Elecronic Telegraph, London 01.20.00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Irving 'ready to eat humble pie' over gassing of Jews

DAVID IRVING, the historian seeking damages over a claim that he is a
"Holocaust denier", said yesterday that he was "willing to eat humble pie"
if he had made a mistake over the number and way Jews were gassed in the
Second World War.

Under cross-examination by Richard Rampton, QC, over statements he made that
the Nazis used gassing trucks "on a very limited scale to experiment," Mr
Irving agreed that he had been "quite plainly wrong". He told the High Court
where he is representing himself in a libel action against Penguin Books and
Deborah Lipstadt, the American author and academic, that what he had said in
the past about the scale and number of the gas trucks deaths was based on
his knowledge at the time.

But he admitted his error after Mr Rampton, appearing for Penguin and Prof
Lipstadt, author of Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and
Memory, referred him to a document showing that 97,000 Jews were gassed in
three trucks in the course of five weeks.

Mr Justice Gray, who is hearing the case without a jury, asked Mr Irving if
he would describe that as "very limited and experimental". Mr Irving, 62, of
Mayfair, who said he did not have the document when he made the original
remark, replied: "No, this is systematic."

Mr Rampton claimed that the statements about the trucks flew "in the face of
the available evidence". He said: "I am suggesting a man in your position
does not enter the arena waving flags and blowing trumpets unless he has
taken the trouble to verify what he is proposing to say, particularly when
what he is proposing to say is something of great sensitivity and importance
to millions throughout the world."

Mr Irving denied flag-waving and said the comment was made in response to a
question at a press conference in 1989. He said: "I am not a Holocaust
expert. I am a Hitler expert." Mr Rampton: "Then why don't you keep your
mouth shut about the Holocaust?" Mr Irving: "Because I am asked about it. It
obsesses people."

He found the phrase "Holocaust denier" repugnant and said he never claimed
that the crime did not take place. But he did question the number of Jews
who died and denied that there was a systematic extermination of Jews in
concentration camp gas chambers.

He denied Mr Rampton's suggestion that he bent evidence to exculpate Hitler
or that he suppressed documents. He claims that Prof Lipstadt's book alleges
he distorted documents and statistics to reach historically untenable
conclusions and serve his ideological claims.

She and Penguin Books deny libel. The case continues.


Times of London

http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/Times/frontpage.html?999

Irving eats 'humble pie' on gassing

BY TIM JONES

DAVID IRVING conceded yesterday that he had been wrong in stating that the
gassing of Jews in lorries by Nazis had been conducted on a limited and
experimental basis.

The controversial historian, who denies that millions of Jews were gassed at
Auschwitz, made his admission after being confronted by evidence that in a
five-week period in 1941, 97,000 Jews were put to death in three lorries.

Saying that the evidence had not been available to him when he made his
comments, the author admitted that documents proved that the lorries had
been part of a systematic operation to liquidate Jews.

In acrimonious exchanges with Richard Rampton, QC, Mr Irving, who is seeking
libel damages in the High Court, said: "I am willing to eat humble pie if I
have made a mistake."

Mr Rampton claimed that in making his statement about the lorries during a
1989 conference Mr Irving had been flying in the face of the available
evidence.

Mr Irving insisted that, 55 years after the Second World War had ended,
there was still no clear evidence to show that Hitler had been directly
implicated in the "final solution". He conceded that after speeches in 1943
by Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, there was no reason why Hitler should
not have been aware of what was happening. Himmler had said that Jewish
women and children should be killed so that the children did not grow up to
take revenge against the Germans.

Mr Irving is suing Deborah Lipstadt, an American academic, and Penguin Books
for claiming in her book, Denying The Holocaust: The Growing Assault on
Truth and Memory, that he was a Holocaust denier who had twisted history.

The case continues.



===

This is a round up of articles from the U.S. Jewish press.

===

Illusions at the L.A. Times
Gene Lichtenstein, Jewish Journal, Los Angeles
http://www.jewishjournal.com/gene.1.14.0.htm

Last Friday the Los Angeles Times published a Column One story on its front
page with the headline: Danger in Denying Holocaust? The Times' story,
written by staff writer Kim Murphy, purported to be an objective, balanced
account of two equally reasoned positions. It was depicted as a conflict
between scholars: Those who were Holocaust deniers and debunkers arrayed
against those who claimed the evidence supporting the Holocaust was
irrefutable.

Murphy also developed a parallel theme, portraying, somewhat
sympathetically, Holocaust deniers who were being punished for their ideas.

It was a perspective that inflamed some members of Los Angeles's Jewish
community, particularly survivors and their families. The most emotional
respondents were quick to claim anti-Semitism, but that, on the face of it,
is misguided. The Times is neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Israel. That still
leaves the question hanging: Why would the Los Angeles Times take such a
tack, one where equal weight and legitimacy is given to each view? And why
would its editors let such reporting sail by?

I called Kim Murphy, the staff writer who researched and wrote this
particular Column One story. Murphy is based in Seattle and has been
assigned to cover the hate movements in America. She is 44 and has
experience as a foreign correspondent in the Times' Cairo bureau, and in the
Balkans as well. She has also put in time as a metro and Orange County
reporter. She is no novice.

From her point of view, her job "is to present all points of view fairly and
accurately;" and to write an account that is balanced and objective. If that
appears to legitimate the arguments of the Holocaust deniers, that is not
her problem. In the end, she explained, the readers should be able to make
up their own mind. "I trust the judgment of our readers," she asserted.

Despite Murphy's statement to me (and her belief), her story is neither
balanced nor objective, though she is correct: each side is given its say.

Her bias or point of view can be found in the tone and the structure of the
piece; in effect, in the choices she has made. For example, all of page one
focuses on the Holocaust deniers, who are depicted as victims. The story
actually follows the headline: Yes, it suggests, there is danger in denying
the Holocaust, in pursuing freedom of speech or thought, at least in this
instance.

The lead anecdote gives us a humanizing account of a Ph.D. candidate
punished for his independent inquiry into the Holocaust's "existence." He
loses his wife and his position at the university, and is sentenced to
prison. It is ironic that in presenting two sides of an argument about the
Holocaust, it is the deniers who are the martyrs, not the survivors. The
merits of the survivors' position are given to us on the jump page in the
last section. There are no anecdotes; no human interest stories; no glimpses
of lives lost or endured. Only exposition and generalization.

Murphy told me that she had interviewed at least one survivor and had read
some literature of each side. She had traveled to Germany once, but had
never visited a death camp. More to the point, she offers no balancing
details that jump out at us rendering the human side of the Holocaust; only
the deniers are given a dramatic voice. Why? Reporter's choice.

The same kind of bias occurs when it comes to quotes. David Irving, the
British revisionist who has filed a libel suit in London against an American
historian because of her comments about him in her book on the Holocaust, is
introduced in this manner: "He has described Auschwitz as 'a very brutal
slave labor camp, where probably 100,000 Jews died.'" It is a revisionist
perspective, but to someone unfamiliar with the facts not necessarily an
unreasonable statement.

Why this quote and not, say, this one, from among many: "I don't see any
reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney. It's a legend. Once we
admit that it was a brutal slave camp and a large number of people died
elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney? 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." Irving said that in Calgary, Canada in 1991. Why not that quote?

If the writer does not see that she is shaping a "balanced" report on
Holocaust revisionists by emphasizing freedom of speech instead of the
weight and seriousness of their contentions, why did not the editors catch
it? Roger Smith, the Column One editor, was quick to apologize for any hurt
survivors felt. "Don't fault us for bad intentions," he said. The aim was to
give a forum to both sides, to dramatize the conflict that is out there. In
the process, he explained, the paper hoped to alert the reader to arguments
deniers make. The newspaper would not side with one faction or the other, he
said. It was up to the reader to proceed further and make up his own mind.

Invariably such a presentation validates both views. And places, I believe,
a heavy burden on the reader, especially the uninformed reader, to explore
further and make up his own mind.

I asked Smith if he, the editor, had read any of the writing of either side,
before or after the story had crossed his desk. No, I have not, he said.

The best newspapers expect their reporters and editors to make judgment
calls: To determine when two sides require equal space; and to organize a
story in a way that is comprehensive and complete, with hierarchical
attention paid to details.

It is doubtful that any newspaper would give equal balanced space to
contending points of view about pedophilia on the Internet; or to those who
condemn and defend homosexuals; or argue that blacks are or are not inferior
to whites; or debate whether slavery in the United States was necessarily
deplorable.

There are certain truths, cultural truths, that are assumed to have been
verified by evidence. The existence of the Holocaust is one such truth. One
such fact. You would not know it from reading the L.A. Times. -- Gene
Lichtenstein

===

Denying The Deniers
Jewish Week 01.21.00
http://www.thejewishweek.com/jwcurr.exe?0001218

As infuriating as it is for historians to justify the reality of the
Holocaust, the most thoroughly documented of all genocides, that is what has
to take place at a landmark trial that opened in London last week.

Deborah Lipstadt, a respected professor of Jewish and Holocaust studies at
Emory University, is being tried for allegedly libeling David Irving, a
Holocaust denier, in her 1993 book, "Denying The Holocaust: The Growing
Assault on Truth and Memory" (Penguin Books). In her book, Lipstadt
described Irving as "an Adolf Hitler partisan who wears blinkers and skews
documents and misrepresents data in order to reach untenable conclusions."

Irving has argued, in some 30 books on World War II and public lectures,
that Auschwitz is "a legend," a slave labor camp where people died but that
contained no gas chambers. He also contends that Lipstadt is part of a vast
international Jewish conspiracy to defame and discredit him.

Under British law, the burden of proof is on Lipstadt and her publisher to
prove that Irving deliberately distorted Holocaust history. The trial is
expected to last three months and include the most detailed judicial probe
of the Holocaust since the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Israel almost four
decades ago. The concern is that should Irving win even a partial victory,
it would raise questions about the validity of Holocaust events at a time
when survivors of the tragedy are dying out.

What can we do? In addition to the community providing emotional support for
Lipstadt during this ordeal, historians and American Jewish groups should
recognize that Holocaust deniers have become more sophisticated in their
techniques, questioning aspects of the Shoah rather than dismissing the
whole tragedy as a Zionist fiction. There is a need, in response, to be less
emotional in countering the charges but to be thorough, professional and 
knowledgeable, using this opportunity to expose the truth of Hitler's Final
Solution, and explaining the facts to a new generation so that the veracity
of the Holocaust never will be questioned again.

===

###

Copyright 2000 PR Newswire Europe Limited Press Association Newsfile
January 20, 2000, Thursday

HISTORIAN SPEAKS FOR IRVING IN HOLOCAUST LIBEL ACTION

BY: Jan Colley and Cathy Gordon, PA News

A leading historian told the High Court today that he found David Irving's
view of Hitler difficult to accept but was impressed by his scholarship.

Professor Donald Cameron Watt, Emeritus Professor of International History
at the London School of Economics, had been subpoenaed by Mr Irving to give
evidence for him in his libel action over claims that he is a "Holocaust
denier".

Mr Irving, the 62-year-old author of Hitler's War, says that the book
Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, alleges he
has distorted statistics and documents to serve his own ideological purposes
and reach historically untenable conclusions.

He says he has never claimed that the Holocaust did not take place - but
that he does question the number of Jewish dead and denies the systematic
extermination of the Jews in concentration camp gas chambers.

He believes that the killings were organised by Heinrich Himmler - but
accepts that, after 1943, Hitler had no excuse for not knowing about it.

The book's author, American academic Deborah Lipstadt, and publishers
Penguin Books deny libel.

Mr Irving, who says that the book has generated "waves of hatred" against
him, emphasised that Professor Watt had not come to court voluntarily and
that "no odium" should attach to him.

Professor Watt said that he last met Mr Irving 30 years ago when they
collaborated on a book.

He told Mr Irving: "I find your version of Hitler's personality and
knowledge of the Holocaust and knowledge of the mass murder of the Jews is a
very difficult one to accept ...

"I find in other areas, where your particular political convictions are not
involved, I am most impressed by the scholarship."

Asked by Mr Justice Gray, who is hearing the case without a jury, how he
rated Mr Irving as a "military historian", Prof Watt said that he was not in
the "top class".

"But, as a historian of Hitler's war, I think he has a view which, even if
one disagrees with it, has to be taken seriously.

"He is, after all, the only man of standing - on the basis of his other
research - who puts the case for Hitler before us."

Prof Watt said that he had a "very strong feeling" that there were other
senior historical figures whose work would not stand up to the sort of
careful examination which Mr Irving's had received.

He said that Mr Irving had, however, failed to solve the mystery of how
someone with the "extraordinarily third rate nature of Hitler's mind,
personality and thoughts" managed to suck the whole of Europe into his world.

Prof Watt said that he assumed, given Himmler's character and his dependence
on the approval of those he idolised, that he would "at least have thought
that he had Hitler's approval" He said that the challenge which Mr Irving
raised to the historical profession, in publishing Hitler's War, in 1977,
and basing his views on historical research rather than ideological
conviction, had directly resulted in an enormous outburst of research into
the Holocaust.

Asked by Mr Irving if he regarded his "notion" as perverse, Prof Watt said
that it was "in relation to the values of western society as I understand
them".

He added: "I don't think it's perverse, speaking as a historian. I've seen
more perverse arguments put forward." Asked if he believed that Mr Irving
would suppress a document which "utterly confounded" his views, Prof Watt
said that he had no personal knowledge of Mr Irving having suppressed 
evidence.

###


Two wire service reports for trial proceedings for 01.20.00 & 01.19.00


Copyright 2000 PR Newswire Europe Limited
Press Association Newsfile

January 20, 2000

'HITLER' HISTORIAN FEEDS ANTI-SEMITISM, COURT TOLD

BY:  Cathy Gordon and Jan Colley, PA News

Historian David Irving was today accused of making statements deliberately 
"designed to feed the virulent anti-semitism" still alive and kicking 
throughout the world.

The 62-year-old author of Hitler's War, who is seeking High Court libel 
damages against academic Deborah Lipstadt  and Penguin Books over a claim 
that he is a "Holocaust denier", vehemently denied the charge levelled at 
him during cross-examination by their barrister.

In turn, he accused Mr Richard Rampton QC of playing to the press gallery 
in the packed London courtroom by making what he described as a "slur" 
against him.

The heated exchange began when Mr Rampton stated: "Our case is that you 
consort with people who are deeply anti-semitic and do it quite frequently 
and what is more, Mr Irving..."

At this point, Mr Irving, who is representing himself, interrupted from the 
witness box and told the QC: "It is a very serious charge to make."

Mr Rampton said the "charge" was that Mr Irving made statements 
"deliberately designed to feed the virulent anti-semitism which, alas, in 
the world is still alive and kicking".

He went on: "I further say that some of the observations you made on these 
occasions are themselves grossly anti-semitic."

Mr Irving said that what had been put to him was a "fresh allegation that I 
am in some way anti-semitic ... It is a slur."

He has brought his High Court action against Prof Lipstadt  and Penguin 
over her 1994 book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and 
Memory, which he says alleges he has distorted statistics and documents to 
serve his own ideological purposes and reach historically untenable 
conclusions.

He says it has generated waves of hatred against him. The defendants have 
accused him of being a "liar and a falsifier of history".

Mr Irving rejects the claim that he is a Holocaust denier. He does question 
the number of Jewish dead and denies the systematic extermination of the 
Jews in concentration camp gas chambers.

Today's confrontation came during questioning on the issue of the existence 
of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Earlier, Mr Rampton said that at a press conference in 1989 Mr Irving 
stated he could not accept that there had been gas chambers at the 
concentration camp and that Jews could not have been killed in gas chambers 
there.

"From there until 1993 he goes into the public arena and repeatedly makes 
utterances of that kind. Had he not done so he would not have gone into the 
book which forms the subject of this libel action."

Counsel said Mr Irving had "dignified" himself as a historian: "He then 
lends his considerable weight, if that be right, to repeated and, from time 
to time, very offensive Holocaust denial statements ... he does that on the 
flimsiest possible basis."

Mr Rampton added: "For a man to do that and glorify himself as a serious 
historian is morally wrong."

He had done it "because of his political sympathies and attitudes".

Mr Irving, who rejects all their claims against him, told the court that he 
denied that the buildings seen by tourists at Auschwitz "are or have ever 
been gas chambers".



Copyright 2000 Associated Press
AP Worldstream
January 20, 2000

International news

DISTRIBUTION:  Europe;Britian;Scandinavia;Middle 
East;Africa;India;England;Asia

Historian: David Irving capable of impressive scholarship

DATELINE:  LONDON    A leading historian said Thursday he found British 
writer David Irving's understanding view of Hitler difficult to accept, but 
was impressed by some of his scholarship.

Donald Cameron Watt, Emeritus Professor of International History at the 
London School of Economics, was giving evidence in Irving's libel suit 
against an American academic he says has accused him of denying the Nazi 
Holocaust, now in its second week.

Irving maintains that Deborah Lipstadt's  1994 book, ''Denying the 
Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory,'' alleges he distorted 
statistics and documents and that he denies the Holocaust.

Penguin and Lipstadt,  holder of the Dorot Chair in Modern Jewish and 
Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta, and Penguin deny libel.

Irving says he has never denied the Holocaust happened. But he has outraged 
Jews with his claim that the Holocaust has been exaggerated and by 
challenging the number and manner of Jewish concentration-camp deaths under 
Adolf Hitler's regime.

He also claims Hitler knew nothing about the extermination of Europe's Jews 
until 1943.

Irving, who subpoenaed Watt to give evidence, emphasized that the eminent 
historian had not come to court voluntarily and said ''no odium'' should 
attach to him.

Watt said he last met Irving 30 years ago when they collaborated on a book.

''I find your version of Hitler's personality and knowledge of the 
Holocaust and knowledge of the mass murder of the Jews is a very difficult 
one to accept,'' he said, under questioning from Irving, who is conducting 
his own case.

But he added, ''I find in other areas, where your particular political 
convictions are not involved, I am most impressed by the scholarship.''

Asked by the judge, Charles Gray, how he rated Irving as a military 
historian, Watt said that he was not in the ''top class.''

''But, as a historian of Hitler's war, I think he has a view which, even if 
one disagrees with it, has to be taken seriously,'' Watt replied.

''He is, after all, the only man of standing on the basis of his other 
research who puts the case for Hitler before us.''

Irving has regularly addressed neo-Nazi groups in Austria and Germany and 
in 1988 went to Toronto to testify on behalf of Ernst Zundel, a Canadian on 
trial for denying the Holocaust occurred.

In 1992, German authorities fined him for claiming British intelligence had 
spread the ''propaganda story'' that the Germans were using gas chambers to 
kill millions of Jews and other so-called undesirables. He is now banned 
from Germany, Canada and Australia.

The case, which is being heard without a jury, is expected to last 12 weeks.

  ###


'HITLER' HISTORIAN FEEDS ANTI-SEMITISM, COURT TOLD

Thursday, January 20, 2000

Historian David Irving was today accused of making statements deliberately
"designed to feed the virulent anti-semitism" still alive and kicking
throughout the world.

The 62-year-old author of Hitler's War, who is seeking High Court libel
damages against academic Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books over a claim
that he is a "Holocaust denier", vehemently denied the charge levelled at
him during cross-examination by their barrister.

In turn, he accused Mr Richard Rampton QC of playing to the press gallery
in the packed London courtroom by making what he described as a "slur"
against him.

The heated exchange began when Mr Rampton stated: "Our case is that you
consort with people who are deeply anti-semitic and do it quite frequently
and what is more, Mr Irving..."

At this point, Mr Irving, who is representing himself, interrupted from the 
witness box and told the QC: "It is a very serious charge to make."

Mr Rampton said the "charge" was that Mr Irving made statements
"deliberately designed to feed the virulent anti-semitism which, alas, in
the world is still alive and kicking".

He went on: "I further say that some of the observations you made on these
occasions are themselves grossly anti-semitic."

Mr Irving said that what had been put to him was a "fresh allegation that I
am in some way anti-semitic ... It is a slur."

He has brought his High Court action against Prof Lipstadt and Penguin over
her 1994 book Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and
Memory, which he says alleges he has distorted statistics and documents to
serve his own ideological purposes and reach historically untenable
conclusions.

He says it has generated waves of hatred against him. The defendants have
accused him of being a "liar and a falsifier of history".

Mr Irving rejects the claim that he is a Holocaust denier. He does question
the number of Jewish dead and denies the systematic extermination of the
Jews in concentration camp gas chambers.

Today's confrontation came during questioning on the issue of the existence
of gas chambers at Auschwitz.

Earlier, Mr Rampton said that at a press conference in 1989 Mr Irving
stated he could not accept that there had been gas chambers at the
concentration camp and that Jews could not have been killed in gas chambers
there.

"From there until 1993 he goes into the public arena and repeatedly makes
utterances of that kind. Had he not done so he would not have gone into the
book which forms the subject of this libel action."

Counsel said Mr Irving had "dignified" himself as a historian: "He then
lends his considerable weight, if that be right, to repeated and, from time 
to time, very offensive Holocaust denial statements ... he does that on the
flimsiest possible basis."

Mr Rampton added: "For a man to do that and glorify himself as a serious
historian is morally wrong."

He had done it "because of his political sympathies and attitudes".

Mr Irving, who rejects all their claims against him, told the court that he
denied that the buildings seen by tourists at Auschwitz "are or have ever
been gas chambers".Mr Irving was referred to remarks he made about the
"Holocaust industry" having been created to protect the Jewish population
from criticism that might be levelled against them - for example over
criminal behaviour in the world of finance.

Mr Irving said that his views were mirrored by members of the Jewish
community.

"They can't be insulated from criticism just because of the Holocaust. I
think most members of the Jewish community would find it repugnant to find
that they were - or they should be."

He was asked why an audience at Calgary, Alberta, in September 1991, should
laugh when he said that "more women died on the back seat of Edward
Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in
Auschwitz" and that there were so many Auschwitz survivors that he was
going to form an "Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the
Holocaust and other liars, or the A-S-S-H-O-L-S".

Mr Irving said: "I have the utmost sympathy for people who genuinely
suffered the torments and horrors of Auschwitz and the other camps ...

"But spurious survivors who tried to cash in and say they too were there - 
I have the greatest contempt for these people trying to climb on the
Holocaust bandwagon."

Mr Irving said that there was "something ludicrous or pathetic" about such
people.

Mr Rampton said that the remarks provoked laughter because Mr Irving was
amongst an audience of "anti-Semites".

Mr Irving denied this, saying that his audience were "anti-phoneys".

Mr Rampton asked if Mr Irving did not notice anything "resonant of Dr
Goebbels" in the flavour of his comments about the Holocaust being used to
protect "Jewish criminals".

Mr Irving said that Jewish historians and sociologists had made the same
point and asked whether only Jews could make such hostile comments.

Mr Rampton: "The whole passage is redolent of animosity, hostility,
contempt, spite, malignity - just like Dr Goebbels' articles in Das Reich."

Mr Irving: "Just like Winston Churchill talking about Adolf Hitler."

Mr Rampton: "Sure enough."

Mr Irving: "Any capable speaker is capable of abusive language."

Mr Rampton: "Absolutely. Mr Churchill rallied this country by being
spiteful and beastly about Adolf Hitler. The difference is that, unlike 
Dr. Goebbels, he had a very good reason."

The hearing was adjourned until Monday.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor