The UTD Mercury - News
Issue: 2/14/05
Lipstadt retells legal struggle with 'Holocaust denier' Irving
By Tahir Mahmood
Emory University Professor Deborah Lipstadt recounted her legal battle with historian David Irving to a full audience in the Conference Center auditorium Feb. 6.
The Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies, Lipstadt's legal troubles began when she labeled Irving a "Holocaust denier" in her 1993 book "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory." Irving sued her for libel when the book was published in England, commencing a long five-year legal fight in the courtroom, described in Lipstadt's new book "History on Trial: My Day in Court with Holocaust Denier David Irving."
Lipstadt's lecture was part of the Burton E. Einspruch Holocaust Lecture series, sponsored by the Holocaust Studies Program at UTD.
Lipstadt began the lecture with comic flair by turning off her cell phone on stage.
She then described how her legal battles with Irving ensued after she described Irving's written histories as mostly right-wing and sympathetic to Nazi Germany.
When Irving filed suit in England, Lipstadt refused to settle the suit and apologize.
"How could I apologize to him?" Lipstadt said. "In England, I had to prove that what I wrote was not libel. I wanted a trial that proved Lipstadt was right when she called David Irving a denier."
Lipstadt said she assembled a "Dream Team of historians" to testify on her behalf.
"Things reversed to make him look like he was on the defensive," she said.
Approximately 3,000 pages of evidence were presented to support her case. In one of his diaries, Lipstadt said he wrote God makes people of another race of a different species, and he referred to himself as a "baby Aryan."
The judge found in Lipstadt's favor.
"Let me close by sharing with you the verdict, which was a slam dunk," Lipstadt said. "The judge called Irving fallacious, absurd, undeniably racist and an anti-Semitic racist.
Many faculty and students in the audience responded positively to Lipstadt's lecture.
"She's absolutely fantastic," said Vincent Cirillo, professor of biology at UTD. "I am glad she had the courage to do this. She is a scholar in the Temple Shalom in Dallas, where she conducts religious services like closing of the Sabbath."
Zsuzsanna Ozsvath, director of the Holocaust Studies Program and literary studies professor at UTD, shared in the enthusiastic response at the end of the lecture.
"She is capable of melding together the intellectual side of historical research with deeply emotional understanding," Ozsvath said.
Some students were so interested they said they plan to read her new book.
"Professor Deborah Lipstadt gave an extraordinary lecture and it was very informative," said Melody Sadjadi, a doctoral student in literary studies. "I look forward to reading her new book."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Ms Lipstadt's case was based heavily on the evidence of Jan Van Pelt.
Based on the evidence of witnesses, Kula and Tauber, Van Pelt claims that 12 pounds of zyklon be crystals were dissolved into kremaII of Auschwitz, over a protracted period.
Why is there no significant blue staining on the walls and ceiling of kremaII?
But there is some blue staining, which suggests that the conditions in kremaII did not preclude the formation of such staining.
The condition of the krema is entirely compatible with the revisionist claims that it was a morgue which was fumigated infrequently and thus had minimal blue staining.
It seems to be your modus operandi to answer (evade?) any question on the technological and chemical aspects of mass murder during WWII by inviting any enquirer to analyse vast tracts of obscurantist techno-babble. Guess what? I'm not a chemist! I expect that you suspected that though.
If I might phrase my question a little differently. How can a non-chemist evaluate the relative worth of opposing chemical treatise?
Since you don't care to speak about blue stains yourself, which is fair enough, can I ask you a non-technical question? It is alleged by Van Pelt that the roof slab of kremaII was cast in one piece, in order not to alert the innmates to the true purpose of the instalation, and that the holes for zyklon induction were chisseled through on completion of the structure. Since other buildings at auschwitz had cast concrete roofs with apertures for many innocent purposes cast into them, don't you think that it would be more suspicious to hammer four holes into the roof after it had been cast, rather than to simply say that these holes were to be for stove flues or ventilation and cast them into the roof?
So David Irving went to Lipstadt's defence team and said, "I am so embarrasssed, I wish to withdraw the Rudolf report, I have obviously made a big mistake, oh my god, how could I have been so dumb?"Or is the reality that you have no idea why Irving chose to withdraw the Rudolph report and are simply appending an invented explanation for his withdrawal which casts your arguments in the best light?
The fact is that the levels of blue staining in KremaII are most similar to the levels of blue staining found in rooms infrequently exposed to Zyklon for purposes of fumigation. Have you heard of Occums Razor?
Even if Green is right, you have a room in which the forensic evidence indicates either infrequent use of Zyklon, or frequent use under unusual circumstances. Green's theory would allow historians to claim that virtualy any room with minimal blue staining was a homicidal gas chamber. Convenient that isn't it?
Have you no comment to make on the dubious explanation for the non-existance of holes in the roof in the plans for KII. Perhaps you can direct me to an "expert" in the chemistry of concrete.
I pressume that these are all aliases used by Germar Rudolf. Considering that holocaust denial is an imprisonable offence in the home country of Rudolf I would assume that the use of aliases was a neccessary subterfuge.
To get back to my point, Green may well have demonstrated that the formation of prussian blue is not an inevitable consequence of zyklon-b exposure. He has not, however, demonstrated that the minimal staining in kremaII was a result of specific operational modalities, rather than of minimal exposure for fumigation.
His argument rests on a prior assumption of mass extermination and is thus logically flawed.
Yes it's hilarious, almost as funny, in fact, as you constantly hiding behind the coat-tails of experts and your lofty disdain for sharing your "vast knowledge" on a pro bono basis.
The fact remains that Dr Richard Green's investigations simply demonstrate that there are negligable traces of cyanide in kremaII. His conclusion is that these traces weathered away or failed to accrete to the walls and ceiling of the krema. It is equally possible, of course, that there never was any substantial exposure in the first place. Dr Green "proves" that kremaII was used for mass extermination with cyanide gas by drawing our attention to the very low levels of residual cyanide accretions in the krema. Now that's what I call irony!
So having read the evidence you should realise that if the conditions in KremaII precluded the retention of cyanide residues, it is not possible to determine how much Zyklon was used in this building through forensic investigation. So there is, in fact, no forensic evidence indicating the homicidal use of this building. So its status as a gas chamber depends upon non-forensic evidence. No?
Idiotic anonymous jerk wrote:
"It seems to be your modus operandi to answer (evade?) any question on the technological and chemical aspects of mass murder during WWII by inviting any enquirer to analyse vast tracts of obscurantist techno-babble. Guess what? I'm not a chemist! I expect that you suspected that though.
If I might phrase my question a little differently. How can a non-chemist evaluate the relative worth of opposing chemical treatise?"
Well, how did you evaluate Rudolf's nonsense in the first place?
"Since you don't care to speak about blue stains yourself, which is fair enough, can I ask you a non-technical question? It is alleged by Van Pelt that the roof slab of kremaII was cast in one piece, in order not to alert the innmates to the true purpose of the instalation, and that the holes for zyklon induction were chisseled through on completion of the structure."
It's a lie. Van Pelt says no such thing.
"To get back to my point, Green may well have demonstrated that the formation of prussian blue is not an inevitable consequence of zyklon-b exposure. He has not, however, demonstrated that the minimal staining in kremaII was a result of specific operational modalities, rather than of minimal exposure for fumigation.
His argument rests on a prior assumption of mass extermination and is thus logically flawed."
He has demonstrated that the mass gassings were possible as alleged.
"The fact remains that Dr Richard Green's investigations simply demonstrate that there are negligable traces of cyanide in kremaII. His conclusion is that these traces weathered away or failed to accrete to the walls and ceiling of the krema. It is equally possible, of course, that there never was any substantial exposure in the first place. Dr Green "proves" that kremaII was used for mass extermination with cyanide gas by drawing our attention to the very low levels of residual cyanide accretions in the krema. Now that's what I call irony!"
Wrong. While cyanide traces are one piece of evidence (and good evidence, for that matter), no one made an argument that since these traces are present there, it was a homicidal gas chamber. All Dr. Green needed to prove was that it was COMPATIBLE with being a homicidal gas chamber (contrary to deniers' nonsense) - no more, no less. You're the worst kind of demagogue.
To my fellow annonym, "It's a lie. Van Pelt said no such thing". Really? Perhaps you can tell me on which page of Van Pelt's opus he testifies that the zyklon induction holes were cast into the roof of kremaII.
"He has demostrated that the mass gassings, as alleged, were possible". Yes, and someone once posited an explanation for the designs incised upon the Nazca plain, by demonstrating that the local population could have constructed hot air balloons to direct their creation. You want to forget possible and concentrate on probable.
If, as you claim, the low levels of residual cyanide in kremaII of Auschwitz are "compatible" with allegations mass gassings, then so are the low levels of residual cyanide in many, baracks, etc., of Auschwitzt. No one is claiming that anyone was gassed in these buildings are they?
Mr Gherig, I have read the Rudolf report and I have read Green's refutation. A comparative anaysis indicates that Rudolf cannot claim that the lack of residual cyanide deposits precludes the use of KremaII as a homicidal gas chamber, but that, in order to refute Rudolf, Dr Green has had to admit that minimal deposits of cyanide have accreted in this building. What Green fails to admit is that many innocent buildings contain similar levels of residual cyanide traces as KremaII. This means that forensic evidence niether proves nor disproves the status of this building as a homicidal gas chamber. No forensic evidence.
"To my fellow annonym, "It's a lie. Van Pelt said no such thing". Really?"
Really.
"Perhaps you can tell me on which page of Van Pelt's opus he testifies that the zyklon induction holes were cast into the roof of kremaII."
No, rather you should cite his alleged claim about chiseling.
""He has demostrated that the mass gassings, as alleged, were possible". Yes, and someone once posited an explanation for the designs incised upon the Nazca plain, by demonstrating that the local population could have constructed hot air balloons to direct their creation. You want to forget possible and concentrate on probable."
Especially for you I can rephrase: Dr. Green has proven that the mass gassings, as alleged, were not improbable, contrary to what deniers stated. That was the point of his report. Whether or not chemistry can be used to prove gassings, it cannot disprove them.
"If, as you claim, the low levels of residual cyanide in kremaII of Auschwitz are "compatible" with allegations mass gassings, then so are the low levels of residual cyanide in many, baracks, etc., of Auschwitzt. No one is claiming that anyone was gassed in these buildings are they?"
On the contrary, as Marciewicz et al. show, the levels in Kremas are significantly larger than in the barracks. Which means that "maybe they were fumigated once or twice" theory fails.
But you didn't get the point. Even if it is shown that cyanide traces are not a piece of evidence for gassings (but neither do they disprove them), then they are simply irrelevant. So what? Gassings are not proved by simply pointing to these traces. One piece of evidence less, one more - who really cares?
"This means that forensic evidence niether proves nor disproves the status of this building as a homicidal gas chamber. No forensic evidence."
See above.
A morgue used to store the victims of a typhus epidemic is likely to have been subjected to far more fumigations with zyklon (an anti-typhus prophylactic) than a barrack, but probably less exposure than an instalation used for the fumigation of typhus-lice infected clothing. The levels of residual cyanide in kremaII are compatible with the claims made by the Germans that this building was a morgue. Any claims asserting it's homicidal use cannot be validated by chemical analysis.
The architectural plans of KremaII show no holes for the induction of zyklon crystals. They show no devices for the dispersal of zyklon. The only evidence for the homicdal status of this building is eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony convicted Germans for the slaughter of Polish officers at Katyn. Eyewitness testimony convicted Germans of making soap and lampshades from jewish cadavers. Who murdered the Polish officers? Did the Germans really make soap and lampshades from human beings? Please respond, I would really like to hear your answer.
Mr Gehrig, you surprise me! The usal way defeated exterminationists hide their blushes is by making fervent accusations of anti-semitism. Congratulations on your originality. Goodbye!
"A morgue used to store the victims of a typhus epidemic is likely to have been subjected to far more fumigations with zyklon (an anti-typhus prophylactic) than a barrack"
Let's see a substantiation of this idea.
"The levels of residual cyanide in kremaII are compatible with the claims made by the Germans that this building was a morgue."
"Claims" made by the Germans? The Germans claimed that they were gas chambers. You must be confusing the Germans with the deniers.
Of course, if this room (not a "building") was a morgue, it wouldn't have gas-tight doors, it wouldn't need to be "pre-heated", it wouldn't have the holes in the roof, it wouldn't be called "Vergasungskeller", etc.
"Any claims asserting it's homicidal use cannot be validated by chemical analysis."
Rather, they can be corroborated by it.
"The architectural plans of KremaII show no holes for the induction of zyklon crystals."
The plans we have don't. But as van Pelt points out in his book, we lack at least one late plan, and it is quite possible that the holes were introduced in it. After all, the morgues were converted to the gas chambers quite late.
The whole issue is moot, since the holes were there, as is proven by the so-called "Train photo", which shows at least 2 introduction chimneys in places where the holes can be found currently. It cannot be a coincidence, so the holes were there.
"They show no devices for the dispersal of zyklon."
Krema inventory contains 2 entries - 4 wire-mesh introduction devices and 4 wooden covers. Deniers have never been able to explain what these are.
"The only evidence for the homicdal status of this building is eyewitness testimony. "
Wrong. For example, convergence of documentary criminal traces is no less compelling. I'm not even talking about he convergence of _all_ available evidence.
"Eyewitness testimony convicted Germans for the slaughter of Polish officers at Katyn."
An old Katyn canard. And why do you think that the Soviets did it? Do we have any credible evidence for it from independent parties? (I'm just playing your little game).
"Eyewitness testimony convicted Germans of making soap and lampshades from jewish cadavers."
Oh, let's see:
1) this alleged testimony;
2) the relevant verdicts;
3) the proof that this alleged testimony is quantitatively and qualitatively analogous to that for gassings.
"Who murdered the Polish officers? Did the Germans really make soap and lampshades from human beings? Please respond, I would really like to hear your answer."
Well, as I said, let's play your game. What credible evidence do you have that the Poles have been killed by the Soviets? Please, no unauthenticated documents, biased commissions' reports, etc.
"Let's see a substantiation of this statement"
Sorry! The statement stands on it's own. It does nor need substantiation. Res ipsa loquitur!
Germans did not claim that the instalations at Auschwitz were gaschambers. German prisoners of the Communists etc., made "confessions" to their captors. They also "confessed" to exterminations by steam and mass electrocution. As we all know these things didn't happen.
You are right. KremaII has gas-tight doors, but not gas-chamber doors. The doors on the Auschwitz Krema are gas-tight bomb shelter doors, similar to ones found in bomb shelters all over Germany. These doors are very different from actual gas-chamber doors of the type used in gas delousing units.
"If this room were a morgue, it wouldn't be caller a "vergusungskeller". You are right again, and if it were a gas-chamber it wouldn't be called a vergasungskeller either. The german word for gas-chamber is "gaskammer" not vergasungskeller. In the original quote it is clear that the vergasungskeller, whatever it may have been, was a seperate room from the morgue. So if the vergasungskeller was the real locus of exterminations, it was certainly not kremaII as is claimed by Van Pelt.
The morgue would, periodicaly, have to be heated for fumigation purposes.
"One late plan is missing". So your claim rests on a missing plan and missing traces of hydrogen cyanide. Brilliant!
I cant even be bothered to debunk your famous inventory and train photo.
Basically your claims rest upon an invented deductive concept which you call "convergence of evidence". Which can be summed up as the belief that lots of crap evidence assembled together magically becomes good evidence. It's a bit like asserting that if you gather enough sow's ears you'll end up with a silk purse. Please, enough already!
Post a Comment