George
Mason University, USA
Should
Respectable Historians Attend and Speak at
Conferences
Hosted by David Irving? Re: Did Lipstadt treat Irving unfairly before
the trial? Who cares? (#43245) by Sara
D. Salzman on September 30, 2004 at 8:47
AM  FRANKLY,
I don't care what Lipstadt did or didn't do
-- in regards to the subject of this thread. You
are now arguing the validity of Lipstadt's work,
the validity of the trial -- which Irving
instigated and lost -- but not the central
issue.
Every time you bring up the "painstaking
research" that Irving did, I ask you again: 1. Since you have no access to the original
sources, how do you know that what Irving says is
true? How do you know that his "painstaking
research" did not reveal exactly the
OPPOSITE of what he claims?
When he translates a document and
replaces the words "the SS"
with "the Jews," what kind of "research" is
that? 2. Since a great deal of Irving's "painstaking
research" involves interviews with former Nazis,
yet Irving claims that all witnesses to the
Holocaust who disagree with him are liars, why is
Irving's quoted eyewitness testimony valid? Let's get back to Irving's "Real History"
conference. Have you any idea what kinds of
speakers Irving attracts? Have you any idea what
kinds of "real" history is discussed there?  David
Irving comments: A FEW misconceptions
should be clarified.
Mr Justice
Gray, in his otherwise unfavourable
judgment
at the end of my libel
action against Deborah
Lipstadt, specifically found that she
had libelled me by alleging in her turgid
and odious book Denying the
Holocaust that I consorted with known
terrorist groups including the Hamas and
Hizbollah. (Gray J also said that her
allegation that I permanently removed
plates from the Moscow archives was a
libel).
It is to be hoped that
Ms Salzman will repeat her fat lies within
the jurisdiction of the UK courts, rather
than in the safety of the Internet. Unlike
Lipstadt she will not be able to take
cowardly refuge in Section 5 of the UK
Defamation Act.
True, I did
mistranscribe (not "translate") one or two
words when exploiting the handwritten
telephone notes of Heinrich Himmler. One
such misreading was "Juden" instead of
"haben" - in Gothic script on a very faint
Xerox copy they look identical.
[see
document]. I have corrected that
minor transcription error long ago of
course -- long before the Lipstadt trial,
where she adduced it as a major example of
my manipulating and distorting
history.
I am this week in fact
facing the same problems, transcribing
Himmler's early letters and diaries at the
Hoover Institution archives. So Lipstadt,
Salzman et al may well shortly have
fresh opportunities to accuse me of
manipulation and distortion. That is one
of the risks of being among the first to
use archival sources.
Handwritten
note: Heinrich
Himmler speaks on the phone with Heydrich
about executions of Jews in Riga, Dec 1,
1941:
"Haben zu bleiben," bottom right, third
line up.
A
note on the resulting controversy in the
Lipstadt
trial.
In
this connection read and enjoy the Trial
Transcript of
Days
1,
3,
22,
and 23.
|
David Irving, in addition, is a British citizen who
earns money in the United States, pays no taxes,
and boasts that he will not pay the judgment he
LOST to Prof. Lipstadt. He
associates with some very shady characters -- from
the National Alliance to Middle East terror groups
-- and has supported other "sloppy" research, most
specifically the completely discredited Leuchter
Report. He admits to removing documents and
glass plates from archives. He deliberately
mistranslates German documents to change their
meaning. These are not "misinterpretations," they
are deliberate falsehoods. The fact that no one
went through and checked as closely as Evans
[Professor
Richard J "Skunky" Evans, of Cambridge
University] did is an indictment of the whole
process, but Irving brought that upon himself by
filing the suit.So should historians who value their reputations
associate with such a man? Does he have a right to publish his drivel and
lies? Absolutely. The same right that the rest of
us have to debunk him, and to call attention to his
mendacious actions. Irving's hypocritical methods
of insisting on his own "free speech" rights while
threatening those who disagree with him are typical
of his arrogant methods. Finally, David Irving, "historian," has stated
that "Hitler was the best friend the Jews
ever had." I post that without comment. Sara
Salzman (Ms.)
Ms Salzman Should be Condemned for
Professional Misconduct (#43249) by Peter N. Kirstein on September 30, 2004 at
9:07 AM Dear Ms. Salzman,  YOU
claimed of Mr Irving: "He associates with some very
shady characters -- from the National Alliance to
Middle East terror groups." I ask you to indicate
and reveal your evidence that Mr Irving is a
terrorist or associates with known terrorists from
the Middle East. What are your sources and what is
your proof? Which groups are your referring to?
What is the nature of the association? When did
they take place? I think such vicious and
unprofessional statements are the result of the
sustained and energized argumentation of Mr
Williams that until now elevated this thread into a
spirited exchange over Mr Irving.
I believe Ms. Salzman's statement is an affront
to HNN readers and undermines any pretense of
objectivity and balance. You should apologize for
your statement if you can't support it. Peter N. Kirstein
Professor of History
Saint Xavier University -
 ...
on this website -
Hitler
authorises Himmler to sell off Jews for foreign
currency
-
Heinrich
Himmler orders Heydrich "no liquidation" of
Berlin trainload of Jews, Nov 30, 1941
-
Heinrich
Himmler speaks on phone with Heydrich about
executions of Jews in Riga, Dec 1, 1941
|
![[]](../../std/dings/list.gif){kind=small}
write to David
Irving