  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. 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: - 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.
- 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.
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.
 
 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
|
write to David
Irving