Despite the legal hit he took in a London courtroom at the beginning of 2000, David Irving seems to be undaunted. I check his site often, and I am always amazed at his audacity and punchy spirit. Here is one tough historian who is not about to quit!
For instance, this morning I checked at http://www.fpp.co.uk/Online/01/01/Yahoo140101.html which is an article on the disgraceful Yahoo! capitulation, titled "Who are the real Nazis?" - and what do I see? A blazing, spinning swastika!
Not even I in relative safety from the Holocaust Lobby censors would dare to put up a provocation like that!
So I thought I would let you take a look at his latest challenge to Deborah Lipstadt who is to speak in the state of Washington in a few days. Details can be found at http://www.fpp.co.uk/online.html - and if you are a curious, intellectually independent student or an activist who happens to live in the area, this is the challenge for you.
WE ARE often asked for questions to put to Professor Lipstadt in her well-funded peregrinations around the world.
1. Prof. Lipstadt, why were you afraid to go into the witness box and expose yourself even to the questioning of an amateur like Mr Irving? You effectively pleaded the Fifth Amendment, which is the traditional route of those with something to hide. Mr Irving subjected himself voluntarily to three weeks' cross examination by one of the world's leading trial lawyers, and he voluntarily made available to you his entire private and public papers.
2. Are you aware that one of your main researchers, Dr David Cesarani, said that Mr Irving gave the defence some scary moments, particularly when their chief expert witness on the architecture of Auschwitz, Prof. Van Pelt, proved unable to explain what had happened to the bodies (i.e. the logistics of disposing, for example, of 450,000 Hungarian-Jews' bodies in three weeks -- around 50,000 tons of corpses, by a small Sonderkommando in one crematory building) [see http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial3/DieZeit120400e.html]
3. Why did you not accept Mr Irving's offer, made three times publicly in the courtroom, to halt the case in mid-trial if you could find any evidence of the holes in the roof slab of Crematorium II at Auschwitz, which still exists, through which "eye witnesses" in the pay of post-war prosecution teams claimed to have seen SS officers tipping the Zyklon B granules? Your own chief witness Pelt said there are no such holes in the slab, so the witnesses lied.
4. Why are you afraid of free debate? You said there IS no debate, but when push came to shove your highly paid Queens Counsel felt it necessary to fill the courtroom every day with over thirty lawyers, counsel, barristers, assistants, solicitors, attorneys, historians, researchers, just to stand up against Mr Irving, who appeared in court alone. Was your case that weak?
5. Why have you and your friends done all you can to muzzle Mr. Irving by putting pressure on publishers, broadcasters, television companies, and governments not to allow him to speak or publish his widely acknowledged books. What are you scared of?
6. In a trial which was about a very serious matter, why did you instruct your counsel to resort to smear tactics, branding Mr. Irving as a racist (although he, unlike your counsel, employs ethnic minorities as his personal staff) and an anti-Semite, and although neither allegation was made in your book or pleaded in your initial Defence. Were you frightened of fighting the case on the facts of history?
7. Are you aware that Mr Irving's case is under appeal? How do you feel about going around the world despite that, drawing fat fees, smearing him further before the final outcome? How much money have you made out of this lawsuit (articles, speaking fees, etc) already? That's what it's about, isn't it: money?
8. Do you think it right to pay some of your so called "neutral" expert witnesses a quarter of a million dollars in inducements to testify in your favour? The six million dollars put up by Steven Spielberg. . . You are a religious expert: ever heard the Bible say, "Good wine needs no bush"? If your case was rock solid why was so much money swilling around that London courtroom. [see http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/payments.html]
9. A New Zealand academic tribunal has just found that Prof. Richard Evans, your chief witness, was guilty of grossly distorting, misquoting, exaggerating, and polemicising in his similar "expert report" on Dr Joel Hayward, and totally lacking in the objectivity that is expected by a court of an expert witness. How do you feel about him now? [see http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/Evans/NZReportExtract.html]
10. Have you read Norman Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry. Is he a racist and anti-Semite?
11. You have argued in your books and articles that Jews should never stoop to marrying outside their religion and race. Is that not racism in its purest and most evil form?
=====
Thought for the Day:
"Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny."
Back to Table of Contents of the Jan. 2001 ZGrams