The Atlanta Constitution, which is the major paper in prof. Lipstadt's home town of Atlanta, says developments in the trial have not warranted coverage by the paper since the first week. The editor's response to a reader's complaint about the lack of news coverage in the paper about the trial is included below. There are no other new media reports as of 0630 MST 02.14.00. ATLANTA CONSTITUTION http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/today/news_19.html Q&A on the News Colin Bessonette - Staff Monday =95 February 14 Q: An author in Britain named Irving sued an Emory professor and her publisher for calling him a "Holocaust revisionist." The trial was covered extensively for some days, then disappeared from the news. What's the status of that? --- Ruby Saks, Norcross A: The trial of historical writer David Irving's libel lawsuit against Emory University professor Deborah Lipstadt ended its fifth week Thursday. It is expected to continue until late March. The defense has been presenting a series of witnesses to challenge Irving's merits as a historian, and to attack his honesty as a writer. Under English libel law, attorneys representing Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Press, must prove the truth of assertions contained in a book by Lipstadt that Irving denied conventional accounts of the Holocaust and manipulated historical facts to support his position. Lipstadt's book, "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory," was published in Britain in 1994. Irving says the book misrepresented his position, damaged his reputation, and generated waves of hatred against him. Lipstadt's lawyers accuse him of being a liar and a falsifier of history. Journal-Constitution correspondent Bert Roughton Jr., who is based in London, is following the trial and will continue to report on it when developments warrant coverage. ### Copyright 2000 PR Newswire Europe Limited Press Association Newsfile February 14, 2000 HOLOCAUST HISTORIAN DENIES 'UNCRITICAL' APPROACH Cathy Gordon, PA News. Historian David Irving today rejected an accusation that he placed a faith in the reliability of oral testimony given to him by Hitler's former aides that was "almost entirely uncritical". The author, who denies distorting history to exonerate Hitler, told the Holocaust libel trial at the High Court that on "numerous occasions" he had persuaded those he interviewed "to reveal to me matters which were against their interest or against that of Hitler" and had not concealed that information. Mr Irving, who is representing himself in his damages action at London's Law Courts over a claim that he is a "Holocaust denier", was answering one of the criticisms of him contained in a 740-page report before the court by top academic Richard Evans, professor of modern history at Cambridge University. Cross-examining Professor Evans, who has been called as an expert for the defence by author Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, Mr Irving put to the witness that he was accusing him of "gullibility in falling for what they told me". Professor Evans, who says he does not regard Mr Irving as a "reputable historian", replied: "I wouldn't accuse you of being gullible Mr Irving." In his report, Professor Evans states that Mr Irving makes "massive use of oral testimony" and, in particular, had over the years "interviewed a large number of Hitler's former aides and other leading former Nazis, and he places, as this report will demonstrate repeatedly and in detail, a faith in the reliability of their testimony that is almost entirely uncritical". It was in the interest of former Nazis of all kinds, he wrote: "to deny all knowledge of, let alone participation in, the crimes of Nazism, including the extermination of the Jews". Professor Evans said that if they had an incentive to avoid implicating themselves before a court: "they had a motive for persuading Irving to be their mouthpiece in continuing their personal quest for public exculpation at a later date". He added: "Their testimony has to be subjected to particularly searching critical scrutiny. The need for a critical attitude is borne out by the evidence of the memoirs that many of them published - self-serving, mendacious, dishonest and designed to minimise their own involvement in the crimes of Nazism. "This report will examine many examples of this kind of evidence, much of it relied on by Irving in an entirely uncritical way." Mr Irving claimed that Professor Evans had made: "an over-hasty rush to judgment on me which is not borne out by the evidence". Professor Evans said he did not deny the fact that Mr Irving had obtained "a great deal of material" which others had not, and that his interviews with former members of Hitler's staff "have contributed in some way to historical knowledge". The author of Hitler's War is suing Professor Lipstadt and Penguin over her 1994 book, Denying The Holocaust: The Growing Assault On Truth And Memory, which he says has generated waves of hatred against him. The defendants, who deny libel, have accused Mr Irving, 62, of Duke Street, Mayfair, central London, of being a liar and falsifier of history. ### BBC 02.14.00 Historian 'believed what Nazis told him' http://news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid%5F642000/642724.stm David Irving is defending himself at the High Court Historian David Irving has denied claims that he placed too much faith in Nazi accounts of World War II. In his continuing libel trial at the High Court, Mr Irving insisted that before conducting interviews with senior Nazi figures, he had persuaded them to be frank enough to reveal information even if it was against their interests, or those of Hitler. Mr Irving is suing author Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books over a claim that he is a "Holocaust denier". He insists on "numerous occasions", he persuaded Hitler's former aides and other leading Nazis to reveal full details of what had happened. Mr Irving's comments came as he cross-examined a defence witness, Professor Richard Evans, who states in a 740-page report to the court that Mr Irving placed an "almost entirely uncritical" faith in the details supplied by his Nazi interviewees. It was in the interest of former Nazis of all kinds, he wrote: "to deny all knowledge of, let alone participation in, the crimes of Nazism, including the extermination of the Jews". "They had a motive for persuading Irving to be their mouthpiece in continuing their personal quest for public exculpation at a later date". Mr Irving put it to the witness that he was accusing him of "gullibility in falling for what they told me". Rush to judgement Professor Evans, who says he does not regard Mr Irving as a "reputable historian", replied: "I wouldn't accuse you of being gullible Mr Irving." Mr Irving claimed that Professor Evans had made "an over-hasty rush to judgement on me which is not borne out by the evidence". Professor Evans said he did not deny the fact that Mr Irving had obtained "a great deal of material" which others had not, and that his interviews with former members of Hitler's staff "have contributed in some way to historical knowledge". The defendants, who deny libel, have accused Mr Irving, 62, of being a liar and falsifier of history. The hearing was adjourned and is expected to last for several months. JEWISH TELEGRAPHIC AGENCY http://jta.virtualjerusalem.com/index.exe?0002145 Holocaust scholar rejects revisionist's title of historian By Douglas Davis LONDON, Feb. 14 (JTA) =97 Holocaust revisionist David Irving has no right to call himself a historian, according to a leading scholar of Nazi Germany. Richard Evans, a professor of modern history at Britain's prestigious Cambridge University, made the remark last week while testifying in the trial here where Irving is suing American historian Professor Deborah Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin Books, for libel on the basis of Lipstadt's 1994 book "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory." Irving, who denies that Jews were systematically exterminated in the gas chambers at Auschwitz, is claiming that Lipstadt ruined his reputation and career by labeling him a Holocaust denier =97 and asserting that he twisted historical data to suit his own bias. Irving's confrontation with Evans was just one that he had with other scholars last week who are testifying in the trial. After producing a 740-page critique of Irving's historical method, Evans said he had been unprepared for the "sheer depth of duplicity" he had found in Irving's treatment of Holocaust-related historical sources. In his report, Evans asserted that Irving had relied on his audience lacking the time or the expertise to study his sources in order to discover the "distortions and manipulations." Irving, who is representing himself, charged that Evans's "sweeping and rather brutal" attack on his career was based on personal animosity: "I think you dislike what I write and stand for and what you perceive my views to be," he said. But Evans denied this was true and said he had sought to be as objective as possible when examining Irving's work. Evans said he had little prior knowledge of the work, although he had thought of Irving as a sound historian. But he said he was "shocked" at what he found when he closely examined Irving's writings and speeches. The court proceedings reinforced the view he had expressed in his report that Irving had fallen so far short of accepted standards of scholarship that "he doesn't deserve to be called a historian at all." But Irving declared that he was always "scrupulously fair," and the "total opposite of being unscrupulous and manipulative and deceptive, as you say in your report." Evans agreed that Irving had a very wide knowledge of the source material for the Third Reich and that he had discovered many new documents: "The problem for me," he said, "is what you do with them when you interpret them and write them up." Irving's writings and speeches, said Evans, contained statements that he regarded as anti-Semitic =97 to the extent that he blamed the Jews for the Holocaust. Irving's belief that he was the target of "a worldwide Jewish conspiracy," Evans continued, was "a fantastic belief which has no grounds in fact." Irving also had a bruising encounter last week with Professor Christopher Browning, of Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Wash., who also appeared as a witness for Lipstadt. Asked by Irving to comment on a Nazi plan to settle Jews on the Indian Ocean island of Madagascar, Browning, author of four books and more than 35 academic papers on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, said it was a "bizarre fantasy." Browning added that the result of such a population transfer would have been disastrous as "a large percentage of the people would have perished." "I think," countered Irving, "that the Jews are a very sturdy people." Earlier, military historian Sir John Keegan, compelled by subpoena to testify for Irving, said he found Irving's ideas to be "perverse," while his claim that Hitler did not know about the fate of the Jews until late 1943 "was so extraordinary it would defy reason." Sir John, who was knighted for his contribution to military history, agreed that he had in the past recommended students of World War II to read Irving's book "Hitler's War," but he told the court he had also advised them to read Chester Wilmot's "Struggle for Europe." "Together," he said, "they gave Hitler's side and the Allies' side." His recommendation to students did not mean he endorsed the opinions in Irving's book, he said.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor