PENGUIN DEFENDS DAVID Irving LIBEL ACTION AGAINST PUBLICATION OF HOLOCAUST BOOKPossibly , though I have no evidence for this, Penguin may be a victim of its own legal department: the thought stuck me that a law department might make up its mind to take a risk, even if the company would have avoided it if they'd known. Perhaps this is a variation on the theme that lawyers don't care if the parties lose a fortune, provided they get something out of it. If I were Anthony Forbes Watson, I think I might make a few enquiries.
The case opened on 11th Jan and continues in the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Penguin Books will commence its defence of the libel action brought by David Irving in connection with Penguin's publication in the UK of a book entitled DENYING THE HOLOCAUST by Deborah Lipstadt.
DENYING THE HOLOCAUST was published by Penguin in 1995. The author, a co-defendant in the action, is a highly respected American academic who occupies the Dorot Chair in Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta.
The book is a scholarly work which presents a thorough examination of the Holocaust denial phenomenon and the methods used by deniers to publicise their message. It names David Irving as such a denier who distorts history and this is the basis for his libel action.
Penguin very much regrets that Mr Irving has chosen to pursue his arguments through the courts rather than through academic channels. Penguin is, however, confident that Mr Irving's claim for libel will fail in the light of the weighty evidence gathered from eminent academics who will appear for the defence.
Anthony Forbes Watson, Managing Director of Penguin books Ltd said "Penguin has a history of upholding freedom of speech for itself and its authors. We will vigorously defend David Irving's claim and look forward to the courts vindicating our right to publish this important work"
For further information please contact: Joanna Prior, Penguin Publicity Director on 0171 416 3250 or Helena Peacock, Head of Legal on 0171 416 3017
The Russian archives granted Irving permission to copy two microfiche plates, each of which held about forty-five pages of the diaries. Irving immediately violated his agreement, took many plates, transported them abroad, and had them copied without archival permission. There is serious concern in archival circles that he may have significantly damaged the plates when he did so, rendering them of limited use to subsequent researchers.Comments: It's possible all the above points will be examined in the trial. Irving's behaviour at the Russian archives certainly will, as we've seen. I'll point out here that the endnotes refer mostly to newspapers and small magazines which are probably unobtainable for most people in the USA. We've just seen, above, a magazine called Midstream treated as a serious source, with no information about the article's author; I wonder how many people have heard of either? Other sources include Daily Telegraph , a book by Robert Harris called Selling Hitler , and a magazine called Searchlight .
Irving believes Jews are "very foolish not to abandon the gas chamber theory while they still have time." He "Foresees [a] new wave of antisemitism" due to Jews' exploitation of the Holocaust "myth". C.C. Aronsfeld, "Holocaust 'Revisionists' are Busy in Britain," Midstream , Jan. 1993, p. 29.
Irving made an offer [see Day 11, p. 150] 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.
Professor van Pelt evaded the issue. I will record here my disgust with van Pelt. Tens of millions of people died in the Second World War; van Pelt will not involve himself with investigations in what he claims to be a central issue in the entire war. It's a sad situation that post-war bickering includes this Mickey Mouse pseudo-academic who puts money before truth. May he get what he deserves.
LIST OF ISSUES IN DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES
1. The issues of identification and meaning
2. The writings of [David Irving] and his reputation as an historian
3. [David Irving's] claim for damages; his concern about the concerted attempt to suppress his books; his reasons for bringing the action and supporting evidence
4. The defence of justification (including in relation to each of issues listed below introductory or "topic" section, then case for the [The Defendants] followed by the response of [David Irving])
(i) [The Defendants'] historiographical criticisms of [David Irving] in regard to:
a. Hitler trial 1924
b. Kristallnacht November 1938
c. aftermath of Kristallnacht
d. shooting of Jews in the East
e. Hitler's views on the Jewish question
f. expulsion of the Jews from Berlin in 1941
g. the 'Schlegelberger note'
h. Goebbels' diary entry for 27 March 1942
i. Himmler minute of 22 September 1942
j. Himmler's note for his meeting with Hitler on 10 December 1942
k. Hitler's meeting with Antonescu and Horthy in April 1943
l. deportation and murder of the Jews in Rome in October 1943
m. Himmler's speeches on 6th October 1943, 5 and 24 May 1944
n. Hitler's speech on 26 May 1944
o. Ribbentrop's testimony and evidence from his cell at Nuremberg
p. Mme Vaillant-Couturier
q. Kurt Aumeier
(ii) [The Defendants'] allegation that [David Irving] is "a Hitler partisan" and the extent of Hitler's knowledge of the solution of the Jewish question
a. Hitler's anti-Semitism
b. execution of Jews by shooting (inc. scale of killings; whether systematic policy and Hitler's knowledge)
c. period when deportation was the policy
d. genesis of gassing programme (inc. Hitler's knowledge)
e. extermination (inc. Operation Reinhard; camps at Chelmno, Semlin, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka; scale of extermination and Hitler's knowledge)
a. [The Defendants'] case
(iv) whether [David Irving] is a Holocaust denier
a. [David Irving's] statements as to existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and elsewhere (inc. statements about Leuchter report)
b. [David Irving's] statements as to existence of systematic policy of extermination
c. [David Irving's] statements as to numbers of Jews killed
d. [David Irving's] statements that gas chambers are a propaganda lie invented by British intelligence
e. whether [David Irving's] statements are consistent with the evidence
(v) whether [David Irving] is anti-semitic/racist/right-wing extremist
a. statements made by [David Irving] which [The Defendants] allege are anti-semitic
b. statement made by [David Irving] which [The Defendants] allege are racist
c. [David Irving's] reasons for denying charges of anti-Semites and racism
(vi) whether [David Irving] associates with right-wing extremists
a. organisations/individuals with which [David Irving] has associated
b. political orientation of those organisations/individuals
a. claims made by [David Irving] as to number killed
b. whether [David Irving] relied on forged evidence
c. whether [David Irving] attached credence to unreliable evidence
d. whether [David Irving] bent reliable evidence/falsified statistics
e. whether [David Irving] suppressed/failed to take account of reliable material
f. whether [David Irving] misrepresented evidence
(viii) Goebbels' Moscow Diaries
a. whether [David Irving] broke an agreement with Moscow Archive
b. whether [David Irving's] conduct gave rise to significant risk of damage to plates
(ix) [David Irving]'s honesty as an historian
|Unimaginative cartoons the day after Gray's judgment|
THE PLACE: Royal Courts of Justice, London. DATE: Thursday 17th Feb 2000. TIME: 1 p.m. (adjournment for lunch). NOW READ ON...
Fascinated by the problem of why author Deborah Lipstadt was being made to remain silentsomething apparently completely out-of-characteryour intrepid reporter Rae West , amid the chaotic movement of people in the courtroom at adjournment, decided to ask Professor Lipstadt in person. With a carefully prepared list of questions, he waited until Prof Lipstadt was in earshot, then asked: "Ahem. Professor Lipstadt. Have you worked out why it is you're being kept silent?" Imagine the years of professorial training (admittedly, in America) which must have gone into her eloquent reply: "I've nothing to say to you, sir." At this point one of her entourage of goon-like handlers swept her away by another exit.
Why is she considered such a net negative asset? Perhaps we'll never know! Probably she doesn't know herself. I was later told that she (and Penguin ) wouldn't talk to me, though I didn't get this in writing. So I don't even know if she pronounces "that guy Irving" as "dat goy Oiving" in Brooklynese.
For those interested, some of my other questions were: 'Do you buy your scarves at Nieman-Marcus?' 'Do you think Los Angeles should be renamed with a less obviously Spanish Catholic name?' 'Do Jews have some moral responsibility for Jewish war criminals like Henry Kissinger?' 'Do you have unfulfilled ambitions (apart from yelling at Mr Rampton)?'
© Rae West 2000. All rights reserved. World copyright. No part to be reproduced without written permission in several languages.
Headlines we're unlikely to see...
Bride-to-be Deborah Lipstadt, from Georgia, USA, announced her forthcoming marriage to British author David Irving today. Irving nibbled a kosher vinegar-soaked gherkin dipped in preserved chicken fat, which he said was "delicious". He made no denial when Deborah said "His name may be David, but, believe me, he is Goliath!" The couple are planning to rebuild the kitchen of Irving's Mayfair apartment to include ritual dairy equipment, and to amalgamate their papers into a Second World War research center. Irving, who has a reputation for flirting with younger women, quipped "Now I'm off to beddie with Debbie!"
PROFESSOR IN NEW WITNESSES SHOCK
Professor Robert van Pelt said he was surprised by a new twist in the Irving/Penguin Books case, when it was announced that 546,439 Holocaust survivors would be called as witnesses. It is intended that witnesses will be shipped into court in groups of 25 on an elevator hoist the size of a table, and on cross-examination will withdraw all the assertions they have made in the past. But, outside, they will announce that millions of people died in the hot air of the small courtroom. Van Pelt said: "In the search for truth, no stones must be left unturnedunless they are in Auschwitz."
QC EXPELLED IN DISGRACE
In a ceremony dating from the Middle Ages, noted barrister Richard Rampton was yesterday expelled for life from Britain's legal profession after charges of Grandiloquentia cum nulla substantia and extra pecuniarius horrendis were made against him. A kangaroo court composed of men dressed as penguins produced their documents at the last possible moment, according to long-established tradition. Rampton's black gown and horsehair wig were burnt at a symbolic stake, and Latin oaths were chanted. It is reported that he is considering taking to the London comedy circuit in a double act with author David Irving.
Yawns as obscure case continues
A law case, forgotten by almost everyone, still continues, largely unnoticed. Davod Irvine is believed to be an author who sells few books, and who is living somewhere in London during a libel action. He is not to be confused with Clifford Irving, author of a notorious book on recluse Howard Hughes, which was proven a fraud some decades ago, when Hughes himself dramatically denounced it in a telephone transmission. Yesterday Mr Irvin called a press conference, but nobody attended. David Irven's case created something of a stir when it started, some time ago, but most people have forgotten it now.
HONOURS HEAPED ON MS ROGERS AND MR JULIUS
Torrents of unforgettably golden eloquence took the Irving case by storm, when two lawyers utterly demolished the claimant, demonstrating unrivalled knowledge of world history, government archives, legal systems, and forensic detection. The entire court, including Irving, rose for an hour-long standing ovation, and the two were carried in a triumphant procession through London. Permanent statues will be erected in their honour. An extraordinary meeting declared that any case in which they participate will automatically be decided in their favour, without the trouble of a trial.
HACKWATCH / FLACKWATCH: WIT AND WISDOM IN THE MEDIA?
February 4, 2000.
, a US / Israel rag, ran a piece attributed to
, with this:
'But what interested him [Irving] more than anything else were the holes that were supposed to be in the ceiling of the chambers, which were ostensibly used for introducing the poison gas. No holes were marked on the plans displayed by the defense witness. Perhaps these were not suffocation chambers, but rather shelters to protect from aerial bombing, suggested Irving, and dramatically promised to withdraw his libel suit if he could only be shown the holes. Where are the holes, he asked again and again. "We had so much fun that day," he said later, because it turned out that there were no holes. But the media, of course, did not report that, Irving complained, and informed Internet surfers that Rudolf Hess' son was also infuriated about the gap between the protocols he reads and the media reports.'
Read, and probably re-read. My numerous fans will notice that the plans are mentioned; the fact there are no holes in the structure of the 'gas chamber' is omitted by this dishonest and undersized flack. Segev also says 'Lipstadt [in fact, of course, not her but the defence legal team] 'must prove that the Nazis systematically murdered millions of Jews in gas chambers in Auschwitz and the other death camps. This isn't hard to prove; there is a plethora of solid evidence, both written and oral.'
[ A S Marques brought this to my attention]
5 Feb 2000, says: 'The [Auschwitz] gas chambers are intact, but their ceilings have collapsed, allowing Irving to deny their purpose. Since we cannot see them cannot examine the ceiling holes through which the gas seeped, we cannot prove they were what thousands of witnesses said they were.'
We have two (presumably deliberate) lies by Freedland. First, they canand have beenexamined. Second, there are not thousands of witnesses; van Pelt could manage only five, all dead.
(28 Jan). Among other absurdities,
'[Van Pelt] knows this terrible place as no other human being knows it' [in fact, van Pelt has spent less time there than Auschwitz staff] and 'was "absolutely certain" that at least one million people had died there.'
Dalrymple tactfully omits the enormous changes in van Pelt's testimony.
1996/7 autobiography covering his editorship of the
has this: 'I also made the huge mistake of using David Irving, the Nazi apologist historian, to translate the Goebbels' Diaries. He was the only expert able to read Goebbels' writing and all the excerpts we published rather refuted Irving's views on Nazi history. But many were understandably appalled we were having anything to do with him and it did the paper damagea good illustration of the maxim that if you lie down with dogs you get fleas.'
[The Sunday Times of course is mostly junk, tackling only soft targets. An exception under Neil was his allowing AIDS to be examined, though his book shows he personally understood nothing about that either.]
Richard Rampton QC was featured in the London
Law Section on 8th Feb 2000.
To Do you have any unfulfilled ambitions? he is recorded as saying ' To write the definitive biography of Mozart.' As the Irving case shows, Rampton has little knowledge of German, so this ambition is certain to remain unfulfilled.
Returning to the real world, we find: 'Have there been any surprising aspects in the case? Only how little I knew before I started it. ' Just as I thought!
Mon 7 Feb: no British press coverage of this trial, apart from
with impending libel case
1. 'I consider Irving a near-monster.. That a large and terrifying atrocity was committed by the Nazis is not doubtable. The sad fact is that there are many questions about the Holocaust which haven't been answered.. is it any wonder that those on the far-right use our frightened silence to propagate lies?' Garrick Alder
2. '.. If one must play such perverse games.. Irving's own evidence could just as well have been forged by a sinister Aryan group.. When will the madness stop? Nick McAdoo
3. '.. each successive generation of young Europeans must be reminded of the horrors of Hitler's "Final Solution to the Jewish Question".. David Irving richly deserves to lose his case and be bankrupted.' Prof Howard Elcock
|Professor Evans's first day: a piece attributed to Ian Burrell ('Home Affairs Correspondent') in the Independent also appears, rewritten, and anonymous in the Times and Guardian . Typical phrases were 'sheer depth of duplicity' and 'doesn't deserve to be called a historian'. The careless reader mightn't note that these are privileged, i.e. unactionable, quotations from Evans's 'expert report', unsupported by evidence.||I was amused to find a comment somewhere in David Irving's vast website, from (I think) a Sydney paper, that a 'quietly spoken middle-aged woman' would soon defend herself against a libel case. I wonder if he knows that Lipstadt in fact will remain unnaturally silent throughout the trial.||Martin Mears , Times law section (Feb 15): 'Irving, for instance, contends that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust because no one is able to produce a piece of paper which says: "Dear Heinrich, please kill all the Jews. Adolf." To punish an argument of this kind is to dignify it.' Mears must be considerably stupid: he's incapable of criticising the holy writ of the 'Holocaust', and unable to paraphrase Irving's work. (Mears was President of the Law Society).|
|Professor Evans' expert testimony (despite occupying six full days) has, as far as I know, been completely unreported, a computer search of The Times , for example, revealing nothing. It's true that Evans' testimony is about as interesting, reliable, and knowledgeable as a typical medical expert report. Even so, it's strange nothing is printed. Why do they bother to send the hacks along?||
||1993 Fascism for Beginners , by Stuart Hood (sketches by L Jansz) repeats the false claim that Irving 'describes himself as a mild Fascist.' There's a cartoon of Irving with swastika spectacles (an image also in the 'definitive' Anne Frank). But the caption is accurate: 'The myth of the mass murder of Jews in the death factories of Auschwitz.. which in fact never took place.' Hood was 'BBC Controller of Programmes'. Spot the neo-fascist.|
|I hear Channel 4 [British TV] plan a TV piece on this trial. (They did a transcript-based McDonalds libel reconstruction, in a mock courtroom, with actors playing the McLibel Two). Presumably it will be anti-Irving. I tried to suggest Irving could act as himself. He is irritated that his words may be used without his copyright permission.||The Guardian 1 Mar, Jonathan Freedland: '.. Spielberg and others.. want to refute those who deny the Holocaust ever happened. Enter the Irving trial.. He is suing Ms Lipstadt He could have been ignored. The decision to take him on instead, at enormous cost, is typical of a strong current in contemporary Holocaust thinking: the desire to defeat "revisionism" once and for all. ..'|
|Jeremy Jones (I think 1 Mar; don't know which rag): '.. Irving.. is claiming that Lipstadt ruined his career..' In fact, of course, this is untrue; Irving claims there was joint action; Lipstadt was just a small cog in the machine.||What action should we take against Austria ? wondered Yahoo , tied with Reuters . They didn't wonder what action should be taken against Israel, bombing Lebanon.||
26 Jan: official announcement in Britain that there may be a 'Holocaust Remembrance Day'.
Presumably by coincidence this was the very same day on which Irving made his offer (relating to holes) disproving the Auschwitz gas chamber .
|A reporter saying she's from 'Salon' is in court. A piece of their site is Ramsey Clark, the war criminals best friend ! My advice: don't waste your time||
repeat, of the 'Eichmann diaries', they were '.. simply forgotten until late last year, when scholars decided they should be released.'
I doubt even their readers are so stupid as to believe that.
1 Mar 2000) throughout this trial has specialised in simple-minded reportage of the laziest sort, relying on privileged quotations by Mr Rampton without evidence, such as the headline Irving 'was an ally of neo-Nazis'.
(Horsnell didn't, of course, mention Irving's suggestion that perhaps the Israelis might unearth Himmler's diary, which they still hold in complete secrecy.)
|Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the New York Times (12 Oct 98): France and Germany passed 'Holocaust denial' laws perhaps because they have 'consciences to assuage'.|
|Der Tagesspiegel (Jan 18, 2000; on Irving's site), has quite a funny piece including phrases like 'mediocre monster' and 'self-taught paranoid'. It talks of 'obsessive dedication to detail'. The author appears to have read none of his books. (Because of articles of this sort, I decided to list Irving's bookssee above).||Irving's site has a 17th Feb piece by Waldo Profitt , apparently 'former editor of the Herald-Tribune'. If you want to see a dishonest hack without grasp of evidence relying on second-hand quotations, read Mr Profitt and laugh.||Simon Jenkins in The Times on the death of Charles Schultz, the suburban cultural desert cartoonist: 'Humour renders even atrocity bearable. To some, Robert Benigni's clowning over the Holocaust in Life is Beautiful [a film?- RW] was too much to bear; for others the revelation was masterful.' (Jenkins once edited the Times but seemed to have been demoted).|
(London)'s searchable website has only eight items on Irving (some are missing):-
1.) Jan 24 1997 D Cesarani [then 'Director, Institute of Contemporary History and Wiener Library'] letter on van Pelt & Dwork's Auschwitz book. Cesarani says its "superbly reproduced plans of the camp [drawn up by the SS and hidden for 50 years in the Russian state archives] are a devastating refutation of Holocaust denial." Cesarani adds: 'they respect the integrity of historical texts as they do the work of fellow scholars.' (See box somewhere below for newspaper article by Cesarani). This was in reply to a letter from Irving , which is not on their site ; nor is any response from Irving on these absurd claims.
2.) Jan 14 2000. A very long, very shallow piece about a passenger in a car saying the BBC shouldn't have a 'Jewish' reporter describing this case.
3.) Jan 14 2000 Lee Levitt ( Irving in court: aspects of Shoah 'debatable' ) says correctly that the 2nd edition of Hitler's War, dropped the previous view that Auschwitz was a dedicated extermination centre, and removed the word "Holocaust". Levitt gave none of Irving's reasons.
4.) Jan 21 2000 Lee Levitt ( 'Hitler did not know of gassings' ) Adds misleadingly 'until 1943'. Levitt quotes Irving on Hitler putting "the Jewish problem... on the backburner." Of course, Levitt doesn't give Irving's evidence (or state his doubts over a 97,000 figure).
5.) Jan 28 2000 Levitt supposedly deals with van Pelt, but in fact mostly looks at financial arrangements behind professorial chairs and books.
6.) Feb 4 2000 . Levitt does not mention van Pelt's dishonesty over the holes question (day 1128th Jan) and Irving's offer to end the trial if an investigation were to be carried out. MacDonald of course is unmentioned. Kristallnachtwhich Rampton had fixed on as a 'dead cert'is unmentioned. Levitt prefers the topic of 'Jewish greed'.
7.) Feb 25 2000 What seems to be an editorial says '.. Israel Singer, .. general secretary of the World Jewish Congress.. having paid a visit to the David Irving libel trial.. portrayed.. a courtroom gallery virtually devoid of Jewish spectators and full of neo-Nazi sympathisers. .. to judge from the.. trio of JC reporters [sic-RW] who have reported on the proceedings daily [sic-RW] since they began, .. he was mistaken...'
[Maybe 25 Feb 2000 not on JC site:] Bernard Josephs when Gray supposedly loses patience over 'offensive' exchanges, re Evans' 'expert report'. That's about it. Detail of Kristallnacht, Wannsee, Auschwitz appears to be of no interest to Josephs, nor presumably the readers of this racist rag.
8.) Mar 3 2000 Joseph Millis, on the 'Eichmann Diaries': 'The decision was taken with a view to helping American academic Professor Deborah Lipstadt..' An official supposedly said "There is importance, as part of Israel's historic duty, in publishing the memoirs..."
Three undated pieces [not on JC site] again by the tedious Levitt. These deal with (i) whether Evans did or didn't like Irving; (ii) interviews, or supposed interviews, with people in the courtroomLevitt seems unable to count and thinks 'court full' signs prove there is a 'clamour' for places. He mentions 'communal personalities' (e.g. Martin Gilbert) who turned up; (iii) Both a chauffeur and a cook of Hitler being 'Jewish'.
Irving went out of his way to praise the Jewish Chronicle in his closing speech. Perhaps it was a low-budget special effect.
, Sunday 4 March 2000) has what he thinks is a definitive argument: '.. all children need to know is this. They went into the forests, the ravines and the depots, those millions, and they didn't come back. .. a line a thousand miles long and a hundred miles deep..' [siceasily enough for many times the entire world population].
What racists and liars-for-money, like Aaronovitch, don't face is the fact that the population figures before and after the war don't support this idea.
|Times Feb 24, full-page Penguin book promo about Hugo Gryn ['the rabbi whose very particularly Jewish suffering made him alive to others' pain and oppression'] quotes: 'I suspect he [Irving] finds the concept of gas chambers so unimaginable that he can't imagine it.' Accompanied by a picture of Gryn 'after release from Auschwitz.'||You might hope that Evans is exceptionally ignorant. But Norman Stone , who occupied a prestigious chair, hedged with "probably four million died, of whom a significant number died of hunger or disease." Trevor-Roper , or Dacre, who wrote mostly on pre-19th century Britain despite being Professor of Modern History, fell for the Hitler diaries and Table Talk frauds. Hobsbawm 's recent book included childish errors on science, apart from its judeocentric racism. And so on. Such people are not merely clowns: they control the entry to the historical world of young people.|
also known more accurately as
caused a brief press flurry (e.g.
, 29 Feb, and
, 1 March 2000). Each was illustrated by photos, including in each case a sheet of paper with German handwriting and scribbled emendations. There is careful avoidance of any detail in these pieces and it remains unclear whether the actual documents were released (Mr Rampton only had a computer disk, which he seemed not to understand). Although
in Jerusalem said they 'detail his involvement in the gassing and shooting of millions of Jews', in fact there's only an account similar to one in Himmler of a baby's brains, and a denial of cyanide, suggesting his Israeli captors hadn't fixed their stories properly, before the 'only time Israel has carried out the death penalty'.
in Jerusalem says he 'devised the extermination of Europe's Jews'. She prodcues no evidence apart from Chlemno gas vans; the actual detail of course isn't quoted. Most of the piece is irrelevant. It's amusing to see
(described as 'assistant prosecutor during the trial'; a picture shows him with an understandable half-smile) repeat the fantasy of 'geysers of blood'.
Small wonder these documents were not produced in court as evidence against Irving.
I recall with amusement that
Index on Censorship
ran at least one article supporting censorship of revisionism.
(Their more usual fare is criticisms of secrecy in places like Morocco; not, of course, of western governments, armies, banks, secret aspects of science etc. A 1999 issue had an article on science by Colin Tudge a nice chap, but, sadly, with little knowledge of science. In my view this is just another phoney group).
(again; sorry) of
4 March 2000 said '.. Penguin, the publisher, has summoned an impressive array [sic] of Second World War experts.. Yet the onus is on Penguin and Ms Lipstadt to prove their case.. Mr Irving.. has repeatedly denied awareness of documents [sic].. if he [Irving] wins, it will open the door for revisionists to rewrite any event in history without the requirement to consider evidence [sic]..'
This is the piece which Irving found exceptionally irritating; one wonders whether poor Burrell had listened to any evidence. And whether he's noticed that Penguin/Lipstadt have failed the simple test ['onus'] of producing their evidence to support Lipstadt's derivative claims.
(16 March) unexpectedly had headlines 'Holocaust trial about freedom, says Irving' and 'Irving: rabid racist or victim?'. Both pieces were 15 column-inches or so, the Guardian padded with huge photos. Perhaps someone re-read the legal small print on 'qualified privilege' (see above, on UK libel).
Both were largely the usual fragments of speeches...
... Final day:
(15th Mar) had headline Historian Irving is branded a 'Right-wing extremist and rabid anti-semite' by an anonymous hack; Irving says
likes morning speeches, as he can then hand his work to the press for printing. Whether this is true, I'm uncertainif the judge doesn't read it, it seems pointless. But perhaps it makes Mr Rampton's paymasters think they're getting something for their money.
On 16th, the quality press Telegraph and Independent stuck to the same guns: David Irving is a racist and rabid anti-semite, says QC and Irving ' falsified history on a staggering scale'.
(Sunday 19 March).
(described as 'celebrated American author') at Irving's apartment. Posner
pretends he was the only journalist there;
in fact there were 5 or 6.
Posner shows no knowledge of the evidence, as he asks about shipments of Zyklon B to Auschwitz. Or perhaps this is just a pretenceas with all these hacks, the archaeological evidence is ignored. Irving may have taken the opportunity to air his views on conspiracy/ies against his books, which at the time of the interview hadn't been raised in court. Posner of course makes no useful comment. (He's listed as the author of a book on J F Kennedy. Based on Posner's command of evidence heredon't waste your time).
|Translator Peter Millar ( Sunday Times , Mar 19) seems to be cashing in with Why I spoke up for David Irving . He doesn't give an answer. He promotes a novel of his own. He wrote: '[Irving]'s views are undoubtedly.. "institutionally racist"'. This piece gives the comparison with Hamilton, Aitken, and Oscar Wilde. Millar says 'If even half of Irving's claims were true, it would.. be evidence of a massive conspiracy of lies and distortions.' Millar clearly doesn't understand intellectual fraud.||
9 March has two reviews by
in the usual picture book style (caption: A German woman.. overcome with horror.. bodies of Jews.. murdered by the Nazis.' Where is this photo from?). The blurb says 'Was the Holocaust a unique evil.. or a promotional tool..?' The obvious fact is that it was not out of the ordinary in the Second World War. Caesarani's ignorance and racism know no bounds: I was amused to find for example 'Black awareness, with its focus on slavery and the Vietnam experience,.. fostered a "culture of victimhood"..'
(Though this is not very relevant here, Southampton University also hosts Ray Monk, who helped produce an unutterably third-rate pair of TV programmes on poor Bertrand Russell. I do hope they have at least a few competent academics in their higher reaches).