- Hannover
Revisionists are full of holes
by Deborah E. Lipstadt
February 20, 2006
http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/vnews/ ... _archive=1
McCormick Prof. Arthur Butz has, after many years of total obscurity in anything but the world of Holocaust deniers, once again grabbed headlines.
Now Butz claims in the pages of The Daily that the reason people are “reluctant to consider the validity” of Holocaust denial is “fear.” Butz would have you believe that legal obstacles have made impossible for deniers to speak their piece. Rot.
I say this with over six years of legal experience defending myself against David Irving, once the world’s leading Holocaust denier. He sued me for libel for calling him a Holocaust denier in one of my books. He waited until the book appeared in the United Kingdom where the burden of proof is on the defendant.
I do not believe history belongs in the courtroom. Historians conduct their battles in scholarly journals and at conferences. Irving thought otherwise and due to the nature of British law I had no choice but to defend myself. Had he won, my books would have been pulped, and his version of the Holocaust would have been declared legitimate.
Rather than face any legal obstacles, Irving freely repeated his — and by extension Butz’s — arguments in court. The world press reported on them daily. No one faced any legal obstacles. No one was hauled into court except me.
I was able to mount an aggressive defense thanks to a defense fund which raised $1.75 million dollars. We hired a “Dream Team” of historians to closely examine Irving’s claims about the Holocaust. They found his work to be a “tissue of lies.”
By the end of my ten-week trial Irving was left looking like the Court Jester. He had called the judge “Mein Fuhrer,” a telling slip. When asked by Richard Rampton, my barrister, how he could say Herman Goring “goggled” at a certain exchange, when there was absolutely no evidence that Goring was even at this meeting, Irving declared: “author’s license.”
On another occasion Irving, whose knowledge of German is impeccable, attributed a mistranslation that rendered the ominous field ovens — the incineration grids on which the Germans had burned their victims’ bodies — into the utterly benign field kitchens, to the pressure of preparing for the trial at 2 a.m. the previous morning. We pointed out that we had downloaded the same document with the same mistranslation from Irving’s Web site two years earlier. Irving replied that he had made the same mistake twice. Such things happened daily as Irving’s claims to be a fastidious historian evaporated.
The judge and two subsequent Courts of Appeal found for me. The judge’s choice of words to describe Irving’s writings about the Holocaust were unambiguous: “perverts,” “distorts,” “misleading,” “unjustified,” “travesty” and “unreal.”
Butz, in his column, engages in linguistic tricks. He claims that Timothy Ryback wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent” in the ruins of Auschwitz. Butz ignores another portion of Ryback’s comment regarding Auschwitz: “these heaps of dynamited concrete and twisted steel are not only historic artifacts but among the few remnants of untainted, forensic evidence of the Holocaust.”
Why do we not enter further into “debate” with him? Because debating people who deliberately mislead is like trying to nail a blob of jelly to the wall. There is no end to the matter. If they have no fidelity to the truth how can you debate them? They just make things up as it suits them.
There is much left to learn about the Holocaust. However, our research agenda should not be set by people whose arguments are complete fabrications.
Let the likes of Butz and Irving go on making their arguments to neo-Nazis and other deniers. That is their right. Your paper, on the other hand, has no responsibility to print such falsehoods.
Now let them all slip into the obscurity they deserve.
Deborah E. Lipstadt is a professor of Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University. She can be reached at [email protected].
comments:
Rather than face any legal obstacles, Irving freely repeated his — and by extension Butz’s — arguments in court. The world press reported on them daily. No one faced any legal obstacles. No one was hauled into court except me.
Nonsense. Irving never used Butz's points in court, Irving doesn't even know that much about Revisionist specifics. This is Lipstadt's shallow way out of addressing specifis by Butz. Irving is not Butz.
I was able to mount an aggressive defense thanks to a defense fund which raised $1.75 million dollars. We hired a “Dream Team” of historians to closely examine Irving’s claims about the Holocaust. They found his work to be a “tissue of lies.”
No, she was able to buy people to the tune of $100,000-250,000 to say utter nonsense, a la Robert Jan Van Pelt, who has been utterly demolished by Revisionists with science and rational thought. The 'errors' of Irving's work are miniscule when compared to mainstream 'historians, and they have nothing to do with the 'holocaust' tale; Lipstadt doesn't want you to know that.
Butz, in his column, engages in linguistic tricks. He claims that Timothy Ryback wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “there is little forensic evidence proving homicidal intent” in the ruins of Auschwitz. Butz ignores another portion of Ryback’s comment regarding Auschwitz: “these heaps of dynamited concrete and twisted steel are not only historic artifacts but among the few remnants of untainted, forensic evidence of the Holocaust.”
Laughable. Ryback's initial claims are actually understated, their is ZERO forensic evidence; and his backtraking, quoted by shyster Lipstadt, is simply shredded by The Rudolf Report among other Revisionist endeavors.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/HHS.html
Let the likes of Butz and Irving go on making their arguments to neo-Nazis and other deniers. That is their right. Your paper, on the other hand, has no responsibility to print such falsehoods.
The classic 'neo-Nazi' canard, whatever 'neo-Nazi' means. How long do the likes of liars like Lipstadt think they can brush aside science, logic, and rational thought by labeling it 'neo-Nazi'? The woman has become a veritable witch doctor who denies science.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurdities of the 'holocau$t' are the message.
- Hannover
