Oh dear. So Mr Wear goes into a massive sulk about the David Irving trial. Apparently Mr Irving has been sulking himself since 2000.
History on Trial
David Irving was viciously smeared by the media after his testimony at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial. Irving’s books disappeared from many bookshops, he sustained huge financial losses, and he was ultimately labeled as a “Holocaust denier”
Irving’s books did not disappear from book shops. I was able to borrow a copy of “Hitler’s War” from my local library as late as 2005. Many of Irving’s books are available via Amazon and Mr Irving sells his books through his own website. Up until recently Mr Irving was correctly labeled a Holocaust denier. After all, anyone who says:
“I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz.”
…must be a denier. Currently Mr Irving is the bete noire of Holocaust denial as, like many other deniers recently, he has turned his back on denial. He certainly believes that Jews were gassed at the Action Reinhardt camps.
The harassment campaign against David Irving included numerous arrests in various countries.
Not really. Mr Irving promoted his Holocaust denial at extreme Right wing gatherings in places like Austria and Canada. Austria, like many European countries, views Holocaust denial as a HATE CRIME.
These arrests do not seem to bother British historian Sir Richard J. Evans.
Why should it? Mr Evans was not concerned with Mr Irving’s flaunting of the law; he was concerned with Mr Irving’s treatment of historical evidence.
Richard Evans does not seem to be concerned that David Irving’s arrests were attributable to the fact that numerous countries make it a felony to dispute the so-called Holocaust
…and Mr Wear seems to have a problem telling us WHY exactly it is that the public denial of the Holocaust in certain countries is seen as a crime….and it has nothing to do with protecting a story. The denial laws are in place to stop attacks against minority groups like (but not only) Jews. Indeed, in Poland, it is also an offense to denier Stalinist crimes. In France the denial laws also include the denial of ANY crime against humanity.
I cannot put it more clearly: The Laws against Holocaust denial are there to protect people from hate speech. They are not there to stop any inquiries into the historiography of the Holocaust.
David Irving filed a libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books Ltd. in British courts to attempt to end these and other similar statements.
Indeed. It was David Irving that took Deborah Lipstadt to court in the UK where it was up to the defense to prove the accusations were true.
Financing Deborah Lipstadt’s Defense
Is totally legal. With the defense having to do the research and prove their case, experts and staff are needed. This is the case for all trials.
So Deborah Lipstadt acknowledges that she had at least 16 attorneys who worked on her case. All of these attorneys are described by her as some of the best money can buy. Penguin also had a team of in-house lawyers, headed by Cecily Engle, a former libel lawyer, and Helena Peacock, who were at the trial most days.
Lipstadt’s team of paid expert witnesses includes Dr. Richard J. Evans, Dr. Christopher Browning, Dr. Peter Longerich, Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt, and Dr. Hajo Funke. Lipstadt writes that these people “constituted the historian’s ultimate dream team.” Nikolaus Wachsmann, Thomas Skelton-Robinson and Tobias Jersak were also “critically important components of our research team.”
Lipstadt also mentions Jamie McCarthy, Harry Mazal, Danny Kerem, Richard Green and the other members of The Holocaust History Project as “exceptionally forthcoming with their time and expertise.” There are also numerous other people Lipstadt mentions in her book as providing assistance.
So…what!! What on earth is Mr Wear prattling on about? Is he saying that this is all illegal?
Neither Deborah Lipstadt nor Richard Evans detail the total costs incurred to defend against David Irving’s libel suit.
Why? Is there some legal obligation to do so?
David Irving is clearly correct that a substantial portion of Lipstadt’s defense was bankrolled by wealthy Jews across the world.
Even if this were fact…so what?
David Irving in his opening address at the trial claimed that his career had been torpedoed by the defendants.
Irving claimed this had been done as “part of an organized international endeavor.
It’s one thing claiming it…another thing proving it.
Deborah Lipstadt’s attorney Richard Rampton opened with the defense’s bottom line: “My Lord, Mr. Irving calls himself an historian. The truth is, however, that he is not an historian at all but a falsifier of history. To put it bluntly, he is a liar.” Rampton stated that the case was not about competing versions of history, but about truth and lies
…and Judge Gray agreed with him in his judgement.
David Irving’s biggest mistake in his case was choosing to be his own lawyer.
Probably true. Mr Wear can’t blame Lipstadt for that boo boo.
Irving was at a major disadvantage in his case because he was up against a huge and experienced legal team with only himself as his attorney.
For once we agree…not that having his own defense team would have made the slightest difference. Perhaps he should have called on Germar Rudolf as an expert witness. Oh…he did, at the Appeal Trial. But then for reasons unknown, Irving dropped Rudolf and his Report like a hot brick!
Judge Charles Gray’s adverse judgement against Irving in the case was based on ludicrous conclusions. For example, Judge Gray found the Sonderkommando testimony presented in the case to be highly credible.
That’s because it is.
However, as I have previously written, there are numerous and powerful reasons for rejecting the Sonderkommando testimony as pure invention.
…and as I have previously written here there are numerous reasons why Mr Wear’s article is pure…cow fodder.
However, even with Gray’s dismissal of the Leuchter Report, the reports and testimony of Germar Rudolf, Walter Lüftl, Friedrich Paul Berg, Dr. William B. Lindsey, Dr. Arthur Robert Butz and other scientists were never refuted
Berg, Rudolf, Lindsey, Luftl and Butz never testified at the trial. So how was it possible to refute them? The Rudolf Report was only mentioned on passing and was never introduced by Irving. Lindsey never even set foot in Auschwitz!
Deborah Lipstadt and her team of experts were also not able to show how a homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz actually operated.
Yes they did. Van Pelt told us.
However, as I have discussed in a previous article, the death toll at Dresden could have easily been as high as 250,000 people.
Yet Mr wear fails to mention AT ALL the TB47 report written (immediately after the raid) by the German authorities, with a number around the 20,000 mark…Mr Wear, in his “previous article” cherry picks from the works of several historians to try to prove his 250,000 estimate. The problem is all but 2 of them promote a number around the 25,000 mark.
After the trial, in front of numerous cameras and reporters in a hotel ballroom, Lipstadt described Judge Gray’s decision as a victory for all those who fight hatred and prejudice.
Yep. I agree with that assessment.
Lipstadt failed to explain how a decision by a British judge in a case not involving a Holocaust revisionist historian demolished Holocaust revisionist claims.
Irving was not a Holocaust Revisionist Historian. He was a Holocaust denier. As is Mr Wear and his friends. As to revisionist claims…well we have the Leuchter Report to start with…
For example, Irving spent over a year in jail in Austria from 2005-2006 for his views on the so-called Holocaust.
Wrong. He was arrested for returning to Austria after he was kicked out for making a speech at an extreme right rally years earlier. Had he not returned, he would not have been arrested.
Of course, some people will still call you an anti-Semite for mentioning these facts; they claim that Zionist groups and organizations could not possibly have such power. Unfortunately, as David Irving made clear in his lawsuit, Zionist groups and organizations do in fact have such power.
…and that deserves a good old: