Check out the new David Irving bookstore at

Quick navigation

Action Report

Most of all, he must be financially ruined and permanently silenced.

Friday, Saturday, August 20, 2011


Lipstadt's heroic libel-trial memoirs reviewed on Amazon website

A FRIEND has sent me this online review on the Amazon website of the trial memoirs of world-famous historian Deborah Lipstadt, non-tenured professor at Emory university, Georgia. Her latest book is about the German war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Since her languages are American-English, Hebrew, and Yiddish, one wonders how she made head or tail of all those German documents. Since copies of the book reviewed are now selling for less than one dollar it appears to be a bargain, and I do urge my readers to snap them up while there is time.


Lipstadt scurries out of the London High Court in April 2000 after her sensational win over historian David Irving, who sued her for calling him a Holocaust denier as requested by Yad Vashem. During the three-month trial, she refused to go into the witness box herself to avoid awkward questions. The $13 million dollars her pals poured into the courtroom did the trick. Mr Irving's memoirs will reveal the whole dirty inside story.


Review: History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier (Paperback)

History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier
by Deborah E. Lipstadt
Edition: Paperback
Price: $11.69
Availability: In Stock
86 used & new from $0.81

THERE is nothing ideologues like better than a rousing food fight - hurling epitaphs at each other with reckless abandon - endlessly seeking to score a better direct hit, and fearing only that a monitor will arrive to put an end to their foolishness.

David Irving's life-long career as a pre-eminent and controversial WW-II historian on Nazi leadership is such a battle. Although he as written 30 books on WW-II, and unearthed an incredible amount of fresh information of the subject, he has also attracted formidable ideological foes, intent not merely on crushing him in intellectual battle, but on discrediting him in every possible personal area. He must not only be declared a liar, a psychopath, and evil, but none of his oft ground-breaking work can be shown the slightest regard. Most of all, he must be financially ruined and permanently silenced.

>>> Twelve questions to put to Prof. Lipstadt the next time you see her...

One sterling example is Irving's Wikipedia bio - [and critical responses] a slick, professionally crafted hatchet-job with not a single unalloyed compliment. It is guarded day and night by invisible zealots who immediately remove the slightest softening alteration. In a summary box, Irving is not listed as being a "WW-II historian" but for "Holocaust denial and negationist historical writing." Whew!

"History on trial" joins this chorous, but does so out in the open. It does so by taking "text-proofing" to a high art - amassing a large corpus of Irving's many errors, exaggerations and equivocations - and scrupulously leaving out any exculpatory evidence. This is an easy trick when applied to David Irving whose historical beliefs have sashayed in a highly ambivalent trajectory. But without a counter-balance, such "scholarship" is next to worthless.

The two major aspects of David Irving's career as an historian are these:

  1. He is an indefatigable researcher who has sought-out and discovered an astonishing trove of inside details about the Third Reich leadership and its actions. His ability in this regard is unparalleled. Yet this talent is never alluded to in a positive light by Ms Lipstadt.
  2. He has clearly developed a high regard - an affection even - for many of the odious Nazi leadership. This affection has occasionally caused him to be a bit too quick to spring to their defense.

IRVING'S occasional special pleadings were only altered or retracted - and usually with some reluctance - when overwhelming counter-evidence was produced. But altered they eventually were. However, to his enemies his original sin can never be forgiven. To continue today, as Ms Lipstadt does, to accuse Irving of being a "Holocaust denier" falls into the same black hole of dirty tricks as repeatedly claiming that Mel Gibson is one - in spite of his repeated explicit public affirmations that the Holocaust occurred, or that President Bush knew about the lack of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction when no one else in the world did either. To ideologues, an evocative epitaph is far too satisfying to let go just because it has been utterly disproven.

Now see what the real experts said about David Irving's books

Catalogue of his works (pdf, 15MB)

Irving terms his opponents "the Holocaust industry," primarily religious zealots to whom the Holocaust has become the central tenet of their neo-Judaism. The other major transgression in the eyes of this group is any positive utterance about their Devil-in-Chief, Adolf Hitler. In many countries it has become legally impossible to hold a free discussion about Adolf Hitler or the holocaust, without breaking speech laws - especially in Germany and France (and, of course, in Israel). Although not yet illegal in the U.S., it has become socially and professionally unacceptable to evince any doubt on the extent, motivation and blame of the Holocaust.

Ms Lipstadt's charge - that Irving was a "Holocaust denier" was deliberate hurled - not as a provable claim, but precisely in order to get the legal system to shut Irving up, to lock him up and, if possible, to bankrupt him. Ah, yes, scholarship at its finest.

The central issues of Irving's persecution were never raised as legal issues in the trial [of DJC Irving vs. Penguin Books Ltd and Lipstadt]. Irving did describe in some appalling detail how Ms Lipstadt's accusations resulted in jail time and bankruptcy. Many long-time publishers of his 30 books suddenly refused to work with him. The London Sunday Times welched on a translation contract, its editor citing incredible pressure to shed himself of anything to do with Irving. Pressure from whom was never questioned at the trial, much less answered.

The final insult was that Ms Lipstadt refused to confront her accuser by taking the stand herself, making a mockery of the book's [sub-] title "My day in court."

The questions that must finally be asked is why we need the legal system to determine whether David Irving "denies the holocaust." Has the Scopes trial taught us nothing? Why, in the academic realm of history, do intense religious convictions so effortlessly supersede scholarly debate? What the result of Ms Lipstadt's court room victory has brought to our attention once more (if we will only listen) is that unelected religious bigots continue to successfully force their ideology on the public with impunity. In countries that pretend to be run democratically, this is a sorry state of affairs.



Related items on this website:

 Dossier on Deborah Lipstadt
 Deborah Lipstadt: Am I my brother's keeper?
 Her brother's lies are first exposed (in Dutch): [1] [2]
 Article in the Jewish weekly, 'Joods Actueel', with TV report attached
 Islam in Europe did not realise who his famous sister was
Ha'aretz: U.S. Jew says kicked out of Belgian cafe for wearing kippah
 Scott Smith asks who paid Lipstadt's Libel trial costs, and gets a very full answer
 Lipstadt trial index
 Trial transcripts
 Lipstadt's praise for Binjamin Wilkomirski, the (ASSHOL) fraudster and liar: "Deborah Lipstadt has assigned Wilkomirski's Fragments in her Emory University class on Holocaust memoirs. When confronted with evidence that it is a fraud, she commented that the new revelations 'might complicate matters somewhat, but [the work] is still powerful.'"
Twelve questions to put to Prof. Lipstadt the next time you see her...
Controversy April 2001 over Emory's choice of Deborah Lipstadt as graduation speaker; won't get honorary degree
The above item is reproduced without editing other than typographical
 Register your name and address to go on the Mailing List to receive

David Irving's ACTION REPORT

© Focal Point 2008 F Irving write to David Irving