What do I personally think about the Irving-Lipstadt trial? The points below are written relying on memory from bits and pieces I picked up while traveling - there was no opportunity to analyze, digest and come up with some closure. I am sure that in the weeks and months to come, I will find many gems. But these are the thoughts in my mind:
* Irving has given the Holocaust Hustlers one heck of a fight. In the beginning, we all felt such shudders, thinking what that man, wrestling with his demons, from within and from without, might say or do that would inflict major damage on what Revisionists had so painstakingly distilled from that morass of lies over decades. Revisionist victories have not come easy. Many of us thought that in a fit of temper, or in attempting to ingratiate himself, Irving might let go of the three major tenets that summarize in broadest terms what Revisionist have said all along: 1) No gassings 2) No Führer Order, and 3) hugely inflated numbers of victims. (I am abbreviating and simplifying here...) To his credit, Irving has stuck to these tenets.
* The mainstream media have warmed to the Revisionist stories. I must say that, with the exception of the highly politicized and controlled media in Germany and, naturally, the Israeli/Jewish media, the coverage has been amazingly even-handed and fair. Better yet, the focus has remained as steady as could be expected - and huge, huge doubts have been repeatedly raised that all was not well with the traditional Holocaust tale. In sheer volume, the fall-out has been amazing. I remember reading somewhere that Irving claimed 167 major articles dealing with content when he was under attack - that is, in cross-examination - and only one-eighth as many when he did the attacking while cross-examining the expert witnesses of the defense. That in itself shows astonishing and measurable bias - but even so! The wealth of quotes that were slipped in that illustrated the nature of the struggle continued to astound me.
* We must also not forget that this was the first time that the Holocaust Hustlers were under the gun and had to defend themselves for reckless and hurtful behavior - on a vast, global, documented scale. That in itself was a switch. Just what this means is best exemplified by saying that what Professor Kevin MacDonald has offered as a theoretical construct - that there exists a Jewish culture that acts in concert in opposition to, and often to the detriment of, their various host societies - has been translated into stark and concrete colors in this Irving-Lipstadt trial. I must confess I personally was shocked at the extent to which these people went to hurt, block, vilify and demonize one man - who had the balls to call their bluff in court.
* What personally amazed me also was the vacillating nature of the tactics of the defense. They seemed to threaten - and back off. Threaten and back off. Threaten and back off. The trial was to last three months - it lasted only two. It was to be moved to Auschwitz for effect - a notion that was quietly dropped. A Russian archivist was to brand Irving a thief - he never did materialize. The Eichmann Diaries were taken out of mothballs in ostentatious fashion - but hardly ever used. When all was said and done, the defense had very little to show for itself except the old Nizkorite tactics: smear all you can - and duck! This was not lost on the media.
* Last but not least, we should not forget that, as starkly as we could have wished for, the world was treated to the massive spectacle of money being thrown at Irving in fistfuls upon fistfuls to get him to shut up. On one side you had 20 lawyers/legal staff - and juxtaposed stood David, struggling to pay for the transcripts. Irving himself has estimated that the tag for the defense is in the ball-park of six million!
* When all is said and done, what will it mean? What can we expect as the outcome? Irving himself thinks that his chances might be fifty-fifty. It seems a fair assessment. A realistic judge will look at all this money, might and clout and maybe start to quiver. Many men would. Lesser men have. An honest judge would look at what the opposition has come up with to bolster their "defense" - and maybe start looking for a magnifying glass.
No matter what, the outcome will be significant for accuser and for accussees alike. There is Angst written all over the Holocaust Hustlers, as one might infer by this brief glimpse of an article titled "Could David Irving succeed? World awaits London verdict." (Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 20, 2000)"
"The burden of proof fell on Lipstadt to show that Irving actually had evidence to support the conventional meaning of the Holocaust; he says he did not because it is a subject he finds 'endlessly boring.' So, too, is the burden on Lipstadt to show that Irving had evidence to link Hitler with an order to kill Jews; Irving maintains that no such definitive document exists.
"It is possible, on strictly technical grounds, that the judge will find in Irving's favor, and the effect of such a decision could be far-reaching."
Now how about it, Debbie Lipstadt? Was it not you who wailed: "No debate!"? Was this not, in the end, the Mother of all Holocaust Debates? And to think that there could be an appeal - on your side? Or on David's? Was it wise to fool Mother Nature?
The judgment is expected in three weeks.
=====
Thought for the Day:
"These are the small but most important tremors that forecast the explosion of a volcano."
(Hans Schmidt in a letter to Michael Wolffson, Professor for Contemporary History, Bundeswehr-University, Germany - as quoted in USA-Bericht, April 2000)