What is this interesting pattern? A psychedelic painting? The Lord Chancellor's latest wallpaper? No, it is a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) scan of the alleged mass grave site at Treblinka, Poland, conducted to a depth of eighteen feet by an expert in November 1999: it seems the ground has remained undisturbed for millions of years. Clever old Nazis, to have put every stone back in place where it was -- and in the panic of defeat.
[More on this during the Lipstadt trial to commence in 6 days].

"On Friday morning Irving and Lipstadt found themselves in a narrow corridor on the second floor of the east bloc of the High Court of Justice in London. The door to Chamber No. 73 was locked. An embarrassing moment for both. Irving is representing himself, but brought along one of his admirers, a fellow named Rae West, who was in need of a shave. West is responsible for maintaining Irving's Internet site, and also serves tea in his home. (Irving, later that afternoon: "He looks a little Jewish, doesn't he?")"

"A total of 183 cases were ultimately discovered in the Müunchen Gladbach area, all of which apparently stemmed from infections contracted in labor camps within a 7-mile radius of the city. The Aachen and Muuml;nchen Gladbach outbreaks, originating in nearby labor camps, indicated that the seeds of an epidemic carelessly scattered by the Germans were beginning to bear fruit. The Germans brought conscript laborers to these camps from many countries, including endemic typhus areas in Russia and Poland. There appeared to have been no restriction against the laborers' visiting adjacent towns and other camps, with the result that typhus became well seeded in surrounding areas. Most inhabitants of the camps were heavily infested with lice, sanitary facilities were on a minimal scale, and camp overseers did not take the trouble to delouse the inmates."

In article , pyro1488@my-deja.com wrote:
I will post David Irving's response to a young girl who asked about Anne Franke's diaries. Here is what Mr. Irving wrote. Although this letter is dated 1986, it's an indication of Mr. Irving's intellectual dishonesty that he still has it on his website after most of his claims have been conclusively disproven. He repeats misinformation without any attempt to get the facts straight. For the sake of saving space, I will reprint only the relevant parts of Mr. Irving's highly inaccurate letter. The definitive discussion of the authenticity of Anne Frank's diaries can be found in The Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition . Edited by David Barnouw and Gerrold Van Der Stroom. New York: Doubleday, 1989. Mr Irving's 1986 letter can be found in full at http://www.David Irving/Auschwitz/documents/controversies/AnneFrank/Jules15 0286.html

My cursory study of the documents (cursory, because I have not made it a principal task to examine this matter) drew my attention to the odd fact that one Meyer Levin, a New York scriptwriter, had sued Otto Frank in the New York courts for "his share of the proceeds" as he had worked with the father writing the diary. In New York, I obtained the Court documents and read the case, but it appeared to me that Levin was only concerned in getting at the royalties from the film and stage-play. That line of investigation was a blind alley.

Lovely how Irving manages to imply here that Levin and Otto Frank co-wrote Anne Frank's diaries, even as he admits that Levin's lawsuit was over the stage adaptation only. Levin originally contracted with Anne's father, Otto Frank, to write a play based on the diary. Levin wrote a script which was rejected by several producers, and Otto Frank went on to grant the rights to do an adaptation to another playwright (I don't have the name with me as I write). The second attempt at a play was successful, and was the basis for the later movie. Levin sued, claiming that the *play* had been plagiarized from his adaptation, and eventually Frank and the second playwright settled the case without admitting any wrongdoing, and Levin agreed to give up any claim to the rights to a dramatic adaptation. At NO POINT in any of the legal proceedings did any of the parties claim that the Diary itself was anything other than what it is: Anne Frank's own writing.

It may be that [Otto Frank] was just a crotchety old gentleman, who knew he was in the right and did not see why he should bother himself with such matters; it may be that he had a deeply guilty conscience about profiting from the forgery (or embellishment: bear this in mind) of a diary in his dead daughter's name.

Note how Irving makes the accusation without a shred of proof, with the weaselly "it may be"...

Whatever the cause, Frank again refused to let the diary out of his grasp, whereupon the West German police sent two trained forensic laboratory experts with their equipment all the way down to Switzerland to examine the documents in situ.
Their conclusion shocked the world, although for propaganda reasons the impact has been far less than it would have been in other circumstances. Parts of the diary, the detectives found, had been written in ball-point ink... [snip] ball-point pens did not become generally available until the early 1950s.

This is the most thoroughly inflammatory, and the most thoroughly discredited, of the claims against the diaries' authenticity. What Irving fails to note is that NO part of the diaries' text were written in ballpoint--rather, some editing marks--page numbers and a few minor corrections--were made by Otto Frank in preparing Anne's diaries for publication. This was confirmed by the exhaustive analysis of the diaries by the Netherlands Forensic Institute, as reported in the Critical Edition . The Dutch forensic examination of the diary determined that all substantial parts of the diary (most of which was bound in three diary volumes of blank pages, and some of which consisted of loose sheets of paper found with the bound volumes) were written by Anne Frank, using a fountain pen and ink. (The discussion of the materials of the diary--paper, ink, glue, et--can be found on pp. 102-104 of the Critical Edition , and the handwriting analysis runs from pp. 104-165. There are also two slips of paper left in folders holding the loose sheets of Anne Frank's writing (they were not in the bound diaries themselves). These two notes are in ballpoint pen, in a noticeably different handwriting, and "as far as the factual contents of the diary are concerned, the ballpoint writings have no significance whatsoever" ( Critical Edition p. 160). These notes, written in 1959 by Dorothea Ockelmann, were apparently left in the folders of loose sheets by Mrs. Ockelmann when she collaborated with Minna Becker on an early investigation of the diary (footnote, p. 160, see also p. 87). Photographs of these notes appear on pp. 160-163.
        Other postwar emendations to the diary, some in pencil, some in an ink differing from that used by Anne herself, include small typographical corrections, the addition of page numbers, and other insignificant changes. Such corrections (and there are only 26, "varying from a single letter to three words," that are in a hand other than Anne's) "were made by Otto Frank with a probability bordering on certainty" (p. 164).

Otto Frank subsequently claimed that the diary was not, after all, all in the same hand, and admitted that it had been embellished by others, hence the ball-point ink.

Again, Irving writes "embellished" to suggest that parts of the text were not written by Anne; the truth is that the only changes were minor corrections and notes preparing the diary for publication. (Otto Frank also edited out a few unflattering references Anne made to her mother, as well as one or two passages that he considered too "private"--Anne's observation about her first menstruation and about puberty. These passages have been restored in the Critical Edition and in recent editions of the Diary).

The Anne Frank Foundation in Amsterdam commissioned exhaustive new tests and promised publication of the entire unabridged diaries and papers. But, as the enclosed photocopies say, they have postponed again and again the publication of their findings.[*]

this asterisk links to a statement that says only "Website note: They have since been published.-- 1.1.99"--i.e., the Critical Edition , published a full decade before the website note. However, Irving provides NO mention of the fact that these exhaustive tests proved that the paper and inks were genuine, that the handwriting in the diaries matched other samples of Anne Frank's handwriting (prewar postcards and letters), and that the only marks in the diaries that are not in Anne Frank's diaries are editing marks, NOT changes or embellishments to the text.
        Anne Frank wrote her diary, and David Irving, who professes to be an "expert" on judging the authenticity of documents, should be more honest in how his website addresses the diary. Even if he didn't know these basic facts in 1986, when he wrote the letter cited here, he has no excuse for continuing to perpetuate these falsehoods a full decade after the Netherlands Forensic Institute proved the authenticity of the diary.

"...the (Israeli) attorney general attributes cardinal importance to the struggle against Holocaust denial." Ha'aretz, Sunday, February 27, 2000, http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/htmls/kat8_4.html
      London lawyers request Eichmann journals for Holocaust denial suit; A-G wants to cooperate — By Dalia Shehori Ha'aretz Correspondent
      Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein will hold an urgent meeting today to discuss a request from defense lawyers in a Holocaust denial defamation suit in London. The lawyers have asked the State of Israel to supply copies of writings by Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann months before his 1962 execution in Israel.
      The defamation trial has been brought by controversial British historian David Irving against Deborah Lipstadt, a scholar in modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University who branded Irving a "dangerous spokesman in the service of Holocaust deniers." Irving is suing Lipstadt, and Penguin Books publishers who released her volume "Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory." Irving alleges that Lipstadt's book caused irreparable harm to his reputation as a historian, causing him considerable financial damage.
      Irving denies that millions of Jews were systematically murdered by the Nazis. He claims that Hitler didn't know about the genocide until the final stages of the Second World War.
      Lipstadt's defense attorney, Richard Rempton, asked Rubinstein last week for a copy of Eichmann's journal entries. These are documents written by Eichmann while imprisoned in Israel, waiting for the verdict in his trial. The documents have been kept at Israel's state archives.
      Transcript copies of the Eichmann diaries are near completion; and should a decision be reached today during the attorney general's consultations to assent to the requests forwarded by Lipstadt's defense, a transcript will be dispatched urgently to London.
      Legal sources estimated last night that Rubinstein is inclined to agree to Lipstadt's request, as the attorney general attributes cardinal importance to the struggle against Holocaust denial. While serving in the past as Cabinet Secretary, Rubinstein chaired a public forum which kept track of anti-Semitism around the globe.
      According to the sources, Rubinstein regards the Eichmann document request as an opportunity to play a constructive part in effort to combat Holocaust denial. In recent weeks world Jewish organizations have been critical of Israel's silence during the Irving defamation trial.
      The discussion today will apparently involve authorities with whom Rubinstein has consulted in the past in connection with the Eichmann documents. These include Prof. Avatar Friesal (from the state archives), Holocaust scholar Prof. Yehuda Bauer, former Supreme Court President Moshe Landau, retired Supreme Court judge Gabriel Bach (who worked with the prosecution during the Eichmann trial), and others.
      The Eichmann journals divide into three parts. Eichmann devotes the first section to self-defense, distancing himself from the final solution. In the second section, entitled the "false idols," Eichmann perorates about responsibility for the murder of Jews, concluding that the Nazi regime is to blame, writing that "ultra-nationalism is the largest catastrophe known to all peoples." The third, short section involves "philosophical reflections."
      Former Supreme Court Justice Bach, who read the Eichmann documents in their entirety, says that they include no special, or new, material. He says that the journals do not deny the Holocaust. They are, according to Bach, an attempt on Eichmann's part to mitigate the onus of the charges made against him. Bach adds that Eichmann made a similar effort while on the stand in the trial, so the written journals do not convey any new evidence.
      Fragments from the documents were published in the past in a book by Gideon Housner.