Thursday, March 17, 2005

Some thoughts on C-Span's statement to the press

Methinks that CSpan has been inundated with protests. Last week, when they told me that they were intending to put Irving on by himself if I refused to appear [where's the balance in that?], I said: "You will do great damage to C-Span." The producer, Amy Roach, said to me: "We don't have advertisers, so we are not subject to pressure." I quickly told her I was not talking about exherting pressure. I was talking about their credibility. Amy did not seemed worried and assured me that everyone with whom they spoke told them it was a great idea to air both me and Irving.

21 comments:

Tom said...

You gloat, "Methinks they have been inundated with protests." Ms. Lipstadt, what you are doing is a disgraceful, how dare you try to intimidate C-SPAN.

Your use of the term "Holocaust Denier" to describe David Irving is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest. Mr. Irving has documented evidence of the massive shooting of Jews and has written and talked about gassings taking place at Auschwitz.
You don't make these facts clear to people.

You do such harm to public discourse and now you have the nerve to attack C-SPAN.

Anonymous said...

Your shameless promotion of holocaust extortion industry has no bounds. One day the truth will come out and you will be exposed for what you are. Total fraud.
Dax Brown
daxbr@hotmail.com
PS.
Thanks for publishing phone numbers to C-Span. I will call them later on today to express my support for for their firm stand againt your intimidation.

Monash said...

Wow Tom and Dax know more about the Holocaust than an English High Court Judge, Professor Richard Evans,of Cambridge University, and Professor Christopher Browning, of UNC Chapel Hill, and other expert witnesses.{unbiased in English courts}
With respect I suggest you read both the books about the trial brought by Irving to silence Professor Lipstadt and read what Irving says about Britain's Afro-Caribbean community and what status he gives to women.
I have spoken to British soldiers who entered Begen Belsen and to one British soldier imprisoned in Auschwitz, and there can be no balance between the truth and evil lies.
Your boy in his summing up instead of addressing the Judge as My Lord called him Mein Fuhrer, case closed.

Anonymous said...

Dear Minash, Holocaust denial is not at issue here. What disturbs people is her attitude towards free speech. She obviously considers it worthwhile to talk about David Irving since she wrote two monstrous books about him. When Irving attempts to defends himself, she uses all possible jewish organizations like ADL to intimidate media not to give him such opportunity. At the same time, she has no guts to face him directly and discredit his views. She will never do it because she knows she will exposed and holocaust industry would no longer be able to raise money from the suffering of so many.
Dax

david gehrig said...

Apparently, by Dax's definition the only way that you can discredit someone's views is by besting them in a one-on-one debate. Nothing else counts, and if you don't do it that way, people like Dax will call out fourth-grade taunts about gutlessness.

Obviously, that's a ridiculous position once you're no longer in the fourth grade. But that's the sort of stuff Irving feeds his followers, and they swallow it right up and beg for more.

Prof Lipstadt isn't impinging on Irving's free speech. Irving is free to spread his Jew-baiting fertilizer anywhere in the US that court-proven crackpots are allowed to spread Jew-baiting fertilizer.

But Irving's reputation is a different matter. He can no longer demand to be treated as a reputable historian rather than a disreputable one. He's just as free to shout from the street corner as Lipstadt is. But now he's no longer the kind of figure C-SPAN's BookTV was intended to give time to, unless there's something in their charter about disseminating antisemitic lies.

@%<

Anonymous said...

It might be helpful to read the text of the British High Court judge's verdict on Irving's attempt to silence Prof Lipstadt.This is available online at http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/i/irving-david/judgment-00-00.html

The final portion of the verict -- Findings on Justification -- includes the following passage:

"The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."

David H Lippman said...

As far as David Irving needing or lacking a platform goes, I don't see anybody tearing apart his website and publishing company. Focal Point Press is still up and running, and Irving seems to be making enough bucks to keep up the web site and make road trips to sell his wares to loyal audiences and supporters like yourself. But that doesn't mean that in order to support the First Amendment I am required to support him and his vicious lies. I should think that the First Amendment would require me to pursue and support the truth and stand against lies and liars.

Anonymous said...

It's hard to understand what relation there is between the first part of Monash's sentence:

"I have spoken to British soldiers who entered Begen Belsen and to one British soldier imprisoned in Auschwitz"

and the second part:

"and there can be no balance between the truth and evil lies."

Tom said...

Richard, as I have tried to explain, what Deborah Lipstadt is doing is wrong .

Irving is a man that believes that Jews were killed in great number and has documented specific conversations of Germans talking about the shootings. Irving is a man who believes that the Jews died in concentration camps and that Nazis killed Jews in concentration camps.
Now does that sound like a "Holocaust Denier?

If your first reaction to what I am writing is that I must be wrong about what Irving thinks then you prove my point that using the term "Holocaust Denier" to describe David Irving is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest.

Irving wrote, "If this biography were simply a history of the rise and fall of Hitler's Reich it would be legitimate to conclude "Hitler killed the Jews." He after all had created the atmosphere of hatred with his speeches in the 1930's; he and Himmler had created the SS; his speeches, though never explicit, left the clear impression that "liquidate" was what he meant. For a full-length war biography of Hitler, I felt that a more analytical approach to the key questions of initiative, complicity, and execution would be necessary. Remarkably, I found that Hitler's own role in the "Final Solution"-whatever that was-has never been examined." -David Irving London, January 1976
and January 1989

What Deborah Lipstadt is doing is wrong, she is CREATING the false impression that Irving and others think that Nazis did not kill Jews. She has done harm, causing unnecessary anguish with her arrogance and dishonesty.

Anonymous said...

I expect these British soldiers told Monash about the terrible typhus epidemic raging in Belsen.

I've read the book by the British POW at Auschwitz, complete with it's tales of fraternisation with friendly German guards and no mention of having seen any gas-chambers.

I've no idea what evil lies she means.

Another interesting thing about Belson was revealed on a recent BBC documentary. German civilian nurses from the local villages were forced by the British occupying forces to wash the dying typhus infected victims in Belsen, in the full knowledge that this would result in their deaths, which it did. So it has been admited on the BBC that non-military German citizens, all females, some with young children whoes fathers had been killed during the course of the war, were deliberatly murderd by the British. Has anyone been extradited, Eichman style, to face charges for these murders?

david gehrig said...

More word games and straw men from Holocaust deniers.

No, Tom, nobody claims that Irving has said the Nazis killed no Jews. But there are a set of core facts about the Holocaust that he does deny, and that's why he's called a Holocaust denier.

Read the judgment and you'll see that it notes that Irving made precisely the same word game you're making, and the judge saw right through it. Just as he saw right through a lot of Irving's various kinds of dishonesty.

But isn't it just the very nature of the Holocaust denial movement to have frauds in the front rank? Irving, Leuchter, Rudolf? Hasn't that been the consistent thing since back in the days of Willis Carto? And hasn't the movement always failed, as it continues to fail, to disguse that fact?

@%<

Tom said...

Monash said..."With respect I suggest you read both the books about the trial ..."

I read the transcripts of the trial as it was underway in 2000. In addition I have read alot of material including "Auschwitz: 1270 To the Present" , Van Pelt is one of the authors.

"I have spoken to British soldiers who entered Begen Belsen "

You prove my point. Lipstadt has made people think that Irving denies that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps. The fact that you mention Begen Belsen shows you don't know what you are talking about.

david gehrig said...

Now quote his whole sentence, Tom.

@%<

Tom said...

"quote his whole sentence"

David, whose sentence? Irving's? Monash's? If Monash's, which one of the two I quoted? Please make an effort to be clear.

Tom said...

To show just how distorted things can get, can anyone answer if Anne Frank was in the Holocaust?

Tom said...

David, you ignored my point.
As evidenced here, people do get the wrong idea because of Ms. Lipstadt's use of the term "Holocaust denier."

As just proven here, Ms. Lipstadt has made people think that Irving denies that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps. Look too at how people compare Irving's opinion to "denying that African-Americans were enslaved." You can see how outrageous that is, Lipstadt has succeeded in libeling the man.

And not wanting to be libeled by Ms. Lipstadt is not the same as trying to "silence Lipstadt".

And to compound the wrong of giving people the idea that Irving denies that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps, Ms. Lipstadt tries to keep him from getting a fair hearing which could clear it up! (so people can continue to get the false impression) And now will Ms. Lipstadt issue a press release the clears it up for the people who are mislead by her term? Will Ms. Lipstadt issue a press realize that says, "Just to be clear, Irving does not deny think that Irving denies that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps." If not, why not? It is wrong to knowingly label a man so that many people think he denies that that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps. Ms. Lipstadt is a game player, she cannot honestly say that people are not getting the wrong idea when she uses the term and that it is causing unnecessary anguish for many people. As evidenced in this blog, people do have the outrageous notion Irving denies that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps and that is Lipstadt's doing.

debunking the idiots said...

"To show just how distorted things can get, can anyone answer if Anne Frank was in the Holocaust?"

Of course she was the victim of the Holocaust. Because the Nazis were responsible for her internment. Without it she wouldn't have died of typhus in Bergen-Belsen. So what was your silly little point?

debunking the idiots said...

"As just proven here, Ms. Lipstadt has made people think that Irving denies that Jews died in camps or were killed in camps."

Oh really? Can you prove it? Let's see some concrete examples.

"Look too at how people compare Irving's opinion to "denying that African-Americans were enslaved." You can see how outrageous that is, Lipstadt has succeeded in libeling the man."

The analogy is more or less correct - Irving denies historical fact. Any analogy will do here - e.g. historicity of Caesar. Where's libel here? You're libelling Lipstadt.

Porter Graham said...

Tom said "Ms. Lipstadt tries to keep him from getting a fair hearing which could clear it up! (so people can continue to get the false impression)".

A fair hearing, do you mean a trial in which Judge Gray said Of Irving in his verdict :

"he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism."

[And that was in an English court in which the onus was on the defence, Professor Lipstadt to prove her case.]

Or do you mean a discussion in which Irvine can trot out his pathetic jokes about the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car, and Sir Trevor McDonald [England's best known black newsreader] reading only the news about drug busts and muggings.

You keep on repeating lies, for example Deborah did not write two books about Irving; she wrote one about Holocaust denial in which Irving was briefly mentioned, and one about the trial, and hope to confuse people.

Tom if you really think that "Your use of the term "Holocaust Denier" to describe David Irving is grotesque, manipulative and dishonest" you had better write and complain to Judge Gray, and ask for a retrial.

Tom said...

You wrote, "You keep on repeating lies, for example Deborah did not write two books about Irving;"

You confused someone else's post with mine. I never said Deborah wrote two books about Irving.

debunking the idiots said...

"And not wanting to be libeled by Ms. Lipstadt is not the same as trying to "silence Lipstadt"."

Not wanting to be libelled by deniers is not the same as trying to "silence revisionists". Agreed?