Posted on 11/08/2001 3:30:35 PM PST by FR Truth Teller
The historian David Irving has lost his libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books. Mrs. Lipstadt had called Irving “one of the most dangerous spokesmen for Holocaust denial.”
In a devastating ruling, Justice Charles Gray declared Irving a “racist” and “anti-Semite” who distorts historical facts in order to portray Adolf Hitler in what Gray, turning to British understatement, called “an unwarrantedly favorable light.” Under British law, Irving must now bear the $3 million in legal fees the defendants ran up.
Gray didn’t deny Irving’s contention that Mrs. Lipstadt, with the assistance of other Jewish agencies, including the Israeli government, has pursued a vendetta against Irving aimed at destroying his career. Mrs. Lipstadt herself doesn’t deny it. “As [Holocaust] survivors die off and there are fewer and fewer eyewitnesses,” she has explained tearfully, “there won’t be people to tell the story in the first person, and it will be easier to deny it.”
Such a statement calls in question Mrs. Lipstadt’s own competence as a historian. How does the factuality of the organized murder of millions depend on the testimony of those who escaped the murder? Individual Jews in concentration camps were in no position to know just what the comprehensive Nazi program was, and survivor testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway. Mrs. Lipstadt might as well say that when all the veterans of World War II die, it will become easier to deny that there was any war at all. Her understanding of how history is compiled seems remarkably naive.
Historians agree that Irving has unearthed many vital documents of World War II; yet he too seems capable of remarkable naiveté. It would be easier to believe that there was no Holocaust at all than that, as Irving has argued in his book Hitler’s War and elsewhere, the whole thing was conducted behind Hitler’s back and against his wishes.
Still, Irving has guts. Without a lawyer, he single-handedly took on a high-powered legal team, who employed several scholars in an all-out effort to scrutinize his life’s work (and even his private diaries) for evidence that could be used to discredit him. With such a mismatch in money and resources, given that he is one of the most outspoken scholars on earth, with a penchant for rash overstatement and even gratuitous insult, it’s no marvel that he lost. Would any judge have dared to rule in his favor?
But in what sense is Irving “dangerous,” as Mrs. Lipstadt charged? Dangerous to whom, to what interests? And exactly why did the Israeli government have to get involved in this case? Gray didn’t explain.
Irving was already banned from several countries because of his views; he has been prosecuted and fined in Germany, where he can no longer get access to the very documents he himself has discovered! The world can’t afford to tolerate even a single man like him? Apparently not, though plenty of scholars espouse dubious and eccentric views on all sorts of subjects without getting the treatment Irving has received. Usually we think it’s enough to let book reviewers mete out justice, however imperfectly. My last book drew some harsh reviews, but none of them suggested that my career be wrecked or that I be jailed.
Some sort of congratulations must be due to the international Jewish thought-control apparatus. It must be comforting to American taxpayers, who pay billions in aid to Israel, to know that they are helping to subsidize Israeli efforts to see to it that free speech doesn’t get out of control in democratic countries, from Germany to Canada to Australia. In Switzerland, for example, a man has just drawn a three-year prison sentence for the crime of Holocaust denial. Presumably he too was “dangerous” — to someone.
Hitler has been out of business for more than half a century. He poses no threat now. On any objective scale, he did far less harm than Stalin and his pals, but it’s no crime, anywhere, to deny or minimize the atrocities of the Stalin-Roosevelt-Churchill alliance (which Churchill himself seems to have regretted later in his life). On the contrary, the misdeeds of that alliance are still celebrated as victories for democracy and civilization.
A "give Sobran a chance" BUMP.
This shows where he's coming from, alright.
International Jewish thought control. Oh, yeah.
"I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney?" Irving said.He added, "I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz."
He went on, "Oh, you think that's tasteless, how about this? There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because I'm going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, or the ASSHOLS."
Why is Irving dangerous? Because he is a major hero to Neo-Nazi and White Supremacist movements throughout the world.
Yes indeed.
Buckley let Sobran go after the Jewish elite in NY city started to complain about the focus of his column in the magazine.
After the Pollard incident, Sobran started to become very critical of Israel. Well the ADL, AIICP, and other Jewish organizations started up with the smear machine... that they're so famous for. If anyone criticizes Israel their careers must be destroyed.
BTTT!
No where in Joe Sobran's article does he try to defend the writings of David Irving. In fact, he does just the opposite. Sobran does wonder why various Jewish organizations are so intent on muzzling freedom speech. Sobran, a brilliant political analyst and exponent of freedom, makes a good point: Why are this nation's taxpayers heaping billions of dollars a year in foreign aid on a country that stifles freedom of speech and smears critics of its policies in the Middle East?
Save the character assassination for another website. This is a forum that allegedly supports the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.