The story broke in this morning's NYTimes and Atlanta Constitution. I will post the stories shortly. While I have made a point of not answering the comments, I can't resist pointing out to some of Irving's defenders that all the claims he is putting out to prove the Holocaust did not happen were proven in court to be total distortions, lies, and fabrications [the judge's words].
CSpan would have just be recycling ideas that have been declared by 3 different courts to be false.
One last thougt: In essence this has nothing to do with David Irving. It has to do with Holocaust deniers in general. They are liars and fabricators and we should not force them into a so-called debate. It could not be a debate because they play fast and furious with the truth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Remain steadfast in your response to CSpan! It is encouraging to see that you have widespread support amongst the professirial community.
For whatever its worth, I wrote this to C-SPAN.
One must wonder what the powers that be at C-SPAN are thinking these days.
Your claim that a Holocaust Denier balances out hearing from author Deborah Lipstadt is outrageous.
You have attempted to, to use your term, balance the truth with lies from a liar !! By doing so, C-SPAN becomes a liar, and therefore loses all its credibility.
I think the American people expect and deserve much more from C-SPAN.
This isn't about "spin", its about historical fact. Shame on you, and that's the best thing I can
say about your decision to give this liar any kind of forum to spread lies. Do you not understand that by doing so, despite what the courts have said, putting him on the air gives him a false claim to legitimacy ??? Wake up C-SPAN !! This is unacceptable.
Sincerely,
SJB
Williamsville, New York.
Deborah, you are a HERO to millions. Thank you.
***
===Your claim that a Holocaust Denier balances out hearing from author Deborah Lipstadt is outrageous.===
It depends on the topic. If the topic is the Holocaust, then yes. If the topic is that specific trial, then it is fair to invite Irving to get his perspective on the trial in which he was one of the main participants. This distinction is legitimate and is in no way a "hair-splitting".
I think it might be advantageous for people to see exactly what a "holocaust denier" (I refuse to capitalize) looks and sounds like in order to understand how this total denial of the evidence can be manipulated. I doubt if I could watch more than 10 seconds but I might come away knowing more about recognizing such human depravity. If one never sees a "false claim to legitimacy" how can you recogize one that is perhaps not so clear cut? Spoon feeding "truth" is exactly what frightens me most. Thank you.
Let him speak. If he is a fool, then you look good. If he looks good then .... oh I see your point.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Let David Irving speak.
Remember, the issue is not whether Irving gets to speak. Nobody has suggested that he not be given that right. Rather, the question is whether CSPAN should elevate his speech on a giant, free, nationwide platform. Viewed thusly, I see no reason for CSPAN's desired "balance".
It is amusing to observe so much hysteria and vitriol from otherwise supposedly reasonable people. As has been explained time and again, there is a big difference between inviting Irving to comment on the Holocaust and inviting Irving to comment on the trial. Thus, all those lame false analogies should be dropped.
It is double-think to claim that Irving has a right to speak-- just not on an internationally renowned news channel. Irving's freedom of speech is most certainly what is at stake here. Laurie is absolutely right. If what he says is bunk, than surely Lipstadt's reasoned arguments will show it for what it is. The truth will out.
You know, David, maybe your right, C-SPAN should have a white power hour. They could also have a black power hour, a hispanic power hour and maybe even a zionist power hour - then they all could be seen for what they are. I am not sure what your are afraid of.
David, if the 2000 Lipstadt-Irving trial showed Irving's historical incompetence, why is Lipstadt writing a book now? (Just in case- today is March 18th 2005.) What are you afraid of?
Deborah,
Constructive debate is not furthered by either party casting the opposition in a polar way - a way that is much easier to refute. David Irving has never said that the holocaust didn't happen (as you state), or that many Jews and other peoples didn't die horrible deaths. Rather, he has chosen to present his studied account of the events - horrible that he acknowledges they were. Given the diversity of accounts, why would his account be perceived as so threatening. Are the facts so certain that we can't even entertain alternative views?
I don't care if Irving speaks or not, but Professor Lipstadt would do better to quote Judge Gray accurately. He never called Irving's views about the Holocaust "lies", that word isn't even in the judgment. He _did_ say that Irving distorted and fabricated evidence, mostly to do with Hitler.
Gray also made clear that he was not in the business of deciding historical issues:
"13.3 The question which I shall have to decide is whether the
Defendants have discharged the burden of establishing the
substantial truth of their claim that Irving has falsified the
historical record. In this connection I should repeat the caveat
expressed at the beginning of this judgment: the issue with
which I am concerned is Irving’s treatment of the available
evidence. It is no part of my function to attempt to make
findings as to what actually happened during the Nazi regime.
The distinction may be a fine one but it is important to bear it
in mind."
He also praised Irving as a military historian:
"13.7 My assessment is that, as a military historian, Irving has
much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving
has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the
archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and
others many documents which, but for his eVorts, might have
remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in
which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and
penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World
War WO is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the
historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able
and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance
of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he
writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the
favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan
of the calibre of Irving’s military history (mentioned in paragraph
3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative
assessment of Evans* (quoted in paragraph 3.5)."
He also registered surprise about the evidence for Auschwitz:
"13.71 I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most
other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination
of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling.
I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing
the evidence adduced by the parties in these proceedings."
He also found that Irving was in fact subject to unjustified defamation:
"13.166 But there are certain defamatory imputations which I
have found to be defamatory of Irving but which have not been
proved to be true. The Defendants made no attempt to prove
the truth of Lipstadt’s claim that Irving was scheduled to speak
at an anti-Zionist conference in Sweden in 1992, which was also
to be attended by various representatives of terrorist organisations
such as Hezbollah and Hamas. Nor did they seek to justify
Lipstadt’s claim that Irving has a self-portrait by Hitler hanging
over his desk. Furthermore the Defendants have, as I have held,
failed in their attempt to justify the defamatory imputations
made against Irving in relation to the Goebbels diaries in the
Moscow archive. The question which I have to ask myself is
whether the consequence of the Defendants’ failure to prove
the truth of these matters is that the defence of justification fails
in its entirety."
I consider Irving to have become rather loathsome over the years, but for all that, his archival work, his knowledge of the sources, and some of his analysis is quite fine, e.g., the bios of Rommel, Goering and even Goebbels are very illuminating. He didn't deserve a behind the scenes campaign to have his books boycotted, and by the way his books are models of sobriety compared to his disgusting public comments. He didn't deserve to be reduced to driving around the states to cadge a free meal here and there and raise a few bucks so he could throw them to his very vulnerable 12 year old daughter who still needs to be raised.
The comments about Irving in "Denying" were cavalier, poorly re-searched, unchecked, and succeeded in pauperizing a man who, although repellent in many ways, knows more about the Third Reich than anyone else living, made by someone who shows no familiarity with Third Reich archives whatsoever, and who rarely consults them in her books. Someone who, as well, proclaims her Jewishness and her pride in her Jewishness but who clearly knows next to nothing about the teaching of Lashon ha'ra, because otherwise she would not have taken part in this vindictive and malicious campaign to put a repellent and deeply flawed but altogether harmless _human being_ out in the street.
There's room for repentance all around here. In the meantime, let's keep the facts straight.
Post a Comment