Friday, December 30, 2005
I just returned from an incredible experience at Limmud, the festival of Jewish learning, in Nottingham, UK. I was there two years ago. It was a stupendous experience.
There has been a hew and a cry about Pamuk but not about Irving, who the author acknowledges has views that are quite sleazy.
Yesterday I was interviewed by the author of the article, Brendan O'Neill, who is deputy editor of spiked (www.spiked-online.com). He wanted to know my response to Irving's arrest and to the abrogation of his rights of freedom of speech.
Though my friend and solicitor, Anthony Julius, has responded to all requests about Irving with the comment: "About David Irving I have nothing to say," I did not feel I had that luxury.
I made the following points:
1. I am against laws criminalizing Holocaust denial.
2. I dislike being in favor of censorship and also don't believe that these laws work. Instead they make Holocaust denial "forbidden fruit," and consequently, all the more tempting.
3. None the less, I think that Germany and Austria are in a different situation than other countries. Their history is so terrible and this is all so recent that I fully understand why they would have such laws.
4. I pointed out that Austria's law was against minimization of the crimes of the Third Reich and had been instituted in the late 1940s. It was not, specifically a law against Holocaust denial.
5. I also observed that Austria is a democracy and if its people were opposed to such a law they could vote it out. Is it not a bit conceited on the part of Western intellectuals to impose their views on Austria's voters.
6. While I don't believe you can defeat deniers with these laws, I also don't believe there is any sense in debating with them [something O'Neill seemed to think was the solution].
7. I also pointed out that Irving
a)knew there was a warrant for his arrest
b) went to Austria anyway
c) apparently announced the fact that he was coming to Austria [or at the least made no secret about it]. It's hard to sympathize with him.
What he did can be compared, to my mind, to pissing in the face of the Austrian authorities. They essentially had two choices: either ignore him and acknowledge that their laws are meaningless or enforce the law and arrest him.
This was not a great principled battle about freedom of speech. This was someone testing the system and when he gets caught he crys, "freedom of speech."
I will let you know once his article appears.
Sunday, December 25, 2005
"Assumed massacre of six million Jews in Germany after imposing hard labor against them in concentration camps, known as Holocaust, is a sheer historic lie," said Supreme Leader's representative in Fars Province and Friday Prayer
leader of Shiraz Ayatollah Mohyeddin Ha'eri Shirazi in an address to large groups of Friday prayers worshipers.
"They have now devised an international law based on which no one is allowed to raise doubts against the authenticity of that fabricated story, and made such practice punishable by imprisonment."
This is typical Holocaust denial tactics. They are trying to create the "debate." In other words, they are saying, "We are not deniers. We are just interested in the truth."
I think I shall send them the printout of Judge Gray's finding in my trial. Its available on www.hdot.org [click on the left side where it says judgment].
Iranian proposal for establishing committee to clarify
Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa)
An Iranian official on Friday called for the establishment of a committee to clarify the real extent of the Holocaust.
"(Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad wants European governments to allow Western scholars to publish their research on the Holocaust," Mohammad-Ali
Ramin, head of the Society for defending the rights of Moslem minorities in the West, told Fars. [Iranian news agency]
"Ahmadinejad should therefore propose establishment of an international committee for clarifying the real extent of the Holocaust," the official added.
Ramin praised Ahmadinejad for having voiced his doubts over the Holocaust and the need for relocating the Jews to Europe if Europeans really did the massacre during the Second World War.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
A TV discussion with Iranian political analysts Dr. Hasan Hanizadeh and Dr. Ali-Reza Akbari, which aired on Jaam-e Jam 2 TV on December 20, 2005 denied the existence of crematoria at Auschwitz, and went on to explain in detail how Jewish rabbis in Europe used to kill children and take their blood for use during the Passover holiday.
Hanizadeh works for the Tehran Times and frequently pens anti-American conspiracies, is the author of the book, The History of the Jews.
In a gross abuse of history these two putative scholars not only deny the Holocaust, but cite all sorts of supposed events when Jews were supposedly the persecutors and not the persecuted.
A few excerpts follow:
Ali-Reza Akbari: "Historians and eye-witnesses, some of whom are still alive... There are still many people who saw with their own eyes what happened 70-80 years ago. These people are alive and are of sound mind. They still possess the analytical abilities they had back then. They are our witnesses, and they deny the existence of crematoria at a place called Auschwitz.
"Perhaps the reason... In my opinion, the people who say that the phenomenon of burning Jews on German soil during the World War II crisis is similar to a holocaust do so as a result of propaganda and due to psychological reasons.
"In any event, a case of burning people has been registered in history, when many human beings were burned because of their beliefs. The people who were burned then were, in fact, Christians. They were burned by the people who ruled Yemen,
who were Jews. This event took place 400 years before the advent of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula. Since then, the burning of human beings has been termed 'holocaust.'"
Host: "Were there six million Jews at all at that time, who could have been annihilated in the crematoria?"
Hasan Hanizadeh: "First of all, this figure is greatly exaggerated. The number of Jews in the world does not exceed 12 million. Only now, 57 years later, has it reached this figure. Clearly, at that time, considering the dispersion of the Jews, there could not have been six million Jews in Europe alone. In any event, the Zionist lobby and the Jewish Agency use this issue as a club with which they beat and extort the West.
"Unfortunately, the West has forgotten two horrendous
incidents, carried out by the Jews in 19th-century Europe – in Paris and London, to be precise. In 1883, about 150 French children were murdered in a horrible way in the suburbs of Paris, before the Jewish Passover holiday. Later research
showed that the Jews had killed them and taken their blood. This event caused riots in Paris back then, and the French government found itself under pressure.
"A similar incident took place in London, when many English children were killed by Jewish rabbis. These two incidents still haunt the minds and souls of the Europeans, but due to the growing influence of the Zionist lobby in Europe – or to be precise, the influence of the Jews – these two incidents are, unfortunately, never mentioned."
Monday, December 19, 2005
TEHRAN, Iran - Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned all Western music from Iran's state radio and TV stations — an eerie reminder of the 1979 Islamic revolution when popular music was outlawed as "un-Islamic" under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
Ahmadinejad’s combustive rhetoric about wiping out Israel, denying the Holocaust and asserting Iran’s inalienable right to nuclear power — a potential cloak for developing nuclear weapons — have triggered alarm bells around the world.
The international storm of outrage that greeted Ahmadinejad’s comments is quite an achievement for the 49-year-old radical, whose meteoric trajectory from obscurity to become mayor of Tehran culminated in his taking office as president in August.
“He’s a tiny, wiry figure with a gaunt face and small black eyes that don’t seem to change expression,” says a journalist who followed him on the campaign trail. “He goes around in rumpled clothes and is as unsophisticated as he appears. He’s devout but he has no religious credentials.”
Some experts maintain that Ahmadinejad’s invective is solely for domestic consumption. "He’s not doing it to be confrontational," one insists. "He’s only saying what others have said many times before. And he doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks."
However, the president’s utterances leave little room for misunderstanding. On October 26, he said: "Israel must be wiped off the map." On December 8, he elaborated: "Some European countries insist on saying that during the second world war, Hitler burnt millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps. Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned ... we don’t accept this claim." Europe should provide a state for "the Zionists", he added.
Last week, he went even further: "They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religion and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews ... If you have burnt the Jews, why don’t you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel ... why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"
Western leaders are now asking themselves how they misread Ahmadinejad so badly. They had pinned their hopes on the new generation of Iranians who were supposedly chafing under the restrictions of the Islamic republic, counting on a presidential victory by Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the 70-year-old former president and so-called pragmatist.
Even then, the White House thought they could live with the new leader, says Geoffrey Kemp, an analyst at the Nixon Center in Washington. “Ahmadinejad’s first forays into foreign affairs tended to be dismissed as the naive posturing of someone new to the game. But the fact that he keeps repeating the same statements and adding new venom to them has got people rethinking this gentleman.”
New questions continue to emerge about Ahmadinejad’s murky past. Former hostages taken captive at the US embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held for 444 days have claimed he was one of the ringleaders. Donald Sharer, a retired navy captain, remembered him as “a cruel individual”.
The Austrian authorities are investigating claims that Ahmadinejad took part in assassinations against political opponents, notably the exiled Kurdish leader Abdul Rahman Ghassemou and two of his associates in Vienna in 1989.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
In the broadcast Jews are turned into apes and pigs because they insist on working on the Sabbath day. Then they are annihilated.
The Egyptian filmmaker, Zainab Fouad Zamzamshe, has an MA and PhD. She is among the few animators working in Islamic countries who creates animation films on subjects related to the Islamic history and spiritual values and has so far made over 650 films for children.
Her bio, as posted on the website of an Iranian children's film festival, suggests that she is not a radical extremist but someone who is in the mainstream.
Excerpts from the broadcast appear below. The transcript can be accessed through Memri's website
Grandfather: "Come on, men, keep building. Tomorrow is the Sabbath and we will not work, as we were commanded by the Lord."
Pinhas: "Step right up and buy your Sabbath goods. We trade on the day that the Lord once forbade, and get rich."
Shamloun: "Shamloun is inviting you. Check out my merchandise, and don't be afraid of anyone. You won't be punished not from the earth nor from the skies."
Habakkuk: "Step right up. It is me, Habakkuk. I am, as you can see, safe and sound. The only illness that has struck me is wealth. Come here. How nice it is to work on the Sabbath. ..."
[While jumping up and down, Pinhas, Shamloun, Habakkuk, and others in the marketplace turn into apes. The boy and his grandfather open a door in the wall and step to the other side with some other villagers.]
Grandfather: "Look, my child, the young among them have turned into apes, and their elderly have become pigs."
Boy: "They should know that the Lord speaks the truth and punishes severely."
Grandfather: "Praise the Lord, who has saved us. They remained in this condition for three days, and then were annihilated. The wind has cast them into the sea."
[Music plays as the apes and pigs are cast into the sea.]
Narrator: "In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.... We visited the wrong-doers with a grievous punishment. We said the them: 'Be ye apes, despised and rejected.' .... The Lord is quick in retribution, but he is
also oft-forgiving, most Merciful."
Friday, December 16, 2005
Iranian Interior Minister Rewrites Recent History: "Iranian President's Comments were Misunderstood"
What the Interior Minister's remarks do suggest is that Iran is feeling the heat from the world's contempt.
The Houston Chronicle carries the following report.
Dec. 16, 2005, 9:03AM
Iranian president 'misunderstood' on
ATHENS, Greece --The Iranian president's widely condemned remarks about Israel and the Holocaust were "misunderstood" by Western governments, Iran's interior minister said
"Actually the case has been misunderstood," Mostafa Pur Mohammadi told The Associated Press on the sidelines of an Athens conference on immigration.
"He wanted to say that if certain people have created troubles for the Jewish community they should bear the expenses, and it is not others who should pay for that."
Both reporters wanted to know what's the most efficacious reaction to President Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust and calls for wiping Israel off the map.
I said that the world's leaders should make it clear that if Iran is going to have at its helm a person who makes these kinds of statements, the rest of the world is going to be terribly leery of dealing with it.
In the final paragraph of History on Trial I mention that some people throw "bombs" which cause great damage while others throw the words which cause the others to throw the bombs. That's the danger of statements such as Ahmadinejad's.
Criticism of Ahmadinejad is coming from a broad range of Iranians who seem to realize that these kinds of statement will do their country no good. As the Washington Post reported:
A fundamentalist lawmaker in the national assembly expressed revulsion when neo-Nazis abroad voiced solidarity with Ahmadinejad's suggestion that Israel be "wiped off the map."
"Their support of Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments is beneath the dignity of the Islamic Republic, and the government should make its position clear about this," said the lawmaker,
Heshmatollah Falahatzadeh, according to an Iranian news service.
"Our officials should realize that there are many facts in the world that we should not pass our judgments on in a way that the world finds fault with.
Diplomats from E.U. countries have been attempting to negotiate a deal with Iran by which it would terminate parts of its nuclear program that could be used to make weapons.
Iran says that its program is solely to produce electricity. "Ahmadinejad has been making these comments about Israel, and people are now beginning to take a look at their own policies about how they are going to deal with this regime," said a British official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in line with the British government's media policy.
"The kind of statements that are coming from Tehran will give everyone pause for thought," the official said.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
I also react against a lot of people in the Jewish community who tend to cry "the sky is falling" more often than I think is accurate or efficacious.
However, I am finding this steady drumbeat of claims about the Holocaust and this call for an "investigation" disturbing. It suggests death by a 1000 cuts.
One last thought: When David Irving gets out of Austrian jail [my guess is that he will get off with time served -- a wise move on the Austrians part], he will probably be welcomed as a hero in Iran.
published by the Austrian Kurier website is based on news items by APA and Reuters and is followed by translation by Albrecht Kolthoff. I have highlighted the crucial sentence.
Iran fordert Holocaust-Untersuchung
Teheran - Der iranische Parlamentspräsident Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel hat eine Untersuchung zum Holocaust gefordert.
Er reagierte damit auf massive internationale Kritik an Äußerungen von Präsident Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, der in der vergangenen Woche den Holocaust geleugnet und vorgeschlagen hatte, Israel nach Europa zu verlegen.
Haddad-Adel warf den Europäern am Dienstag vor, eine erartige Untersuchung zu verhindern. "Wir glauben, dass die Hindernisse, die die Europäer einer Untersuchung in den Weg legen, Zweifel an ihrer Ehrlichkeit aufkommen lassen", sagte Haddad-Adel in Moskau. Eine Untersuchung könne alle offenen Fragen klären.
Artikel vom 13.12.2005 apa, reuters jos
Iran demands Holocaust probe
Tehran - Iranian Parliament Speaker Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel has demanded an examination of the Holocaust.
He reacted to mssive international criticism of statements by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who in the past week had denied the Holocaust and proposed to move Israel to Europe. Haddad-Adel on Tuesday accused the Europeans of preventing such an examination.
"We believe that the obstacles the Europeans lay in the way of an examination give rise to doubts about their honesty", Haddad-Adel said in Moscow. A probe could clear up all open questions.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
See Memri's special dispatch
The BBC then went on and sort of saved itself by observing that that excuse now has no credence since this is his third outrageous statement about Jews.
Iran Leader Escalates Holocaust Rhetoric
Wednesday December 14, 2005 1:16 PM
By ALI HACKBERRY DARWIN
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad escalated his anti-Israeli rhetoric Wednesday, calling the Holocaust a ``myth'' used by Europeans to create a Jewish state in the heart of the Islamic world.
``Today, they have created a myth in the name of Holocaust and consider it to be above God, religion and the prophets,'' Ahmadinejad told thousands of people in the southeastern city of Zahedan.
Touring southeast Iran, Ahmadinejad said that if Europeans insist the Holocaust happened, then they are responsible and should pay the price. "If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay the price?" Ahmadinejad asked rhetorically.
"This is our proposal: if you committed the crime, then give a part of your own land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their country," he said, developing a theme he raised in Saudi Arabia last week.
It is interesting to note that I heard an interview on NPR this a.m. with a journalist from Iran who was markedly critical of statements such as this and called them harmful to Iran's best interests. It was clear from the interview that he gives absolutely no credence to Ahmanijad's statements.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
February 20 (one trial day).
According to the report Irving will plead for remorse. Apparently he and
his lawyer have noticed that his tactics of "new insights" after a visit
to Russian archives isn't very convincing when he had uttered his usual
stuff just a short time ago. As he now said in a pre-trial interrogation,
he will use a slightly modified tactic:
"Ihm sei vor wenigen Wochen klar geworden, dass die Existenz von
Gaskammern in Auschwitz erwiesen sei." (He realized a few weeks ago that the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz is proved.)
Sunday, December 11, 2005
In short, Rudolf was wanted by Germany for having violated the law against inciting racial hatred. He fled Germany and after hiding out in a number of countries ended up in the United States where he applied for political asylum, claiming political persecution in Germany.
A federal immigration judge denied Rudolf’s asylum claim and ordered him deported in June 2003. Rudolf appealed and lost. He then appealed to the US Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court. All denied Rudolf’s requests .
He became a fugitive, and then, after a period of time, showed up at an Immigration Office to apply for a Green Card on the basis of his having subsequently married an American citizen. [I guess you have to admire his hutzpah.] A quick check of the ICE computers indicated he was a fugitive and he was arrested.
His behavior reminds me of Irving who announced on his website the fact that he was going to Austria where there was a warrant for his arrest to give a speech. Then, he went and was arrested.
I would argue that part of the modus operandi of people such as this is to "spit in the eye" of authorities by breaking the law and then to test the resolve of the governing authorities [whether here in the US or in Austria].
If the authorities do nothing, they herald this as indicating that they are above the law. If the authorities act and arrest them, then they cry "Free speech" or "Victim!."
Irving offered to settle with me shortly before the trial if I agreed to apologize for calling him a denier and agreed to the pulping of all my books. [and if I made a fairly substantial contribution to a charity of his choice]. Pulping of books does not exactly fit into my definition of free speech.
Two other points:
1. The law under which Irving has been charged is that of minimization of crimes of the Third Reich which was passed in 1947 or 1948. It is not a law vs. Holocaust denial per se.
2. Austria is a democracy. What's stopping the Austrian people from repealing that law if they are against it? If not, isn't there something wrong with people from another country with a markedly different history telling them what they should include in their legal system and what they should not? Is that not a certain form of hubris?
Just some thoughts.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Each country has a right to enforce their laws even when they are repugnant to us. I'll use a small example. If a person dons a white robe with a peaked hat and two holes in the sheet for the eyes, he can get arrested in this country. (If I recall correctly, KKK members must not cover their faces when demonstrating). On the other hand, if one visits Spain during Holy Week, one
can see hundreds of men wearing almost identical costumes as the KKK, with their faces well covered except for two peepholes. It is legal in Spain, but not in the US.
Perhaps the U.S. has had particular reasons for passing that law; reasons that don't apply in Spain. Spaniards are probably aghast at this interference in a mans' right to wear his clothes or a mask or what-have-you. Before I get jumped on for such a simplistic comparison, please bear in mind that Austria and Germany lived a different reality than did this country. We were not the organizers or perpetrators of a massive campaign of murder and terror, so perhaps we don't recogize their need for atonement and their attempts to prevent a future occurrence.
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
I wonder if the Jewish community will do for this Gibson production what it did for his previous movie: guarantee it a tremendous audience.
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Saturday, December 3, 2005
Friday, December 2, 2005
Sunday, November 27, 2005
WILL DAVID IRVING BETRAY HIMSELF, AND US?
When I first heard that David Irving had been arrested in Austria on his way to talk to some college students and was being held in jail, I was flabbergasted. I didn’t know what to make of it.
Irving in jail? It was out of character for him. I had a hard time getting my brain around it. Irving is, in fact, guilty of breaking Austrian law. He did “deny” the Holocaust, to use the usual jargon. His lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, tells the Guardian on 26 November: “There are the transcripts of his speeches, there is a newspaper interview that he gave [in 1989]. It’s pretty black and white.”
“But Irving told me that he has changed his views after researching in the Russian archives in the 1990s. He said, ‘I’ve repented. I’ve no intention of repeating these views. That would be historically stupid and I’m not a stupid man.’
“He said, ‘I fully accept this, it’s a fact. The discussion on Auschwitz, the gas chambers and the Holocaust is finished ... it’s useless to dispute it’.”
So the news—and this is only news—is that David Irving is going to recant his “revisionist” views on the Holocaust story. Who would have thought?Irving is an absolutely unique individual. His capacity for work, his genius for organization, the quality of his intellect, his learning, his endless energy, his physical strength, his unwillingness to suffer fools and his easy willingness to offend friends, his daring—I have never met anyone to match him. No one.
At the same time, among we lesser folk, we have watched David Irving make one mistake after another. It began with his unwillingness to take on the Holocaust Industry straight on by setting aside his life-long interest in Hitler’s inside circle and do a real book on Auschwitz, the book he better than anyone else anywhere was capable of producing and promoting.
Then there was the stupidly conceived libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt, where during the trial he was brilliant and wrong-headed and utterly full of himself. Irving’s defeat at that trial was the most serious single blow that revisionism has ever received. Only last week a correspondent reminded me that it was the Lipstadt trial that convinced serious people that, okay, revisionists had taken an interesting run at the Holocaust story, they had failed in full view of the Western world, and there was no reason to worry about Holocaust revisionism any longer.
If we are to believe his lawyer, who sounds like a practical man, David Irving is going to recant his views with regard to Auschwitz, the gas chambers, and who knows what else? He may. He may not. It would not be beyond him. This is a man for whom there is nothing “beyond.”
But I feel a betrayal in the works. I hesitate to say it, but betrayal is in the air. My hope? That he recants to the Austrian court, is freed, and when he is out in the world again that he stands up in public to declare:“I lied before a corrupt court. There is no honor in telling a corrupt court the truth if you do not enjoy being punished at the hands of corrupt law. The Auschwitz story is crap. I know it, and millions of people all over the Western and Muslim worlds know it. When I said ‘Auschwitz is a sinking ship,’ I was right. I meant it then, and I mean it now.”
Will David Irving betray himself then? And us? Or has David discovered evidence that supports the gas chamber stories and kept it secret from us and everyone else all these years? We are not going to know until he is a free man.
If you have been reading this blog you know my views about laws regarding Holocaust denial, however -- lest you be overcome by sympathy for Irving -- it pays to keep a number of things in mind.
1. Irving knew there was a warrant for his arrest.
2. He knew he was in violation of Austrian law.
3. Is it possible that he wanted to be arrested? [Lots of pr, sympathy, and money]
4. Did he think the laws did not apply to him?
5. Did he care about my freedom of speech [which he tried to curtail by demanding that I pulp my book and apologize to him]?
My good friend Harry Mazal, whose Holocaust History Project is a fantastic contribution to the effort to expose deniers lies and fabrications, came across an article entitled "The Cost of Free Speech," from the Guardian which encapsulates some of the free speech issues involved in my trial. [The article was published a few days after the judgment was issued.]
I wonder if someone explained to Irving that he cannot maintain he has changed his mind when all the evidence to the contrary is sitting on his web site.
According to his lawyer, he has changed his mind regarding the gas chambers as a result of a visit he made to Moscow where he saw "new" evidence. The problem for Irving is that he was in Moscow in the 1990s. During the trial, which was in 2000, he consistently argued that gas chambers were an impossibility. Since the trial he has repeated his disbelief about gas chambers. As I noted on November 25th, he was vigorously arguing that gas chambers were impossible as late as two months ago.
Maybe, at long last, he has come to realize he cannot have it both ways, i.e. say one thing when it is convenient to do so and something else when it is not convenient to maintain his first position. Or maybe his lawyer has explained to him that he will have a hard time convincing an Austrian court of his newfound position with all this information readily available on his website.
Thursday, December 1, 2005
In short, while the situation is not great, neither is it as dire as many people would have you believe. In many respects Jewish life on the North American campus is thriving. There are a broad array of Jewish Studies courses available and Hillel is undergoing an unprecedented renaissance.
There certainly are problems regarding the presentation of Israel and Israel's position, but the cry of "oy gevalt" regarding the campus strike me as somewhat out of touch with reality.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
For a short while after I started blogging I had allowed comments to be posted. Soon, however, I realized that deniers were using it to post their arguments. The last thing I wanted my blog to be was a bulletin board for their discredited claims. I, therefore, turned off comments.
However, I miss hearing from serious folks. I look forward to a robust discussion, i.e. discussion with both folks who agree and disagree with me.
Deniers and their ilk should be forewarned: don't waste your time [or mine], your comments won't be posted.
[Hilary Ostrov will shortly create a link to my Emory webpage on which we will post and continuously update my schedule.]
December 4th: Denver Emory Alumni, private event. For information contact John Ingersoll at firstname.lastname@example.org
December 4th: Denver Jewish Book Fair at the Denver Jewish Community Center, 7 p.m. For information see Mizel Center .
December 7th: North Palm Beach, Fla. Jewish Federation, 4-6 p.m. City Club of the Palm Beaches 11780 US 1, contact: Randee Schneider, 561-242-6679.
December 8th: Palm Beach, 9:30-12 noon:One Woman’s Voice" - Eissey Theatre on Palm Beach Community College’s Palm Beach Gardens Campus. The program includes an address by Dr. Deborah Lipstadt and a special performance of "The Diary of Anne Frank" by Ballet Florida. Continental breakfast will be served. Contact:Sherri Siskin 561-640-0700, ext. 616 email@example.com or Jewish Federation of Palm Beach.
December 13: JCC in Manhattan 7:00 PM. Upper West Side, Manhattan; For more information and to register or call 646-505-5708.
December 14: Princeton University, private event.
December 16th: Panama City, Panama, noon, for details contact Yvonne Snaider, 011 507 6616 1886
December 20th: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Wexner Israel Fellows program, private event.
December 23-28th: Limmud, UK, University of Nottingham, UK.
January 7th: Jersey City, Jewish Community Centers of American [JCCA], quarterly board meeting, private event.
January 8-9th: St Mark's School, Dallas, Texas. Most events are closed. For information on any public events contact Roberta Lou Mailer: firstname.lastname@example.org , Dennard Visiting Scholars Program,St. Mark's School, (214) 346-8130
January 13th: Manhattan Jewish Experience [MJE], Shabbat dinner, at the Jewish Center, W. 86th st. For reservations and information contact Jeannie Doppelt, 212.787.9533
January 22nd: University of Washington, Seattle. 2:30 p.m. For information contact Rochelle Roseman: email@example.com
January 30th: University of Miami. Details to follow.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
The reporter asked me if I ever thought there would come a time when the Holocaust would be treated as a "normal" event. I told him that I hoped never. Because for something to be considered "normal" it would have had to have happened a number of times.
For example, it is so hard to get people to respond to the current tragedy in the Sudan, even when you tell them it is genocide. I assume it's because genocide seems sort of run-of-the-mill today.....
Monday, November 28, 2005
During his visit, Duke, who is also a former U.S. State Representative from Louisiana, spoke at a rally in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, appeared at a Damascus press conference, met with Syrian Grand Mufti Ahmed Hassoun, and gave an interview to speech Duke charged that the U.S. and Syria were both occupied by the Zionists and that the Zionists also occupied "Washington D.C., and New York, and London, and many other capitals.
He charged that "Israel makes the Nazi state look very moderate in terms of its views" and declared that "all over the world you see the same pattern of control over the media, the same pattern of influence."
When David Irving visited the US in the 1990s, he spent time with Duke, playing tennis and editing Duke's book, My Awakening, which can only be described as an antisemitic and racist tirade.
During the course of discovery on my trial, we learned from Irving's diaries, that the two men exchanged fund raising lists. Apparently they assumed a person who would support one would want to support the other.
Birds of a feather..........
In 1983 Der Stern, the German weekly, announced that it had purchased for 3.8 million dollars, 62 previously unknown volumes of “Hitler’s Diaries.” For a brief moment it was the world’s biggest news story. Irving, who had previously purchased documents -- which turned out to be bogus -- from the man who was selling the diaries, was sure they too were bogus.
At a sensational press conference, Stern editors heralded the publication of the diaries and predicted that there would certainly be those who would challenge the diaries, including historians with “no reputation to lose, like David Irving.”
Unbeknownst to Stern, their rival, Bild Zeitung, had snuck Irving into the press conference. A few minutes later, when it was time for questions from the horde of journalists, Irving rushed to the microphone clutching documents which, he said, proved that the diaries were fake.
Dramatically raising them above his head, he demanded that the Stern executives, who had anticipated this as a triumphant moment, to explain how Hitler could have written about the July bomb plot in his diary on the day it happened if, as the film they had just screened demonstrated, his right hand was badly injured. Stern quickly ended the press conference.
Reporters and paparazzi made a beeline for Irving. NBC immediately put him on a live hookup with the Today show, which was then on the air. Irving found this “exhilarating” and marveled at the trail of chaos” he left behind. After spending the rest of the day giving interviews, Irving rose at 3:30 a.m. to appear on ABC’s Nightline. According to his diary he was paid 700 Mark for the appearance. The German publication, Der Spiegel, paid him 20,000 Mark for his story.
Irving was pleased not only by the attention but by the fact that he earned about ,15,000 in three days.
Within a few days, the diaries were becoming yesterday’s news. Suddenly, Irving changed his mind and announced that he now believed the diaries were genuine. Robert Harris, author of Selling Hitler (New York, 1986, p. 359), a study of the diaries incident, believed Irving’s reversal was motivated, in part, by the fact that the diaries “did not contain any evidence to suggest that Hitler was aware of the Holocaust,” thereby supporting the thesis of Hitler’s War.
If Irving was hoping this move would win him publicity, he calculated correctly. The Times (London) immediately put it on its front page. But within a few days the highly respected Bundesarchiv, Germany’s National Archives, concluded, based on careful forensic tests, that the diaries were a forgery and a bad one at that.
When the results were announced Irving quickly composed a press release, accepting the Bundesarchiv’s ruling but stressing that he had been the first person to declare the diaries fakes. “Yes,” a reporter from The Times added when he heard the release, “and the last person to declare them authentic.”
According to a report in the Austrian print magazine, News , the Austrian authorities may well have been told by the student group Irving was going to visit that he was on his way. Why, one has to wonder, would they have done this? They do, after all, sympathize with Irving's views.
A columnist for the "Stuttgarter Zeitung", a daily newspaper from Stuttgart, Germany has a theory. He wonders whether Irving, who had racked up such debts from Irving v. Penguin and Lipstadt, was not courting another trial. A trial in Austria would certainly generate donations from Irving’s sympathizers.
And, I might add, it will also probably prompt donations from those who don’t sympathize with him but see him as the poster child for free speech.
And of course, it would -- as it already has -- generate tremendous publicity.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Holocaust denier Irving turns to friends in US
By Andrew Gumbel
Published: 27 November 2005
David Irving's recent life has made him look more like an outlaw than an historian. Broke, shunned and declared "persona non grata" across half the planet, it's been quite a comedown for the world's most notorious Holocaust denier.
His latest comeuppance has been an episode as shabby as any and may force him to spend years in prison.
Denying the existence of the Nazi Holocaust is serious business in the country of Hitler's birth, and what was initially intended as a below-the-radar visit to a far-right student group in Vienna has turned into a legal nightmare.
In the past, Mr Irving railed against any limitation on his activities as an infringement of free speech - not an unreasonable argument, although he has been known to lard it with dark hints about Jewish conspirators being out to get him.
But in Austria, perhaps in recognition of the gravity of the charges he faces, he has taken a different tack. His Viennese lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, insists he has changed his mind about "the views he is so famous for" after an examination of Soviet archives led him to accept the Nazi gas chambers existed.
That line of argument may surprise Mr Irving's white supremacist friends in the United States, more accustomed to his view that "more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz". They have extended numerous invitations and organised frequent books sales for him in the past few years.
Among his Stateside sponsors, according to the anti-racist Southern Poverty Law Center, have been the former Ku Klux Klan leader and one-time candidate for the Louisiana governor's office, David Duke, as well as the leading US neo-Nazi organisation, the National Alliance.
Mr Irving's US friends have been a lifeline since he brought a ruinous libel suit in 2000 against Deborah Lipstadt. She had characterised him as anti-Semitic and racist; the High Court found that the criticism was just and ordered Mr Irving to pay court costs estimated to be about £3 million.
Even his trips to the States have been less than comfortable. In 2003, a restaurant in rural Idaho chose to cancel an event of his and close down for the day after finding out who he was and what sort of people his local fans might be. This summer he received a rare invitation to address a left-wing group in Alabama, the Atheist Law Center, only to provoke outrage among the membership and, this week, the resignation of the group president, Larry Darby.
Mr Darby described Mr Irving to his membership only as "an expert on World War Two, the Nazi era and the erosion... of free speech". In an interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, Mr Darby made some pointed remarks about Jews and suggested that attacking them was consistent with his general anti-religious worldview. "I think it's easy in this country to speak out on Christianity and even Islam," he said. "I think it's more difficult to speak out on things of a Jewish nature."
Mr Daby now plans to run as a candidate for attorney general of Alabama.
"Irving ordered to pay court costs of about £3 million": A correction, lest you get the wrong impression
I explain this all in the final chapter of History on Trial.
If he felt this way in the 1990s, then why was he arguing to the contrary in the High Court in 2000??
He really looks ridiculous to me. The Court Jester for sure....
Saturday, November 26, 2005
'Repentant' Irving to plead guilty but must stay in jail
Ian Traynor in Vienna
Saturday November 26, 2005
David Irving, the discredited British historian of the Nazis, will spend Christmas and New Year in a Viennese jail after yesterday being refused bail and being remanded for four weeks pending trial for allegedly lying about the Holocaust.
At yesterday's custody hearing the magistrate dismissed Mr Irving's lawyer's request for bail on the grounds that he might disappear or that Britain would refuse to extradite him back to Austria for trial because the alleged crime is not an offence in the UK.
Mr Irving has 10 days to appeal against the indictment but is not likely to lodge an appeal. His strategy is to plead guilty before a jury trial, but to declare his remorse and insist that he has revised his views on the Third Reich in the years since he made the Austrian speeches in 1989. "This might be a big case, but it's not very difficult," his lawyer, Elmar Kresbach, told the Guardian yesterday. "There are the transcripts of his speeches, there is a newspaper interview that he gave [in 1989]. It's pretty black and white.
"But Irving told me that he has changed his views after researching in the Russian archives in the 1990s. He said, 'I've repented. I've no intention of repeating these views. That would be historically stupid and I'm not a stupid man.'
"He said, 'I fully accept this, it's a fact. The discussion on Auschwitz, the gas chambers and the Holocaust is finished ... it's useless to dispute it'."
According to Mr Irving and his lawyer, the 67-year-old historian, who lost a major libel case against Penguin Books and the US historian Deborah Lipstadt in the high court in London five years ago, entered Austria this month via Switzerland and drove to Vienna to meet student radicals renowned for their pro-Nazi views.
Mr Kresbach argued that his client was elderly, no threat to Austria, and had promised to return for the trial if released on bail of up to €20,000.
"It's not really necessary to keep him here," said Mr Kresbach. "He promised to come back." The magistrate dismissed the argument, however, declaring there was a "flight risk."
Friday, November 25, 2005
Austrians refuse bail for Irving
Austrian authorities have refused bail for British historian David Irving, who is facing Holocaust denial charges.
Mr Irving, 67, was arrested on 11 November in connection with two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989.
Mr Irving's lawyer has said the historian now no longer denies that gas chambers existed in Nazi death camps.
A court in Vienna ruled on Friday that Mr Irving must stay in custody as there was a risk he could abscond.
His lawyer Elmar Kresbach had offered to post bail.
Mr Irving sued US historian Deborah Lipstadt in London in 2000 for labelling him a Holocaust denier. He lost in a comprehensive verdict.
Despite the mortal blow to his reputation in 2000, he remains a showman and may well relish the opportunity to grandstand before a wider audience if put on trial, BBC legal affairs analyst Jon Silverman says.
In his books, Mr Irving has argued that the scale of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis in World War II has been exaggerated.
He has also claimed that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler knew nothing of the Holocaust.
Mr Irving was previously arrested in Austria in 1984.
First of all, let me point out as late as two months ago Irving's was lauding the Leuchter Report and claiming that it was the report that convinced that gas chambers were a scientific impossibility. Now he says that it was evidence he saw in the Moscow archives which convinced him.
[Check it out on his website in his correspondence with Sara Salzman of Denver on September 21, 2005. He wrote to her again on September 23, 2005. In both cases he left no doubt that he did not believe there were gas chambers. What happened in the interim to cause this sudden volte-face? Seems strange to me that he suddenly discovered this information. Was he even in Moscow and if so what evidence did he find there to cause this great reversal? Did his lawyer "misspeak"? Did he take Irving at his word? Hmm....]
Far more important however, is the fact that what Irving thinks does not seem to me to be important at all. Why should we pay any mind to someone about whom a judge writes that he "perverts" the evidence, that his claims are a "travesty" of the evidence, that his findings are "unreal," and his conclusions not mistakes but "deliberate... distortions."
The people who should be worrying are the deniers and those who have hitched their wagons to David Irving's star. Their world seems to be crashing....
Sad to say, the lawyer seems to have gotten that one right.
He had one of two choices: stand by his position and be found guilty or claim that he has seen the light [or supposedly discovered new evidence] and now knows that he was wrong. Of course, since he misrepresented, distorted, and invented the evidence [check Judge Charles Gray's judgment in the trial], he has always known the truth. He created the lies in the first place. So this new "discovery" on his part is, once again, a lot of bunk.
My guess is that this will enable the Austrian court to slap a fine on him and hustle him out of the country. My second guess is that they will be delighted to do so....
Seems like he is once again validating my choice of titles for the final chapter of History on Trial: "The Court Jester."
Thursday, November 24, 2005
However, news.Scotsman.com reported today:
Irving acknowledges gas chambers
A lawyer for British historian David Irving said on the eve of a court hearing that Irving admitted past statements could be interpreted as denying the existence of Nazi gas chambers - but now acknowledges they existed.
Prosecutors charged Irving earlier this week under an Austrian law that makes denying the Holocaust a crime.
Irving has changed his views on gas chambers in recent years, his attorney, Elmar Kresbach said.
"He changed some of the views he is so famous for," Kresbach said.
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
A Challenge to the Austrian Authorities: Will an Irving Trial Simply be a Chance for him to Grandstand?
Now that the Austrians have arrested and appear prepared to bring him to trial, it is their responsibility to properly prepare in order to demonstrate that his claims are bluster and bravado not facts. It is not rocket science. It does call for a serious commitment to the effort.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
In terms of the response to the trial, it is possible that after four months of watching Irving try to tear me down and my willingness to remain silent in the face of his, sometimes quite personal, attacks, people's sympathies towards me were enhanced because I am a woman.
It is all speculative... so treat this post as that.
My talk is on Sunday, December 4th at 7 p.m. For information check out the program of the Mizel Center .
I would be delighted to see you there.
Monday, November 21, 2005
This is not usually done on the TNC news desk, but on a personal note, I have spent the last 14 months researching historical revisionism and holocaust denial for a major upcoming project, and as a result have seen the destructive results denying the Holocaust can do.While I don't agree that Holocaust denial should be outlawed, I recognize that some people, such as the author of the New Criminologist, do.
The rabid anti-Semitism and manipulation of evidence used by these “historians” to prove their ludicrous beliefs is an affront to all people with even a basic grip on reality. The idea that the Holocaust was an invention of “a worldwide Jewish conspiracy” is not only laughable, but also sickening.
Revisionists claim that these laws are a threat to their freedom of speech. They are not. They are stopping the spread of hysterical hate propaganda. Would these same people think it would be justified to allow an open debate encouraging pro-extremist opinions, such as those shared by al-Qaeda, to impressionable students?"
People often ask me, given that I am against these laws, just how dangerous deniers are. Right now I think they pose a relatively limited danger. My trial, together with other reversals they suffered, have left deniers in the Western world on the ropes. [The case is quite different in the Arab/Moslem world.]
However, even if deniers do not present a clear and present danger, we must remain aware of the insidious ways in which misinformation can creep into the historical record.
If anyone doubts how deniers could potentially skew the historical record, I urge them to compare the commonly held perception of the bombing of Dresden with the historical reality.
Most people think of the bombing as something that is well nigh an Allied war crime that caused 100s of thousands of deaths. They are convinced that Dresden had no military significance and the city was bombed just to humble the German people. [Even if this were indeed so, I find it strange that no one considers the Nazi bombing of London a war crime....]
In fact the facts about the bombing are quite different:
1. Dresden had military significance. There were numerous factories in the city which made equipment for the German army and airforce. The city was a railway hub and thousands [probably over 10,000] German soldiers and officers passed through the city on a daily basis.
2. The war, from the perspective of the soldier on the ground, was hardly over. The Battle of the Bulge, which had ended but two weeks earlier, had hardly been an Allied victory and it was very fresh in the Allied memory. For the soldier on the ground the war was certainly NOT almost over.
3. There is no documentary evidence of strafing. Frederick Taylor, the British historian, points out in his study of the bombing that on other occasions when British and American pilots engaged in strafing, they wrote about it in their reports. That was not the case in Dresden. [Yet David Irving claims it is.]
4. The death toll was, according to the Nazi era Dresden Police, between 25-30,000. While not a small number, this is nowhere near the 100s of thousands people, such as Irving claim, it was.
How did we come to have such a different perception of the bombing of Dresden? Taylor identifies 3 sources:
1. Goebbels who believed that frightening the German people was the way to make the fight to the finish. He took the Dresden police’s death toll and added a zero. Hence 25,000 became 250,000.
2. Communist East Germany which used the bombing as a means of demonstrating the compassion of the USSR [which did not participate in the bombing] and mendacity of the USA and UK [which did].
3. David Irving, whose book on Dresden makes false claims about death tolls of up to 250, 000. Irving's influence was greatly inflated when his version of the bombing was relied upon by Kurt Vonnegut, the author of Slaughterhouse 5.
For more details on the bombing of Dresden – both the reality and perception – see Hdot.org, the website on Irving v. Lipstadt and Penguin UK. Click on evidence and read the section of Richard Evan’s report on the topic. See also Frederick Taylor’s book, February 13, 1945: The Bombing of Dresden. For how this played out in the trial itself see History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving.
As you will see the historical record can be changed.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
The rights of a 'paper Eichmann'
'Holocaust denier' David Irving, still capable of making headlines, deserves obscurity -- but also free speech.
By D.D. Guttenplan, D.D. GUTTENPLAN, London correspondent for the Nation, is the author of "The Holocaust on Trial" (W.W. Norton, 2001). He is currently writing a biography of I.F. Stone.
WHAT DO YOU DO with a problem like David Irving? Until a few years ago, the British author of "Hitler's War" was usually described as a "controversial historian." But in April 2000, a British high court judge held that Irving not only had denied the reality of the Holocaust but was an anti-Semite, a racist and a neo-Nazi sympathizer who "deliberately falsified and distorted" historical evidence in the service of his right-wing views.
Justice Charles Gray's damning 333-page judgment — which ended Irving's libel suit against academic Deborah Lipstadt for calling him a "Holocaust denier" — turned Irving from controversial to disgraced. It also cost Irving his London home (in Britain, the loser in a libel case has to pay the winner's costs), leaving him a bankrupt, marginal figure reduced to lecturing credulous audiences of conspiracy enthusiasts and collectors of Nazi memorabilia. Yet for all that, he is still capable of making headlines.
Countries that outlaw Holocaust denial do so not because they love liberty less than we do but because their history is different from ours. Holocaust denial causes real pain to survivors and their families. To fail to acknowledge that pain, or to treat it as a particularly Jewish problem that need not trouble anyone else, is to deny our common humanity — precisely the denier's aim.
As important, in Germany and Austria Holocaust denial is not just hate speech but also a channel for Nazi resurgence, like the Hitler salute and the swastika, which are also banned. Countries where the experience of occupation and the shame of collaboration still rankle have different views than ours on the balance between dissent and disorder. And Bosnia and Rwanda should have taught all of us that these are not simple questions. Sticks and stones may still break bones but name-calling can clear a path to genocide.
As for Irving, he seems to me exactly what Pierre Vidal-Naquet meant by "a paper Eichmann." A distinguished classical scholar who lost both parents to the Holocaust, Vidal-Naquet coined the term to describe Irving's French ally, Robert Faurisson. "Confronting an actual Eichmann, one had to resort to armed struggle," wrote Vidal-Naquet. "Confronting a paper Eichmann, one should respond with paper." Which need not be passive.
Indeed, Deborah Lipstadt's exposure of Irving's unsavory views in her book "Denying the Holocaust" was effective enough on its own that Irving was willing to risk financial ruin to try and force her, or her publishers, to back down.
In Austria, a country dogged by its own failure to come to terms with the Holocaust, and where Kurt Waldheim's Nazi past was no bar to electoral success, Irving's arrest is not much more than a symbolic gesture. The threat of a 20-year prison term, even if it doesn't come to pass, only burnishes Irving's counterfeit credentials as a martyr to free speech.
Whatever their motives, the Austrians have every right to deny Irving a platform, even to deport him. They do not, though, have the right to rescue him from well-deserved obscurity.
Friday, November 18, 2005
I do not know if Irving wanted to be arrested for the PR value of it [his name has now appeared in the media far more than in many previous months] or if he felt that he was “unstoppable” and the Austrian police would never find him.
He may have thought that this was a means, in fact, of gaining some sympathy even from those who have no patience with his Holocaust denial, anstisemitic, and racist comments. I have received a number of emails from people who have little – if any—sympathy for him. Yet they are troubled by what appears to them as an infringement of his civil rights. Ironically, some of these people support hate speech and hate crime legislation. [They don’t seem to grasp the inherent contradiction in their views. Irving was arrested under a form of hate speech regulation.]
I am personally opposed to making Holocaust denial a crime. [This would of course be impossible in the US.] However, I understand Germany and Austria’s sensitivity about this matter. Their history is unique when it comes to the Holocaust.
In the course of my court battle all of his fancy claims about no gas chambers, no plans for annihilation of the Jews, no Hitler complicity and so much more were dismissed by the judge a complete bunk. He did not prevail on even one of his contentions about the historical record.
Some people who have attended his talks since the end of the trial have come away with the impression of a pathetic figure whose only audience is a sorry group of extremists, haters, and losers.
Many historians who have read my book and looked at Judge Gray’s decision -- John Keegan and D.C. Watts excepted – have concluded that when it comes to history they can trust nothing Irving says without checking it out on their own first.
I close with something Anthony Julius said to me at one point during the lengthy preparations for this trial when I was tired and frustrated by the disruption to my life this legal battle had caused. After listening to me rail against Irving, Anthony said: “Think of fighting David Irving as you would the shit you step in on the street. It has no relevance unless you fail to clean it off your feet prior to reentering you home or office.”
My feet are clean, i.e. my fight with him is over. What Austria decides to do is its business.
How 'Holocaust denier' fought and lost
By Jon Silverman
Legal Affairs analyst
David Irving's reputation as a historian was shredded at the High Court in April 2000 in a devastating judgement.
At the conclusion of a libel action brought by Mr Irving against American academic Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, Mr Justice Charles Grey described Mr Irving as a "falsifier of history" an "associate of right-wing extremists" and "an active Holocaust denier".
In a book, Ms Lipstadt had branded Mr Irving "one of the most prominent and dangerous Holocaust deniers".
The three-month case was among the most colourful in British legal history.
Mr Justice Grey's judgement comprehensively dismantled Mr Irving's case and his reputation. It was later published as a book.
Although a libel action, it was Holocaust denial which was, by implication, on trial.
In Britain, to deny the Holocaust is not a criminal offence but it is in Austria and that is why Mr Irving has been arrested there.
In a co-incidence of timing, one of Mr Irving's associates, convicted Canadian Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, is standing trial in Germany, having been extradited to face charges of inciting racial hatred and spreading Nazi propaganda. Like Austria, Germany has a Holocaust denial law, as does France.
Lawyer James Libson, who represented Deborah Lipstadt in her battle with Mr Irving, believes it is right that they should have.
"Given Britain's history, it would be ridiculous to have a Holocaust denial law here. But in countries like Germany and Austria, where far-right, neo-Nazi parties are highly visible, it is different. However, the Holocaust denial message is still being disseminated, despite the law," he says.
Mr Irving is an undischarged bankrupt and the Trustee in Bankruptcy is still trying to recover assets tied up in archive documents and World War II diaries in his possession. Some are thought to be quite valuable.
Since losing his Mayfair flat, the disgraced historian has relied on an international network of supporters for financial help and from his speaking engagements abroad, which are invariably in front of extreme right-wing, anti-Semitic audiences.
Despite the mortal blow to his reputation in 2000, he remains a showman and may well relish the opportunity to grandstand before a wider audience if put on trial.
Historian Arrested on Holocaust Denial Charge
Los Angeles Times Fri, 18 Nov 2005 0:34 AM PST
Right-wing British historian David Irving has been arrested in Austria on a warrant accusing him of denying the Holocaust.
Austria arrests historian on charges of Holocaust denial
USA Today Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:25 AM PST
British historian David Irving was arrested last week in southern Austria on a warrant accusing him of denying the Holocaust, the Interior Ministry said Thursday. Irving was detained on a warrant issued in 1989, a government spokesman said.
Historian arrested for holocaust denial
TVNZ Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:44 PM PST
British historian David Irving, known for his controversial views on World War Two, has been arrested in Austria on suspicion of denying the Holocaust, an interior ministry spokesman says.
David Irving held on Holocaust denial charges
Haaretz Daily Fri, 18 Nov 2005 4:10 AM PST
VIENNA - Right-wing British historian David Irving has been arrested on a warrant accusing him of denying the Holocaust, Austria's Interior Ministry said yesterday.
BRIT HELD IN AUSTRIA FOR HOLOCAUST DENIAL
Daily Mirror Fri, 18 Nov 2005 1:01 AM PST
HISTORIAN David Irving is facing up to 20 years' jail after being arrested in Austria on charges of denying the Holocaust.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Thursday, November 17, 2005 · Last updated 11:51 a.m. PT
Historian charged with denying Holocaust
By WILLIAM J. KOLE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
VIENNA, Austria -- Right-wing British historian David Irving, who once famously said that Adolf Hitler knew nothing about the systematic slaughter of 6 million Jews, has been arrested in Austria on a warrant accusing him of denying the Holocaust.
Irving, 67, was detained Nov. 11 in the southern province of Styria on a warrant issued in 1989 under Austrian laws making Holocaust denial a crime, police Maj. Rudolf Gollia, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said Thursday.
Austrian media said the charges stemmed from speeches Irving delivered that year in Vienna and in the southern town of Leoben.
Irving in the past has faced allegations of spreading anti-Semitic and racist ideas. He is the author of nearly 30 books, including "Hitler's War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.
Besides his assertion that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust, he also has been quoted as saying there was "not one shred of evidence" that the Nazis carried out their "Final Solution" on such a scale.
Irving remained in custody Thursday at a prison in Graz, 120 miles south of Vienna, the Austria Press Agency reported, although that could not be confirmed.
If formally charged, tried and convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison, said Otto Schneider of the public prosecutor's office.
But Schneider said it was unclear whether there were sufficient legal grounds to continue holding Irving on such a charge so many years after the alleged offense was committed. A decision was expected by the end of next week on how to proceed, Schneider said.
In March, more than 200 historians from around the world petitioned C-SPAN to cancel a project that would have included a speech by Irving as a counterpoint to a lecture by Deborah Lipstadt, a renowned Holocaust expert at Emory University.
Irving once sued Lipstadt for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier, but his lawsuit was dismissed in 2000 by a British court, which ruled that Irving was anti-Semitic and racist and misrepresented historical information.
Irving has had numerous run-ins with the law over the years. In 1992, a judge in Germany fined him the equivalent of $6,000 for publicly insisting the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz were a hoax.
Other media reporting on this include the U.K.'s Guardian, BBC and TimesOnline. The latter notes:
Christoph Poechinger, a spokesman for the Austrian Justice Ministry, said it was likely that charges would be pressed against Irving and that he would be kept in custody until the case came to court.
"There is a grave danger that he will repeat the offence, therefore it is likely he will be kept in custody until it comes to court. A warrant has been outstanding since 1989 and the case will probably be made a priority, but I doubt it will come to court before Christmas," Herr Poechinger told the Austrian newspaper Der Standard.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier. A Lecture by Emory University Professor Deborah E. Lipstadt.
Tuesday Nov 22 2005 - 7:30 pm to - 9 pm
Deborah Lipstadt, the Director of the Tam Institute for Jewish Studies and Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish Thought and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, will discuss her recent book, History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, the story of her successful six year legal battle against Irving, who sued her for calling him a Holocaust denier and right wing extremist. Reception 7:00 PM; Lecture 7:30 PM. Photo ID req. RSVP to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Contact Information: email@example.com, (212) 824-2293
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Seeing Ourselves Through the Holocaust Looking Glass:
The impact of the Holocaust on Jewish identity
Sunday, November 13, 2005
2:30pm – 4:00pm
Sunday, November 6, 2005
The Final Word
By Paige P. Parvin 96G
History Professor Deborah Lipstadt recounts her court battle against Holocaust denial and how she became a public defender of historical truth
Deborah Lipstadt is not accustomed to being quiet.
Even as a kid growing up in Queens, Emory's Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies and chair of the Rabbi Donald A. Tam Institute for Jewish Studies earned a reputation as "feisty and combative" at the Jewish day school she attended, frequently causing her mother to be summoned to the principal's office to defend her red-haired daughter's argumentative nature.
"I had the impression that although she did not appreciate these school visits, she admired my gumption," Lipstadt writes in her most recent book, History on Trial . "I knew I had been named Deborah because she loved the biblical character. When I was still quite young, she had described how Deborah led her people in battle and dispensed justice. I liked the notion that I was named after such a person."
So it follows that some five decades later, when Lipstadt was sued for libel by British author and Holocaust-denier David Irving, she was hardly at a loss for words. But her defense team deemed it best she remain silent throughout the three-month trial, staying out of the witness box and away from the press, in order to keep the focus where it belonged: on Irving's credibility rather than her own.
An eloquent, outspoken college professor and scholar to whom words are as powerful as weapons, Lipstadt called the imposed quietude "excruciatingly hard." Dutifully biting her tongue, she took notes and filed away her impressions, waiting for the time when she could tell her own story. That time came in February of this year with the release of her book History on Trial: My Day in Court With David Irving .
In the months since, Lipstadt has appeared on TV and in the press around the U.S., Europe, and even in Australia, now unfettered by a promise of silence. The book, described as a "legal thriller" with commercial appeal, has been favorably reviewed and is selling well, she reports.
History on Trial is a blow-by-blow account of the Irving v. Lipstadt trial, from the moment Lipstadt learned of the lawsuit in 1995 to the judge's sweeping ruling in her favor five years later. At issue was Lipstadt's 1993 scholarly book, Denying the Holocaust: An Assault on Truth and Memory , in which she referred to Irving, calling him "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial." Irving sued her for libel in Britain, where the burden of proof rests with the defense--meaning Lipstadt had to prove, in essence, that Irving was indeed a Holocaust-denier as her book claimed. The lawsuit put Lipstadt in an international spotlight and so dominated her professional and personal life that when it was over, she was compelled to depart from academic writing to put the experience into her own words.
A blend of journalism and journal, historical fact and human feelings, History on Trial was both more and less difficult to produce than a scholarly work, Lipstadt says--and considerably more intimidating because of the deeply personal nature of the work.
"The book was a chance for me to tell the story from my own perspective," Lipstadt says. "After keeping silent throughout the trial, it was a chance for my voice to be heard."
During the late 1970s and 1980s, Lipstadt taught history at the University of Washington and later at the University of California in Los Angeles; but UCLA was a poor research fit for her and she was denied tenure. Soon afterward, two professors at the Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem asked if she would be willing to look into the Holocaust denial movement, an international network that seeks to minimize the devastation of the Holocaust and cast Jews as sympathy-seekers.
Lipstadt agreed, somewhat dubiously.
"Convinced that deniers were fringe extremists," she writes, "I asked these two leading Holocaust scholars: why study the historical equivalent of flat-earth theorists? [The scholars] believed this a new, potentially dangerous form of anti-Semitism. Though they thought it should be analyzed, I was not entirely convinced."
But as she began to examine the practice of Holocaust denial more closely, Lipstadt quickly came to understand their concern. What was most alarming about Holocaust deniers, as she explained to the audience during a talk at the Atlanta History Center in April, was their mask of legitimacy, their insidious portrayal of the Holocaust as a two-sided "issue" subject to academic debate. Leaders of the movement had created scholarly looking organizations such as the California-based Institute for Historical Review; held national and international conferences; and published journals that aspired to academic credibility.
Indeed, Holocaust deniers were so successful in cultivating a serious image that throughout the 1990s college newspapers accepted advertisements from these groups, despite policies that otherwise prevented ads promoting hostility toward any religious or ethnic group. The editors claimed that to reject these ads would be to curb academic freedom of speech.
"If you appear looking like a neo-Nazi, people know exactly how to categorize you," Lipstadt says. "So [the Holocaust deniers] figured out instead how to become Holocaust revisionists . . . they were [posing as] serious historians looking at an issue. And there is a direct link between the attempt to rewrite history and the attempt to push a certain political agenda."
With his silver hair, square jaw and ruddy complexion, David Irving is the picture of the tweedy British history buff. Although he did not finish college, his first book, The Bombing of Dresden , was published when he was only twenty-five to considerable acclaim and commercial success. Known for his thorough research methods that relied mainly on primary sources, Irving quickly became a prolific historical writer. He has written more than two dozen books on history and World War II in particular.
But even in his early work, a theme began to emerge: Irving repeatedly sought to elevate the wrongs of the Allied Forces while minimizing those of the Nazis. [...]
When Lipstadt began researching Holocaust denial, the trail naturally led to Irving. In scholarly circles, he was beginning to gain a reputation for his sympathy with Hitler and the Nazi party and his questionable research and theories on the Holocaust itself. Many historians believed his personal ideology was compromising his work. When Hitler's War was re-released in 1991, for instance, Lipstadt found striking contrasts between the two versions: the gas chambers had disappeared, as had any mention of the Holocaust.
As a public figure, Irving left no doubt where he stood ideologically. A frequent speaker to far-right-wing audiences and groups associated with the neo-Nazi movement, he had publicly declared Auschwitz "Disneyland for tourists," Hitler "the best friend the Jews had in Europe," and the Holocaust a "fabrication" and "legend." He is infamous for tastelessly quipping, "More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."
So it's not surprising that when Lipstadt first learned Irving was suing her and British publisher Penguin for libel because she had called him a Holocaust denier, her first response was to dismiss it as "nothing more than sound and fury."
Despite the weighty evidence in the court of public opinion, the British Royal High Court required a more deliberate analysis, and Lipstadt was obliged to mount a formidable defense. While funding for the trial ultimately came from a range of sources, Lipstadt has long praised Emory for its early and sustained support. When she first learned of Irving's intent to sue, she became panicked about money, wondering where the funds for her legal expenses would come from. Emory's board of trustees voted to allot $30,000 to her defense before she even asked. Later the University gave more, as well as leave with pay to attend the trial. "I am grateful for the University's commitment to moral engagement," she says.
"Every so often a colleague tackles a problem of such immense social consequence that the university must support the efforts," says University Provost Earl Lewis. "Deborah Lipstadt earned University support for courageously and truthfully speaking about the relationship of the past to the present. She knows that to deny the Holocaust is to render damage to all humanity. It was an important call, and correct call, for Emory to support her in the ways it did."
During the trial--in which Irving represented himself, declaring no one else as capable of doing so--Lipstadt's defense produced instance after instance in which Irving twisted the truth to conform to his own skewed views of history. Cambridge historian Richard Evans was recruited as an expert witness and worked with two researchers to examine Irving's writings. After some initial skepticism on his part, what he found shocked him deeply.
"A knotted web of distortions, suppressions, and manipulations became evident in every single instance we examined," Evans wrote in his report for the court. "I was not prepared for the sheer depths of duplicity which I encountered in Irving's treatment of the historical sources, nor for the way in which this dishonesty permeated his entire written and spoken output. ...His numerous mistakes...are calculated and deliberate."
Throughout History on Trial , Lipstadt often quotes directly from the court proceedings, giving the reader a window into the courtroom and a sense of the drama that pervaded the ordeal. Many of the most sensational moments sprang not from testimony about Irving's historical research--although that certainly provided ample evidence against him--but from accounts of Irving's public expressions of his personal views.
Ultimately, Justice Charles Gray agreed with Lipstadt that Irving was both an antisemite and a racist, as well as a liar and a cunning manipulator of history. In his 355-page judgment, he found that Irving's "falsification of the historical record was both deliberate and ... motivated by a desire to present events in a manner consistent with his own ideological beliefs even if that involved distortion and manipulation of historical evidence."
Irving was ordered to pay the $3 million cost of the trial, and the judgment was the lead story in newspapers and media around the world. After trying to have her "libelous" book pulled from shelves, David Irving had instead given Lipstadt and her work the spotlight on a world stage.
For Lipstadt, at the heart of the Irving trial lay conflicting desires--one to speak out against Irving in the name of Jews and Holocaust victims, and another to refuse to dignify his arguments by engaging in a debate. The notion that the very existence of the Holocaust is a matter for discussion is one that Lipstadt has resisted from the beginning.
"Our objective was not to prove the Holocaust had happened. No court was needed to prove that," she writes of her legal defense. "Our job was to prove the truth of my words, namely that Irving had lied about the Holocaust and had done so out of antisemitic motives."
Five years after the trial, Lipstadt continues to battle the misguided perception that she and Irving are on opposite sides of an argument. A few weeks after her book appeared, the TV network C-Span invited Lipstadt on Book TV to discuss History on Trial --welcome publicity for any author. C-Span planned to air a lecture by Lipstadt at Harvard to educate viewers about the book.
But there was a catch: C-Span also intended to feature a talk by Irving in the next time slot, for "balance." When she learned of this plan, Lipstadt canceled her appearance on a long-held principle.
"How can one debate someone, on any topic, who deliberately lies and falsifies history?" Lipstadt wrote in a letter to the New York Times. "I would be delighted to appear on C-Span, but not as part of a debate that is no debate."
C-Span's decision to air Irving back-to-back with Lipstadt sparked a national response. Editorials appeared in newspapers around the country, including one by Richard Cohen of the Washington Post : "This is the Crossfire mentality reduced to absurdity, if that's possible," he wrote. "For a book on the evils of slavery, would it counter with someone who thinks it was a benign institution?"
The network received more than three thousand letters and e-mails, including one from Emory's Edward Queen of the Center for Ethics, objecting to the move. Some five hundred university historians and high-profile journalists signed a petition supporting Lipstadt and criticizing C-Span:
C-SPAN wound up producing and airing a show that offered commentary on History on Trial by Washington Post writer T.R. Reid, as well as video clips from past appearances by both Lipstadt and Irving. For Lipstadt, the controversy was a sobering reminder that even though she had won a resounding victory against Irving in court, the dangers he and others like him pose are still clear and present--and must continue to be brazened out.
"Our all-encompassing victory notwithstanding, [the trial] was not the last battle against deniers or, for that matter, against antisemites, because anti-Semitism itself cannot be 'defeated'," she writes in History on Trial. "It will wither away, or not--probably the latter--of its own accord. Since anti-Semitism and, for that matter, all forms of prejudice are impervious to reason, they cannot be disproved. Therefore, in every generation they must be fought."
Lipstadt says she is looking forward to returning to the research on modern anti-Semitism she had only just begun ten years ago, when the letter from Penguin hijacked her academic career. But she acknowledges that the Irving trial has changed her and shaped her as a scholar and teacher.
"My voice has more resonance now," she says. "I happen to be one of those people whose battle got a lot of attention. It's no more important than anyone else's. But students tend to resonate to people who stand up and fight for something."
Jacob Cherry, an Emory College junior from Westchester County, New York, took Lipstadt's Holocaust studies course last year. Although she routinely devotes only one lecture during the semester to the Irving trial, Cherry says Lipstadt's personal experience lends an added layer of poignancy to her teaching about the Holocaust.
"She is one of the most inspirational, passionate people I've ever known," Cherry says. "She is one of those professors who you know, when you look back thirty years from now, you will remember what she said. It's amazing to get to take a class from such a central figure in Holocaust studies."
Although Lipstadt has maintained she never set out to defend the truth of the Holocaust, in many ways the Holocaust survivors and Jews who supported her fight looked to her to do just that. It was a bittersweet burden she both resisted and bravely embraced. And it was finally the victims who brought out the strongest emotion in Lipstadt, leaving her feeling "particularly unnerved." Many survivors contacted her during the trial and afterward; [...]
"Dear Professor Lipstadt," one woman wrote. "You do not know me and we will probably never meet. ... My mother was killed in Auschwitz. If David Irving had won my mother would have been a victim a second time! So too would everybody else who perished there. I loved my mother very much and have not seen her since April 14, 1939 when I was fourteen years old. She was killed on October 23, 1944. Gratefully yours, Anna Bertolina."
This letter, and dozens of others, touched Lipstadt deeply. In a moving passage of her book, she describes her feelings about those who perished in the Holocaust and her role in preserving their memory.
"In Jewish tradition...Taking care of the dead is called hesed shel emet, the most genuine act of loving-kindness, because it is then that we most closely emulate God's kindness to humans, which also cannot be reciprocated," Lipstadt writes. "For five years I had the privilege to do hesed shel emet, to stand up for those who did not survive or who could not stand up for themselves. I did not choose this field of research in order to perform this act of hesed. I did not write my book on deniers expecting to engage in this act. I did not choose this fight. But now, as I look back, I am filled with gratitude. If someone had to be taken out of the long line to fight this battle, I feel gratified to have been the one."