Tuesday, March 8, 2005

3/20 Lipstadt at Museum of Jewish Heritage, Battery Park, NYC

Sunday, March 20, 2005, 2:30 P.M.

History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving
With Professor Deborah Lipstadt, Emory University

Deborah Lipstadt discusses her six-year legal battle with Holocaust denier David Irving, who sued her for libel in Britain. Though Lipstadt's courtroom victory exposed in meticulous detail how deniers pervert and distort the historical record, Irving's ideas have paved the way for the emergence of increasingly vocal Holocaust denial.

Free with suggested donation Advance reservations recommended

Phone: Call 1.646.437.4202

In Person: Visit the Museum Box Office at 36 Battery Place, Battery Park City, New York.

Museum of Jewish Heritage
A Living Memorial to the Holocaust
36 Battery PlaceNew York, NY 10280

General Information1.646.437.4200

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

dear prof,
how can you call mr. irving a "denier". in my opinion YOU are the real denier. you continuously speak about that trial. but in that trial you never told a single word because you refused to be cross-examined...

david gehrig said...

From the judgment:

8.3 Evans argued that the term is generally understood to denote "the attempt by Nazi Germany, led by Hitler, to exterminate the Jewish population in Europe, which attempt succeeded to the extent of murdering between 5 and 6 million Jews in a variety of ways, including mass gassings in camps built for the purpose". It follows that a "Holocaust denier" is someone who, for one reason or another or for a combination of reasons, repudiates the notion that the above definition of the Holocaust is apt to describe what was sought to be done to the European Jews by the Nazis during World War 2. Evans testified that a characteristic of Holocaust denial is that it involves a politically motivated falsification of history.13.95 Even so, it appears to me to be incontrovertible that Irving qualifies as a Holocaust denier. Not only has he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and asserted that no Jew was gassed there, he has done so on frequent occasions and sometimes in the most offensive terms. By way of examples, I cite his story of the Jew climbing into a mobile telephone box-cum-gas chamber; his claim that more people died in the back of Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz; his dismissal of the eye-witnesses en masse as liars or as suffering from a mental problem; his reference to an Association of Auschwitz Survivors and Other Liars or "ASSHOLS" and the question he asked of Mrs Altman how much money she had made from her tattoo. I reject as being untrue the claim made by Irving in his evidence that in his denial of the existence of any gas chambers at Auschwitz, he was referring solely to the gas chamber constructed by the Poles after the war for the benefit of visitors to the site or, as Irving put it, as a "tourist attraction". In this connection I refer to paragraph 9.13 above. Even if Irving had referred to gas chamber in the singular, it would not have been apparent that he was speaking of the reconstructed gas chamber at the camp.@%<

Anonymous said...

david gehrig said...
how many words to say nothing!
how many words not to respond to my objection to miss lipstadt...

david gehrig said...

You asked how Lipstadt could call Irving a Holocaust denier. I showed you exactly how the court upheld her right to do so by showing that the charge was true. Paragraph 8.3 establishes the definition of "Holocaust denier," and paragraph 13.95 shows how Irving fits the definition. Your response, characteristic of a Holocaust denier, is to ignore what's right in front of you and call it "nothing."

@%<

Anonymous said...

...and still the question remains: why prof.lipstadt avoided the mr.irving cross-examination?
your words are nothing. those of "justice" gray are the typical words of a corrupt judge. if i am a "denier" i am the denier you deserve...

Anonymous said...

I have no idea whether you're a denier or not. But you sure are an imbecile.

david gehrig said...

Maybe that's what he meant by "the denier we deserve" -- because it's been proven what an imbicile you'd have to be to be a denier, now the only deniers left are imbeciles.

@%<