Path: hub.org!hub.org!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!cyclone-sjo1.usenetserver.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!news1.telusplanet.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Hilary Ostrov
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: More Sour Grapes to Inaccurate Whines in Irvingland Organization: myssiwyg* Reply-To: email@example.com Message-ID: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 74 Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 22:03:45 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 22.214.171.124 X-Trace: news1.telusplanet.net 977781825 126.96.36.199 (Mon, 25 Dec 2000 15:03:45 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 15:03:45 MST Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:842220 In his continued desperate attempts to portray himself as the "victim" of the libel suit he launched and so spectacularly lost, David Irving (who seems to have an ongoing problem with details, such as dates) has posted an article that appears in the January 2001 issue of the _BBC History Magazine_. Irving bills it as the "January 2000" issue. Irving falsely claims, in his "introduction", that the author of the article, Richard Evans, is "[r]isking contempt proceedings, he is drawing on and quoting Discovery documents that are still privileged." Not surprisingly, there is nothing in Evans' article which is not now available via the transcripts, judgement and/or the expert reports. However, for all his sour grapes and inaccurate whines (and those of his die-hard supporters), Irving has no choice but to live with the consequences of his "very public disgrace" - as the published intro to the BBC magazine article described it. Evans concludes: [Irving's whining interpolated "pop-ups" deleted -hro][...] what was being debated was not, of course, history itself, but the way that Irving dealt with the evidence: a fine distinction, but one central to the case. On one issue after another, Irving was forced to withdraw his earlier claims when confronted with hard evidence on matters such as the gassing of hundreds of thousands of Jews, or the systematic and centrally directed nature of the mass shootings of hundreds of thousands more behind the Eastern Front. There was enough material in Irving's diary to show that he was a racist and an anti-Semite, who had associations with many neo-fascists and political extremists in a variety of countries, notably Germany and the US. Indeed he had been fined by a German court under laws that made Holocaust denial illegal, and banned from entering the country. It came as no surprise when the judge, in a masterly 350-page judgment, found for the defence on virtually all the instances of falsification which had been uncovered, and rejected Irving's libel suit and claim for damages. Amid the welter of comment that came after the verdict, two aspects of the trial's significance stood out. The first was that it was a victory for free speech. Irving had tried to get Lipstadt's book withdrawn and pulped, and obtain an undertaking from her publishers not to publish similar things about him again. That attack on freedom of speech had been repulsed. Secondly, the verdict was a victory for historical scholarship. Nobody was going to stop Irving from continuing to say and write what he wanted to. But if the verdict had any effect, it would be to deny him credibility, especially with the popular readership to whom he addressed his work. The ability of real historians to achieve genuine knowledge about the past on the basis of the documentary record had been vindicated. In the 1961 Jerusalem trial of Adolf Eichmann, the director of operations of Hitler's 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question', survivors had been the main witnesses. The 2000 London trial of Irving versus Lipstadt and Penguin Books dealt with the issues as if there were no survivors around to tell the tale. It was for this reason that The Daily Telegraph rightly concluded at the end of the trial that 'the Irving case has done for the new century what the Nuremberg tribunals or the Eichmann trial did for earlier generations'.http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/Evans/BBCHistory.html hro ===================== Hilary Ostrov E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org WWW: http://www3.telus.net/myssiwyg/ The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012