Emory Professor Deborah Lipstadt has been having TV problems. Not with her reception, but rather with a specific program, C-SPAN’s Book TV. After Lipstadt published a book about her day in court with Holocaust denier David Irving, C-SPAN asked to film her March 16 talk at Harvard. Thing was, they wanted to bring Irving into the show, for balance. Lipstadt refused to participate. What do you think? Lipstadt has offered to answer your questions. If you have an opinion on the topic, let’s hear it.

Dear Deborah,
What would you say to other media to help them differentiate between seeming true to American journalistic practices of “balance” and “fairness” and the correct ideological position you have staked out?
Go you!
Yossi

C-Span clearly did not get it. The case was adjudicated in a legnthy trial and the judge found that:
ìIrving has significantly misrepresented what the evidence, objectively examined reveals.î

ìNo objective fair minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.î

ìIt appears incontrovertible that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier. Not only has he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and asserted that no Jew was gassed there, he has done so on frequent occasions and sometimes in the most offensive terms.î

ìIrving has also made broader claims to minimize the Holocaust.î

ìIrving has repeatedly crossed the divide between legitimate criticism and prejudiced vilification of the Jewish race and people.î

ì[That] Irving is a racist is also broadly establishedÖIrving is not obsessed with race. He has certainly not condoned or excused racist violence or thuggery. But he has on many occasions spoke in terms which are plainly racist.î

ìIrving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded and dismissed credible evidence.î

ìIrvingís historical ìerrorsî converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler and reflect Irvingís partisanship for the Nazi leader.î

ìIrving is seeking to manipulate the evidence, rather than approaching it as a dispassionate, if sometimes mistaken, historian.î

ì[Irving] demonstrates a willingness to make assertions about the Nazi era which, as he must appreciate, are irreconcilable with the available evidenceÖ[Irving] manifests a determination to adhere to his preferred version of history, even if the evidence does not support it.î

ìFor the most part, the falsification of the record was deliberate.î

ìIrving, for his own ideological reasons, persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relationship with his attitude toward and responsibility for the treatment of Jews; that he is an active Holocaust deniers; that he is antisemitic and racist; and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.î

The Judgment was sustained on Appeal.

And after all this C-Span wanted balance.

If you have a choice between perniciousness and incompetence, most often incomptenece is the best explanation. C-Span should be embrassed. This is a collosal case of stupidity, misjudgment and lack of information.

One wonders how bad it can get and then it gets even worse.

Michael Berenbaum

Shame on them and

We need to be quite clear about the criticisms of Deborah Lipstadt, those made concerning the alleged chilling effect that such a trial would have on academic freedom. Academic freedom is defined as the right of professors to study and do research on any topic in which they have academic competence. Concomitantly, it also includes the right of students to study any topic, whether included in the curriculum or a matter of interest.

What happened in the trial is not that academic freedom was jeopardized. One cannot identify any “chilling effect” of the results of the trial. What happened is that the British legal system demonstrated–in the tradition of British legal precedent–that libelers should be punished. Holocaust denial demands libel, for one must necessarily slander Jews, one must necessarily defend a fabrication. And for this libel Irving was found guilty.

No question – just wanted to let you know that as someone who tries to see C-Span as often as possible, particularly the book programs, I was bitterly disappointed by their insistence on giving airtime to a proven liar. I have written a letter (using the email address sent on to subscribers by Honest Reporting, to which I also subscribe)
outlining my great disappointment. I believe, -and explained in detail in my email -that they have been so blind in an effort to be “fair,” they did not recognize that what they proposed to do would cause great pain among those still among us, who suffered in the camps that “never existed” according to this liar, and that those who lost loved ones in the Holocaust that “never happened” would also find this painful. I sent that yesterday, did not and do not expect to get a response.S. Samuel Shermis, PhD wrote:

> We need to be quite clear about the criticisms of Deborah
> Lipstadt, those made concerning the alleged chilling effect
> that such a trial would have on academic freedom. Academic
> freedom is defined as the right of professors to study and do
> research on any topic in which they have academic competence.
> Concomitantly, it also includes the right of students to study
> any topic, whether included in the curriculum or a matter of
> interest.
>
> What happened in the trial is not that academic freedom was
> jeopardized. One cannot identify any “chilling effect” of the
> results of the trial. What happened is that the British legal
> system demonstrated–in the tradition of British legal
> precedent–that libelers should be punished. Holocaust denial
> demands libel, for one must necessarily slander Jews, one must
> necessarily defend a fabrication. And for this libel Irving
> was found guilty.

Good point. Hooray for Ms. Lipstadt,. I believe that if she would have Irving standing by her side, she would have dignified his false stand. She would have legitimised his opinion, by letting him voice it with her. We are not dealing with a Talmudic question, that two opinions have legitimacy. Here we are dealing with truth and fa;sehood, right and wrong. Ms Lipstadt was correct in not dignifying falsehood and lies. Thanks for your stand.

What I wrote to C-Span and Richard Cohen’s column.

I am disappointed in my favorite TV channel. If you had someone who wrote a book about the moon landing would you need to have someone who does not believe this ever took place? If someone wrote a book about Columbus and the proof his journey gave of the round Earth, would you need to have Pastor Jim Nicholls of The True Church of Christ on the same show. Here is a partial quote from the church’s website:

The chair I’m sitting in now has wheels. If the world was round why doesn’t gravity make me move down the curved Earth? IT DOESN’T!!! THE EARTH IS FLAT YOU RETARD!! Hellllllooo? Didn’t I say not to check your brains at the door at the top? People have been brainwashed with atheism to think these evil and blasphemous thoughts. The Bible specifically says time and time again the Earth is flat. Who would you trust? A book written by God or some hairy Scientist with a bushy mustache with a communist symbol tattooed to his forehead?

Jesus doesn’t lie, but atheists do.

The fundamental problem with science is it tries to attack God’s Word. Any time it does this it is automatically wrong. We know Evolutionism is false simply since it contradicts the Bible, we know carbon dating is false simply since it contradicts the Bible, who know the distance of objects in space is false simply since it contradicts the Bible, we know the idea of the Earth being round is false simply since it contradicts the Bible, and we know that condensation is false simply since it contradicts the Bible.

Thank you, Naomi Sternberg

C-SPAN’s Balance of the Absurd

By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, March 15, 2005; Page A23

You will not be seeing Deborah Lipstadt on C-SPAN. The Holocaust scholar at Emory University has a new book out (“History on Trial”), and an upcoming lecture of hers at Harvard was scheduled to be televised on the public affairs cable outlet. The book is about a libel case brought against her in Britain by David Irving, a Holocaust denier, trivializer and prevaricator who is, by solemn ruling of the very court that heard his lawsuit, “anti-Semitic and racist.” No matter. C-SPAN wanted Irving to “balance” Lipstadt.

The word balance is not in quotes for emphasis. It was invoked repeatedly by C-SPAN producers who seemed convinced that they had chosen the most noble of all journalistic causes: fairness. “We want to balance it [Lipstadt’s lecture] by covering him,” said Amy Roach, a producer for C-SPAN’s Book TV. Her boss, Connie Doebele, put it another way. “You know how important fairness and balance is at C-SPAN,” she told me. “We work very, very hard at this. We ask ourselves, ‘Is there an opposing view of this?’ ”

As luck would have it, there was. To Lipstadt’s statements about the Holocaust, there was Irving’s rebuttal that it never happened — no systematic killing of Jews, no Final Solution and, while many people died at Auschwitz of disease and the occasional act of brutality, there were no gas chambers there. “More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz,” Irving once said.

For obvious reasons, Lipstadt cited Irving in her 1993 book, “Denying the Holocaust,” which was also published in Britain. Irving sued her for libel. Under Britain’s libel laws, Lipstadt had to prove the truth of what she wrote, which, after a lengthy trial, she did in spades. Her lawyer’s opening statement — “My Lord, Mr. Irving calls himself a historian. The truth is, however, that he is not a historian at all, but a falsifier of history. To put it bluntly, he is a liar.” — ultimately became the judgment of the court itself. In matters of intellectual integrity, Irving is an underachiever.

Once, this was not all that apparent. By dint of maniacal industry, Irving had turned himself into an admired writer on Nazi Germany. He mined the archives for material that others appeared to have overlooked. Some of it was genuine; some of it was false. Increasingly, though, his books gave off the whiff of anti-Semitism and a certain admiration of Hitler. When Richard J. Evans, a Cambridge University historian (and one of Lipstadt’s expert witnesses), carefully examined Irving’s work, he found it a stew of misrepresentations, falsifications and outright quackery. Irving was authoritatively exposed: a propagandist hiding behind seemingly scholarly footnotes.

This is the man C-SPAN turned to for “balance.” It told Lipstadt that since it was going to air her lecture, it would do one of Irving’s, too. As luck would have it, he was appearing March 12 at the Landmark Diner in Atlanta. C-SPAN was there for this momentous event — although Irving’s advance warning that cameras would be present apparently held down attendance. (His people seem to prefer anonymity — or, in the old days, sheets.) Lipstadt was in effect being told that if she wanted to promote her book on C-SPAN (an important venue) she would also have to promote Irving. If she was to get a TV audience, then so would he.

C-SPAN’s cockeyed version of fairness — it told Lipstadt that it had bent over backward to ensure its coverage of the presidential election was fair and balanced — is so mindless that I thought for a moment its producers and I could not be talking about the same thing. This is the “Crossfire” mentality reduced to absurdity, if that’s possible. For a book on the evils of slavery, would it counter with someone who thinks it was a benign institution? Why does it feel there is another side to the Holocaust or to Irving’s assertion that he was libeled? He was not. He was described to a T.

In the end, Lipstadt had to choose between promoting her own book — a terrific read, by the way — and giving Irving the audience of his dreams and a status equal to her own. C-SPAN said it was only seeking fairness, but it was asking Lipstadt to balance truth with a lie or history with fiction. On this occasion, at least, Irving did what he could not do with his libel suit: silence Lipstadt. He may still appear on C-SPAN, but Lipstadt will not — a victory for “balance” that only the truly unbalanced could applaud.

cohenr@washpost.com

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Can C-Span be sued?

or somehow forced to issue and apology and make amends?

Gila Perach Hirsh
Professor, Vienna, Austria

I was not aware of this particular lawsuit or
situation with Harvard; however, after reading
about it, I am thankful for Ms. Lipstadt’s
perseverance, courage, and determination to
withstand such an audacious onslaught
against truth. I appreciate Ms. Lipstadt’s
principles.

I obviously halucinated that I had four uncles killed and escaped – only because a kind French Police Chief of Luchon warned us the Germans were coming to arrest us on Christmas Day. We (my family and I numbering 18) escaped through the Pyrenees to Spain, on Christmas Eve helped by a smuggler recommended by said Police Chief.
Shame is on you and all your friends, relatives and Progeny-and you will ultimately pay when you rot in Hell, forever.

Yossi:
This is not a issue of balance and fairness. David Irving has been found to be a liar and a falsifier of history. How can one have a debate, on any topic, with someone who had no fidelity to the truth. For example in one of his books [Hitlerís War], he claimed that during the abortive Nazi revolt in 1923, Hitler threw a young man out of the party for leading a raid on a Jewish delicatessen and that Goring, who was standing there, goggled at the exchange. In fact when you look at the very source Irving cited, Hitler did indeed throw the man out of the party but for removing his Nazi party insignia prior to leading the raid. Moreover, there is no mention of Goring even being there. When asked about this at my trial, Irving laughed it off and said: ìOh that was authorís license.î My barrister responded, ìOh you mean it was a lie.î

This has nothing to do with balance or fairness or two sides. This has to do with a man who was found to be a liar. How can you have a debate with him, about anything?

Michael Berenbaum gets it precisely right. I too believe this is pure incompetence and real fuzzy thinking on C-Span’s part. [They are not deniers nor are they inclined towards denial in any way.]

However, in some fashion, that’s more scarey than deniers themselves. Deniers can be written off as haters and antisemites. When people, such as those running C-Span, can have this total lapse of logic, I find that more disturbing than the antics of antisemites.

Actually, David Irving could be said to have been attempting to silence me and challenge my academic freedom. He sued me for libel and I had to defend myself, which I did with a team of terrific lawyers, scholars, and researchers.

Before we went into court he offered to settle with me. I would have had to pay 500₤ to the charity of his choice, apologize to him, and agree to have my book withdrawn from circulation [pulped]. Obviously I could not agree to that.

He lost, which meant that all I had said about him in my book was deemed to be correct: his is a denier, liar, and someone who knowingly falsifies history.

Now is this someone with whom you would conduct a debate?

You may get a response. I think they had no idea — though I specifically told them — of the potential firestorm they would bring down on themselves.

They thought I meant public pressure and assured me that they did not have advertisers and were not, therefore, open to pressure.

I told them I was talking about their credibility.

I wonder if they get it now.

Thanks. I think I addressed your point in my answer to Yossi. But it is something that needs to be repeated, again and again.

No, there are no grounds for suing C-Span, nor would I if there were. C-Span is free to decide whom it wishes to put on its show. [Freedom of the press guarantees that.]

But it is not obligated nor can it put on everyone. It has to make choices to whom it will give its coveted and limited time. The fact that it could give some to a man who has been found to be a liar [repeatedly], is what is so shocking.

Thanks. On some level this was a no brainer. The only moment of doubt I had was when they told me they planned to put him on by himself. I was concerned about giving him an “uncontested” spot on C-Span.

Then, I thought some more about it and decided that not to appear was my choice; having him on C-Span was their choice.

No comment necessary.

Thanks for addressing this issue. I will happily answer questions. May I also suggest that folks check out two other sites.

My blog is lipstadt.blogspot.com and there is an Emory-sponsored website, www.hdot.org. On it you will find the judgment [it’s 355 pages long, so go straight to part XIII, the judge’s findings], transcripts, and expert reports so you can see what the trial was really about.

Or you can read my book, History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving. I was hoping to be able to talk about it on C-Span, but that does not look — at least right now — as if it will be.

Like many other “exchanges” Lipstadt refers to in her lectures and elsewhere, the stated passages are nowhere in the transcripts, as a word search will prove. Her memory is playing tricks on her. Download the entire transcripts at
http://old.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/ and see for yourself. Who’s lying now?

Is Mr. Irving actually planning to participate in this discussion? If so, perhaps he would be willing to address the following “truths” of his:

1. Why did he claim to “see” me at his Boulder lecture when I was nowhere near Boulder at the time?

2. Why did he claim that he had “hacked a keyhole” into my computer, when that is considered a federal crime in the United States, where the supposed “hacking” took place?

3. Why did he refer to me, my husband, my 15 year-old son and one friend as a “gang of thugs”?

4. Why does Mr. Irving have the freedom of speech to make all of the above false statements, yet insist that those of us who wish to comment on them, or correct his lies are “traditional enemies of free speech”?

5. And does Mr. Irving truly believe that he adds anything of value to the discussion with childish comments about those who disagree with him? (i.e., calling me a “chubby plotter,” taking a “fat swipe” at Irving, calling Professor Richard Evans “Skunky,” etc.)

I look forward to Mr. Irving’s responses to the above direct questions.

Rssponses eagerly awaited, as well, to the following (which mr. irving very hypocritically ducks because I do not include my full address in my email. As I offered, mr. irving: you publicly post your exact location for every day of the next three weeks, and *then* you have a basis to whine that I do not care to share such personal details with you.) Oh, and your claims that the whine you’ve been sending in response was computer generated are shown for yet another of your lame lies by the fact that the first message below was sent under the same conditions as my other emails, and yet merited no such response:

On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 10:03 PM, Roger wrote:

While I cannot claim to speak for Ms. Lipstadt, I will endeavour to address your questions, thereby satisfying your curiousity and making their continued publication moot:

WE ARE often asked for questions to put to Professor Lipstadt in her well-funded peregrinations around the world.

——————————————————————————–

. . . here are just a few:

Prof. Lipstadt – why were you afraid to go into the witness box and expose yourself even to the questioning of an amateur like Mr. Irving? You effectively pleaded the Fifth Amendment, which is the traditional route of those with something to hide. (Mr. Irving subjected himself voluntarily to three weeks’ cross examination by one of the world’s leading trial lawyers, and he voluntarily made available to you his entire private and public papers.)

<Roger>
Do you not read your own site, mr. irving? From http://old.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Lipstadt/Deutsche_Welle.html :

“First of all, I wasn’t obligated to take the stand. I offered to. I continuously told my lawyers that I was more than willing to take the stand, that I could hold my own against this guy. But the standard operating procedure in libel trials is not to put the author on the stand. The author is being sued for what they wrote. So my book was at issue. We had to prove that what I wrote in my book was correct, and there was nothing I could add by taking the stand. Though I do have to say that for me, someone for whom keeping quiet is an unnatural act, it was terribly difficult to restrain myself and listen to a man who was spewing anti-Semitism and racism.”
</Roger>

are you aware that one of your main researchers, Dr. David Cesarani, said that Mr. Irving gave the defence some scary moments, particularly when their chief expert witness on the architecture of Auschwitz, Prof. Van Pelt, proved unable to explain what had happened to the bodies (i.e. the logistics of disposing, for example, of 450,000 Hungarian Jews’ bodies in three weeks – around 50,000 tons of corpses, by a small Sonderkommando in one crematory building) [Internet link: see http://old.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial3/DieZeit120400e.html]

<Roger>
Ö and?
</Roger>

why did you not accept David Irving’s challenge, made three times publicly in the courtroom, that he would halt the case in mid-trial if you could find any evidence of the holes in the roof slab of Crematorium II at Auschwitz – which still exists – through which “eye witnesses” in the pay of war-crimes prosecution teams claimed to have seen SS officers tipping the Zyklon B granules? Your own chief witness Van Pelt said there are no such holes in the slab, so somebody lied, right?

<Roger>
Here’s one for you: why did *you* withdraw, at the last minute, the Rudolf report, which then would have offered the opportunity for the introduction of “The Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau” into evidence?
</Roger>

why are you afraid of free debate? You have said there is no debate, but when push came to shove your highly paid Queen’s Counsel felt it necessary to fill the courtroom every day for three months with over thirty lawyers, counsel, barristers, assistants, historians, and researchers, just to stand up against Mr. Irving, who appeared in court alone. Was your case really that weak?

<Roger>
No, the case was a slam dunk, as the final judgment amply shows. You seem to be conflating the idea of a defense against a spurious charge of libel with a debate. Do you really not see how very dishonest that is?
</Roger>

why have you and your friends done all you can to muzzle Mr. Irving – by putting pressure on publishers, broadcasters, television companies, and governments not to allow him to speak or to publish his widely acknowledged books? What are you scared of?

<Roger>
And you can document, I suppose, that what little has been done is “all they can?” The Freedom of Speech you so hypocritically invoke does not include the necessity that anyone take you seriously. Is it anyone’s fault but your own that you were found, in a court of law of your own choosing (one in which the deck was stacked in your favour) to have lied about and distorted history in support of an overpowering ideological to whitewash Hitler, and that this has then impacted your ability to peddle those lies and distortions?
</Roger>

in a trial which was about a very serious matter, why did you instruct your counsel to resort to smear tactics, branding Mr. Irving as an anti-Semite and a racist (although he, unlike your Counsel, frequently employs ethnic minorities as his personal staff), and although neither allegation was made in your book or pleaded in your initial Defence? Were you frightened of fighting the case on the facts of history?

<Roger>
You can, of course, document that such characterizations (which, I may remind you, were more than amply supported by the facts of the matter) were used explicitly and solely on the instructions of Ms. Lipstadt? And why are you pretending that the facts of the case allow for any other judgment that was rendered?
</Roger>

are you aware that Mr Irving’s case is under appeal?

<Roger>
You really should update this, now that the final appeal has been very properly turned away
</Roger>

How do you feel about going around the world despite that, drawing fat fees, and smearing him still further in advance of the final outcome?

<Roger>
How do *you* feel going about the world drawing fees and donations, none of which you report to the appropriate authorities and none of which are going to pay the judgment in a case which I remind you that you started entirely on your own and which you ably lost your hat because of?
</Roger>

How much money have you made out of this trial (articles, speaking fees, etc.) already? That’s what it’s about, isn’t it – money?

<Roger>
The answer to that very same question would be far more interesting coming from you, given your complete refusal to even begin paying the judgment you owe (not to mention the taxes and such on the income you continue to make.)
</Roger>

do you think it right to pay some of your so called “neutral” expert witnesses a quarter of a million dollars in inducements to testify in your favour?

<Roger>
You have a problem with Penguin Books having defended itself with every tool at its disposal? Or is your problem that no one would even consider a fraction of that figure for your own services as an expert witness? Is it that those witnesses are not entitled to compensation for their time and effort? What *is* the problem here?
</Roger>

Those six million dollars put up by Steven Spielberg – you are a religious scholar: Have you never heard the Bible say, “Good wine needs no bush”? If your case is rock solid why was so much money swilling around that London courtroom? [Internet link: http://old.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/payments.html]

<Roger>
Because you sued someone with the will and the means to defend themselves vigorously. Really, mr. irving, this isn’t rocket science…
</Roger>

a new Zealand academic tribunal has just found that Prof. Richard Evans, your chief witness, was guilty of grossly distorting, misquoting, exaggerating, and polemicizing in his similar “expert report” on Dr. Joel Hayward, and totally lacking in the objectivity that is expected by a court of an expert witness. How do you feel about Evans now? [Internet link: http://old.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/Evans/NZReportExtract.html]

<Roger>
How do *you* feel about the fact that your insinuations notwithstanding, the Evans Report completely and factually trashes your claims to historical accuracy using nothing but your own words and cited sources?
</Roger>

have you read Norman Finkelstein’s book, The Holocaust Industry. Is he a racist and anti-Semite too?

<Roger>
One must note that, unlike yourself, Finkelstein does not deny the Holocaust.
</Roger>

you have argued in your books and articles that Jews should never stoop to marrying outside their religion and race. Is that not racism in its purest and most evil form?

<Roger>
You can, of course, document Ms. Lipstadt even making reference to race in such declarations, right? And do you not find this rather a hypocritical whine from the entity that penned for his infant daughter: “I am a baby Aryan / not Jewish or Sectarian / I have no plans to marry / an Ape or Rastafarian?”
</Roger>

who paid your own multi-million dollar legal expenses, and why did the British High Court, unusually, not allow you to reclaim them?

<Roger>
Who are you to question how the defense against your spurious charges was financed, and better yet what difference does it make? A better question is why you continue to refuse to even begin making good on the judgment you brought upon yourself? And why are you lying about the recovery of those expenses? Is *that* why you been forced into bankruptcy and had your flat seized and so forth?
</Roger>

Judge Gray found in his Judgment that three of the statements you made in your book against Mr Irving are in fact serious lies just as he claimed (the Stockholm terrorist conference, the Hitler painting “above his desk”, the stealing or damaging of the Goebbels diaries from the Moscow archives. Have you removed them from the book’s latest editions?) (Answer: You have not).

<Roger>
Judge Gray also found you liable for a settlement. Have you done anything toward paying it? (Answer: you have not.)

You lecture and sell books in the U.S., which taxes the proceeds of such income. Have you even made motions toward paying such taxes? (Answer: you have not.)

You have lost your shirt in a legal battle which you initiated for the sole purpose of stifling Ms. Lipstadt (nor is she the first person with whom you have attempted this.) Are you going to step up and face the consequences of that action (Answer: no, you likely will not.)
</Roger>

AND

On Saturday, March 19, 2005, at 07:17 AM, Roger wrote:

Recently, on your website you reposted (in its entirety, and in complete disregard to copyright law) an article by Tamar Lewin, with your own comments interspersed and unattributed. To be precise, you added the phrase “predominately Jewish” to the sentence below:

“MORE than 200 [predominantly Jewish] historians at colleges nationwide sent a petition to C-Span yesterday to protest its plan to accompany its coverage of a lecture by Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of Holocaust studies at Emory University, with a speech by David Irving, who has argued that Hitler was not fully responsible for the mass murder of Jews”

Now, the article *is* headed with the disclaimer [images and captions added by this website], but it says nothing about “completely unsupported and gratuitous assertions added.”

First of all, I wonder why you feel that it is only *your* works which deserve the protection of the law? Since a person of your experience cannot be unfamiliar with the concept of the protection of intellectual property, the excuse of ignorance can hardly be offered.

Second, I really think you owe it to everyone following this story to share your sources for the astonishing assertion that most of the people on the Wyman Institute list are Jewish. Did you speak to each of them individually, asking their religious preferences? Or is this yet another shining example of your “research” automatically supporting your conclusions, regardless of the actual evidence?

Dear Deborah Lipstadt

Why not grab this opportunity to debate David Erving, with both hands?

With your obvious intelligence and superior knowledge of the holocaust subject and at the same time being in possession of the undisputable truth, it would be a piece of cake to make a total fool of a ìliarî like David Erving
Think of the invaluable publicity for the book as an added bonus.

Just a thought

Peter

David Irving writes:

“Like many other ‘exchanges’ Lipstadt refers to in her lectures and elsewhere, the stated passages are nowhere in the transcripts, as a word search will prove. Her memory is playing tricks on her. Download the entire transcripts at
http://old.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/ and see for yourself. Who’s lying now?”

Mr. Irving, if you are referring to the “exchange” regarding Hitler and the raid on the Jewish delicatessen, the substance of Prof. Lipstadt’s statement can quite easily be found there, even though she made errors on specific words and misremembered the book in question. Is the issue for you that the book was not “Hitler’s War,” but rather the Goring biography, and that the barrister actually used the word “invention” instead of “lie?” Or is your problem merely a lack of skill on your part in performing word searches? If you would go to your own website and refer to:

http://old.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/transcripts/day012.htm

you will find the following “exchange:”

MR RAMPTON: Yes, but, Mr Irving, you are an historian and historian when, for needs of reference or whatever else, when they make reference to some event in the past, they can generally be expected by their readers to have some regard for accuracy, authenticity and so on, can they not?

A. Let me give you the impression of how much attention I pay to accuracy. In order to write that one or two sentence passage about Hofmann and the looting of the delicatessen, I read 6,000 pages of transcript of the trial of Adolf Hitler and others.

Q. In G–ring, page 59 — I have not got it with me, but this is quoted on page, my Lord, 225 of Evans, at the bottom of the page, you wrote this: “Meanwhile, Hitler acted to maintain order. Learning that one Nazi squad had ransacked a kosher grocery store during the night, he sent for the ex-army lieutenant who had led the raid. ‘We took off our Nazi insignia first!’ expostulated the officer –

P-62

to no avail, as Hitler dismissed him from the party on the spot. ‘I shall see that no other nationalist unit allows you to join either!'” That is Hitler, apparently.

“G–ring goggled at this exchange, as did a police sergeant who testified to it at the Hitler trial a few weeks later”?

A. That was Hofmann, yes.

Q. That was Hofmann?

A. Yes. The whole episode is based on Hofmann.

Q. “G–ring goggled at this exchange”?

A. Yes.

Q. How do you know G–ring was there?

A. Have you ever heard of author’s licence?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Author’s licence or —-

A. Are you criticising “G–ring goggling” or being there?

Q. I am asking both questions, I think, am I not, Mr Irving?

Do you know that G–ring was there?

A. Yes. It is — he was there because it is evident from the timetable of ïï Einsatnacht(?) that he was there.

Q. And how do you know that G–ring goggled?

A. That was author’s licence.

Q. You mean it was an invention?

A. Yes.

I will note that you then attempted to defend your use of author’s license, and anyone interested in reading the rest of the exchange can go to the URL above. I end the quote here simply because the above is sufficient to establish my point: contrary to your insinuation, there is support in the transcripts for Prof. Lipstadt’s characterization of the exchange in this forum.

Why don’t you all read “The holocaust industry” by Norman Finkelstein. I think it should be compulsory reading for all of you who are always so quick to defend the holocaust money grab.
Yes, people did suffer terrbibly, but it was not just jews that suffered, so as jews you do NOT have a monopoly on suffering. (WE have our own holocaust in our family, I am of Greek descent. My Father’s first cousin and three of his close friends were killed by the Nazis in greece all beacuse they had helped a jewish family to escape from Greece.

Regarding Lipsatdt, she is a fraudster, did you know penguin books paid Richard Evans a huge sum of money to give his comments at the Lipstadt/Irving Trial? If he sincerely believed in the holocaust he would have done it for free.

Did you know Edgar Bronfmann also poured huge amounts for Lipstadts defence?

As for David Irving, he has NEVER even written an article denying the holocaust.
Go and prove to me that Irving has denied it. I am sick of all this crap. Read Finkelstein’s book and you will all be very ashamed of all the moneygrabbing activities of Jewish groups around the world.
No, it’s not about mourning for holocaust victims.
You all should also have a look at www.jewsagainstzionism it is a very good website, there you will learn that the holocaust was actually santioned by the Zionists, they wanted it to happen so they could sue for money in years to come.
This is the reall tragedy of all this.
How many huge comapnies have been forced to pay millions od dollars for all this “guilt”? And how much of this money actually found its way to the genuine survivors? Not much as Bronfmann and his henchman and the ADL made sure it did NOT get to to the people who were entitled to it.
So your own people rob each other again and squabble over the spoils!

Shame on all of you for perpetuating all these lies.
Did you know the polish government has actually admitted the gas chambers and crematoria were built AFTER the war as a TOURIST ATTRACTION!
You are all saying Irving is a villain because he does not share your corrupt selfish views.

There is even a plaque on a wall at Auschwitz that said 300,000 dies there, not 2 million as is so often hysterically claimed. AS a mattter of fact every year the figure seems to get less and less and more “survivors” keep turning up! (My mother was a nurse during the war and she said, yes, the conditions were terrible, but most of the inmates dies from typhoid, cholera and from siply being overcroweding. Auschwitz was not a death camp, it was a work camp.

So wake up to your selves, have enough courage to actually speak the truth for a change.
Put your money where you mouth is and prove me wrong!
So much for free speech inj this world!
You are all bigots yourselves, and racists, you are the true criminals.

you must excuse me, I have to finsh reading about the German holocaust at Dresden hwere over 200,000 innocent people were murdered by the allies.
Now that was done deliberately ! and it is pure umembellished fact!

I have been compelled to close my blog [lipstadt.blogspot.com] to comments because deniers and antisemites came out of the woodwork in droves and posted the egregious drivel. I hope that does not happen to this conversation.

Thank you to Mike for catching my mistakes. It is true that Rampton did not say it was a “lie,” but said it was an “invention.”

I know of no historian who would be proud of including lies or inventions in their books when those books purport to be works of history. In contrast, David Irving seems to have no problem doing so.

The point is quite simple and applies not just to Irving but to anyone who perverts, distorts, and invents the facts. How can you debate someone who makes things up [e.g. putting Goring at a meeting and saying he goggled at the exchange, when there is no evidence that he was even there, much less that he was goggling].

You can’t have a debate with such a person.

“He lost, which meant that all I had said about him in my book was deemed to be correct: his is a denier, liar, and someone who knowingly falsifies history.”

Does that include the planned meeting in Sweden where he was invited to speak along with representitives of Hamas?

“Does that include the planned meeting in Sweden where he was invited to speak along with representitives of Hamas?”

No.

Professor Lipstadt corrected this in the next edition of her book “Denying the Holocaust,” and discusses it on page 72 of “History on Trial,” which I just finished last night.

I *highly* recommend *both* books to *everyone*.

Real historians do not invent or lie, and they correct honest errors based on what were thought to be valid sources. Irving failed to convince the judge that anything in Lipstadt’s book was damaging and untrue. This one bit was untrue, but not damaging, in the light of all the other quite true and quite damaging things that can be said about Irving. The judge was quite convinced that it is absolutely correct to call Irving a deliberate distorter of history, and that Irving’s motive for whitewashing Hitler was Irving’s own hatred of Jews and non-whites.

Nick Stefanos wrote:

> Why don’t you all read “The holocaust industry” by Norman
> Finkelstein. I think it should be compulsory reading for all of
> you who are always so quick to defend the holocaust money grab.

And why do you assume that no one here has done so? It should be noted that Finkelstein does not deny the Holocaust, inlike irving.

> Yes, people did suffer terrbibly, but it was not just jews that
> suffered, so as jews you do NOT have a monopoly on suffering.

Of course, no one here has made this claim, but it should be noted that the Jews and the Rom were the only ones specifically targetted because of an accident of birth and were killed in large numbers because of a percieved association with a hated group.

> (WE have our own holocaust in our family, I am of Greek
> descent. My Father’s first cousin and three of his close
> friends were killed by the Nazis in greece all beacuse they had
> helped a jewish family to escape from Greece.
>
> Regarding Lipsatdt, she is a fraudster, did you know penguin
> books paid Richard Evans a huge sum of money to give his
> comments at the Lipstadt/Irving Trial?

Which demonstrates that Ms. Lipstadt is a “fraudster,” how, exactly?

>If he sincerely believed
> in the holocaust he would have done it for free.

Ah, so you also believe then none of mr. irving’s “expert” witnesses including Germar Rudolf should have been paid? WHat of other expert witnesses in any other court case: should they also forgo compensation for their services?

Let’s take this to its logical conclusion: when are you going to tell *your* boss that you don’t need a paycheque any longer?

> Did you know Edgar Bronfmann also poured huge amounts for
> Lipstadts defence?

… and? Is there a point somewhere in the near future?

> As for David Irving, he has NEVER even written an article
> denying the holocaust.

True. His denial and Nazi apologia is scarttered through out works on other subjects.

Once again, what *is* your point?

> Go and prove to me that Irving has denied it.

You could start with the trial transcript, especially the Evans report. It was demonstrated definitively there.

>I am sick of all this crap.

… which is why you go out of your way to post here?

>Read Finkelstein’s book and you will all be very
> ashamed of all the moneygrabbing activities of Jewish groups
> around the world.

Once again, I think you should follow your own advice and read the book and see what FInkelstein *actually* says about the HOlocaust, not just what you have been *told* that it does.

> No, it’s not about mourning for holocaust victims.
> You all should also have a look at www.jewsagainstzionism
> it is a very good website, there you will learn that the
> holocaust was actually santioned by the Zionists, they wanted
> it to happen so they could sue for money in years to come.

LOL. Suuuure it was ONe notes that this site, like yourself, is full of assertion,, but no so much on actually *supporting* their nonsense.

> This is the reall tragedy of all this.

ANd *not* the murder of close to six million innocents?

> How many huge comapnies have been forced to pay millions od
> dollars for all this “guilt”?

Why don’t you tell us, and then tell us what possible bearing that could have on the historical facts of the matter.

We’ll wait right here.

>And how much of this money
> actually found its way to the genuine survivors?

And then you can tell us how much of it was actually *meant* for survivors?

>Not much as
> Bronfmann and his henchman and the ADL made sure it did NOT get
> to to the people who were entitled to it.

Quite an accusatoin. You *can*, of course, actaully *prove* this, right?

> So your own people rob each other again and squabble over the
> spoils!

Not that Holoccaust denial and anti-semitism aren’t intimately related…

> Shame on all of you for perpetuating all these lies.

ANd yet, the only lies that have been documented here are yours and irvings.

Funny, that.

> Did you know the polish government has actually admitted the
> gas chambers and crematoria were built AFTER the war as a
> TOURIST ATTRACTION!

You really should stop listening to other haters — they will almost always be wrong. In fact, the Polish government admits no such thing, since there is a difference between being buikt and being rebuilt.

> You are all saying Irving is a villain because he does not
> share your corrupt selfish views.

No one here has referred to him as a villian, nor have any criticisms of him centered on “disagreements,” except as we generally disgaree with falsifying historical fact in support of a vile political movement.

> There is even a plaque on a wall at Auschwitz that said 300,000
> dies there, not 2 million as is so often hysterically claimed.

Of course, if one actually *reads* that plaque, one discovers that it refers only to *registered* inmates, not to the millions that were killed on arrival.

And one should not depend on plaques to learn history.

> AS a mattter of fact every year the figure seems to get less
> and less and more “survivors” keep turning up!

We cannot be responsible for what things “seem” like to you, especially when estimates which closely agree with the currently accepted numbers have been available since shortly before the war.

Go ahead, mention “Night and Fog.” I dare you…

> (My mother was a
> nurse during the war

In the German death camps?

>and she said, yes, the conditions were
> terrible, but most of the inmates dies from typhoid, cholera
> and from siply being overcroweding.

And who, do you suppose, are responsible for crowding people into these conditions?

> Auschwitz was not a death
> camp, it was a work camp.

Actually, it was a complex of camps, including both death camps and labour camps.

> So wake up to your selves, have enough courage to actually
> speak the truth for a change.

We have been. Unlike you and irving.

> Put your money where you mouth is and prove me wrong!

It’s been done. Perhaps you haven’t heard of a little court case which irving initiated?

> So much for free speech inj this world!

LOL — and who is infringing on your right to spout nonsense?

> You are all bigots yourselves, and racists, you are the true
> criminals.

Yoou do not even know me, and yet you feel comfortable telling me I am a bigot and as racist. On what basis, may I ask?

> you must excuse me, I have to finsh reading about the German
> holocaust at Dresden hwere over 200,000 innocent people were
> murdered by the allies.

Yet another lie from irving: the best estimates are far lower. Wait, using your “logic,” this must mean that Dresden was never bombed, huh?

> Now that was done deliberately ! and it is pure umembellished
> fact!

No, as a matter of fact, it is yet another proven lie.

Ms. Lipstadt,
I must confess that I am somewhat confused by your attempts at silencing Mr. Irving because he is a “liar”. Ms Lipstadt, we are all liars here on God’s green earth, but this does not prohibit us from espousing our views. In other words, one need not prove their honesty or sincerity when presenting an argument prior to a debate. The only thing that matters in a debate are the facts being discussed. Furthermore, I must tell you that no one has ever been pre-emptively disqualified from a debate because they are thought to be dishonest. The ultimate judge in a debate is the Truth, and not you or I. If he is indeed such an obvious liar and a fraud, then he should be no match for you, and who are you to deny us proof that he is what you say he is?

Thank you,
Ed Katz