Pelt admitted in 1996 was entirely a fabrication , a post-war " reconstruction " ,for the purpose of 'education' in the State Museum , and never a real gas chamber room ) had been used as an actual "gas chamber" from the late Autumn of 1941 up until December of 1942 at which time the "gassing " operation was moved over to Birkenau supposedly because the prisoners could "see" what was going on in Krema One at the Main Camp ! ( Note: In fact , the Krema One building is behind the SS barricks and the hospital building in the Main Camp and is not really viewable from the camp area itself ! By comparison --- ( as correctly pointed out by David Cole in that 1992 video ! ! ) ------ the Kremas ( Two and Three ) over in Birkenau are completely and totally viewable ( ya can't possibly miss ' em ! ) from the domitory area of this camp ! ! ! Nevertheless, that 's what Dr. Piper said. Piper went on to say that the "scars" of where the original holes had been on the roof back during the Autumn ,1941 -to- December,1942 period ( when , according to Piper [ but not to Pelt ! ] this room had actually been an execution gas chamber (!) - ) were still visible in 1948 when they did the "reconstruction" - so that the reconstructed holes where done in the exact same place - AND IN THE EXACT SAME SIZE (!) - as the supposed "originals" ! So Dr.Piper said that the holes were identically the same because the marks of "where they had been originally" were still there in the roof after the war !
Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:28:31 -0500 — From: "GLENN Y" — To: trial Subject: Irving Trial
    Mr. Rae West, I have been reading the trial transcripts, I must say you are doing a wonderful job, from what I think is that you are attending the trial? In your opinion how do you think Mr. Irving is fairing before his cross-examination?
    Glenn Y
From: "carolinexxxxxxxx" — To: trial Subject: lipstadt — Date sent: Fri, 28 Jan 2000
It could be of interest for your readers to know that they can read Lispstad's book on a revisionist website at the following URL www.abbc.com/aaargh/engl/dl/dlindex.html
    Thanks for your work
Best caro
Sat 29 Jan From: Kevin B — Date sent: Sat, 29 Jan 2000— To: jacobandesau — Subject: K Mac & Slate
    The Forward 1/28/00 THE FEATHERMAN FILE of Noteworthy Items in the Press
    By JOHN DORFMAN FORWARD STAFF
(snip)
    A Dispatch From MacDonaldland:
Last week, The Featherman File reported on Kevi n MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist at California State University-Long Beach who will be testifying on behalf of David Irving, the "revisionist" Holocaust historian who is suing the writer Deborah Lipstadt for libel in England. Judith Shulevitz, in her "Culturebox" column in the online magazine S late, reports on Mr. MacDonald's position in academe. She writes, "MacDonald identifies himself as an evolutionary psychologist, and indeed, most prominent figures in the field would at least know his name. But remarkably, to Culturebox's knowledge, no American evolutionary psychologist has publicly objected to his work. This is not to say that it has been celebrated. A man in his 50s, MacDonald is still an associate professor of psychology at a third-rate school....But much more important to an academic than his title is his standing among his peers, and there MacDonald is on firmer ground: He's the secretary, archivist, newsletter editor, and executive board member of the professional organization the Human Behavior and Evolution Society (HBES), to which the majority of America's leading evolutionary psychologists belong." "Culturebox" found very few HBES members who were willing to go on the record against Mr. MacDonald's views, which Ms. Shulevitz characterizes as "the broadest, ugliest, and most vicious anti-Semitism passing for scholarship in this country today." The HBES journal carried a Jew-baiting laudatory review of one of Mr. MacDonald's books four years ago, and the only reactions to the review in the journal were a letter from the editor -- called "tepid" by Lingu a Franca magazine, which covered the story -- and what Ms. Shulevitz calls an "outright defense" of the review by the then-president of HBES. Ms. Shulevitz asks, "Can we blame the field of evolutionary psychology for Kevin MacDonald?" Her answer: "Intellectually speaking, no. Evolutionary psychology is a fairly new endeavor trying to overcome an extremely disturbing past" -- the legacy of social Darwinism -- "and you can't make serious scholars accountable for all the discredited notions their peers cling to." But she wonders "what on earth the officers of the HBES were thinking when they allowed MacDonald to become such an active member of their organization." When Mr. MacDonald testifies in the trial, Ms. Shulevitz concludes, "he is bound to get his counterparts in a lot of trouble. In many ways, they deserve it."
To: trial — Date sent: Sat, 29 Jan 2000— From: "chry sis" — Subject: jokes?
    dear mr. west,
why resorting to a jokes section? are you getting bored with the case? is it boring? i hope not. i'm pulling for irving all the way, but am concerned at the almost universal negative slant given to irving and what seems to me as their almost never reporting on things irving debunks. maybe you can clarify some of this for me. i like humor as much as anyone, but was a little disappointed that your most recent addition to your otherwise fine page was fluff. tell me: how is that case really going, anyway?
    thanks very much,
    chrysis
Sun 30 Jan From: "Raeto West" — To: (long list) — Date sent: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 — Subject: Human Combustion
It appears to be a fact that human bodies can burn without much external fuel, in certain cases; typically when an old person falls into a fire in a losed room. If you refer to material on 'spontaneous human combustion' (and ignore all the nonsense) under these rare conditions, (fire source, diminished air supply and some clothing), a 'slow candle' effect occurs in which human fat melts and burns, like a candle. This gives a slow burn, and apparently takes 12 hours or so to consume most of a body. Also the slow heat turns the bones to powder. But bits of the body not in contact with clothing remain completely unburned, so you have bizarre effects like unburnt feet (still in shoes) and hands left on the outside of a pile of ash.
(Apologies for adding yet another complication).
Rae West

From: CHP — Date sent: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 — Subject: Re: Human Combustion
Dear Raeto,
don't waste my time by claiming things without proving them. If we discuss these things on a scientific level, it first of all requires that things can be verified.
Germar Rudolf
You don't know how near you are to me telling to to get stuffed.
    I don't want to repeat the reference I gave, because it may not be easy for you to check. Probably quickest is for you to go to a library and look for the occult/crank/oddities section, and look for a book with information on 'spontaneous human combustion'. If you find one, there'll probably be a police photo, typically of a small room, and elderly person (who probably died of a heart attack or somehting quick), and an open fire. It will show a pile of ash and the ends of hands, feet, perhaps head, incongruously intact.
    One of the emailers said this is of little relevance to mass production cremation, as it takes many hours; I think this is true.
    You probably won't find a detailed scientific report of the sort you seem to want, as this phenomenon is *rare* because of the special conditions needed.
Regards Rae West

From: Raeto West — To: "Patrick A" — Subject: Re: Transcripts for the Irving-Lipstadt trial ? — Date sent: Sun, 30 Jan 2000
    Yes, there are problems relating to ownership. (This happened with McLibel too). with luck we'll get round this - hopefully at Penguin's expense.. Rae West
    > I have been an avid reader over the last days of the daily > transcripts of the Irving-Lipstadt trial. >> I see that in the recent days the transcripts have not been > made public, this is really a pity. >>
Regards, >> Patrick A (Québec)
From: Raeto West — To: Ralph J — Subject: Re: Transcripts? — Date sent: Sun, 30 Jan 2000
    David seems to have pulled the transcripts of the trial. Are we going to get any more from you? Ralph.
    I hope so. They haven't been pulled; it's just that the company which produces them seems to own them in some way. We're hoping we can arrange to get them again, although they may ask for lots of money. (This sort of thing happened in the McLibel trial). Regards Rae West
Date sent: Sun, 30 Jan 2000— From: gerry l — To: RaeWest— Subject: David irving transcripts On Rae West Site
    Dear Mr. West,
    Hopefully this message finds you.
    I have been following the Irving v. Lipstadt trial via your daily transcript postings. It's more entertaining -- and certainly more eduacational -- than the daily soap operas.
    However, I noticed that there have been no new postings since DAY 8, and today there was a notice that "transcripts have been temporarily halted."
    Could you tell us what happened -- will they resume shortly, or is there some sort of court order prohibiting these postings?
    In closing I would like to compliment you on the neatness of the transcript postings -- very readable and pleasing to the eye.
    Thanking you in advance for your hoped-for reply.
    Best Regards,
    Gerry L/ Toronto Canada
From: bill g— To: Copies to: "David Irving" — Subject: "Humor" — Date sent: Sun, 30 Jan 2000
    The cartoon about David not being able to play is funny. The three little skits are tasteless and show a mean spirit that is a detriment to the cause of truth. May I thank for your very interesting and informative site otherwise. Bill G
There are actually four little skits. It's often possible to make points like that which take too long otherwise. For example, the one on van Pelt ["No stones must be left unturned in the search for truth—unless they are at Auschwitz". It should ideally be 'stone', of course... RW] indicates that he refuses to investigate Auschwitz. This is a serious criticism of him. I don't think it shows a 'mean spirit' at all - but of course that's your view. Rae West
From: Mike R — To: Russell@big-lies.com — Subject: Irving transcripts — Date sent: Sun, 30 Jan 2000
    Rae West,
    What's happend to the posting of the Irving transcripts.
    Mike R
From: "Robert R" — To: Rae West — Subject: Transcripts Dispute — Date sent: Sun, 30 Jan 2000
    I am going into withdrawal. What's the stink about? Cheers, Bob R, Chicago
I don't know what you mean. The problem with the transcripts seems to be that the company doing them are running at a loss, having understimated the linguistic complications. They seemed to dislike our putting them up on the net for commercial reasons, not for any other reason, so far as I can tell. We're doing our best to get them back. Regards Rae West
TRIAL DAY 12. PROF. MACDONALD. Mon 31 Jan From: — To: — Subject: National Post Story — Date sent: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:15:51 -0500
    Dear Russell@big-lies.com,
    Your friend lmeigret@technologist.com thought you might want to read:
    Turning the horror of history into fun http://www.nationalpost.com/network.asp?f=000129/190431.html
    I thought this may interest you. National Post belongs to Conrad Black (same owner as Daily Telegraph). This is a free service for readers of National Post Online (http://www.nationalpost.com/) to pass on stories they find interesting.
[I must have looked at this, though on rechecking it proved too slow to download. Doubtless the usual garbage]
Date sent: Mon, 31 Jan 2000— From: Dan McG Organization— To: trial— Subject: your coverage of the Lipstadt trial
    I enjoyed reading it and have passed it on to some friends. I wish I could attend the trial along with you, but I am stuck here in Toronto. Besides, one or both of us would probably be tossed out of the courtroom for being unable to suppress our ribald laughter at some of Lipstadt's "evidence".
Date sent: 31 Jan 2000 From: wiking — To: trial Subject: Thank you !
    Dear Mr West,
    I wanted to thank you for your coverage of David Irving's trial, especially for your comments and the transcripts. It's far more satisfactory than the limited and biaised reports by the world media, but I suppose that was to be expected.
    I was however disappointed to see that you've had to stop publishing the transcripts. Is there some form of copyright on them ? It's a pity : apart from David Irving's own reports we cannot count on the media for a fair and honest coverage.
    There's just something I wanted to ask. Since the beginning of the trial, Rampton has repeatedly announced that R. Jan van Pelt, self-promoted "Holocaust expert", would demolish Irving and prove once and for all that the gas chambers existed. According to Irving's diary for the 28th Jan. and part of the transcripts it seems that Pelt was not so convincing. Is this also your opinion ? Do you think he managed to impress the judge ? According to Irving, Pelt was rattled by the Lysenko argument, and the judge impressed : was that also your feeling ?
    Thanks for your patience and for your courageous work.
    Cheers, wiking


TRIAL DAY 13. RAMPTON CROSS-EXAMINATION ( GOEBBELS ). Tue 1 Feb From: Wmbxxxxx — Date sent: Tue, 1 Feb 2000— Subject: trial To: trial
    WE ARE ANXIOUS TO READ WHAT IS GOING ON.... PLEASE LET US KNOW (1)WHY THE TRANSCRIPTS HAVE STOPPED AND(2) HOW WE CAN FIND OUT WHAT IS HAPPENING EACH DAY. SINCERELY, M.M
Date sent: Tue, 01 Feb 2000— To: trial From: BMB — Subject: Irving Trial
    Appreciate your balanced coverage of the trial. You seem to approach it from an entirely sane Chomskian vantage point. Could you post the reason the court has discontinued providing the transcripts?
    Sincerely, AB Canada
TRIAL DAY 14. RAMPTON CROSS-EXAMINATION ( GOEBBELS ). Wed 2 Feb From: "MG" — To: RaeWest — Subject: The Irving trial. — Date sent: Wed, 2 Feb 2000
    Although I downloaded the material from your site some days ago, I have only recently read it properly. I think people have reason to be very grateful to you for the trouble you are taking to give a fair summary of what is going on. One thing that you ought to know, and seem at present unaware of, is that the judge, Gray, is as crooked and venal as any member of the judiciary. I have seen him in action as a QC, and what he got up to was enough to make one's hair stand on end. The importance of this, of course, is that he will quite certainly be prepared to give an unjust verdict, supported by cunningly invalid reasoning. If you want a bit of "chapter and verse" in support of what I am alleging, I shall be happy to give it. In principle I should like to remain anonymous, but I should be happy to tell you who I am on the basis that you will not pass it on. The evidence would stand on its own anyway. What Gray is like is, I suppose, a matter of some importance, even at this stage, as the knowledge could affect your view of how the trial is going.
[Had I been so disagreeable as to expect sensational revelations, I would have been disappointed. MG's evidence turned out to be entirely personal and in fact rather entertaining. The thought occurred to me that perhaps MG might be a Trojan Horse attempting to upset my little website. But I don't think so-RW]
From: Raeto West — To: ASMarques — Subject: Irving v Lipstadt transcripts? — Date sent: Wed, 2 Feb 2000
    Yes, it's hard to know exactly what's happening. The company that produces them, Harry Counsell, seem to claim some rights over them. They've stopped supplying David Irving with the corrected versions, which were what I've been putting onto Internet. They told me they're running at a loss, as the transcriptions are more difficult to do than they'd estimated. They told me they have agreed the price and don't want to ask any more. It's difficult to know what to do; I phoned the Law Courts, but nobody there seems to know about these transcripts, or take any responsibility-they just referred me to Harry Counsell.
    The same sort of thing happened in the McDonalds trial; in that case, the McLibel 2 had to raise money for the transcripts (I think at half of £475 per day). But, here, Penguin need the transcripts more than McDonalds do.
    Whatever happens, the transcripts apparently are out of copyright in three months' time, assuming we can actually get them supplied.
    So that's all I know. When David's in court, he may try asking again for his disk copy; or perhaps he'll contact Harry Counsell.
    (I'd expected something like this to happen; but David and I each took the view at the start it might be better not to mention it).
    Regards Rae West

Thank you very much. I hope the transcripts will be available again. I'm using your message to explain what's going on to some friends that keep asking if you don't mind me doing so. ASM
OK, fine. Rae West
Date sent: Wed, 02 Feb 2000— From: Jim C To: trial@big-lies.com — Subject: survivors
    If Mr.Rampton needs survivors as witnesses,we have five million nine hundred thousand plus here in the states. jc
TRIAL DAY 15. RAMPTON CROSS-EXAMINATION ( GOEBBELS ) Thur 3 Feb From: "MG" — To: RaeWest — Subject: Re: Facts about transcripts.. — Date sent: Thu, 3 Feb 2000
...It occurs to me you might be able t help with the problem of transcripts.
I have had a little bit of experience with transcripts. I had them done in three civil cases that I was involved with (but I did not need them immediately, so there was no need to make any special arrangements), and I know exactly what happened in the Aldington v. Tolstoy trial, when transcripts were produced every day on the following day by special arrangement
The situation is: [1] Harry Counsell no longer give Irivng copies of the transcripts (they discontinued this after 6 or 7 days, probably as a result of the website).
I have never heard of them. Am I right in supposing that they are the commercial firm who have been engaged in producing transcripts? -- i.e. nothing to do with the law courts, although of course approved by the law courts. I believe that there are a number of such firms.
[2] I phoned the Law Courts, who, however, even in what I take to be a department dealing with transcripts, told me it was nothing to do with them and that Harry Counsell were the releavnt people.
From my own recollections, I believe this to be true. I think that the only part that the Law Courts play is that they are prepared to recommend certain firms, who have presumably passed some sort of test to satisfy the Law Courts that they have the necessary competence and integrity.
[3] I phoned Ivan Trusdell (? - from memory) who told me (a) they have copyright, (b) they're running at a loss, (c) if the transcripts continued to be put up they'd withdraw their services. (d) Their contract is (they said) with Davenport Lyons.
(a) Is Ivan Trusdell an executive of Harry C..? (b) It could well be true that they have the copyright. But it may not be true. It may be that copyright lies with the people who are paying their remuneration. This would be simply a matter of what is in the contract. If I myself had engaged them, I should certainly have wanted the copyright. Do you know who engaged them? (c) I should be astounded if they were running at a loss. Unless they are a completely new firm, it is unimaginable that they would not get their costings right for an operation like that.
[4] Uncertain whether to believe him, I continued to put them up for a few days. On the grounds (a) no copyright message appears anywhere on their documents, (b) the equipment has been in use for years, so they presumably should have been able to estimate the cost to them correctly.
That seems to me to have been a perfectly sound decision on your part.
[5] I looked through my computer files to check the McLibel case, and found they had a similar problem; the solution in that case was money - they seem to have paid half of £475 for the remainder of the trial (in that case, about half of 300-days-odd had elapsed before the isuue arose).
[6] That's the current state of affairs. I'm considering putting up a statement on the website, but don't particularly want to antagonise Harry Counsell, since they provide such a technically proficient service. (I'm rather less concerned if I antagonise Penguin or Davenport Lyons!) So far as I know Mishcon de Reya isn't part of this.
    Any comments/ advice? I gather from a bit of net surfing that it's customary to share transcript costs. Obviously we'd prefer not to have to send out appeals for money etc, especially as the opposition seems to have unlimited funding.

I haven't got enough background information to be able to give you an opinion. The crucial questions are: who engaged them; who is at present paying them; who are they responsible to? If nobody has engaged them, and they are doing the whole thing on a speculative basis, hoping to profit from sales of the transcripts in due course after the trial is over, then their position seems to be not unreasonable. Otherwise, it seems very unreasonable indeed. With regard to sharing the transcript costs, yes, that is what happened in the Aldington v. Tolstoy trial -- both sides agreed that the costs of the transcripts should be divided equally between them. And in my own civil actions, in each case I initiated getting the transcripts, and in one case I asked the other side with a wanted a copy at the cost of half the price of the transcript, to which the other side agreed; and in the other cases I bore the entire cost myself. In other words, this is simply a matter of negotiation, and depends on what each side happens to want in a particular case. I hope these comments are helpful so far. As I have explained, they can only be provisional at this stage.
    One thing I do hold a very firm opinion on is that the transcripts ought to be posted up! They are a most important piece of legal history, and I can assure you that transcripts can very easily be "lost" and disappear down the memory hole if precautions are not taken. I have known absolutely flagrant cases of this, even when the judge has taken responsibility for ensuring that transcripts are available. [Sentence snipped!] On the other hand, this particular danger obviously does not exist if you are at least getting the transcripts yourself even if you are not posting them up. Is this the case?
Best wishes, MG.
Fri 4 Feb Date sent: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 — From: Ingrid Rimland — Subject: ZGram - 2/4/2000 - "Daddy and Baby Aryan"
Copyright (c) 1999 - Ingrid A. Rimland
[Chunks from court transcript of day 14, including the 'baby Aryan' rhyme.]
    One of our cyber warriors summed it up:
    I would like to know how people see the trial going. Understand that there are at least three things going on:
    #1 First is the libels proper, I think Irving is cleaning up here because in fact most of the libels are uncontested.
    #2 Second is the attempted public disgrace of Irving. I think Irving may be losing here -- in terms of a battle of public opinion -- because of his tendency to speak unguardedly.
    #3 Third is the Holocaust aspect of the trial. In my opinion, Irving has kicked ass here, and particularly on Van Pelt. (I was very surprised at how tentative and even unprepared Pelt appears.)...
Sat 5 Feb From: "Mike W" — Subject: I'm stumped — Date sent: Sat, 5 Feb 2000
Dear Raeto,
How in the world do you manage to write all this stuff in such a short period of time? :-)
Mike W, Canada
[It's taken two years..]
Sun 6 Feb Date sent: Sun, 06 Feb 2000 — From: ASMarques — To: asmarq@mail.telepac.pt — Subject: The stone in David's sling
    Allow me to call everybody's attention to Rae West's "important note". Scroll down to get to the orange rectangle near the end of this page: http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/irving-v-lipstadt.html
    This means the non-existing holes on Krema II's roof that pancaked down but is still there in full view.
    This is indeed the very simple line that will bring down the giant, as Faurisson has been repeating for a long time. It's the stone in David's sling, if Philistinophiles will pardon the analogy. I rather meant David Irving, of course.
    Grab it and use it in every possible way, if you want to capitalize on Irving's trial. This is entirely compatible with his possible victory and specific brand of revisionism.
    And it's also the righteous measure of our own certainties (I've never been to Auschwitz in person; I simply exercise my own criticism of what I hear others saying). If we are wrong on this particular account, by all means let us be proven so.
    ASMarques
From: "k" — To: Rae West — Subject: Lipstadt/Irving — Date sent: Sun, 6 Feb 2000
    To Mr. David Irving and his Assistants. Dear Folks,
    Febr. 6, 2000 I am sure that you are getting countless e-mails every hour on the hour from all over and not every one can be read. Even though I know that I just have to write you otherwiseI can't sleep! The pages from P-83 on (session Febr. 2) are totally priceless. Mr. I. stands his ground admirably. I love him to pieces. Living in N.Y. and loving classical music I noticed years ago that the entire classical music world is in Jewish hands. Not too many people know that. Since N.Y. and Washington are (still) the trendsetters of the world, so is the classical music industry. Mr. I. mentioned........""they" play the violin and piano better," and I respectfully disagree with that. "They" don't let anyone else in their circle (or almost not) give or take an Asian and a token Black. The Jewish musicians may seem to be "better" because they are intelligent and "fingerschnell" but that doesn't make for talent. It's just (and few folks know this) that people like you and me don't get a chance. Unless you are extremely good and money can be made of you. "They" still have to come up with composers such as Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner, Dvorak whose music goes upward to Heaven, to God, whereas "their" music is earthbound. Last but not least, David says that he is religious. So am I, so we both know that "they" didn't want to accept their Messiah. He was stepped on because He was not another very wealthy Salomon and from then on, despite enormous set-backs and tragedies, they have been creating their own Messiah, namely a One World Government. I am in Mr. Irving's age range, have thought about these things for years and I am convinced that I am right. There is a guy in Georgia (US) a Pastor Cornelius Vanderbreggen who says that the Bible indicates that some day a country from the North (Russia) assisted by another country from the North (Germany) will do a fast one to Israel (in the Middle East) and to Israel ( in New York) when the time is right. More blood, more tragedy and nobody wants that but it's going to happen just the same. Cause and Effect! Wow! I am really getting weird. But it is going to happen. It's starting already in Austria be it on a small scale. God bless Austria for its courage. I love you all. Keep up the good work and may God bless you richly.
Rina K
From: "k" — To: Rae West Subject: re. "The Case" — Date sent: Sun, 6 Feb 2000
    To Mr. Rae West.
    2/6/00 Hi! Just want to thank you for making it possible for us folks to follow "The Case" on the internet and what a case it is! I find it very interesting and hope that David Irving will come through it alright.Quite a man he is. Also many thanks for your Comedy Corner. Very, very funny!
All the best, Rina K New York
TRIAL DAY 16. KEEGAN AND BROWNING. Mon 7 Feb  
TRIAL DAY 17. PROF. BROWNING. Tue 8 Feb Date sent: Tue, 08 Feb 2000— From: David Irving — To: Raeto West — Subject: where
    where is Day 15, I am getting complaints from, all over the world
From: Raeto West — To: oped@csps.com — Subject: Another Irving trial site — Date sent: Tue, 8 Feb 2000
    Dear editor,
    You might be interested to put a link to my site on the Irving libel trial
    http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/irving-v-lipstadt.html
    It's much less boring than others.
    Rae West

    Thank you for your submission to the opinion page or letters section of The Christian Science Monitor. This is an automatic reply.
    Because of the volume of submissions, we are unable to respond individually to submissions beyond this acknowledgment of receipt.
    If your opinion submission is selected for publication, we will contact you. If you have not heard from us within 48 hours of submission, please feel free to submit your article elsewhere. We do not work on Fridays and Saturdays, so if your submission arrives after 3 p.m. on Thursday, it probably won't be seen until Sunday.
    Opinion/Editorial The Christian Science Monitor
Wed 9 Feb From: "Patrick A" — To: "Kenneth McVay OBC" — Subject: Re: This really tarnishes the image of your site
----- Original Message ----- — From: Kenneth McVay OBC — To: Patrick A — Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000
You wrote:
>
May I say I find this kind of announcement disgusting ? Your reproducing this (misleading) statement really tarnishes the image of your site. No proof is offered that Rae West is indeed Irving's Webmaster, why affirm it then. If this is sarcasm, it is misleading and unwarranted. Please treat people with some dignity. Why don't you contact Mr. West and ask him?
We simply provide all the material we can gather, and let the public make up its mind.
[I think this was the first time I'd heard that I was described as Irving's webmaster.]
Date sent: Wed, 09 Feb 2000— To: trial From: Toni J — Subject: Trial
    Dear Mr. Raeto,
    I just want to thank you for your extensive Web site including enourmous amount of material of the Irving/Lipstadt trial. I will certainly read it more carefully when I have more time and also check other items. Have you really written all the stuff in the Irving/Lipstadt trial?
    All the best wishes from Finland!
    Yours sincerely,
    Toni J
Yes, it's all mine Regards (and thanks) Rae West.
Dear Rae,
Thank you for the reply. I also wanted to ask are you a journalist or something like that? And what do you think about David Irving? Sorry if I sound too nosy. I am just so impressed by the amount of stuff in your Web site and therefore it would be certainly interesting to know who do you really are.
If there is information about you in your Web site, please tell me the URL.
Keep up the good work!
Yours sincerely, Toni J, Finland
I'm not anybody in particular. I'm just interested in things generally and have my own little website. Regards Rae West
Date sent: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 To: trial From: Toni J — Subject: Trial
Dear Mr Rae,
You probably still remember me when I wrote you some time ago. I found one article in David Irving's homepage and it says for example the following:
"On Friday morning Irving and Lipstadt found themselves in a narrow corridor on the second floor of the east bloc of the High Court of Justice in London. The door to Chamber No. 73 was locked. An embarrassing moment for both. Irving is representing himself, but brought along one of his admirers, a fellow named Rae West, who was in need of a shave. West is responsible for maintaining Irving's Internet site, and also serves tea in his home. (Irving, later that afternoon: "He looks a little Jewish, doesn't he?")"
Are you really the person for maintaining Irving's Web site? If so, it is very interesting because a very good friend of mine is coming to London in May and she will travel to the States with Irving as his personal assistent. In fact, she will spent with Irving for two months.
If you really are working for Irving, you will obviously meet my friend. Hope to hear from you in the near future.
All the best wishes from Finland!
Yours sincerely, Toni J
I don't maintain his website or make tea (it just happened I was there when they interviewed him, and brought him a mug of tea.) I was quite tempted to click my heels or say 'Heil' just to give them something to write about. He does his own site and I do mine, as they could easily have found by asking him. However, I might well meet his assistant- Regards Rae West
Date sent: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 — To: RaeWest From: Toni J — Subject: Another message from Finland
Dear Rae,
Thanks for writing again. I will now tell you that the good friend of mine who will be Irving's assistant for two months is my girlfriend. The funny thing with it is that she is not even interested in history, but she has to work two months in an English speaking language environment because that is a part of her studies in English language at the university. I am the one who is not only interested in history but also Irving's books and his career.
    I am just a bit worried of my girlfriend since there are people who dislike Irving and as far as I know he has even received death threats. So if you have been close to Irving and perhaps know his staff, can you please let me know if there have been any problems that someone has threatened them? Irving and my girlfriend will mostly stay in Key West, so I think everything will be okay -- hopefully.
    However, I do really appreciate that Irving gave the opportunity to my girlfriend as it is not that easy to find a place in a foreign country for two months.
    As Irving is very busy with the trial I decided to ask you that do you have any idea when the new edition of Hitler's War will be available? I know it can be downloaded free from the Internet but I prefer the book version.
    Sorry to ask you these questions since you also are probably busy and have better things to do, but I promise not to ask you any more at this moment.
    Yours sincerely,
    Toni J
** Every year he goes to Key West; last year he went with another young woman (I think a graduate in law). I'm fairly sure there were no threats. The greatest risk is that she'll get overworked - as you know, he works very hard and I fear your girlfriend may have to do the same. [In fact, I think she didn't go - RW]
However, I do really appreciate that Irving gave the opportunity to my girlfriend as it is not that easy to find a place in a foreign country for two months.
** Yes, he has a nice flat in London and Bente is nice too.
As Irving is very busy with the trial I decided to ask you that do you have any idea when the new edition of Hitler's War will be available? I know it can be downloaded free from the Internet but I prefer the book version.
** I just don't know. He's busy with the trial and has no time for things like printing, I think, although you never know with Irving; perhaps he's doing deals with printers at this very moment.
From: "Arthur H" — To: — Subject: Irving Trial — Date sent: Wed, 9 Feb 2000
    Hi Rae,
    Can you work out how many people are following the trial all around the world on the internet?
    arthur h, melbourne, australia
    PS recently saw fred toben speaking, he looked well.
    I don't think it's that many; at most there are about 2000 hits a day on Irving's site and mine, and that figure must include some double-counting; and of course there will also be double-counting during each week. (So far as I know, both counter systems are rather primitive and e.g. we don't know how many transcripts are downloaded). So I don't think there's any doubt that the ordinary media far outweight Internet.
Regards Rae West

From: PRETTYGRLZ@aol.com — Date sent: Wed, 9 Feb 2000— Subject: Holocaust To: trial
    With all due respect the Jews are saturated with Hatred towards Germans and Christains over the Holocaust. Let's assume all accounts and stories are true... how many other millions of people died during that time? The number outweighs the loss of Jewish peoples. (Soldiers, gypsies, political prisoners, homosexuals etc.) Accept history. We all could blame some one thing from our past. Live on. I work at a place with several Jewish persons whom treat me as a mere piece of dirt because I am Catholic. They say to me that Christ is an evil false prophet. I believe that if I told them that the Holocaust never really happened they would be equally as offened and have reasons to prosecute me judically. After all, I am in the minority therfore I have to keep apologizing for the sins of every ancestor... even one's that are not my own.
Date sent: Wed, 09 Feb 2000— From: steve w To: trial Subject: Your site
    How refreshing to read a site that makes no pretense at hiding its anti-semitic bias. Thank you.
    Steve
So far as I know, everything on my site is true; it's not 'antisemitic' or biased. It is however aimed at intelligent people.
Regards Rae West

Date sent: Wed, 09 Feb 2000— From: David Irving — To: Kenneth McVay OBC — Subject: webmasters
    Dear Ken
    Rae West is not a webmaster on any site of mine; he is an entirely independent character.
David Irving
TRIAL DAY 18. PROF EVANS. Thur 10 Feb Date sent: Thu, 10 Feb 2000 — From: RAW — To: (group) — Subject: Lipstadt App misquote
Lipstadt cites Austin App, A Straight Look p.48. She makes interesting cuts in the text. App actually writes, 'This they did with the legend of the six million Jews "gassed," [four million in Auschwitz and two million elsewhere]. This is a [95%] fabrication and swindle.' App therefore allows for 300,000 gassed or otherwise murdered. Today the four million number at Auschwitz has been reduced by approximately 75% by official counts. - RAW
Date sent: 10 Feb 2000— From: polin — To: feedback@haaretz.co.il — Subject: Haartez 2/9/00 Anit-Semitism among Arabs
    Mr. E. Saltpeter is wrong claiming that David Irving is a Holocaust denier. Irving provided the most lurid, to date, description of mass shooting of Jews on the Eastern Front. In London, he stated under oath that he firmly belives that up to 2,000,000 Jews were thus exterminated.
    At best, D. Irivng can be called Holocaust minimizer along with professors Raul Hilberg (for two decades maintained that only 1,000,000 Jews died at Auschwitz), Arno Mayer who wrote that the evidence of gas chambers is sporadic and unreliable and Yehuda Bauer who refuted the human-fat soap story of survivors.
    David Irving is not even a Holocaust revisionist because he rejects (ignores) the data forthcoming from the wartime aerial photo reconnaissancce about the Massacres in the East, and has no use to absent or negative archeological explorations of such sites, which should reveal about two millions of skeletons which Nazis did not have time to cremate. At the trial he also remained mum about the still classified the 1966 Hydrokop Report on 306 exploratory trenches and holes seeking archeological proof of traces of cremation pyres and sites of cremation ditches at Birkenau.
    E. Saltpeter is also wrong about the Arabs. Intelligent Arabs are versed on the precepts of Holocaust revisionism available on numerous web sites, visited by hundreds of thousands of readers, predominantly Arabs. However, they remain mum, because they realize that this will enhance their bargaining position if it comes to getting more foreign aid from America. But, naturally, this insight can not be extracted from them by a Jewish reporter or writer such as E. Saltpeter.
    Sincerely,
    Polina B
[Polish man living in USA who helped supply Irving with visual aids related to Auschwitz-RW]
Fri 11 Feb Date sent: Fri, 11 Feb 2000— From: Ralph J — To: Russell@big-lies.com — Subject: Irvings wig
    Does David have to wear a wig when he is acting as a lawyer there in court? I suppose Rampton does.
    Ralph
Rampton does (and Heather Rogers, but not Anthony Julius. Gray does. Irving doesn't, though I think it would suit him. Come to think of it, perhaps I could do a computer graphic of him in a wig.. Rae West
Date sent: Fri, 11 Feb 2000— To: trial From: Joel K Subject: where did you find this?
    Please let me know where you found this offer by Irving. I cannot locate it. Thank you. - JMK San Francisco
    *Important note: Irving made an offer to drop his case, immediately, if the defendants would instigate an archaeological/forensic investigation of the supposed gas chamber, which van Pelt had claimed was the centre of the extermination machinery. No newspaper mentioned this offer.
On page 150 of Day 11
Rae West

From: Raeto West — To: "Mr. MG" — Subject: 1 am email! Reply re Tolstoy phone — Date sent: Fri, 11 Feb 2000
    Further to my last e-mail, I subsequently had the idea of asking Tolstoy if he would be prepared to talk to you off the record and without being tape-recorded. The reason is that you would get, in my view, much the best picture from him, and after that you could, if you wanted to, talk to Watts who ...
    *** OK. This seems a good idea; I undertake not to tape. (I would have added this to my previous email, but my computer program refuses to let me).
Regards Rae West

Date sent: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 — To: RaeWest — From: OS — Subject: Re: CBC Radio interviews Don Guttenplan
    First off, sure! I'm interested in pretty-well all aspects of the Irving trial. Second, yeah ... The Guttenplan interview revealed him as being a New Kid on the Revisionist block. He's just a flack on assignment and, in the meantime, trying to earn a paycheque and not cause too many waves. I think that's kinda obvious -- even in the CBC interview. But even the very threadbare quality of the Jewish and/or Establishment defenders of the old Legend tells us something about it -- and them.
    -OS
Sat 12 Feb To: Raeto West — From: "wotan" — Subject: Thanks for photos etc... — Date sent: Sat, 12 Feb 2000
    Greetings from Australia,
    I am enjoying your coverage of the Irving-Lipstadt trial...I believe that David Irving will have some difficulty winning this case, not because he is in the wrong but a large number of the British Judiciary incl Police & Judges are Masons and I'm sure you are aware of the relationship between the Masons and the Khazars.
***Not really! I gather they were or are related (e.g. Belloc says so) but I've never heard a satisfactory account of this.
    I have been to Auschwitz a few times and although I did not have the access to the camp archives as did Prof van Pelt... I'll guarantee I know more about it than he does, I have crawled in and under K2 & K3 looking for those famous roof vents...there aint any!! Simple as that.
** Yes, this is what 'Polin' says; and he says he has 400 photos of the underside, and concluded exactly what you did. (Maybe you worked with him? I don't know - he also used the picture of the train with the roof and objects).
    I actually documented the whole facility on foto and video from top to back so that when UNESCO moves in to 'renovate' the place, we have 'before and after' photos.
** Make sure your evidence is bulletproofed, won't you! The sort of thing I'm thinking of is putting copies in bank vault storage or something so the date is established. NB when is UNESCO due to do this? ** Have you heard of the Hydrokop report?
    Because you mention this piece of trivia I thought you might want to know, dead bodies must be kept just above freezing because if they have been frozen or radiated (??) they can take another 1-2 hours longer to cremate (Just a small fact I got from a cremation expert of 30 years)
**Thanks.
    I've attached 3 photos that were used in the discussion with v Pelt... K2 with and without insertion vents Paul
Sun 13 Feb  
TRIAL DAY 19. PROF EVANS. Mon 14 Feb Date sent: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 — From: stella — To: trial Subject: Day 16 - Feb 07
    You are doing a fine job covering the Irving Libel Trial in London.
    Please put a spell check over Day 16 - Feb 07.
    This uncharacteristic carelessness arouses suspicion that you may be sloppy in other areas.
    Have been recommending your newly discovered Website to others in Australia.
    Best wishes
Date sent: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 From: stella — To: trial Subject: Irving Trial
    Liked your linking of Keegan, courtesans and Uberpimps.
    Delightfully sardonic and very accurate.
    Hope my recent pedantic comment about the spell check did not annoy you.
    Best wishes
    An Australian sceptic
No, I'm pleased to get critical comment on technical points; I hadn't realised there were so many errors. I quite liked my piece on poor old Keegan; I've done a similar piece on Evans which I must expand now I've seen a cuple more days of him.
    Rae West
TRIAL DAY 20. PROF EVANS. Tue 15 Feb From: Mike R — To: Russell Subject: Your webpage — Date sent: Tue, 15 Feb 2000
    Dear, Raeto West.
    I have been reading your web site and the David Irving trial transcripts, with great interest. What has happened to the posting of them?
Yes, thanks. There's a bit of a problem with the transcripts over copyright, but we're negotiating. We may have to appeal for money, but I hope not.
    Couple of things. In one is mentioned "Guilty People",An error, I think this refers to the book "Guilty Men" by Cato. (Michael Foot)
    I've also seen a reference to "the Jew Chomsky" on David Irving's web site. Can't locate it at the moment.
    Chomsky might make a good defense witness, "freedom of speech etc", but I doubt you could get him, after Faurisson.
    Also I now feel Chomsky is now becoming something he complains of. An establishment voice. Hiding the CIA's involvement in the Kennedy Assassination. In his Kennedy book. A CIA asset I think, urm, does need checking into.
    Didn't know about Schoenmann. Somewhere I have a copy of the Magee book.
    Have you read anything re libel case James Randi and that well known charlatan Uri Geller. Geller hides behind the cover of I'am persecuted by Randi because I'am Jewish. When he fact it's because Geller is a complete fraud. Check out the web site of the best,wittest and sharpest "Saucer Smear." for references. [I looked at 'Saucer Smear' but wasn't very impressed-RW] Yes, I'm not keen on Geller, but I'm not all that keen on Randi, as he only tackles soft subjects. (I'm working on a 'case against skeptics' to annoy more people).
    Keep up your good work, and keep posting the transcripts.
    I enclose as an attachment, a Word RTF file that you might find interesting.
    -- Mike R, UK
    "We have to establish the 'inside story' of crises, depressions, revolutions and wars by thinking them through. Behind the events reported to us we suspect other unreported happenings, These are the real happenings, Only if we know them can we understand."
    Bertolt Brecht.
From: Mike R — To: Russell Subject: Your webpage — Date sent: Wed, 16 Feb 2000
    I meant a good prosecution witness. I have to keep reminding myself, it's Lipstadt on trial. Her non appearance in the dock confuses me.
    I only mentioned Randi because of Geller.
    Also the Randi sceptic web site/magazine tried to rubbish the JFK conspiracy theorists, without success. Re Andrew Neil, An earlier Sunday Times Editor, Harold Evans while working at Randon House was responsible for the publication of the Gerald Posner book Case Closed.
    Theirs a terrible Kennedy assassination article in a recent History Today. It's on the Internet. Written by a Professor of History. That cites Posner as an expert on the case. So much for History Professors.
    Posner is a fraud, His books are fraudulent. He's managed to write about the King assassination and even Diana. Doesn't Al Fayed know his track record. Also a book on Joseph Mengele. I wonder just how bad that is.
    Hope that hasn't been too much of a diverson.
    -- Mike R, UK
    "We gain experience in life in the form of disasters." Bertolt Brecht
Date sent: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 From: "Costas Z" — To: — Subject: Irving-Lipstadt case
    Dear Mr West,
    The Irving case against Lipstadt and Penguin is puzzling, to say the least, and I sincerely wonder what it is all about. This may be due to my ignorance of the nature of English law regarding libel, hence the following questions.
    1. If the defendants have to prove that they are right, what does this mean? All the claims in Denying the Holocaust which could be considered libellous, i.e. damaging to Irving*s reputation and livelihood are (except possibly for one) referenced, the rest being mere opinions which are consistent with the others. The exception seems to be the claim that Irving *described his visit to Hitler*s mountaintop retreat as a spiritual experience*, since it is not on p. 189 of my edition of Harris* book, "Selling Hitler" (Faber and Faber, 1986), nor could I find it on pages under "Berchteshaten" or "Berghof" in the index. Even this claim seems hardly libellous to me.
    It is true that Lipstadt is unscholarly and often just repeats what others say, but is such behaviour actionable? On page 162 in n.16 Martin Broszat is quoted via Patterns of Prejudice. Shouldn*t the Munich-based Institut fuer Zeitgeschichte and Patterns of Prejudice be taken to court? Or does English law compel the lady to prove this claim independently? In England can one not quote The Times or The Daily Telegraph without fear of being threatened with a libel action? That would seem most ridiculous to me. Should Irving not concentrate on unreferenced assertions of Lipstadt?
    2. Why does the judge allow long and intricate discussions on technical aspects of the Holocaust - e.g. on the oven capacities of Birkenau crematoria? From Irving*s point of view is it not enough to show that whatever he has written (e.g. in the foreword to his edition of the Leuchter Report) it is only a question of good faith - that his understanding of the sources is one reasonable interpretation of many? Should not the issue of him *manipulating documents* be confined to asking such questions, not whether his interpretation is absolutely correct, something which could be expected of nobody?
    3. Trying to prove that there is a huge conspiracy to destroy his career seems like an impossible task. If Lipstadt thinks Irving is "one of the most dangerous spokepersons for Holocaust denial" and gets together with the ADL or any other similar outfit to persuade publishers to refuse Irving, that is surely just part of the game. Telling against Irving on this score is the simple fact that he all too often has publicly made the most outrageous statements about the "ugliness" of Jews. Anybody can see through his attempt to dodge the link between Wiesenthal*s "ugliness" and his Jewishness. When in 1992 a Holocaust survivor in South Africa expressed the wish to confront him publicly, his response was to refer to her "ugliness" in a public lecture! Likewise his non-stop reference to the "traditional enemies of free speech", who but the most naive cannot see that the reference is to Jews? In a sense there is a conspiracy, like the Apartheid governments were a conspiracy of Afrikaners, especially Broederbonders, but how is Irving going to pin this one down?
    . I cannot see how Irving can win this bizarre case. But as this limited view is probably due to ignorance, I and would much appreciate a response from you.
    Yours sincerely,
    C. Zaverdinos
    e-mail: z**********
I've put as much as I know on my site.
PS. The references on pp.9f of your informative article "Irving v Lipstadt and Penguin Books Ltd" (version of 31.1.2000) to page numbers in Lipstadt may not be complete. Add p.14 (on the "anti-Zionist conference scheduled for November 1992" attributed to a report of the Jewish Telegraph Agency), p.170 (an unimportant passing reference to "conversations" with Leuchter), p.213 ("Nolte, ...echoing Irving"), p.221 (being barred from various lands), 232 (1975 alleged connection of Diary of Anne Frank with Meyer Levin), p.234 (Der Spiegel on this). [Physics material snipped-RW]
TRIAL DAY 21. PROF EVANS. Wed 16 Feb From: "MG" — To: — Subject: Same subject as usual. — Date sent: Wed, 16 Feb 2000
    Further to my recent e-mail, I forgot to include one thing. This is that Nikolai Tolstoy was emphatic that one could not tell from how a judge was conducting a case whether or not he was going to be honest about the verdict. In other words, one cannot read anything into whether Gray is being fair (if he is) in the conduct of the case. Some judges have insufficient self-control even to appear to be fair during the course of a case -- Davies, the judge in the big libel trial, was an example of this. Others, however, manage to play out the charade perfectly right up to the very end, which makes the summing up or the verdict all the more distressing because unexpected.
    I've just tried to get access to your site, but now cannot even reach it -- I just get a message that it cannot be got at. Is it my computer that is at fault? Or has something gone wrong your end? I hope not Best wishes,
    MG.
Yes, I don't know - I suspect Prestel may be closing it down at times, or perhaps it's just busy. It's a bit worrying, of course, but at present I haven't tried doing anything and am hoping it will generally be OK. Regards Rae
Oh, dear. I thought that it must have been you that suspended the site. I hope Prestel aren't misbehaving. It was for fear of that tha Tolstoy put his website up outside England. Is there any reason why you haven't put up any more transcripts and why, when I last looked, Irving had suspended his again? MG
    Prestel reopened I think at 9 am this morning having apparently not been aware anything was wrong. It was the entirety of Prestel, not just my site. (I think most of their sites get so little traffic they wouldn't notice). However I've always been worried that my site may suddenly vanish.
    I don't think David had ever closed his site; so I'm not sure what you mean. Rae

From: Raeto West — To: ihr@ihr.org — Subject: Re: Irving trial news — Date sent: Wed, 16 Feb 2000
    Things seem pretty quiet on the trial news front. I hope that doesn't mean that things are going poorly. Greg Raven (ihr@ihr.org)
    No; I've just been there for two days (Prof Evans). I just put up an unflattering piece on him. We've started negotiating re the transcripts and hope they'll be OK. We may need a money appeal, though I hope not. Regards Rae
From: Robb E — To: RaeWest Subject: Irving v Lipstadt Transcripts — Date sent: Wed, 16 Feb 2000
    Sirs;
    I think you may be helping to get the transcripts of the proceedings up for public information. If this is so, I thank you profusely as I have found them most useful.
    Since there seems to be another snag, alluded to in Mr. Irving's Radical's Diary, I wonder if sending Harry Counsell e-mails might help.
    Can you provide the transcriber's e-mail address. I would like to write them pleading for transcript access and urge others to do likewise.
    Regards, R. E
  Thanks for your email. We're trying to do a deal (I think CODOH has said it would help pay) to get the transcripts again - I've left this to Irving since it's his reputation, case, etc. (Harry Counsell have a contract with Penguin's solicitors Davenport Lyons). I would have preferred Penguin to pay more, rather than Irving, but that just seems to be the way things are. I wouldn't personally try to put pressure on Harry Counsell, since the service they provide is amazingly high quality, so I don't begrudge them their money, unlike most of the lawyers and historians involved. With luck, over the next few days all this will be resolved and new transcipts put up. I hope. Rae West
Date sent: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 — Thinking Aloud About Suppressed History by Dr. Susan L.M. Huck and SFC Steven M. Barry, USA (Ret.)
... I don’t know the precise capacity of any given camp, but 20,000 is given for Auschwitz I, 26,000 for Auschwitz II, and 15,000 for Auschwitz III, so the “death camp” complex had a capacity of 61,000.
    Now, assuming transportation quotas permitted 61,000 to arrive on schedule every five days, in the Auschwitz complex alone using the “school solution” suggested in the paragraph above, 4,453,000 customers per year could have been “serviced” (to use the latest U.S. Air Force term for bombing and killing their racial kindred in Serbia at the behest of Jews) at Auschwitz alone. And since this is a “death camp” there would be no need for such space and logistics wasting amenities as bunks and tables in the barracks (let alone kitchens, latrines, hospitals, laundries, etc.) so the barracks could have, if efficiency was our goal, easily accommodated, oh, four times their inefficiently designed capacity, and then 17,812,000 customers per year could have been “serviced.” Given that, at that time, there were only about (figures vary) 4 million Jews under Germany’s control in liberated Europe (the JewSSR evacuated over 2 million from Poland and “Russia” ahead of the invading Anti-Bolshevik Liberators) I could have, if I had been tasked with our race’s Holy Mission, solved Europe’s Problem -- at a single camp complex -- in just over two months.
    If there was any rationale behind the Judeo-Communist inspired Nuremberg Show Trials, it should have been for fraud, waste, and abuse! Because, according to the 30 June 1965 edition of the Jewish newspaper Aufbau, the Quisling government in Bonn had received, from “victims” of the “Holocaust®,” 3,375,000 applications for “restitution.” You do the math. ....
Date sent: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 To: RaeWest — From: sidexxx@xxxxxx.no — Subject: Re: Irving-Lipstadt Libel Trial
Dear Mr. West,
    At 00:26 the 16the February I tried to reach your website, but received the following message:
Connection refused
-------------------------------------
Description: Connection refused
What is the reason???????
    Yours sincerely
    Bjorn Hanssen
I don't know! It may have been censored (if you were in an Internet cafe or something). Or it's possible that Prestel are shutting it down from time to time, without telling me. So I don't know. But thanks for letting me know! Regards Rae West
From: Xzxxxx@aol.com — Date sent: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 Subject: Kosher spices To: trial
    Where can I buy nonkosher spices and nonkosher sardines / . .
Date sent: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 From: "Dr. Efteem A" — To: trial Subject: Trial
    Dear Mr.Rae,
    Why have you stopped reporting on the Irving-Lipstadt trial? Suddenly, about a few days after the trial started David Irving's site has become unreachable. I keep getting the message TCP Error. Whenever I ask our server what's wrong they say they don't know and have nothing to do with it.
    Your site now is our only channel to what is going on in a matter that interests all Arabs. Please go back to reporting or making the transcripts available.
    Thank you very much.
    Y.A.
Thanks. I'm doing my best. I think my site has had problems, too. The transcripts, with luck, will be resumed soon (though it's possible we may need a plea for a vit [well, a bit-part of the human vomedy (©Aldous Huxley)] of money, though I hope not). Regards Rae West
TRIAL DAY 22. PROF EVANS. Thur 17 Feb From: TMc — Date sent: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 — To: Trial
I sent an Email letter to the World Almanac late last year and ask them to provide me with the World Jewish population figures in their 1934 Edition and the same data for the 1948 Edition. They answered my inquiry with the statement there was essentially no difference in the Jewish population figures for 1934 and 1948.
  The obvious question is why are the alledged 6,000,000 Holocaust deaths not reflected in the population data collected by this prominant publication?
You're not the first person to notice this! 'Did Six Million Really Die' had similar material (but it was attacked by Lipstadt in her book).
  Unfortunately there are many imponderables, e.g. Jews who went to the US, and Jews in the USSR. Also, I'm told, many Polish Jews changed their names and lived as Poles. So it's a complicated story. But certainly there's a problem!
Regards Rae West

From: "John McK" — To: — Subject: Bombings and massacres — Date sent: Thu, 17 Feb 2000
    Mr. West,
    I have been following the trial with great interest and have enjoyed your writing.
    Two thoughts occurred to me which might be of assistance to yourself and Mr. Irving.
    The first concerns the fact that during the fighting on Okinawa between the US Marines and the Japanese, some 100,000 Japanese civillians are supposed to have been killed. I imagine that anti-Japanese racism was the key ingredient to this slaughter. Furthermore, this huge atrocity has never been publicized. Imagine what would have happened to the Japanese if we had actually invaded.
    The second concerns the link between bombings and massacres. The first time I heard of such a thing was in the book, and then movie called "The Killing Fields". The writer, a Jewish leftist whose name I have forgotten, argued that the B-52 bombings of Cambodia triggered the Khmer Rouge rampage.
    Yours,
    John McK
[It's true that many Americans don't seem to realise that bombs cause damage-RW]
From: Raeto West — To: "MG" — Subject: Tackling Evans — Date sent: Thu, 17 Feb 2000
    Prof Evans's report is 600+ pages, written rather in the style of Lipstadt (i.e. lots of 'when did you stop beating your wife', inadequate sources, frequent repetition of 'holocaust denier' etc)
    I suspect the length and structure is deliberate, since it's clearly impossible to go through every single statement in a reasonable space of time.
    Yesterday (after Irving conceded that he'd stop soon - Monday is now the final day for Evans) Rampton specifically sttod up to state that any unexamined items would be regarded as accepted by Irving.
    (Evans's report is on Irving's website in Adobe format, if you'd like a look).
    Any comments? Is there a magic word with which one can dismiss hundreds of pages of thin material?
    Regards Rae West
    I spoke to Tolstoy, who made some interesting points (e.g. advantage of non-jury trial, since the judge's reasoning has to be made explicit). However, he was less useful on the nitty-gritty.

From: Raeto West — To: "MG" — Subject: Re: Tackling Evans — Date sent: Thu, 17 Feb 2000
    There's something I hadn't appreciated until today. Irving wonders whether Gray could cope with being 'the judge who said the gas chambers were fake' and has (I think) deliberately conceded a few small points (e.g. supposed gas trucks at Chelmno) so Gray has a let-out.
    Rae West
    I forwarded your email, since you didn't mind. But I'm fairly certain a definite date has been agreed, namely Monday, for Evans to finish (and return to his teaching - imagine what these poor young people have to go through.)

From: Raeto West — To: "MG" — Subject: Re: Tackling Evans — Date sent: Fri, 18 Feb 2000
    In principle I agree that it's best to be completely straight. But in practice there are endless complications (e.g. the 'Khazar' idea, whether Judaism is racist, whether Jews in Poland changed their names) and he has to draw the line somewhere. So I see his point on the question about Gray: will he want to be the judge who declared gas chambers a fake? (NB David didn't respond to your forwarded email, at least not to me, but this is usual if he thinks something has been taken care of).
    I recalled something else just after I emailed, namely that Gray said that he wouldn't dream of being influenced by minute and unimportant points. Probably Irving feels he's made his point - he's agreed to a time limit on Evans, and is covering as much as he can. He's also intending to deploy the argument that, even if he made errors, the thrust of his entire works is such that they make no difference.
    On transcripts, there's been a hiatus; I think Davenport Lyon want some money, as a part share of the cost, and I'm not taking part in the negotiations, considering that it's his neck on the line (as they say). I'm hopeful they'll be resumed soon.
    Regards Rae West.
Fri 18 Feb To: Raeto West — From: "SPITFIRE" — Subject: transcripts— Date sent: Fri, 18 Feb 2000
    when do the published transcripts resume?
    ***I've put a note on my site explaining the situatioin in full. With luck, soon. With bad luck, not so sonn! Rae West
Sat 19 Feb From: RGrafxxxx@aol.com — Date sent: Sat, 19 Feb 2000— No subject To: trial Copies
If us patriots (Irving) don't win this case all will be lost to these scums. Julius G Good luck Mr. Irwing
From: JAH — Subject: typhus/lack of restraints upon conscripted labor — Date sent: Sat, 19 Feb 2000
An interesting nugget on typhus and apparent lack of restraints made upon German conscripted labor:
"A total of 183 cases were ultimately discovered in the Müunchen Gladbach area, all of which apparently stemmed from infections contracted in labor camps within a 7-mile radius of the city. The Aachen and Muuml;nchen Gladbach outbreaks, originating in nearby labor camps, indicated that the seeds of an epidemic carelessly scattered by the Germans were beginning to bear fruit. The Germans brought conscript laborers to these camps from many countries, including endemic typhus areas in Russia and Poland. There appeared to have been no restriction against the laborers' visiting adjacent towns and other camps, with the result that typhus became well seeded in surrounding areas. Most inhabitants of the camps were heavily infested with lice, sanitary facilities were on a minimal scale, and camp overseers did not take the trouble to delouse the inmates."
from: History of Entomology in World war II , by Emory C. Cushing, Smithsonian Institution, 1957; p.67 - JAH
Sun 20 Feb From: "Arthur H" — To: "Rae West" — Subject: Ann Frank Diary and Ball Point Pens — Date sent: Sun, 20 Feb 2000
    Hello Rae,
    Zundel was convinced that Anne Franks diary had to be a fake because parts were written in ball point pen. Irving also raised this doubt, claiming Mr Biro invented ball point pens in 1953, the diary of course dates back to during the war.
    I advised both that they became available to the military during ww2, and recently found verifcation on the net. Perhaps you could post this info, and draw other historical revisionists attention to it.Hope you can open the attachment
    Regards, arthur h
TRIAL DAY 23. PROF EVANS. Mon 21 Feb From: "m" — To: — Subject: page 13 — Date sent: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:25:26 -0000
Dear Rae
I'm enjoying your updates! Wish you could include more on Kevin MacDonald's work and testimony. His books unknown in the Central Library. I've ordered them.
** I didn't put much about MacD in since it seemed not very relevant to the case. Also, having met the chap, I was uncertain how good a case he'd make. (E.g. it would be interesting to know whether fraud is greater among Jews, but this needs careful examination; I doubt whether MacD did anything like this).
Do please asap insert (bottom p.13) re term "holocaust" following ...used for symbolic reasons by Jews...(as theology-after-falsifying-the -facts)...; and include... sacrificial... burnt offering.
    ** I hate to say this, but I don't think it's clear enough.
I will intro uce Lord Irvine to your website when he can't readily escape (from entertaining me on his turf) later this week. I want to concern him over "holocaust day" legalities. Thanks!
** See if you can find out how trials are fixed, e.g. the Aldington Tolstoy one, where files relating to the relevant period after WW2 were removed from the Public Record Office during the trial, and returned later! It's highly likely something similar may apply to Irving (also there's the possibility of his being extradited to Germany on more-or-less trumped up charges). However, if Irvine has anything interesting to say, he probably won't say it. If you can find out why it is that Britain won't have a holocaust day, that would be interesting - it can't be because of intellectual honesty!
    Hope to break bread 'n kit-kat with you tomorrow. Regards M
[M wanted me to put, I think:
'Holocaust' is presumably used for symbolic reasons by Jews, rather than 'genocide', because it implies a sacrificial burnt offering unique to Jews which is made as the price for G-d [sic] to donate the Promised Land—(as theology-after-falsifying-the-facts); though why the 'chosen people' should be burnt in place of some surrogate is unclear, at least to me.
I think I prefer my version. M also said 'MacD's work "towards an evolutionary theory of anti-semitism" gives a rational background to his entirely relevant contemporaneous evidence of the ADL's anti-"gentilism" and its "Campaign to suppress" all such investigators.' I'm uncertain, considering it less relevant to libel—though perhaps I've been influenced by Rampton's not asking MacDonald any questions.]

From: Skepticelt@aol.com — Date sent: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 Subject: One-sided Reports To: trial
    One has to wonder why you seem so hell-bent on presenting Irving in so favorable a light while denigrating anything done by the opposing team in the trial. The sick humor at the end of your website says it all. It would have been nice if you had been upfront regarding your presumption of Irving's utter and complete wide-eyed innocence (yeah, right!) as a Holocaust denier. But then, that would be asking too much of a hate-monger, wouldn't it? You debase yourself more than anyone else with your collaboration in sustaining the all too easy Jew-baiting and hatred practiced by ignorant people such as Irving and the IHR ilk.
    If you purport to be unbiased in your trial reports, then show it! Otherwise, there's no difference between you, Hitler/Nazis, and the entire panoply of anti-Semites. What do you get out of it, anyway? Where is the satisfaction of fomenting hate and ignorance?? Or do you just want to 'complete' the unfinished Final Solution?
    These are not crank questions. I sincerely want to know what kind of a person sticks up for pseudo-history and historical denial of the most documented event in human history. Help me out here.
    BTW, I do appreciate that you are eyewitness to the trial. I know much of it must be tedious. It would have been nice to see it televised, ala OJ Simpson trial. But then, that would play into Irving's plans, wouldn't it?
    Please respond. I am seriously trying to understand this entire mess. I am struggling to place this into an appropriate context without falling into the trap of becoming that which I abhor: one who promotes hate--even if such hate is well-earned by the despicable nature of the object of such hate.
    Thanks for your email. On my site I have material relating to genocide in Vietnam, which is suppressed in the US. You describe me as being a neo-Nazi. It is corrupt and malicious clowns such as yourself who are neo-Nazis. I have attended the trial and know what I see. You apparently haven't, and thus are dependent only on the media. In fact, therefore, you know nothing about the trial.
Kind regards Rae West

    Despite your animosity, I value your report. Rather than me call you a neo-Nazi, and you call me one in return, how about we actually try a dialog? I am willing to learn and I am willing to believe you will try to report the truth. I am willing to listen to you. Are you willing to reciprocate? Nothing is accomplished by hate--yours or mine. I apologize for the tone of my earlier email. The only way this world will work is if we keep the lines of communication open.
    How about it?
    BTW, I teach about atrocities--all of them. I know Vietnam is devastated by Agent Orange, which I think killed my brother who was in Thailand during the war and whose airbase was hosed pretty heavily on the perimeter with AO. Regards, S
        Then why the fuck don't you do something, you piece of shit. Kind regards Rae West
From: BC — Date sent: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 18:18:11 EST — Subject: David Irving To: trial
    A very big thankyou for taking the time to present the evidence from the trial . I find it very frustrating trying to follow events in the press , as they only appear to report when things go wrong for Irving , so it really is very much appreciated to be able to hear it from a third perspective, more power to you .
    BC
    Thanks. I appreciate it. I'm doing my best - though as you can probably tell it's not very easy to work out what's going on.
    NB if you're in the UK Channel 4 (I heard yesterday) are planning a dramatic TV version, as per the McDonalds trial, though I imagine it will be anti-Irving. I tried to hint they should use Irving to act himself, but I don't suppose they work like that. He is also irritated that his own words might be copyright-free.
    Regards Rae West

From: BC — Date sent: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 — Subject: Re: David Irving. Thanks, Channel 4 To: RaeWest
    As it happens I am the managing director of a medium sized TV and feature film production company here in the U.K , we specialise in military history and make numerous documentaries for Discovery and History Channel .
    Unfortunately neither could be persuaded to take a dispassionate film from us covering the issues of the trial. Maybe we should do our own video version . I suspect if Irving wins the Channel 4 project will be iced rather quickly so there could be a need for a Maclibel style offering for the record .
    Anyway we have just chipped in to help bring the transcripts back for a couple of weeks so perhaps our next contribution could be in the form of acting fees for one less than debonair leading man !!
    BC
Tue 22 Feb Date sent: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 — From: Harvey Taylor — Subject: Old books as primary sources
Raeto West wrote: Polin (on New York Timeses) makes me suggest the following (perhaps rather obvious) point that old, second-hand (or 'used') books and magazines, although obviously not primary sources for history, ARE primary sources for propaganda. It's still possible to collect cheaply books on all sorts of subjects. I just found 'When Hostilities Cease' (an edited book pubd by Victor Gollancz - a Jewish publisher in UK into Leonard Woolf) which has sections on 'Re-establishment of Displaced peoples'. It's fascinating to see all the censorship mechanisms, conscious and unconscious - not saying exactly what's meant, evading the issues, unsourced numbers, assumption that everything is the fault of Germans. And 'Nazis Can't Win' by the same publisher. And of course all the ?Nyzsli type books on atrocities, and Churchill-type histories. (Even things like National Geographics can be useful. I found a Dec 69 copy which has two versions of the man-on-the-moon picture, showing that fakery has been going on). I'm just saying: if you see cheap things, you might as well collect them. Otherwise they'll start to vanish.

Matt G wrote:
Also they are quite good as the origin of myth. CODOH carries the first russian report of discoveries at Auschwitz. In the CODOH usage it is an example of how things changed so rapidly, it having no parallel in the extraordinary committee report.
    To me it is the origin of the myth of industrial extermination. Today just who is going to say tossing a common pesticide into a closed room and 1930s coal fired crematoria is industrial? Who even in the 1940s would describe it that way?
    But that first description of what is found is of conveyor belts carrying bodies to the tops of blast furnaces for complete incineration. That is industrial. That is clearly at least one origin of the myth. At Nuremberg there is a lame attempt to label getting people to the trains on time as industrial.

Tom M:
One of the most readily used photos in the earlier years after the war and right up to this day is one of Germans burning books. No need to go into a comparison of what's going on now days in respect to burning books. What we can expect (could be happening already) is the disappearance of Holocaust books after the story is globally recognized for what it is. The Jews will be burning their own books. After the story falls we still have phase two. Keeping it all alive so future generations will know to what extent some will go in order to advance a epic lie. The more books we have the better. Root out and save everything before the Jews get to destroying the evidence.

Harvey T, Tom M mention old books and magazines: Life, Time, Colliers, Saturday Evening Post. I'd like to endorse Moran's comment on rooting out and collecting such sources. Especially ones which don't appear in libraries (the UK newspaper library I think doesn't collect magazines, no doubt regarding them as inferior). I once found a copy of 'Les Temps Modern[?e]' ed. Sartre with gas chamber stuff in. There are also WW2 partworks, which are often informative as they were produced at speed and *may* have escaped some censorship. Radio is more difficult!
    This is important because peoples' knowledge otherwise is very shallow (I've just been watching depressing emails in the Bertie Russell group-mostly on J B H Haldane, [yes, yes, it should be J B S-RW] nd it's obvious they haven't a clue about him). More recently there are videos...
    The whole study of propaganda is stunted, for, of course, obvious reasons.


Old books and magazines can provide considerable info. Life, Time, Colliers, Saturday Evening Post. I have the the 1947 Colliers Yearbook covering events during 1946. No mention of "gas chambers" under Jews. There is a breakdown by European country listing Jewish population. In October 1946 Berlin is said to have had a population of 7350, all that remained of a prewar population of 186,000. Palestine Jewish population was 630,000 according to the official census as of December 1946.
    Under Poland-- Violent pogrom against Jews in Kielce--35 Jews killed. Government arrested, tried and hanged 9 pogromists.
    "Augustus Cardinal Hlond, primate of Poland, on July 11, the day the sentence was imposed on the Kielce demonstrators, stated unjustly that 'Poland's increasing anti-Semitism is to a great degree due to Jews who today occupy leading positions in the government of Poland and try to introduce a government structure that a majority of the people do not desire." At the same time he strongly deprecated the pogrom and defended the Polish people from the charge of anti-Semitism. His statements were condemned the world over.
    The Soviet Union is reported to have had a Jewish population of 2,500,000. Total Jewish population of Europe was 3,833,600 according to Colliers.
    Harvey T
From: Raeto West — To: "Arthur H" — Subject: Re: Irving Trial — Date sent: Tue, 22 Feb 2000
    Is the decision final or can their be an appeal, kindly advise. Arthur H
    I'm pretty sure either side can appeal. But this is a lengthy and complex business, with Law Lords and so on. Regards Rae West
Date sent: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 To: RaeWest From: Ingrid Rimland — Subject: **** FAURISSON: Longerich = Forger ****
    Rae, please give this to David. I think it could be helpful to him. And please tell David that even though many revisionists are holding back, not knowing what his court strategy is, we are all rooting for him.
    Ingrid
Robert FAURISSON 5 December 1999
Peter Longerich is a Forger
In his 1998 book Politik der Vernichtung , Peter Longerich falsified the most important paragraphs of the "Wannsee-Protokoll" by omitting the words "bei Freilassung", which mean: upon release, or: upon liberation (Politik der Vernichtung, München, Zürich, Piper Verlag, 772 pages).
See 1) The original German text; 2) Raul Hilberg's translation; 3) P. Longerich's presentation of the text.

1) Unter entsprechender Leitung sollen nun im Zuge der Endlösung die Juden in geeigneter Weise im Osten zum Arbeitseinsatz kommen. In großen Arbeitskolonnen, unter Trennung der Geschlechter, werden die arbeitsfähigen Juden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt, wobei zweifellos ein Großteil durch natürliche Verminderung ausfallen wird.
Der allfällig endlich verbleibende Restbestand wird, da es sich bei diesem zweifellos um den widerstandsfähigsten Teil handelt, entsprechend behandelt werden müssen, da dieser, eine natürliche Auslese darstellend, bei Freilassung als Keimzelle eines neuen jüdischen Aufbaues anzusprechen ist. (Siehe die Erfahrung der Geschichte.)
- Besprechungsprotokoll (20.1.1942 in Berlin), p. 7-8.

2) In the course of the final solution, the Jews should be brought under appropriate direction in a suitable manner to the east for labor utilization. Separated by sex, the Jews capable of work will be led into these areas in large labor columns to build roads, whereby doubtless a large part will fall away through natural reduction.
The inevitable final remainder which doubtless constitutes the toughest element will have to be dealt with appropriately, since it represents a natural selection which upon liberation is to be regarded as a germ cell of a new Jewish development. (See the lesson of history.)
- Raul Hilberg, Documents of Destruction, Chicago, Quadrangle Books, 1971, p. 94.

3) Heydrich trennte also deutlich das bereits angelaufene Deportationsprogramm von dem weit umfangreicheren späteren Plan ab. Über die vorgeschene » Endlösung « machte Heydrich laut Protokoll folgende Ausführungen: »Unter entsprechender Leitung sollen nun im Zuge der Endlösung die Juden in geeigneter Weise zum Arbeitseinsatz kommen. In großen Arbeitskolonnen, unter Trennung der Geschlechter, werden die arbeitsfähigen Juden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt, wobei zweifellos ein Großteil durch natürliche Verminderung ausfallen wird.« Der allfällig endlich verbleibende Restbestand« werde, da »es sich bei diesem zweifellos um den widerstandsfähigsten Teil« handele, »entsprechend behandelt werden müssen«, um zu verhindern, daß hieraus wiederum eine »Keimzelle eines neuen jüdischen Aufbaues« entstünde. Zunächst sollten die Juden in »Durchgangsgettos« gebracht werden, um von hier aus weiter nach Osten transportiert zu werden.
-P. Longerich, Politik der Vernichtung, München, Zürich, Piper Verlag, 470 pages.

The Germans intended to release (to liberate) those Jews who, after having worked hard with their hands, would have constituted an elite, a germ cell of a new Jewish development. This was altogether a National-Socialist and a Zionist view. "See the lesson of history" means that history shows (or is supposed to show) that, for a group or a nation, revival may come after hardship and toil.
    Peter Longerich saw fit to avoid "upon release" and the sentence "See the lesson of history" in order to have his reader believe that the Germans intended to kill those remaining Jews.
    Many among the Germans were, like Adolf Eichmann and Alois Brunner, both National-Socialist and Zionist. That is why Zionist heads collaborated with them.
    P. Longerich is all the more unforgivable since, in 1989, he had himself published the entire "Wannsee-Protokoll" correctly (Die Ermordung der europäischen Juden, herausgegeben von Peter Longerich unter Mitarbeit von Dieter Pohl, München, Zürich, Piper Verlag, 1989, 479 pages; see p. 87 for the two paragraphs in question).

P.S. : In Die Ermordung [...], P. Longerich had doctored the famous 5 June 1942 document on the "Spezialwagen", signed "Just". Since this so very strange document contains, right in the first sentence, an inexplicable "beispielsweise" ("for example"), he used a trick to lead the reader to believe that this sentence was NOT the first. The artifice consisted in putting the typographical sign [...] before the first word of that opening passage (see p. 355)! [end]

From: "Martin Mevius" — To: RaeWest — Subject: Anne Frank's diary — Date sent: Tue, 22 Feb 2000
Dear Mr West,
On the Anne Frank diary bits I suggest you read the following letter posted on alt.revisionism, a reaction to a similar claim that parts of the diary where written in ball point pen. The "critical edition" of the diary is quoted here. Note that the "parts" in the diary you refer to were actually just 2 slips of paper with editorial comments, written in a different hand. These comments were not part of the diary. At all. They had no effect on the content of the diary. The forensic tests mentioned below the diary was written by one person. It was proven that this person was Anne Frank. It was proven the material the diary consisted of predated the war.. This information has been around for ten years now. I hope this is adequate to enlighten you, and perhaps you can change the relevant entries on your website accordingly. If not, I suggest you obtain a copy of the Critical Edition yourself, probably available at any good library, and check up the statements below.
In article , pyro1488@my-deja.com wrote:
I will post David Irving's response to a young girl who asked about Anne Franke's diaries. Here is what Mr. Irving wrote. Although this letter is dated 1986, it's an indication of Mr. Irving's intellectual dishonesty that he still has it on his website after most of his claims have been conclusively disproven. He repeats misinformation without any attempt to get the facts straight. For the sake of saving space, I will reprint only the relevant parts of Mr. Irving's highly inaccurate letter. The definitive discussion of the authenticity of Anne Frank's diaries can be found in The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition . Edited by David Barnouw and Gerrold Van Der Stroom. New York: Doubleday, 1989. Mr Irving's 1986 letter can be found in full at http://www.David Irving/Auschwitz/documents/controversies/AnneFrank/Jules15 0286.html
My cursory study of the documents (cursory, because I have not made it a principal task to examine this matter) drew my attention to the odd fact that one Meyer Levin, a New York scriptwriter, had sued Otto Frank in the New York courts for "his share of the proceeds" as he had worked with the father writing the diary. In New York, I obtained the Court documents and read the case, but it appeared to me that Levin was only concerned in getting at the royalties from the film and stage-play. That line of investigation was a blind alley.
Lovely how Irving manages to imply here that Levin and Otto Frank co-wrote Anne Frank's diaries, even as he admits that Levin's lawsuit was over the stage adaptation only. Levin originally contracted with Anne's father, Otto Frank, to write a play based on the diary. Levin wrote a script which was rejected by several producers, and Otto Frank went on to grant the rights to do an adaptation to another playwright (I don't have the name with me as I write). The second attempt at a play was successful, and was the basis for the later movie. Levin sued, claiming that the *play* had been plagiarized from his adaptation, and eventually Frank and the second playwright settled the case without admitting any wrongdoing, and Levin agreed to give up any claim to the rights to a dramatic adaptation. At NO POINT in any of the legal proceedings did any of the parties claim that the Diary itself was anything other than what it is: Anne Frank's own writing.
It may be that [Otto Frank] was just a crotchety old gentleman, who knew he was in the right and did not see why he should bother himself with such matters; it may be that he had a deeply guilty conscience about profiting from the forgery (or embellishment: bear this in mind) of a diary in his dead daughter's name.
Note how Irving makes the accusation without a shred of proof, with the weaselly "it may be"...
Whatever the cause, Frank again refused to let the diary out of his grasp, whereupon the West German police sent two trained forensic laboratory experts with their equipment all the way down to Switzerland to examine the documents in situ.
Their conclusion shocked the world, although for propaganda reasons the impact has been far less than it would have been in other circumstances. Parts of the diary, the detectives found, had been written in ball-point ink... [snip] ball-point pens did not become generally available until the early 1950s.
This is the most thoroughly inflammatory, and the most thoroughly discredited, of the claims against the diaries' authenticity. What Irving fails to note is that NO part of the diaries' text were written in ballpoint--rather, some editing marks--page numbers and a few minor corrections--were made by Otto Frank in preparing Anne's diaries for publication. This was confirmed by the exhaustive analysis of the diaries by the Netherlands Forensic Institute, as reported in the Critical Edition . The Dutch forensic examination of the diary determined that all substantial parts of the diary (most of which was bound in three diary volumes of blank pages, and some of which consisted of loose sheets of paper found with the bound volumes) were written by Anne Frank, using a fountain pen and ink. (The discussion of the materials of the diary--paper, ink, glue, et--can be found on pp. 102-104 of the Critical Edition , and the handwriting analysis runs from pp. 104-165. There are also two slips of paper left in folders holding the loose sheets of Anne Frank's writing (they were not in the bound diaries themselves). These two notes are in ballpoint pen, in a noticeably different handwriting, and "as far as the factual contents of the diary are concerned, the ballpoint writings have no significance whatsoever" ( Critical Edition p. 160). These notes, written in 1959 by Dorothea Ockelmann, were apparently left in the folders of loose sheets by Mrs. Ockelmann when she collaborated with Minna Becker on an early investigation of the diary (footnote, p. 160, see also p. 87). Photographs of these notes appear on pp. 160-163.
      Other postwar emendations to the diary, some in pencil, some in an ink differing from that used by Anne herself, include small typographical corrections, the addition of page numbers, and other insignificant changes. Such corrections (and there are only 26, "varying from a single letter to three words," that are in a hand other than Anne's) "were made by Otto Frank with a probability bordering on certainty" (p. 164).
Otto Frank subsequently claimed that the diary was not, after all, all in the same hand, and admitted that it had been embellished by others, hence the ball-point ink.
Again, Irving writes "embellished" to suggest that parts of the text were not written by Anne; the truth is that the only changes were minor corrections and notes preparing the diary for publication. (Otto Frank also edited out a few unflattering references Anne made to her mother, as well as one or two passages that he considered too "private"--Anne's observation about her first menstruation and about puberty. These passages have been restored in the Critical Edition and in recent editions of the Diary).
The Anne Frank Foundation in Amsterdam commissioned exhaustive new tests and promised publication of the entire unabridged diaries and papers. But, as the enclosed photocopies say, they have postponed again and again the publication of their findings.[*]
this asterisk links to a statement that says only "Website note: They have since been published.-- 1.1.99"--i.e., the Critical Edition , published a full decade before the website note. However, Irving provides NO mention of the fact that these exhaustive tests proved that the paper and inks were genuine, that the handwriting in the diaries matched other samples of Anne Frank's handwriting (prewar postcards and letters), and that the only marks in the diaries that are not in Anne Frank's diaries are editing marks, NOT changes or embellishments to the text.
      Anne Frank wrote her diary, and David Irving, who professes to be an "expert" on judging the authenticity of documents, should be more honest in how his website addresses the diary. Even if he didn't know these basic facts in 1986, when he wrote the letter cited here, he has no excuse for continuing to perpetuate these falsehoods a full decade after the Netherlands Forensic Institute proved the authenticity of the diary.
Marty Kelley
Faculty of Language and Culture Osaka University

      Thanks for your email. It's all very well to say the 'information' has been around, but the report on Internet, at least as far as I remember, although it mentions ball point pen, doesn't give any further information about it, e.g. being on separate bits of paper (which incidentally was not what Prof Evans seemed to be claiming either). Irving also says, and Evans didn't dispute it, that the entire text was in the same handwriting, including the biro bits.
      Again it's all very well to talk of a 'critical' edition, but this has a highly inaccurate introduction e.g. on Rassinier and shows all the marks of simply being a money-making and propagandist effort. There's also the problem (I only speak from memory of the 'critical edition' - my little collection of Anne Frankiana doesn't include this) that it seems unclear in all editions what the different versions are, how much interpolated material there is, and so on.
      Moreover it's not a source of much historical use, as Irving repeatedly points out.
      If you want to say something useful about this diary and/or novel, you'll need to do some work on it, rather than quoting an email. This would include addressing such points as Anne Franks' father being reluctant to provide handwriting examples, the lack of facsimiles of the text, and the full story of what happened in the scriptwriting lawsuit. [And, I should have added, the 'archaeology'—the actual building, the internal consistency and credibility of the story, and the opinions of other people who at the time lived in the area-RW]
Regards Rae West [No reply received]
TRIAL DAY 24. DR LONGERICH. Wed 23 Feb From: "G. Rohringer" — To: — Subject: Suggestion for Improvement — Date sent: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:01:04 -0800
    Dear Sirs, Many of us are following the trial with great interest. Unfortunately transcripts are no longer available and reliable reports are scarce. It might be of interest to post the dates of the days the trial was in session, so that we at least know where we stand now and what we have missed.
Sincerly yours G Rohringer xxx@yyyyyy.com
TRIAL DAY 25. DR LONGERICH. Thur 24 Feb From: Ingrid Rimland — Subject: Re: Holocaust museum losing its way — Date sent: Thu, 24 Feb 2000
I actually think that the museums will become targets of populist rage eventually. They stick out as sore thumbs and people don't like them even now, even if they pretend they have a legitimate use and serve the public interest. Remember what happened to the Lenin Statue?
Ingrid
From: "MG" — To: — Subject: Transcripts — Date sent: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:14:25 -0000
    How are things? Both your site and David Irving's site seem to have gone completely dead, and there is also of course a virtual newspaper blackout. I have seen it suggested on one site that Irving is doing well in court and that, as long as this continues, every effort will be made to consign what is taking place to the "memory-hole". From what you know, is this plausible?
    I certainly think that it is very concerning indeed that the transcripts are not regularly available. Apart from anything else, without them it will be impossible to prove that the decision is a perverse one if that turns out to be the case.
    Best wishes, MG.
    Yes, I know. There's a money offer under consideration by Harry Counsell, but they seem to be dragging their feet. This is all in Irving's hands; it's his case, after all. I'm going to Court 73 today (to see Longerich) and will email you this evening.
    Regards Rae West
Fri 25 Feb Date sent: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 — From: David Irving — Copy To: Raeto West — Subject: transcripts
    No word having been received, out come the howitzers. This message has been faxed today to Davenport Lyons:
"Digital daily transcripts. I have received no digital transcripts since Day 15 (February 3). I have repeatedly addressed yourselves about this matter, and I have made a written cash-per-day offer to yourselves and to Harry Counsell, which I consider reasonable, which is to include permission to continue our daily posting of the transcript on the Internet as a non-profit making service. I have received no acknowledgement or reply.
    While I wish to imply no deliberate intent on your part, the denial to me of the digital version of the daily transcripts is causing me disadvantages; it has made it pointless for me to annotate the TA/Law transcript as I proceed with the cross-examinations. I shall take up this imbalance with His Lordship on Monday."
    That should put the wind up them.
    David Irving Focal Point Publications 81 Duke Street London W1M 5DJ phone 020 7491 3498 fax 020 7409 7048
Sat 26 Feb Date sent: Sat, 26 Feb 2000— From: Orest Slepokura — Subject: Professor Charmley supports David Irving
    http://www.David Irving/Letters/trial/Charmley120100.html
Support from Churchill expert and university professor
    ALTHOUGH we have never met, our scholarly paths have crossed on the trail of the Churchill myth. Like you, I have never written on the holocaust, although I have been accused by 'Searchlight' of having views on it for which there is not a shred of evidence.
    All I would like to say is that in the area I am competent to talk about, namely Churchill, although I don't always agree with your conclusions, I am always impressed by the rigour and range of your scholarship, and should you need an academic historian with the balls to say that in court, I am your man.
    I know that by saying this I take an enormous risk, but I am fed up with the persecution you have had to undergo. I know virtually no-one in this country or elsewhere believes in free speech, but if people disagree with you they are free to say so - so why should you not be free to say what your own researches have uncovered. There are few historians with your record for turning up new and relevant documents.
    I wish you every success in your libel action - although I fear that the judicial system is no better than the rest of your persecutors. You are a brave man.
    John Charmley Professor of Modern History University of East Anglia Norwich NR 4 7 TJ
From: "John Charmley" — To: "Harvey A Taylor" — Subject: Re: Re:Support for Irving and the motherland — Date sent: Tue, 29 Feb 2000
    Dear Mr. Taylor, Thank you for your message of support - as you might imagine I have had many messages of another kind. Strange how intolerant those against intolerance can be!
    Regards
    John Charmley, Professor of Modern History, Director of Admissions, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk, NR4 7TJ 01603 592790 (work)
Date sent: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 — From: Michael — To: j.charmley@uea.ac.uk — Subject: Thanks for Standing By Mr Irving
    Greetings Professor Charmley:
    I recently read of the intellectual and moral support that you have offered the the Livy of our time, David Irving. Yes, I understand that you do not agree with Mr Irving in all details and that you do not share all his conclusions. Well, I've never heard of any two historians who were in complete accord. Those of us who uphold the right and the responsibility of historians to base their work on "just the facts" and to exercise their reason thereon in drawing conclusions are grateful that you have weathered the fickle squalls of public opinion and offered your support to Mr Irving.
    A note: I refer to Mr Irving as our Titus Livius because of the sparkling eloquence of his writings and the gripping appeal they have to layman as well as scholar. Livy was actually a bit too poetic in his historigrpahy for our purposes, but he remains among the most readable of historians. David Irving casts his scrupulously researched facts and conclusions in graceful and fluent prose, which-if it were introduced to the schools-would give the lie to those fogies and flakes who whine that history is just a bare recitation of dates.
    Best wishes in your endeavours. Good luck to us all.
    Cheers,
    S Michael McMillen
Sun 27 Feb From: BHIMARAMA — Date sent: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 — Subject: The Irving Trial - development : Jews gettin' quite desperate ! To: 8 email addresses
    There is something that I, BHIMARAMA, want to say at the outset : Down below in this Forwarded e-mail, much is made of the fact that the very nervous defense in the Irving vs. Lipstadt trial in London has now demanded that their fellow Israelis come to their "rescue" with a timely production of the notorious "Eichmann Memoirs" written during his obscene show - ' trial ' in Israel in 1961 - ' 62. The Israelis have already "warned" their " co-religionists " that these " Memoirs" contain "nothing new". The fact that the Israelis have kept these " Memoirs " of Eichmann's ( But was it HE who really wrote ALL of them ? ) completely under raps for so long - literally since 1962 ! - and have bitched about "releasing" them nowadays on the grounds that their content "could be interperted " as being favorable to the " ' THE Holocaust ' deniers " ! This wouldn't seem to be any reason to give any hope to Lipstadt. But I have a much more important question to raise on the issue of " memoirs " - and , as far as I am concerned, it is absolute,definitive PROOF POSITIVE ! that the whole " THE Holocaust " as it has been presented by the Jews over the past fifty years - is a total fraud : a complete and total propaganda hoax ! The fact is this : Since the early nineteen sixties [sic ! ] guess whose official diaries and memoirs have been in the possession of the State of Israel ????? Answer: Heinrich Himmler's ! Ergo: The so-called " THE Holocaust " is thereby dis-proved ! Do you understand what I am saying ?
    It is like this : If any - that is, ANY - of the German National Socialists ( the "Nazis" ) would have had the ultimate "inside information" on this supposed "secret" "extermination" Program , and what was "really" supposed to have been actually "going on insided those concentration camps" - it would have been the Chief SS leader, Heinrich Himmler ! Now , my point is simply this : If in fact there was ANYTHING at all in Heinrich Himmler's own diaries that would have even remotely referred to , let alone PROVED ! - the existence of a "gassing extermination" program for a suppossed " Six Million " Jews [ POF - Point Of Fact: There were, in actual fact, about FOUR million Jews living TO BEGIN WITH ! in all of the areas of Europe occupied by the Third German Reich at the height of its power ! Out of this original FOUR million living Jews - there were known to have been at least THREE million "survivors" roaming around Europe as the "Displaced Persons" after the war was over ! You can do the simple arithmetic , can't you ? ] - or for any number of Jews - then you can be damn sure that those passages of Himmler's diary would have already been given even more publicity by the Jews than the "Diary of Anne Frank " has ! It would have been headline news all over the whole place - I mean like ALL OVER THE WHOLE WORLD ! Every single school child would have been able to quote from them ! ( Whether they liked it or not ! ) ! In fact , Himmler's diaries - like those Allied aerial reconnaissance photos that were kept classified for as long as possible ! - have been kept in total secrecy by the State of Israel since they first acquired them in the 1960's ! So, if there was anything at all pertaining to the "gassing of six million Jews in an ' extermination ' program " written in Himmler's own diaries - then how come the Israelis have been keeping them secret for so long?
    A good question, huh ?
    Like I' ve said , the fact that they have been so ...er, ' reticent ' ..to release even Eichmann's " trial " diaries is also very suspicious. The fact that the Lipstadt defense team is now trying to rely on ' em now -- does , indeed, show that the Jews are now getting quite DESPERATE ! I guess that this is a good sign - but, personally, I always thought that , for practical political reasons, an Irving victory would have been a de facto impossibility under ANY circumstances. Now it seems that I had over-estimated the Jew's POWER -of- influence after all (?) !

Subj: Revisionism in driver 's seat of Irving vs. Lipstadt trial — Date: 2/27/00 — From: polin
    Greetings,
    After spending about $ 10,000,000 - to - $ 12,000,000 during the three years of preparation of this trial, the Holocaustian defense is now grasping at straws in the midst of the trial!!
    This is a sure sign that they feel that they are loosing and for sure it will prolong the trial. Heretz reports that Mr Rampton is asking for Eichmann confession NOW in the midst of the trial !
    This means that Irving will have to be given at least a week or two of break in order to familiarize himself with the confession which the Israelis have already said contains nothing new.
    But seeing doom in their case, Lipstadt and Rampton want that as a life-saver.
    I can not disclose at the moment why Rampton and Lipstadt feel that they are loosing, but within a week or ten days it will be announced by me or be otherwise apparent
    Polina

"...the (Israeli) attorney general attributes cardinal importance to the struggle against Holocaust denial." Ha'aretz, Sunday, February 27, 2000, http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/htmls/kat8_4.html
    London lawyers request Eichmann journals for Holocaust denial suit; A-G wants to cooperate — By Dalia Shehori Ha'aretz Correspondent
    Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein will hold an urgent meeting today to discuss a request from defense lawyers in a Holocaust denial defamation suit in London. The lawyers have asked the State of Israel to supply copies of writings by Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann months before his 1962 execution in Israel.
    The defamation trial has been brought by controversial British historian David Irving against Deborah Lipstadt, a scholar in modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University who branded Irving a "dangerous spokesman in the service of Holocaust deniers." Irving is suing Lipstadt, and Penguin Books publishers who released her volume "Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory." Irving alleges that Lipstadt's book caused irreparable harm to his reputation as a historian, causing him considerable financial damage.
    Irving denies that millions of Jews were systematically murdered by the Nazis. He claims that Hitler didn't know about the genocide until the final stages of the Second World War.
    Lipstadt's defense attorney, Richard Rempton, asked Rubinstein last week for a copy of Eichmann's journal entries. These are documents written by Eichmann while imprisoned in Israel, waiting for the verdict in his trial. The documents have been kept at Israel's state archives.
    Transcript copies of the Eichmann diaries are near completion; and should a decision be reached today during the attorney general's consultations to assent to the requests forwarded by Lipstadt's defense, a transcript will be dispatched urgently to London.
    Legal sources estimated last night that Rubinstein is inclined to agree to Lipstadt's request, as the attorney general attributes cardinal importance to the struggle against Holocaust denial. While serving in the past as Cabinet Secretary, Rubinstein chaired a public forum which kept track of anti-Semitism around the globe.
    According to the sources, Rubinstein regards the Eichmann document request as an opportunity to play a constructive part in effort to combat Holocaust denial. In recent weeks world Jewish organizations have been critical of Israel's silence during the Irving defamation trial.
    The discussion today will apparently involve authorities with whom Rubinstein has consulted in the past in connection with the Eichmann documents. These include Prof. Avatar Friesal (from the state archives), Holocaust scholar Prof. Yehuda Bauer, former Supreme Court President Moshe Landau, retired Supreme Court judge Gabriel Bach (who worked with the prosecution during the Eichmann trial), and others.
    The Eichmann journals divide into three parts. Eichmann devotes the first section to self-defense, distancing himself from the final solution. In the second section, entitled the "false idols," Eichmann perorates about responsibility for the murder of Jews, concluding that the Nazi regime is to blame, writing that "ultra-nationalism is the largest catastrophe known to all peoples." The third, short section involves "philosophical reflections."
    Former Supreme Court Justice Bach, who read the Eichmann documents in their entirety, says that they include no special, or new, material. He says that the journals do not deny the Holocaust. They are, according to Bach, an attempt on Eichmann's part to mitigate the onus of the charges made against him. Bach adds that Eichmann made a similar effort while on the stand in the trial, so the written journals do not convey any new evidence.
    Fragments from the documents were published in the past in a book by Gideon Housner.

From: Dorothy C — To: Rae West — Subject: Irving Libel Trial — Date Sent: 27 Feb 2000
Dear Rae,
I believe you are helping Irving so I will give you something of my background so you will know whether or not to pass my comments about Lipstadt on to him. Before the first Zundel trial I had no idea that anyone denied the Holocaust. I did know that most of the survivor memoirs I had read were rubbish but assumed some unscrupulous people were cashing in on the tragedy.
    Also, in the summer of 83, my husband and I rented a car in West Germany - drove through East Germany into Poland (spent a week in Krakow) then south to Czechoslovakia through there back to West Germany. We stayed at an hotel in Krakow visiting with some Polish Canadian friends of ours who were spending the summer with relatives. We did all the usual tourist things including a visit to Auschwitz. Although I said nothing at the time (our friends still believe in the gas-chambers there) I had the same uncomfortable feelings as I had had at some religious shrines I had visited in the past. The crutches, hair, spectacles etc. were all somewhat familiar!
    I've been non-religious since I was a young teenager (I'm now a senior) and I'm not prone to believing everything I hear. For the most part my skepticism has served me well.
    When I decided to go to the first Zundel trial, I had no idea what I was getting into. I was lucky enough to get in when Vrba was giving his "evidence." Of course Doug Christie demolished him and his cohort (Urstein, I think his name was). You had to get there very early to get in and what went on outside in the corridors was as interesting and revealing as what went on inside.
    I was fascinated when Christie tried (unsuccessfully) to get Sabina Citron subpoenaed as a witness. She's the lady (loosely speaking!) who pressed the Ontario government into laying false news charges against Zundel. She had been compelled to testify at an earlier hearing (I think about Zs postal rights being taken away or restored) but was now refusing to be questioned at the trial. Christie argued that the jury should be told that - according to her own testimony - she had been in Auschwitz. She refused to work when she was there and she left the camp by passenger train! Also the group she was with remained virtually unchanged till the train they were in was hit by allied bombs when they were in Germany. On being questioned, she said she expected to be shot for refusing to work in Auschwitz - she didn't mention being afraid of being gassed. Amazing the little nuggets you come upon once you get into this topic.
    To cut a long story short (you notice it's always too late when someone says that!) I am now a convinced Holocaust (in the gas-chambers sense) denier and I cannot understand why most of the world still believes the nonsense.
    I've never been a racist and I'm certainly not pro-German. Indeed, their acquiescence with this vile claim fills me with contempt. There must have been tens of thousands of Germans at the end of the war who were aware of the great evil being perpetuated. They had a responsibility to educate their families and friends and if (as we are told) their families and friends refused to hear them, then shame on them.
    I have written far too much and I know how very busy you are. I don't know if it can be used or not but Irving should try to get before the judge that Lipstadt cannot have it both ways. If, as she claims, the evidence for the Holocaust is so compelling that Irving must be willfully misreading it then she cannot say that once all the survivors are dead, revisionists will have a heyday. I do not recall the exact quote but I remember reading where she said that Irving was not an immediate threat but once the survivors were gone, he would indeed be.
    I very much enjoy your articles on the trial and especially since the transcripts have been held up. I am glad that Irving has such an intelligent and informed assistant as you. He is doing great but he has a formidable task and although he should prevail we cannot count on anything. I sometimes think the judge is too fair and worry that he is making sure there can be no appeal! I've become an old cynic over this topic.
    All the best from my husband (S) and me. Dorothy C
Thanks for your email; I'm grateful for the nice things you say. I see what you mean about Lipstadt and the comparison with Citron. I'll forward the relevant part of your email to Irving. Possibly something will come of it. Rae West
TRIAL DAY 26. DR LONGERICH. Mon 28 Feb From: Raeto West — To: David Irving — Subject: Transcripts OK — Date sent: Mon, 28 Feb 2000
[1] Is this, above, OK? I have no idea what luftsxxxx@aol.com is, but hope it's the correct short list of 'gentlemen'. (Remembering some jiggery-pokery before with AOL). [2] I've processed the transcripts, apart from a few things, and also the headers/ tailers. Perhaps we can briefly discuss tomorrow whether you're happy with what we've got (at present Harry Counsell gets all the credit). Anyway there's no problem about getting them all up.
    Rae.
    PS I'm delighted to get these transcripts, despite the money. I seriously think it's good value [speaking as someone who's not paying!-RW] (imagine paying for about five hours multilingual tape transcription.. quite apart from the recording). The only regret I have is that I stupidly said to the ginger haired chap 'Oh, is that all?' when he said about £70, and I was expecting all or perhaps half of £750. That was an error, I think.

... transcripts in digital form to me; the judge frowned, and ordered that they be made available to me on my undertaking not to post them on the Net until agreement is reached. This afternoon the court reporters gave me two zipped files containing all transcripts to date in text form. They have also confirmed that they will give permission to post them on the net for £100 a day, including back pay for all those already posted. So I've got to start saving. Meanwhile, I am attaching those transcripts with this message, on the understanding that you do not make copies for third parties, and use them only for this litigation. I hope to have made the payment and get them back on the Net within 24 hours or more. David Irving Focal Point Publications 81 Duke Street London W1M 5DJ
Send reply to: "frederick d" To: Rae West — Subject: How — Date sent: Mon, 28 Feb 2000
    Please tell me how to open " to home page of rae west's site "
    thank you
FRED
TRIAL DAY 27. PROF FUNKE. Tue 29 Feb From: "user" — To: Rae West— Subject: IRVING v LIPSTADT and PENGUIN BOOKS LTD. — Date sent: Tue, 29 Feb 2000
    Dear Rae West, Thank you for making available the transcripts of this, now famous, trial. I was able to download up to day 15, but nothing since. Please, could you possibly let me (US) know if and when the rest of the transcripts will be posted on your web site. Regards, Bruce A R South Australia
Probably within 24 hours - RW
Date sent: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 — To: [huge list] — From: "Carol A. V" — Subject: Newshawk on Eichmann
    Friends: There was a time when one of you capable folk would post something like this on a Usenet board and use it as an opening to pull apart Eichmann's testimony. Here is Newshawk on the subject, now that it is coming up in the Irving trial.
----- Original Message ----- From: NewsHawk Inc. Sent: Tuesday, February 29, 2000 11:29 AM — Subject: SS Officer Eichmann: Holocaust "most violent dance of death of all time"
    2.29.00 Nazi Officer Eichmann: Holocaust "most violent dance of death of all time"
    After being captured by Israel in Buenos Aires in 1960, Adolph Eichmann wrote voluminously before and during his trial in Israel on the horrors of the Nazi regime's policies and actions toward Jews and other Third Reich "undesirables".
    Eichmann described the personal anguish and horror he felt at times when forced to confront the results of the Nazi's genocidal juggernaut face-to-face; such as seeing a baby being held by an already-dead Jewish mother get its brains blown out in front of him; part of the infant's brains splattering on his clothes.
    However, Eichmann basically never accepted any personal responsibility for the actions taken by him as the Secret Service officer in charge of the agency's "Jewish Section," which implemented the extermination of countless numbers of Europe's Jews.
    Instead, Eichmann blamed the Nazi regime itself and reiterated that he was only following orders and doing what he'd been ordered to do.
    Israel has published the volume in part so that it may used as evidence defendants in a lawsuit in Great Britain being brought by someone labeled a "Holocaust denier" against those who've so labeled him.
    However Eichmann, in his last will and testament, did proffer some semblance of a personal apology, saying: "For the work that I leave to be done after my death I can only apologize and thank those people who will take care of it."
    Much of the work Eichmann refers to still needs to be done--quite a bit of it in this country; where Holocaust denial is stock-in-trade for a wide-ranging stewpot of groups including white-supremacist, ultra-right, Nation of Islam and some Christian organizations. [Seems to be part of Reuters-RW]
[Followed by a piece by Paul Holmes (Reuters), who for all I know may be 'Newshawk', which includes the sulphuric acid quotation, attributed to Hoess. It also says: He recounts how the perceived injustices imposed on Germany by the victors of World War One in the Treaty of Versailles led him to the Nazis but ultimately acknowledges that the appeal of Hitler took Germany to crime and ruin.
    "I joined the National-Socialist German Workers Party because it fought against the injustice of Versailles, against the diktat, against occupation, against national shame, against the plunder of land," Eichmann wrote.
    "And what did we bring? Injustice, diktat, occupation, national shame, the plunder of land." - RW]


TRIAL DAY 28. PROF FUNKE. Wed 1 Mar Date sent: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 — From: Orest Slepokura — Subject: Jeremy Jones: 'Anti-Semite' to cover Lipstadt libel trial
    http://jta.virtualjerusalem.com/index.exe?0003018
    Magazine assigns anti-Semitic writer to cover Holocaust revision libel trial
    By Jeremy Jones
    SYDNEY, Australia, March 1 (JTA) - Australia's Jewish community is outraged by a magazine's decision to have a Holocaust revisionist cover a libel suit brought by another Holocaust revisionist.
    Helen Darville has been assigned to cover the case in London of revisionist David Irving's suit against American academic Deborah Lipstadt.
    Darville, using the name "Helen Demidenko," authored a 1994 novel, "The Hand That Signed the Paper," which purported to be a fictionalized oral history of how Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves due to their mistreatment of Ukrainians.
    Despite an almost universal view in academic and Jewish circles that the book promoted anti-Semitism, it received Australia's most prestigious literary award, with special recognition given to the "ethnic" author.
    After an inquiry into the writer's background, it was discovered that Darville had taken the "Demidenko" from a real perpetrator of one of the most notorious incidents of the Holocaust, the massacre at Babi Yar.
    The inquiry also found that Darville had a record of supporting right-wing political causes.
    Later, Darville had a short-lived career as a newspaper columnist, which ended after she submitted a column plagiarized from an Internet site.
    Jack Marx, the editor of Australian Style magazine, defended his choice of Darville, claiming that she "does know a lot about World War II."
    His comment came despite the debunking on historical grounds of much of "The Hand That Signed the Paper."
[And so on. Appears to be an interesting inversion of the usual - RW]
TRIAL DAY 29. RAMPTON CROSS-EXAMINES IRVING ON FUNKE Thur 2 Mar From: Raeto West — To: [group] — Subject: Was it 'sulphuric' or 'prussic'...? — Date sent: Thu, 2 Mar 2000
I noticed the transmutation from sulphuric acid to 'the poison', though it now seems 'prussic acid' was another choice. I have a copy of Eichmann's diaries, or, almost certainly, 'diaries', but only in electronic form, but don't know German; has anyone bothered to follow what's supposed to have been happening, and who can summarise it *briefly*?
Rae West

From: "MG" — To: "Raeto West" — Subject: Day 29 (& Sun Tel) — Date sent: Thu, 2 Mar 2000
    There was a nasty article in today's Sunday Telegraph, putting D. I. in a very bad light. Was it - assuming you were at the trial on the relevant day - accurate as far as it went?. If it was, it seems that Rampton had D. I. on the ropes, at least diuring the reported exchanges.
Best wishes, MG
** I wasn't at the trial on Thursday; only on Wednesday. The press have appeared again after being dormant during the entire period of Irving cross-examining Longerich. So far as I know, the only evidence of Irving and extremism was a video, already shown several times, of DI addressing Germans in about 1990.
    It's difficult to deal with this sort of thing because the strands ought to be disentangled, but aren't. These involve e.g. racism, violence, anti-semitism, and greater Germany. It *may* be the case that the ultimate effect of revisionist history would be to cause Germans to reconsider greater Germany etc & I imagine this is the main motive for not investigating WW2 properly. This of course has some connection with promotion of the (or other) holocaust(s). But it's difficult for people to face this squarely. Anyway, I'm sure the Sun. Tel. (like the Times etc) was only interested in 'extremists' and of course they don't distinguish holocaust revisionists from WW2 revisionists. I think probably the essential issue is 20th century fear of Germany. If this could be shown, now, to be more or less redundant or irrelevant, I'd expect 'holocaust' promotion to fade. But Irving can't very well say this sort of thing, and both sides are shadow boxing over this issue, so far as I could see from pre- Thursday. (The sum of evidence of speeches etc is very flimsy, incidentally).
    That's really all I know! Day 29's transcript is now up; you could look at that (tho' the poor stenographer presumably couldn't face typing the video soundtrack, which was a shame).
Rae
Fri 3 Mar Subject: *****Irving trial cut short? — Date sent: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 — From: Ingrid Rimland
Somebody sent me a message saying that the Irving trial has been aborted. Any truth to that at all? Don't put it anywhere unless we can really be sure.
Ingrid
From: Seanxxx@aol.com — Date sent: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 Subject: Web site To: trial
    Dear Mr. West:
    Your site is by far the most entertaining and intellectually stimulating one on the entire web.
    Cordially, Sean
From: Raeto West — To: David Irving — Subject: Is it correct that the case is now adjourned... — Date sent: Fri, 3 Mar 2000
Hi David! Horsnell says in the Times that the case is now adjourned until March 13, all the witnesses having been called. Is that right? Rae
read my website! Did you not read the message I sent you! Horsnell is right, resumes Monday morning for two hours for arguments by me, then March 13 for closing speeches.
Thanks for the QUITE GOOD VALUE transcript. (They're all up; I've also improved my guide to them, with a little tabular breakdown of what was on which days).
    Yes, I do read your site, but it's such a whopper it's not always easy to find the relevant bits. Evidently I missed the bit about Monday.
    Rae
    (PS I also put a nice little sumary of your books on my site, plus montage of cover designs - I was impressed that Michele [sic] among others didn't know many of yr titles.)
Sat 4 Mar From: "Patrick A" — To: Rae West/David Irving — Subject: Impressions — Date sent: Sat, 4 Mar 2000
    Mr, Irving,
    Given the recent publicity surrounding your trial, I was reading over the only book I have of yours : Hitler's war. The abrigded 1990 edition by Avon Press.
    One thing impressed me when I read this fascinating and vivid account: you do, in fact, not hide Nazi atrocities or generally seem to exonerate Hitler's henchmen. This was particularly clear as I was reading your account of "Case White". You do not hide that Hitler ordered summary executions to take place, that the Polish intelligentsia had to be "dealt with", that SS generals were spreading fear and terror through their Einsatzkommandos, or that "dirty work" was taking place behind the frontlines. See p. 223 for instance.
    Now this is very different from what one would gather reading, not only the obvious biased press reports (The Globe and Mail's article on Thursday is a good example), but even the court proceedings. And this should, I believe, be corrected.
    I suppose it is in the nature of court cases to emphasise points of disagreements. However, I believe the defendants may have cultivated this continuous disagreement and nitpicking climate to present you as a denier of everything presented to you. You either had to often concede you were not a specialist in this field (and thus lose credibility as a prudent historian) or deny most of what was presented to you by a wide selection of people (and appear as a perpetual denier).
    I believe, unfortunately, that the effect of this tactic may well be that Lord Gray may have the impression that you are a clever contrarian, secretly fascinated by the England of yore (and its racial purity?) as well as by the cataclysmic nature of the Nazi adventure.
    I do not know whether I am in a position to give you any advice, since I believe you have already tried to dispel this impression, but I believe you should make clearer what you do not deny (a long list of crimes?) and that this admission surely does not make of you a denier of war crimes, neither a Holocaust denier but that you have doubts on some points that are legitimates given the heavy use on interpretation, eyewitnesses and the absence of primary sources.
    As I write this I realise you have said this already. My writing is only prompted by the fact that this I think has not come through clearly. Or that when you have said it it seemed perfunctory. I think your hesitations should be better put into a broader perspective.
    Yours faithfully,
    Patrick A ... (Québec)
    Note for our Echelon friends: my only motives in writing this email is to give an unbiased opinion of the current court case to Mr Irving since I find the unanimous world-wide press campaign set against Mr. Irving an utmost upsetting spectacle: Mr. Irving has already been condemned and presented in the most unfavourable light by the sheeplike penpushers that inform us. Disturbing.
Sun 5 Mar — Date sent: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 To: SkyWriter@Public-Action.com — From: "Carol A. Valentine" — Subject: SALON Article on Irving Trial: Comment Opportunity
[Long unimportant article snipped]
Hoffman comments on the preceding Salon article:
At least Salon has avoided the fanatically partisan, sneering tone of similar "think pieces" on the Irving-Lipstadt trial, and conceded a few key points to Irving: that he is outnumbered by his rich and powerful adversaries, that he is right about there being no "smoking gun" implicating Hitler in genocide-by-gas-chamber, and that the word "Holocaust" is meaningless Orwellian Newspeak that obscures rather than clarifies historical realities.
    But by this writer's standards, the Salon report still fails as journalism, from its very opening sentence. Irving is not a "Holocaust-denier" and pronoucing him one is the same as vindicating Lipstadt. Irving has not faced the "leading experts" in the courtroom. He has faced the leading mountebanks. The leading expert, former Max Planck chemist and PhD. candidate Germar Rudolf, is a fugitive sought by the German government for the thought crime of denying the holy of holies. Other revisionist experts like Carlo Mattogno and Prof. Robert Faurisson were rebuffed by Irving himself, a loner who could be described in the terms Homer reserved for Daedalus.
    The Salon reporter notes the presence of journalists from all over the world but fails to remark upon the anomalous fact that from mid-February until the flap over the Eichmann "diaries," (Feb. 28 onward) the various newspapers, magazines and broadcasting outlets supposedly covering the trial blacked-out almost all coverage of it.
    It must be a coincidence that this was the same period when Irving had Lipstadt's defense witnesses on the ropes and was battering them quite successfully and effectively. Salon also omits the rather embarrassing fact that American "Holocaust denial expert" Prof. Deborah Lipstadt has refused to take the stand in the trial, whereas Irving has withstood the withering cross-examination of Lipstadt's defense attorney time and again.
    Salon concludes by claiming that Irving "has had his day in court." But this can only be true when the courtroom proceedings have been fairly and consistently reported in detail by the major communications outlets. This has not been the case in the Irving-Lipstadt trial. The truth about the proceedings is available only to those who attend the trial or obtain the transcript.
    Since the majority of the public depend upon the media for their version of the trial, as far as the perceptions of that vast multidude are concerned, Mr. Irving has not had his day in court, because the media have not told the public even half the story of what has actually transpired at the Royal Court of Justice in the Strand.
    Should the judge rule against Irving, the media will crow in boldface headlines that the case was a predictable, easy victory for the omniscient and infallible establishment side that "trounced" the "Holocaust" deniers' leading "Hitler apologist." But an opinion like that can only be sustained upon the twin pillars of ignorance and omission, the engines that drive that titanic vessel, HMS Media.
    Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press.
[Ed: An in-depth interview with Mr. Hoffman was run in Final Conflict magazine #23. The interview is now available on the FC website at: >
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/]
TRIAL DAY 30. IRVING ON THE DEFENDANTS. Mon 6 Mar From: "RG" — To: 'trial' — Subject: Irving Closing: from RG in Atlanta — Date sent: Monday, March 06, 2000
Mr West,
Again I thank you for your work in bringing the Irving trial to the world. I am most pleased that you posted my thoughts on Mr Justice Gray's task.
...
I sent a larger suggestion to Mr Irving that has not brought a response, but it continues to intrigue me. It refers to an ironic parallel I seem to see in the trial of Emil Zola in the Dreyfus Affair; this quote is the hub of my thought:
'It was the thunderbolt. It was the supremely simple, logical, militant step that only genius could have conceived. Instead of litigating over obscure phases, fragments of the case, the Letter presented the whole Affair, from beginning to end, drenched with light. All the shadowy motives, the gaps, the things only divined, he filled in with an amazing intuition. He ended with a direct accusation of the whole government and the heads of the army which made him subject to the libel laws, which precipitated a trial of him, Emile Zola, in a civil court, superb opportunity for forcing a clean breast of the whole vile business in the open before the eyes of the world.' -- Zola and his Times , by Matthew Josephson
Win or lose in the present case, someone must duplicate Zola's effort; and be ready when the verdict is delivered. (It is nigh impossible that it will be a full vindication of Irving; -Solomonic -as you suggest- ambiguity is the best we can realistically hope for.)
...
Your [i.e. Irving's] comments about the excesses of the Holocaust barrage reflects an emotion that Emile Zola described a century ago:
"Ah! to live indignant, to live enraged...at false honor, at universal mediocrity! To be unable to read a newspaper without paling in anger! To feel the continued and irresistible need of crying aloud what one thinks, above all when one is alone in thinking it, and to be ready to abandon all the sweets of life for it."
Mr Irving,
I have been struck with the mirror-image likeness of the present trial and the Dreyfus Affair and Emile Zola. All the key words are there too. Would it not be an awsome irony if you could effectively borrow from the format of Zola. I know you should win, but it may be that the decision will go the other way. When all the world knew Zola was right, the Judge gave an impossible verdict of 'guilty but innocent' --Dreyfus was guilty of treason, with extenuating circumstances. Zola was known as a Revisionist. His family was attacked. Libel was involved. Public sentiment was stirred by a prejudiced press. Extradition was feared. The military establishment had face to save. Fraud was rampant. Evidence was withheld. Much more.
    I do not mean to pretend a full knowledge of the Dreyfus/Zola Affair, but the ironic echoes are startling (at least to me). I am suggesting that you consider having a brief (10-20 pp) statement that will be easy for the whole world to grasp whether there is a win or loss.
    You are already eloquent like Zola and have his vehemence. Let it all out in a statement of genius that will endure the centuries.
    I am attaching a MicrosoftWord97 file of Zola's famous 'I Accuse' in English. ...
    I consider your work of utmost importance, and pray for you daily. With Israel in such a position of strength (nuclear), there is great danger; not unlike the danger in A.D. 70 when fanatics controlled Jerusalem. But this time the destruction will not be limited to that real estate. 'This time' a holocaust for all humanity is simmering to a boil. It must be avoided, and it starts with consistent common sense and reality. The times areagain out of joint...and you are there in a most critical position. Western societies seem willing to surrender to the fanatics; but there are angry cultures that will not. There will be world destruction -quite a bit more than world war. 'Jew, Gentile and Christian' will all win if a solution based on real history is found --or all will lose if unrelenting revenge and hate prevail.
My prayers, RG. (name not for publication, thanks, RG Atlanta could be used) Atlanta, GA
Tue 7 Mar Date sent: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 — To: holrev — From: J — Subject: your website
Rae West,
I linked to your site just the other day off David Irving's Transcript page. I'm reading the transcripts on-line. You are very fortunate to be actually in the courtroom. "Oh to be in London now that spring is here".
    On your site so far I've read your court summaries for the days I missed and "Free Speech, the Internet and Holocaust Revisionism." It is just great finding your wealth of information as "revisionism" is exactly where I'm at, having realized most of what we were raised on was LIES. But the search for the truth is incredibly interesting and the reward, once we find it, will be worth it. I'll keep reading your site.
Bye for now, J
From: Raeto West — To: Gmurczyk p — Subject: Re: Rampton and not Justice Gray dumped Eichmann confessions DUMPED! — Date sent: Tue, 7 Mar 2000
    Someone said the Eichmann stuff is on Der Spiegel's website in full, but I haven't checked this. Perhaps someone could? I doubt it's still confidential, despite what Polina says. Rae
Mock has it wrong, it was Rampton QC Lipstadt lawyer who asked for and dumped the Eichmann confessions because they did not confirm the Holocaust they should ... and for this reason they are still confidential!!! Polina
From: Raeto West — To: "enigma" — Subject: Re: No Justification r.e. Hamas & Hezbollah — Date sent: Tue, 7 Mar 2000
    Dear Mr West, I've been following the Irving Trial partly on your website. I saw in the transcripts of 2 March that the defense closed without offering any "justification" for allegations that Irving was associated with alleged Moslem terrorist groups. For this American here could you offer me your "personal non- legal interpretation" on.
    1. If no justification is offered, Lipstadt essentially defaults the issue. Is that accurate?
*** Yes; they have offered no defence on these two (or three?) claims which were in Lipstadt's book.
    2. If the defense fails to prevail totally, they won't be able to win on assessing Irving their costs. Is that accurate?
*** This sentence doesn't seem to make sense! I think the way the costs are distributed is up to the judge. If he thinks the defence was completely wrong, all the costs of the case would be for them to pay, and v.v. (I think). Presumably the Hamas, Farrakhan etc abdication must mean the defence don't think it's very important. I think there's a sort of points system. But there's also the question of damages. I haven't been able to get a sensible view of this. Even if it's proved that there was a conspiracy, the question would be whether Penguin should pay - but what about other conspirators?
    There's another possibility, which is that either side could appeal, i.e. the case could go before a higher court, with heavyweight lawyers. This no doubt would take years and probably couldn't be done by Irving, since I expect it would need qualified (and expensive) lawyers. So possibly the defence have already just decided that they'll appeal, calculating they can afford it.

    Best Wishes, Mark A. G, Florida
    Rae West. - Sorry to be so vague. No newspaper commentator I've seen says anything useful on the legalities.
Wed 8 Mar Date sent: Wed, 08 Mar 2000— From: David Irving — To: Raeto West — Subject: Rae, any explanation for this ?
    G88P***@aol.com wrote: david why did you do it???? my window is 3.11 i having a hard time with your seite i am with aol.i had no proplem before till you changed it what can i do?? i can not read your transcripts anymore.?? > thanks j
    David, i havnt' a fuking cleu??? j seems a bit dim....??
    Perhaps you should email and ask what she means. I haven't changed anything as far as I know and Windows 3.1 oughtn't have any problems. Rae
Thur 9 Mar  
Fri 10 Mar From: "Alex C" — To: "Rae West" — Subject: Fw: Holocaust case result will deliver judgement in Irving — Date sent: Fri, 10 Mar 2000
Opinion: Ian Burrell's article is malicious and selective. The array of expert witnesses called by the defense did not make a whit of difference to the case. Indeed, they were demolished by Mr. Irving. Burrell's assertion that "Irving repeatedly denied awareness of documents and disclaimed having read passages from books he had discussed in public," is intended to convey that he is a casual researcher. The reverse is true. Irving is awesome in his knowledge of the events of the second world war and he is even more startlingly impressive in his role as claimant in person! He is all alone. Yet, he dominates the courtroom and the army of prominent barristers and helpers hired by the defendants. As for Mr. Irving denying the gas chamber in Auschwitz. Check the transcripts of March 1st. page 162 and you will see where Mr. Rampton (Citing the expert report of Professor Van Pelt) agrees that the gas chamber in Auschwitz is a fake! I am not saying Irving will prevail Around the world many courageous and knowledgeable people have been sacrificed to the Idol of the Holocaust. The Swiss banks buckled and Judge Gray must anticipate the fury which will descend upon him if he finds in favor of the claimant.
Thank you for reading my opinion,
Yours truly, Dorothy C
Thanks. Yes, you're right about Burrell - all his articels, not just this one. (I intend to add him to my 'hackwatch' section!)
    It's possible Gray might be able to deflect criticism by producing a result with emphasis on technicalities, though, I think.
    I mean he could in effect say something like "Many people dislike Mr Irving's view [blah blah] However I must take a purely legal view [blah blah] the defendants have not established their case [blah blah] therefore despite reservations [blah blah] it is my duty to decide in favour of the complainant."
    We'll see. Regards Rae

Date sent: Sat, 10 Mar 2000 From: Carol Valentine Subject: BBC desperate for interview with Germar Rudolf
Dear friends!
A Mark Sanders (mark@sussex2000.fsbusiness.co.uk) claims to collect information about me in order to prepare a TV report on me for the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC. I told him that I am ready for an interview per email or alternatively a live interview.
First, he backed out. But now he came back agreeing to a preliminary email interview and claiming he and his boss would try to arrange a live interview with me, but they cannot yet promise anything about it. I wonder how far they go...
Here is the email interview I conducted with him. All journalists are lazy. I told that one already about most of the articles that I quot(e) in here again. Apparently he doesn't want to read them.
But I get bored telling the same story over and over again, so please excuse that I referred to some articles on my web site.
Best wishes to you all. Germar Rudolf
Dear Mr. Sanders,
here are my answers:

1. Why did you get involved in the field of revisionist history?
    I had to answer that question already many times, so I published an article about it, which is available in English, too. Please read my articles about that posted at www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/eros.html and www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/young.html
......

4. How much pressure has there been on you and your family following your prosecution in Germany and your exile in the UK?
    I had to answer that question already many times, so I published an article about it, which is available in English, too. Please read my article about that posted at www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/outlawed.html (general), www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/media.html (media campaigns), www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/flaws.html and www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/burn.html (legal persecution)

5. Why is it that many mainstream academics and scientists dispute your findings?
    There are two possible reasons:
    a) They are convinced that I am wrong;
    b) they fear that they will experience similar persecutions if they don't disagree.
    It is quite easy to establish, which of both possibilities is actually true:
    When a) is true, they would refute/disprove my thesis with proper scientific work;
    when b) is true, they would use polemics to defame me, and fraudulent, pseudo-scientific methods to "refute" me.
    As I have shown frequently, they use the methods of case b), look for example at www.vho.org/GB/Contributions/Fraudulent.html and www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/leuchter.html (Krakow), www.vho.org/GB/Books/cq/critique.html (Bailer), www.vho.org/GB/Contributions/Green.html (Green), www.vho.org/GB/Contributions/CharacterAssassins.html (Green & McCarthy), www.vho.org/GB/Contributions/RudolfOnVanPelt.html (van Pelt).
    I haven't seen a single publication yet that does not resort to personal attacks and would discuss the scientific matters involved in an unbiased way.

6. How do you explain the testimony of Jewish prisoners in the camps that homicidal gas chambers were in use, when your work contradicts those statements?
    How do you explain the testimony of Christians that witches would ride on brooms and have intercourse with the devil, when scientific work contradicts those statements? History teaches us that especially under extreme social pressure, eyewitness accounts are hardly worth anything.
    Why mak(e) an exception in that case? Since the end of the Holy Inquisition, there has never been a topic that was handled (as) dogmatically as the "Holocaust".
    In 1991-1992, I studied the history of the medieval witch trials. It was amazing to read that many people in these times testified voluntarily, without being threatened by anyone, and that all these accounts of apparently independent eyewitnesses all over Europe sounded so similar in so many details - without mass media! How could they have invented it?
    In 1994 I studied the atmosphere of the modern "Holocaust" trials, and I was struck by the parallels, see www.vho.org/GB/Books/fsfth/5.html (Köhler is a pen name of mine).
    So if you ask how come that so many people in our times testify voluntarily, without being threatened by anyone, and that all these accounts of "independent" eyewitnesses all over the world sound so similar in so many details, one has to ask: how could they have invented it? (By the way: today we *do* have mass media and general "education"!) Then please take a good book about medieval witch trials and start thinking.

7. Does it bother you in any way that Jewish groups in this country say that your presence in the UK and your work causes them great distress?
    No. Their work of persecuting me and my family caused and causes distress to me, too, but my distress is a real physical one, not just imagined, as in their case. (...)

8. What do you think of the claim that your work provides a respectable face for racisism?
    If there is a respectable face of racism - how is that defined? - (then) so be it. What is respectable should be allowed to be respectable, I guess. I cannot control what other people do with my work. If my thesis is correct, (then) it may be used by everyone. If it is wrong, it needs to be refuted.
    The primary question is not whether or not my work can serve purposes welcome or undesired by certain lobby groups, but whether or not it is correct. A scientist must *never* make the outcome of his research dependent on what anyone expects from him.
    So, strictly speaking: I don't care if it supports or fights racism, anti-Semitism, anti-anti-Semitism, fascism, communism, anti-Arabism, anti-Whitism, anti-Germanism or what have you. I couldn't care less.
......
Germar S. Rudolf
Great, Russ. But why send Daniel into the lion's den in the process? God can shut the mouths of lions, but shutting the mouths of journalists is a taller order. - >John

Still, many people feel that Germar should not consent to give a requested interview to a British journalist if he doesn't want to waste his most productive years - first in months in a British holding tank prior to deportation, and then 5-7 years, if not more, for what is on his website.
    They would just keep on charging him and charging him and charging him - just as they did with Deckert.    
There are many who feel strongly that Germar ought not to be tempted to grant that interview under any circumstances. Ernst reminded me of van Hus (?) who had a promise from the Pope, and still they burned him at the stake.
    These lapdog media people are jackals. - Ingrid [Quite a mixed metaphor! - RW]

The flattery thing is odd; I've watched Irving give interviews with quite a few journalists, and I'm sure he'll be misrepresented. (The New York Times phoned a few days ago, when I happened to be there.) ... Since G Rudolf seems to be at risk of arrest, he'd be very foolish to give a live interview. The Beeb is pure state propaganda.
- Rae

Date sent: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 — To: RaeWest — From: "Carol A. V" — Subject: Re: Re the BBC and G Rudolf...
Thanks, Rae, for speaking up. Last Septemeber the Washington Post wanted to interview me. I told them I did not give interviews, but would be happy to show them around the Museum. They assured me they were not interested in the evidence I had collected, they wanted to do a piece on what made me tick.
    That is, they wanted to do a character assassination piece. Funny, isn't it .... here all this data is available to the news media on the Internet, and they won't put it in the papers. No, they want to INTERVIEW the subjects.
    I thought that Germar was quite smart in insisting that the "interview" take place in writing. My purpose in posting it to alt.journalism and soc.culture.british was to memorialize the event. ...
Carol
Dear Russ G/ Germar Rudolf,
If I were you I'd be very cautious about offering the BBC an interview - especially live. Unfortunately the BBC has as bad a record of suppression as any other organisation - possibly worse because of its monolithic nature. There is no chance of Rudolf's work being presented accurately - partly for political reasons, and partly because the BBC has no competent science staff anyway. Don't be tempted; don't waste your time or risk a personal appearance.
Rae West
Sat 11 Mar Date sent: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 — From: David Irving — Copies to: [long list]
Please take me off this immense mailing list, it is seriously hampering my work to receive the same email half a dozen times.
David Irving
Date sent: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 15:32:12 +0100 — To: trial From: ********@wanadoo.fr — Subject: not dead
    Dear Raeto West First, congratulations for your accounts of the trial. You've been our eyes and ears there. Very helpful. Many thanks. You wrote that Dr. Staeglich (or Stäglich, much better) is dead. He is not. He is retired in an elderly people's residence in Northern Germany and is quite alive, physically and mentally. Töben visited him just before being jailed, last year, in Mannheim, and reported about his visit to Stäglich. I supposed that neither you nor me would like to see ourselves dead, even on Internet
    Very best Serge Thion
From: "hoaxbuster" — To: — Subject: Re: Polin tells me... — Date sent: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 08:23:55 -0500
    Dear Rae West,
    Thank you for your quick response to Mirko's call for help. I actually found the material already and tried to save Mirko anymore trouble.
    Your site is enormously valuable and I thank you for all you must be putting into this work.
    I have very mixed feelings about Irving--but I do wish him well and success with his suit. No one was killed by the Nazis in gaschambers--or gas vans!! Irving should know that by now--and backsliding gets us nowhere. Regardless of the outcome at the hands of Judge Gray, the material generated by the trial will be invaluable and stimulating for a long time to come.
    Regards, Friedrich Paul B
-----Original Message-----
Polin tells me you want the Jan 25th transcript of Irving-v-Lisptadt.
    My home page http:\\www2.prestel.co.uk\littleton links to irving-v-lipstadt (use the drop-down menu). This has my account of the trail and links to all the transcript pages, plus a description of them, so there should be enough info for you to find what you want. (e.g. why not download ALL van Pelt's testimony?)
    Regards Rae West

From: "hoaxbuster" — To: "Rae West" — Subject: Fw: Zyklon Introduction MANHOLES — Date sent: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 11:22:56 -0500
Dear Mr. Irving,
I do wish you well--and total success with your trial. Perhaps I was too harsh with my earlier e-mails--but let us leave that aside for now. Lots of time for nit-picking after our and especially your decisive victory!!
    I have been in close communication with Mirko D the last few days and he has brought some important facts to my attention which could be decisive in your trial--and which you might be eager to use this coming Wednesday in court.
    The Zyklon introduction holes could not possibly have been the size of tennis balls or just a bit larger as Van Pelt suggests--but, they must have been as large as MANHOLES--70 centimeters by 70 centimeters square (27-1/2 > inches by 27-1/2 inches). This is based on the testimony of Henry Tauber and Michal Kula as given in the Pressac book and elsewhere, including the Nizkor website--see: http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/intro-columns/ . In Nizkor's essay entitled "Zyklon Introduction Columns" they even include an extremely useful elevation drawing which does accurately represent, with references, the testimony of Kula and Tauber and the pages in Pressac. Kula testified that the wiremesh columns he made were 3.0 meters high--and 70 cm by 70 cm square. Since the ceiling heighth from floor to ceiling in Leichenkeller 1 was only 2.40 (or 2.41) meters, this means that 0.6 meters of the mesh columns had to extend through the ceiling--and that is shown in the Nizkor drawing. The only way that is possible is with holes that were 70 x 70 in the concrete roof--and extending above and beyond the top of the concrete roof slab. This is all shown in the Nizkor site (let's give the devils their do). The ceiling heighth is given in numerous Bauleitung drawings incl. 933 [934] on page 278 of Pressac.
    My point, and it is originally Mirko's point, is that although one can certainly lose track of small, 3-inch holes, (small pipe size as Van Pelt claimed page 182 of Day 9, Tuesday), amid the large irregular chunks of the alleged gaschamber roof--one could not possibly have lost sight of four holes as large as manholes 27-1/2 inches by 27-1/2 inches square. The only explanation is that they were never there!! Filling in the holes would have been evident in the concrete pieces forever afterward by differences in general appearance, coloring, wear and fracturing since the bonding between the filled portions would never have matched the strengths of the original continuous pouring of concrete. But there is absolutely no trace among the actual pieces that any such filling had ever occurred. Battleship Auschwitz goes down!! Cheers all around except at USHMM.
    Lots of LUCK Friedrich Paul B
Sun 12 Mar From: Raeto West — To: info@fpp.co.uk — Subject: Re: speech — Date sent: Sun, 12 Mar 2000
I think your speech reads very well. Whether it's legally sound I have little idea. What follows are a few suggestions; the stuff in double quotes is searchable on your file. [And apart from once, I haven't bothered with spelling mistakes].
    1. Farrakhan "who is known to be acting in the pay.." Personally I'd suggest "believed to be", in case he sues you! Unless you have definite proof.
    2. "British Columbia group of anti-fascists known to the police." I'd drop 'anti-fascists' since it seems only part-true, or misleading. Many people would support 'anti-fascists'. That's why the description is used. They may have been sincere but misled or something; or a fake organisation; or masquerading as anti-fascists. So I wouldn't use anti-fascists unless I had proof this was accurate. It makes it look as if you're on the wrong side.
    3. ".. 1963 when officers of Searchlight.." I wouldn't use 'officers' because it sounds official - you wouldn't say 'officers' working for a shady debt-collecting agency. I presume 'employees' isn't right. Agents? Representatives? Hirelings?
    4. "..but in abrogating the most basic right of all.. free speech". I think this is biologically wrong; e.g. food is more basic. Perhaps Gray is literal-minded. How about 'one of the most basic rights of all'?
    5. ".. sank the book without trace and in fact destroyed.... the publisher.." re The War Between the Generals. I'd suggest you put some evidence, not much, just in passing, to support the lethality of the book review. Otherwise it may look like sour grapes - Rampton may say it wasn't a good book and the review said so and you're trying to blame the harmless reviewer.
    6. ".. principal British and Commonwealth publisher." Principle! [This is my only spelling comment! - in case you don't notice.] [Oops..-RW]
    7. ".. lived since then with a four foot steel spike.." perhaps ought to be muted or not mentioned, as it sounds a bit jarring and violent and possibly illegal.
    8. "..Jewish and anti-fascist organisations.. 74" Same remark applies as 2 above. Many people support anything called anti-fascist, which is one of the reasons they adopt that name.
    9. ".. and for an academic time is certainly at a premium.." I'm not sure if this is meant sarcastically. Why not 'is perhaps at a premium' or something like that? All the academics seem to have, in fact, wasted a lot of time.
    10. "I asked the witness van Pelt if he was familiar with.." Why not put in a reminder of van Pelt's lack of architectural qualifications? ".. in view of the fact that he is not qualified architecturally.."
    11. ".. the whole catchment area" of Auschwitz. Why not add a reminder: '.. which for centuries had been an area of pestilence' or something like that.
    12. ".. none of the German bodies who invited me.. illegal or banned.." I followed up an actual source in Lipstadt's book: and this is from my website:'The next claim made on page 8 is that Irving 'regularly participated in the annual meetings of the extremist German political party Deutsche Volks Union.' What we actually find in the Sunday Telegraph article of 19th Jan 1992 is: 'In March he is due to speak at the annual conference of the neo-fascist Deutsche Volks Union in Passau. He expects 10,000 people to be there -- if the Germans let him in. He has been banned before.' In other words, Lipstadt has lied -- one projected talk has been represented as 'regular meetings'. The Deutsche Volks Union, whatever it is, is not described; on the face of it, it seems unlikely to be neo-fascist, since one gathers there are German laws banning this.
    13. "office-holders of the IHR.." As above in 3 I think this sounds too official; Rampton might say you refer to these odious people with respect - you say they have office-holders.
    14. ".. Althans.. he seemed full of promise.." I think 'promise' is the wrong word, because Rampton might say, promise of what? Promise of being another Fuehrer? Why not conceited, clever, arrogant, entertaining. Or something.
    Funke: At any rate I think you should criticise the intellectual weaknesses of Marxism in Funke, rather than just say he's 'extreme left', which is tooo vague. E.g. why not say e.g. 'Funke, who probably still believes in the labour theory of value,..'
    Hope these are some use. As I say, it seems OK!Rae
Mon 13 Mar  
TRIAL DAY 31. IRVING ON THE DEFENDANTS. Tue 14 Mar  
TRIAL DAY 32. CLOSING SPEECHES. Wed 15 Mar  
Thur 16 Mar  
Fri 17 Mar From: Raeto West — To: TGracie Subject: Re: your site is fascinating........ — Date sent: Fri, 17 Mar 2000
I think you do a very credible job presenting your interpretation of the issues covered on your site. I am not Jewish, liberal(however, as you intimate, I am unfortunate enough to have been educated in America!) but I must say your sympathies are obvious. This doesn't fit the mold of being the "2nd most intellectual site on the Internet."!!
** The issues on my site include war crimes in Vietnam, other aspects of the life/ work of Bertrand Russell, modern physics, Shakespeare, modern biology, the Belgian Congo, and other things.
Whenever you discuss a proponent of revisionism, it appears that you are reserved and objective before finally conceding their credibilty. Faurisson, Butz, etc. When discussing anyone who challenges these giants, you slip into simple sarcasm (like I just did) when evaluating their credentials. Or even their motivation e.g. something to the effect that someone"made a rather nice living being an Auswitch survivor". Ouch.
** There is a piece on my revisionist site relating to a professional Auschwitz survivor who goes round making speeches; in these he states he spent his whole war bricklaying in Auschwitz. This is what he says. If you say Ouch, that's your problem.
I really have no idea what you could possibly consider the "most intellectual site on the Internet". But if it's just another rehashed and watered-down polemic like this one then you're not just revising history but also the meaning of "intellectual".
** You seem to have no concept of assessing the weight of evidence trying to assess at multiple issues. I'm tempted to ask you: Why not try to make some attempt to think for yourself? But obviously you have little inclination that way, so probably there's little point.
Regards Rae West

From: "Kurt R" — To: Rae West— Subject: Irving Trial — Date sent: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 10:34:46 +0100
    Dear Mr. West: This is just a quick note to say TAHNK YOU for your excellent report on the Irving trial. Your web site is especially valuable for folks in Germany who are not able to obtain truthful and unbiased information on this trial from the mainstream media, or from any media for that matter.
Thanks; I appreciate people saying nice things!
    Do you think Justice Gray has the stature and independence to arrive at a just verdict? What is you guess about the time line?
Yes, probably. He seemed quite good, as far as I could tell. I don't think he'll be ready for three weeks or so - perhaps early to mid April. However, I'm not sure was a 'just verdict' is - it depends how you assess damage caused by libel. So I can't guess what he'll come up with.
    Again, thank you for your excellent work. Best wishes from Berlin,
    Kurt R
    P.S. I also enjoyed your comments about Professor Funke and the Free University of Berlin. Great observation! P.P.S Please do not give my full name if you put this message on your web site.
From: Raeto West — To: David Irving — Subject: Picture of Julius — Date sent: Fri, 17 Mar 2000
    Your site has a missing julius3.jpg.
    (I was thinking of putting up a pic of Julius, but could only find julius2.gif in your images. It wasn't suitable for me, as he looked fairly normal, with a drink in his hand).
    Rae.
Sat 18 Mar From: JJ — Date sent: Sat, 18 Mar 2000 — Subject: Great Site!
Intelligent, thought provoking, gives a lot of info that's surpressed. Keep up the good work!
JJ, San Diego
Sun 19 Mar  
Mon 20 Mar  
Tue 21 Mar  
Wed 22 Mar  
Thur 23 Mar From: BC — Date sent: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:38:08 EST — Subject: Irving Trial To: trial
    Once again thanks for all your efforts on the Irving Trial they are very much appreciated. One thing alone is missing , what is your personal guess as to the likely outcome ?. I feel very strongly that Irving won the case, but probably won't be allowed to be seen as the winner . What do you think ?. I wait with interest BC
** I'm still trying to get a better feel for the technicalities of libel. At the moment I'm looking through the McDonalds trial judgment (or at least a summary of it) to see how judges make up their minds. There's no doubt that the defence failed to justify their allegations as regards Farrakhan etc; and the 'not a serious historian' must be wrong, because of the documents etc Irving unearthed. The question of distortion of history is more difficult, but again I don't think the defence made a good enough case, but it's very hard to tell, because of all the diversion into Auschwitz etc. There's also the problem of what money value to attach to libel. In fact your email reminds me I had intended to email a couple of legal people, something I'll now do- Rae West
Fri 24 Mar From: PANDELLI@aol.com — Date sent: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:26:18 EST — Subject: incomprehensible. — To: trial
    With the rabid twisted hatred and distortions dripping from Irving and his supporters, it becomes easier to understand how the holocaust could have happened without a twing of conscience by its perpetrators. Indeed, the sheer joy expressed by the present-day sociopaths, provides a glimpse into the dark sick souls of the nazi perpetrators, though it makes the holocaust no less incomprehensible. May these tormentors burn in hell.
** The icons (both of left and right) and their novitiate followers have no monopoly mon twistings and untwistings of the diseased minds on the twingers. More and more sickness becomes revealed
I should have known. A sick mind breeds a sick response. Sorry to belabor the obvious. Thank you for your time.
** Thanks for conceding you have a sick mind in addition to the obvious fact that you are rather stupid.
Kind regards Rae West

I am impressed that your vocabulary contains the words "rather" & "stupid". I am impressed by your vacuous mind. Go on Rae, make my day....Look up the meaning of the word vacuous. I am awed by your smarts. Kindest Regards.
Could you give me your real name? I'd like to put your emails on my site (but obviosuly don't want to put anonymous emails up) -RW [no reply]
From: "hawk**" — To: — Subject: questions about revisionism from canada. — Date sent: Fri, 24 Mar 2000
    well let me start out by saying that holocaust revisionism is very new to me. growing up in windsor, canada the official policy regarding the holocaust has always been as you might expect, slanted in judeocentric ways. I'm not sure whom i'm writing to here or what your political affiliations are but this site is telling me things that i've never read before. in the recent past i've become aware of certain prominent (scholars) like Zundel(canadian?), Faurisson, Shahak and of course David Irving. i know that this site is supposed to be about the Irving case but from what is presented here i think perhaps you could inform me on many more facts about the holocaust. while this reply is being written(i'm new to the internet) the last entry was about Mar. 15. What happened in the trial? What are the final results?
  **The evidence stage of the trial is over; what happens now is that Justice Gray looks at the papers and makes his decision. It's a libel trial, so the results depend on technicalities of libel law; the 'holocaust' is a side-issue
When will this event finally be over and what is it's importance to official history?
  **It's impossible to predict the effect on 'official history'. In my view, the huge majority of academics simply repeat what they were told, perhaps with minor variations; very few are original or creative. It's probable that Irving (and the revisionists) will simply be ignored.
look, i'm only 23 years old so i don't know what really happened during WW2. The problem for me is, I find myself challenging the new (multicultural) canada. Increasingly i have found myself agreeing more and more with conservatives.
  **There is no necessary connection between 'right-wing' politics and revisionism, although many people think there is. (Similarly, many revisionists seem to be Catholics or Biblical Christians). But there's no necessary connection; I'm interested in truth, which includes e.g. American and British war crimes.
When i see right wing outfits blaming jews for everything like the african slave trade, holocaust propaganda and virtual control over banks and media, i ask myself why? Is it possible that all these allegations are true? Is the reason this site exists is to prove the holocaust a "myth"? And why? So that a rise in real anti-sematism can occur?
  **I'm not sure about anti-semitism. I'm quite tempted to say that I'm anti-Semitic; after all, you can be anti-monarchist or anti-Islam, or whatever; and Judaism is a rather poisonous sectarian superstition.
I have to say, revisionists like Farisson have made me ask questions. I wonder why my government has dramatically changed the ethnic makeup of my country thru mass immigration? I wonder why tyrannical minority organizations have been so sucessful in silencing the white majority? Are jews really using the media to limit the debate and silence critisism of Israel?
  ** I have to agree I have no real idea why (e.g.) the BBC should be so solidly anti-revisionist; since the end of WW2 I don't suppose they've broadcast anything of the sort. And yet it obviously isn't run by Jews.
i don't know what to belief anymore. I'm not just saying that, I really don"t know what to believe. Maybe this is all connected. You know, the censorship of people like Irving. The tribunals against Zundel. The new social engineering projects like affirmative action, multi- culturism, diversity training and globalization. See what i mean, I'm starting to sound like a right wing "wacko". I don't want to believe in revisionism but somthing tells me that i should. Somthing tells me that the tide is turning and i'm not sure what it's turning into. Let's just hope that when it turns, I've got my head up in the sky and not my face down in the water. email me at hawk******
Sat 25 Mar From: "MG" — To: RaeWest — Subject: Re: Libel law... — Date sent: Sat, 25 Mar 2000
Dear Rae,
Dear MG, ... Attempting to get a better feel for libel law technicalities, I've been reading a summary of Bell's judgment on the McDonalds case. I see the point about the defence failing in certain particulars (in the Irving case, presumably the Farrakhan etc allegations fail, since there was no defence).
Yes, if I understand you correctly.
    The point is that, if either side does not "put the case" on his/her behalf on any particular matter, then the judge is not entitled to consider that case, because he is only entitled to consider what has been put before the court.
    Therefore, if one side makes an allegation and the other side does not answer it, the judge -- I am almost sure I am right in saying -- is bound to accept the allegation even if he privately believes it to be wrong.
    This is one reason why it is monstrous that the judge should put pressure on Irving to cut what he says short unless concessions are made by the other side which enable Irving to cut things short without damaging his case.
I doubt if Irving realised this, though I did my best to make it clear in the e-mail I sent you and which you forwarded on to him.
It's an important bit of court procedure to know about. It is of course perfect illogical.
It seems likely that the 'not a serious historian' fails, since DI's unearthed evidence evidently is taken seriously.
By golly, it ought to fail!
    But I have never known a judge, in a situation coming close to resembling this one, give a just and reasonable verdict, however open-and-shut the case and the evidence appear to be.
    This may be the exception, of course, but I am not expecting it.
The 'distorted history' claim is more difficult...
Not really in my view.
    I read Irving's closing speech with considerable care, and he appeared to me to prove conclusively that he did not maliciously distort history, and that any errors were entirely innocent.
    And his position as a serious historian, dedicated to establishing and publishing the truth whatever it may be, is, in my view, supported with the utmost solidity by the fact that he gives his sources and references and makes any evidence he unearths freely available to everyone so that they can check what he says.
    It is also, surely, supported by the fact that his opponent, a famous Professor, does not dare open her mouth in the witness box.
    She has got a cock-and-bull story to justify that, of course, but there is no reason whatever by the judge should accept it.
And there's the question of what money value can be attached to libels which are legally proven.
In the Tolstoy-Aldington case there was indeed a problem.
    In the Irving case, I should have thought it much easier, because what the libels, and the actions which, as Irving demonstrated, accompanied them, have achieved in monetary loss to Irving can be quantified -- obviously not perfectly, but to a considerable extent.
    It must amount to many hundreds of thousands of pounds, possibly millions.
    I do not recall that Irving helped the judge by trying to arrive at a total for this purpose, which of course does leave the judge with some difficulty and of course a lot of discretion.
    If I am right in thinking that there is a gap here (which might conceivably have even been partly caused by the pressure put on Irving to cuttings short), the judge properly ought to reconvene and ask both sides, especially Irving, for material for him to consider on this matter.
    Of course, he would not need to do this if he had no intention of making Irving any award at all!
    I may say that, if I were Irving, I would be far from happy about Gray needing weeks in which to consider things before arriving at his decision.
    On the assumption that he is not simply acting out a part with a pre-planned verdict (which I in fact consider to be much the greatest likelihood), I myself would, in Irving's shoes, be intensely worried at the thought of the pressure which could be applied to him during these weeks, including "gentle" reminders of what can be expected to happen to a promising judicial career if he produces a remotely "unacceptable " verdict.
    I am speculating here, of course, but it is not idle speculation, but speculation based on much that I have seen and read in the past.
There's also the possibility of appeal...
There is indeed, but this will depend, as far as I can see at present, exclusively on what the judge says when he gives his verdict. I remember that Irving did, on at least one occasion, protest against the judges ruling -- I cannot remember for the moment what the issue was. But Irving should have gone to appeal on that then and there -- one can and should interrupt court proceedings to appeal on rulings, and litigants do not take nearly enough advantage of this right, probably because their wretched barristers do not advise them that it exists.
    But as for the rest, apart from the fact that he pressured Irving to cut short his cross-examination of witnesses and his closing speech, which Irving in my view simply should not have put up with (except against sufficient concessions by the other side), Gray seems to have conducted the proceedings with reasonable impartiality, as far as I can see (though I have not yet read through the transcripts to check thoroughly on this question).
    And therefore, as I say, the grounds for appeal, if there should be any, will emerge exclusively from Gray's speech with which he justifies his verdict. And there, frankly, I am expecting endless grounds for appeal! But I am not expecting any appeal to succeed, however solid the grounds for it are.
Do you have guidelines/ comments on this? As you see, I'm somewhat at sea...
I hope that at least some of this is helpful. Please do not hesitate to ask for any clarification or supplementation you would like.
MG
Sun 26 Mar  
Mon 27 Mar From: Raeto West — To: Ingrid Rimland — Subject: Irving site and me (Rae West) — Date sent: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
    ... One fellow by the name of Rae West performed sterling service by working tirelessly, day and night, to keep the Irving site updated.
    ** In fact, David does his own website. Mine is separate (by coincidence, they were set up about the same time, before I knew that holocaust revisionism existed). I HTML-edited the court transcripts, e.g. taking out line numbers, because I wanted to improve on McLibel's unreadable format. I never found out why David didn't do this himself, and put them on his site.
    ** I still think my piece is the best account of the trial. But it seems to have disappeared from some search engines (surprise!) so perhaps I can give it again:- http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/irving-v-lipstadt.html
    ** I've held back from predicting the trial result, because it's a technical matter of interpreting the rules of libel laws. My guess is it won't be easy to say who 'wins'.
    ** BTW, I don't work tirelessly, day and night. I'm good at picking people with ideas, but I prefer to let others do the hard work.... :-)
    ** (If anyone's interested, David has 2 Macs, the newest being a turqoise iMac, and two scanners, one of them the small roller-driven type for OCR of press cuttings. He uses Claris, which he said is 'superb'; I think his ingenious use of tables must be a by-product of Claris - I don't think he invented it himself.)

    Thank God one more time for the Internet!
** Exactly. Rae West
From: Sanchia Berg — To: "'russell@big-lies.com'" — Subject: Rae West — Date sent: Mon, 27 Mar 2000
    David Irving suggested I contact you: I am a reporter for the TODAY programme: I interviewed him on Friday. I'm putting together a piece on the trial, told through people who watched it in the public gallery. I wondered whether you would be willing to do a short radio interview - focussing on the most memorable moments. I would be grateful if you could contact me as soon as possible on 0181 624 9644 or by email me at the BBC - sanchia.berg.01@bbc.co.uk Many thanks, sanchia berg
    No. Rae West
Tue 28 Mar  
Wed 29 Mar From: "brad" — To: Rae West — Subject: Holocaust — Date sent: Wed, 29 Mar 2000
Don't you think that the word Holocaust has been misused in most cases? Think about it! Take the Congo incident,yes the Belgians were cruel to the people of the Congo but they needed them to create wealth for their empire. By exterminating them, they would have effectively destroyed one of Belgium's chief economic bases. Why do so many ethnic groups cry genocide when it was really prejudice and exploitation that were the culprits of their misfortune. You may want to reanalyze some of sites that you post at your website.
sincerely, Brad
You might want to reread the article. The estimates given were a population reduction of tens of millions.
Rae West
Thur 30 Mar From:"Alex C" — To:"Rae West" Subject: More about me! Date sent: Thu, 30 Mar 2000
    Dear Rae, Before I forget. Who owns the most intellectual website?
**I'm still looking! It was a joke remark which I've left on my site
    Guttenplan will not write a book from a revisionists perspective. Since the defense will give you no input, all you have to do is acknowledge this at the front of the book. This will be more useful than Rampton's ravings to those trying to grasp the facts. Don't misread my encouragement as cheekiness. It's just that I think you could do a great job and if you are swithering, I want to be pushing in the right direction! If Irving wins there will be a clamor for sound information from people trying to make sense of things and if what I am reading about the stirrings in the Arab world about revisionism is true, there may be a very large market there for a book such as you could write.
**Yes, it's possible. But there are huge problems: [1] the publisher would be targeted; so would distributors. [2] there would be likely to be libel objections, so probably such a book wouldn't be published uncut; [3] In some countries it would I think be illegal - France, Germany, perhaps Canada; [4] there would probably be no reviews, and no publicity whatever.
** (Then again, perhaps there could be an Arab or South American version??)

Frankly, I doubt very much if Gray can issue any type of edict against books on either the trial or revisionism. The BBC is already producing a program ready to air after the verdict. At least anything you write will be true. On your website you speculate there will be a few people attracted to revisionism by intellectual curiosity (or something similar). You and I have quite a lot in common. The first time I clear;y remember arguing against the war in Vietnam was 1963. I remember this because we had just moved into our first house and my girl friend (we went through primary school together) and her husband were visiting from New York city. At that time the Americans had only "advisors" there but I was already reading between the lines.
** Yes. Personally I think Vietnam is more of a taboo than the 'Holocaust'
Like you, I do not confuse education with intellect. My opinion on this may be somewhat self-serving since I was born and brought up in a corporation tenement in Edinburgh. I was not quite fifteen when I left school and I've had no formal education since. Despite this I've done well in Canada (bookkeeper, office-manager) and have been treated well and respected by most of my employers. Ironically, the two best were Jewish and the worst one was a self-made Scottish butcher! Also, the first time I heard about a large, Satanic, sexual abuse case - I was disbelieving. It involved a children's day-care, several female workers and the grandson (I think) of the owner. Without going into the absurd details one had to accept that either the day-care had advertised for women willing to sexually abuse children or by random had employed women willing to do this! Many of the accused spent years in jail - indeed I think the grandson is still incarcerated. Now, having established we are friends, I'm going to take you to task! See day 32. Of course it was naive of you to think women reporters were hired to lend a different perspective to things but it was equally naive to suggest it was because they would not rock the boat. Before there were any female reporters they had a full contingent of men afraid to rock the boat. The reason they started hiring more than the token woman was because it became politically correct to do so. Men are not always governed by their intellect so when the female reporters were being picked, the hirers likely paid more attention to their looks than their brains! Recall if you will, your comment about Laura. Clearly, Irving had not been enthralled by how interested and comprehending she looked. There is no question we will keep in touch over the trial and its aftermath but I'd be quite interested in corresponding with you about other things.
    ** Yes, the women thing is a problem. I had a similar email re my description of Lipstadt as probably having the intellect of a housewife, or something. All I'm saying is that it's disappointing (across the whole range of the academic and other worlds) that women have done so little. It's just a fact. (NB the comment on 'Laura' wasn't mine, it was Irving's).
    Have you ever been to Canada or the States? You may even be American - or Canadian? Maybe even Scottish.
**Yes, both, several times. In fact I'm half Swiss, though my contacts with Switzerland have been tiny.
    He agrees with me about the Holocaust and is just as interested in what you write as I am. He too would like you to write a book.
** Thanks. I'll put an advert on my site aimed at publisher; who knows; I might get a bite.
    All the best. Hope to hear from you. Dorothy C
Date sent: Thu, 30 Mar 2000   From: The American War Library   Subject: Re: War Crimes websites memo...   To: Ple****@aol.com   Copies to: RaeWest
At 10:27 PM 3/30/00 -0500, you wrote:
Hello....I'm dropping you a quick note to let you know that your link to US war crimes..is well..a link to a collection..that includes Holocaust denial. I am a scholar of the Holocaust and Genocide and am well aquainted with "deniers". The other links I have tried all seem to be scholarly and well intended. I hope you visit the associated site and perhaps re-evalute its "value" [dots all in the original-RW]
We revisited the site. We saw nothing on the site regarding Holocaust denial.
-- Reference Desk
[I don't know these people, though presumably they have a link to my US Vietnam War Crimes site. I wondered from the tone of the email sent to them (at the risk of seeming anti-feminist) whether its author was female, blundering unawares across the undeclared frontiers of official lies, like Citron and Lipstadt. I'll try to find out.. Yes, I was right, unless it's a male called Emma - RW]
Date sent: Thu, 30 Mar 2000— To: symbio@codoh.com — From: Ingrid Rimland — Subject: Boy, is this some article or what?!!!
LABELS AND LIBELS Joseph Sobran
... 'the Jewish side insists that there is no "other side" (since there is nothing to debate about) while trying not only to ruin those on the nonexistent other side, but to put them in jail -- over a difference about historical fact. Forty years ago the British historians A.J.P. Taylor and Hugh Trevor-Roper had a famous and bitter debate over Hitler's responsibility for World War II; but it never occurred to either man to try to get the other fired from his academic position, let alone thrown into prison! [NB Taylor was embittered, probably for life, by the decision to make Trevor-Roper Regius Professor of History at Oxford]
...
It's hard to believe [sic; Sobran is, or appears to be, a little naive!] that this sort of thing can happen in the modern world, but it does happen. A few years ago the Israelis even tried to block publication in the United States of a book critical of the Mossad; and in fact a Jewish judge in New York did order its suppression. His order was immediately reversed; but for a few hours, a book was actually banned in this country for offending organized Jewish interests.
...
.. many things that "everyone knows" about the Holocaust have been discredited -- such as the grisly fables that the Nazis made soap and lampshades out of the remains of murdered Jews. Yet some people have been imprisoned for denying what no scholar now believes.
...
The nominal Catholic John Cornwell has found favor among such Jews by smearing Pius as "Hitler's Pope."
...
... If anti-Semitism is a serious matter, you might think it would be in the interest of the Jewish lobby itself to define the term carefully and to discourage its promiscuous use. But neither has happened. Why not?
    For the simple reason that the function of the word is not to identify and disarm real hostility to Jews, but to terrorize. For the purpose of creating fear, as Stalin understood, a false charge is as good as a true one -- better, in fact, since the power to stigmatize arbitrarily, without well-defined rules and safeguards against abuse, is the perfect way to intimidate the general population.
...
... such a ruling [in Irving's favour] would certainly show that there is still one island on earth where you lie about people at your own peril.
[I know little about Sobran, though I suspect he is part of the Catholic-based anti-Jewish movement.]
A few post-trial From: Orbi***10620987@aol.com — Date sent: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 — Subject: The man Irving has a sick love affair with the Nazis. — To: trial
Clearly, this man called Irving has a love affair with the Nazis. An English historian (supposedly) writes about the Third Reich (probably in glowing terms). I haven't read his books, but then again I haven't read all the good books yet either. This in spite of his British background in which the Germans in W.W.II bombed his country and killed many innocent civilians, and the fact that the Brits fought so hard to defeat the Nazis. His hatred of Jews is certainly a factor here.
    We never know the sick reasons why people hate Jews. In his case, perhaps some Jewish tailor made his pants too long or he believes that the Jews are "Christ Killers." The answer lies somewhere between those two ignorant lies.
Date sent: Wed, 12 Apr 2000—From: Richard H—Subject: Final Judgment Question
Mr. West, I read some, but not all, of the daily transcripts, and I am laboring through the judge's decision. It is my distinct impression that the judge, Mr. Gray, sat at a different trial from the one whose transcripts I read. The judgment does not appear to impartially consider the evidence presented at the trial but the judgment appears to have been predicated on many, many apriori historical assumptions.
    What is your assessment there of? Was the judge at a different trial or am I completely misguided about the entire affair and the machinations of English libel law?
    The judge rendered further conclusions not related to the center issue of libel, i.e., that Mr. Irving is a racist, an antisemite and a non-historian! Were those renderings necessary to reach his conclusion that Mr. Irving was not libelled?
**Please do not publish my email address.**
Thank you.
Quod scriptum, scriptum.
Richard


©Rae West 2000. Uploaded 5th April 2000. More added: 2000-04-14, 19.
This file is http://www.big-lies.org/david-irving-libel-trial/irving-v-lipstadt-emails.html [Back to top] .