|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Scene Setting... Skip this if you know the Law Courts
[Back to start of this page]
The 'New Law Courts' are (see pictures above—none very recent) late Gothic revival, and have a huge entrance hall which is only partly-decorated, because funding from unclaimed estates and other assets, held by lawyers, ran out. The buildings were opened about thirty years after the better-known Parliament buildings (which, it isn't usually appreciated, were lit by candles or gaslight when new, and must have been visually astonishing).
As always, vague smears surround Irving: a BBC breakfast programme on the first morning showed the first of three pieces about the Internet and extremism. The man at the Law Courts reception desk told me it would be an unpleasant case. And added that the public were excluded. This in fact wasn't true. He directed me to Court 37, in West Green building, over to the left. The courtrooms all seem to be grouped in fours, with common waiting areas outside which are rather bare, with padded benches and a few hard tables, usually strewn with newspapers. There's standardised dress for officials and lawyers, with the public often looking rather shabby by contrast, like people on day release from a low-status institution. The legal system is, or was, stratified by class, with barristers (who do the talking) wearing wigs in more or less exuberant style from the upper classes—having attended public school at 'eaten lunches' (or dinners?) at the Inns of Court, solicitors (who do the legal spadework) from the middle classes-having done law degrees or worked at legal firms, and the ushers and police and so on firmly from the lower orders. At least, as a first approximation, all this is true enough. Court 37 is modern 1970s or 80s: false and rather low ceiling, fluorescent light, eroded aluminium-framed windows, microphones suspended from the ceiling. I suspect there's no air conditioning, and the room can and does get stuffy. At present, it's winter, and gloom descends at about 4 pm.
The battleground, or field of play, is:— judge at the back, raised up, visible over a long bench. He's flanked by two people who seem to do nothing. (I've been told one is the clerk to the judge). In front are several benches taken up by stenographers, and other people who also seem to do nothing. There's a witness box. Facing all this is, on the left, Irving. And on the right, Mr Rampton, wearing a grey horsehair wig. He's the barrister, or QC, or Queen's Counsel, and is surrounded by a squad of people, mostly I imagine from Mishcon de Reya, a law firm, one of the partners of which is Anthony Julius, Lipstadt's lawyer, or 'junior solicitor advocate'. Mr Rampton is something like a Queen bee licensed to talk, and he receives whispers, scribbled messages, and so on. There are several benches of these legal persons, about ten in all, with others, mostly well-dressed young women, whose role seemed to be to sit near the back and 'observe'. Then we have a few rows of seats, some with PRESS signs pinned on. The sides of the room have red lever-arch files of evidence arranged in cardboard shelves. I estimated 350-400 such files.
An important difference from many courts is the computer technology: a skilled operator working an odd-looking unmarked keyboard enters syllables (I think) directly, and the software does some sort of conversion into English, so the court transcript can be produced almost instantly. There are at least six or eight lap-top computers linked to display the transcript, so the participants can read it, and scroll back to check what's been said. (There are mistakes—especially when several people talk at once—but on the whole the transcripts are reliable. Presumably successful comparisons have been made with results from conventional court shorthand).
The general crush (I estimate about fifty 'lay' people) included a man who'd written on the Palestinians, an ex-Guardian journalist, six or eight women who seemed to be reporters, or amateur reporters, (they had yellow writing-pads!), and who seemed to know nothing of libel law or of Irving's work. There were several elderly women from somewhere like Los Angeles, a small shabby man in a pullover with the furtive air I've come to associate with ignorant hack writers, a couple of men who struck me as physically unwholesome, and sundry others. Outside were at least two TV crews (cameraman, someone to hold a mike, someone with back wired up—not inappropriately resembling an electrically-controlled ventriloquist's dummy).
After some weeks, it's pointed out to me that there's one fairly well-known person in the audience, each day, namely Martin Gilbert, who, if I quote correctly, is regarded by Irving as having furnished a series of footnotes to Churchill's historical work (or, more accurately, the works attributed to Churchill). Perhaps he's come to learn something.
I can't resist a comparison with McDonald's 'McLibel' case, in which the two defendants (not plaintiffs, as Irving is) represented themselves, over a long period, also against Rampton, with no jury, in a courtroom in the same building, also lined with files of documents, with, I believe, the first use of the new system of transcription, which allowed the McSpotlight site to have a new transcript every day. However, Irving so far as I know has no legal help, unlike the two McDonalds defendants. (I contacted Dan Mills, one of their solicitors, but had no reply). The McLibel trial probably had no influence on McDonalds new 'restaurants'; it remains to be seen whether this trial will have as little influence. (Justice Bell's summary (99K) of his McDonald's judgment might be of some interest).
(See below for similarities with the libel case between Aldington and Tolstoy).
Since then the case has been moved to the larger court 73 in the east part of the building. The audience seems to have settled at around fifty people at most times, with small groups of people entering or leaving occasionally. They are remarkably silent, apart from an occasional fidgety person; it's impossible to guess what they're thinking, and responses to atrocities or jokes or banter are rare. I'd guess about half, or perhaps fewer, regard themselves as Jews. As usual, the press seems to subtly misdescribe things: I read a newspaper account of a young man dressed all in black with a black baseball cap who apparently would find it natural to believe in a Jewish conspiracy. In fact, there was no such person, at least not that I saw. A few miscellaneous chats with people waiting to enter remind me how difficult it is to get across Irving's views, which after all aren't that complex. One man (who'd been at Dachau) thought that Irving was saying there were no concentration camps. (I found, by the way, there seems to be no official term for the 'audience', the people who watch: 'members of the public' seems usual. Perhaps the legal profession has its own unofficial expression!)
Watching some of the hacks at work, I realised many of them have no shorthand, and it occurred to me that the childish abbreviated headlines and 'sound bite' type of reporting might simply reflect their inability to write.
Some Poles made a comment which I hadn't thought of, namely that there are hardly any Germans in the audience. Their Polish view was that Irving was helping revive their honour and the least a few of them could do was to attend.
I've discovered that the row of eight or so young persons, about half female and half female, behind Mr Rampton and his female barrister colleague, who must be Heather Rogers, are researchers for Professor Evans. Their role seems to be to mark passages in highlighter, find documents in the files, and so on. They dress well, presumably to suggest some weight which they might otherwise not possess. (One faintly visualises the endless laboured essays they must have produced between them). I've also found the imposing microphones are record-only; by the end of the day both Mr Rampton and Mr Irving, each of whom has been standing for six hours or so, show some vocal fatigue—though, under the circumstances, surprisingly little.
What's Going On?—Some Facts and Puzzles about this Case
[Back to start of this page]
You may like to see some of the official, full-length documents, from Irving's website. (Close the new window to return here):—
The Statement of Claim with Writ alleging Libel
Defence by Deborah Lipstadt's counsel (page 1; 4 pages in total)
Reply by David Irving (page 1; 5 pages in total)
-
Libel law
in America appears to be influenced by
New York Times
vs Sullivan. Or something like that; the actual case perhaps hardly matters. This trial would be thrown out in the US, because nobody in the public eye can take action for defamation: if you were to start a libel case, you thereby put yourself into the public eye, and therefore have no case. My guess is that such a ruling, presented as a liberal reform (e.g. presumably you can say 'McNamara is a war criminal' without being sued) in fact allows the American mass media to broadcast or print any rubbish without any possibility of redress. For example, foreign nations and people can be insulted and misrepresented freely.
You'll probably be told of Britain's 'litigant friendly' libel laws, or that free speech is unprotected in Britain, as part of the general disinformation and lies. In fact standards of proof are very high. In David Irving's case, Irving has had to spend years in preparation of documents. I believe three years. (Many libel cases have been lost by their claimants—a disappointing article by Millar, the Russian translator who helped Irving over the Goebbels diaries, on 19 March, mentions Oscar Wilde as well as the less-well-known Neil Hamilton and Ian Aitken).
A letter to the Times (Thur 16 March 2000) signed by Noam Chomsky among others refers to a libel trial between ITN (a British TV news organisation) and Living Marxism , a magazine I thought no longer existed. LM was sued for accusing in 1997 ITN of broadcasting a misleading photo of a man supposedly behind wire in a Serbian camp. (It was on Internet: The picture that fooled the world . The claim was that the wire was a long way from him, and a careful camera position was used for the effect). The news reports didn't say what evidence was produced—I can't say how, or if, the story was proved false. According to a report on the 15th March, one witness said the 'Holocaust is an absolutely unique horror..' though this may have been a word-processing error, as it doesn't fit into the rest of the article. To add to the confusion, a science writer, George Monbiot, described LM as 'a rightwing libertarian magazine masquerading [as Marxist]..' At any rate, Chomsky et al say reform of libel law is crucial for British democracy, because LM had to prove they were innocent, and had less money (there being no legal aid), and had an expert witness thrown out (the reason wasn't stated). So, while it may well be true that the libel laws need reform, this letter didn't make much of a case.
Another libel case in Britain involved Ralph Schoenman . This, unlike all other cases I mention here, was settled out of court, but with a statement to be read in open court. Click here for my account of this case, which includes two newspaper pieces, the statement, and a few notes. Contrary to the impression generally received, no evidence whatever was produced. - Legal Aid. It's important to stress that legal aid, in Britain, is not payable for libel cases. Also it has to take place in the more technically skilled, and expensive, courts. And, if legal action costs a fortune, most libel ('visible defamation') actions will be taken by people with fortunes, or, in the case of people like Robert Maxwell, other peoples' fortunes. If, therefore, Irving considered himself libelled by (for example) newspaper articles, but took no legal action, this could be explained by the cost. However, if he wrote letters of complaint to the editor, these will exist in the evidence supplied to the court. So, if someone says, "Well, Irving didn't sue anybody before", it's necessary to examine his actions as reflected in letters to get a fuller picture. (In fact, Irving has been involved in several cases, some settled out of court).
- Representing oneself seems to be not possible, or anyway very difficult, in the US. In Britain, it's not liked, but judges tolerate it provided the persons involved do their best to follow the rules, and the case isn't too political. The usual reason for this course of action is, presumably, financial, applying to cases where there's no legal aid. (Another motive occurs when a person regards the legal professions as conspiratorial or incompetent).
- Damages. In libel cases, the plaintiff, (the correct word seems to be 'claimant') reasonably enough, has to prove that what he/she said was true; and the truth is not regarded as 'libel' in normal circumstances. (The proof can be difficult, of course; and I'm not attempting to discuss cases involving, say, the Monarchy or the military). However, damages, if awarded, depend on such matters as (in effect) the perceived status of the person and losses in income. Someone regarded as negligible or poor gets small damages even with exactly the same libel as someone regarded as more important. This makes it necessary to establish such things as the size of earnings, and damage to status, if damages are to be assessed. (There's also a social aspect: some time ago, it was defamatory to describe a man as a homosexual, or woman a non-virgin.) Recently, damages have been, in effect, 'capped': I believe the maximum tends to work out at £150,000. This doesn't apply to compensation for such things as loss of earnings.
- Importance of Costs. It costs money to pay for rooms full of people. A rough calculation suggests such costs can be large. And in fact, they often dwarf the damages. And one party or other, or both, pays them. There's therefore a gambling or actuarial calculation element. Irving estimates his opponents have spent about five million dollars so far. Clearly, there's a possibility of costs escalating out of the control of the nominal parties. (I don't know the basis of Irving's calculation. Judging by an occasional titter, I suspect the 'researchers' aren't paid a great deal).
-
Evidence.
Both sides are supposed to produce their evidence. I confess I haven't been able to find out why Irving was required to copy forty years (or so) of his diaries, and piles of book reviews and letters—on the face of it, the defendants ought to have been required to produce evidence of the truth of their statements, if they had any, for example that Irving was involved with Farrakhan. Why were they entitled to get this material? —I've been told this is just the way it is with the civil system in Britain. Both sides are required to 'discover'.
Discovery, and Irving's work: yet another complication is the fact that Irving has unearthed many documents himself. Once they're spoken of in court, the defence can ask for them to be discovered to them. (A request was made for Himmler's letters to his mistress to be discovered). In this way, the hack historians can if they're lucky get hold of his material. - Balance of Proof. Or whatever the official phrase is. It seems prima facie true that the weaker parties seem to be more burdened; in the McDonalds trial, the defendants (accused of libel) had to go to enormous lengths to prove e.g. that McDonalds used quite new rainforest land. But in this case, the defendants don't seem to be required to do anything analogous. But this of course may be a wrong impression, caused by the trial being only about one-eighth through.
- The judge (as I understand it) controls the court; if he decides to stop a line of inquiry, or to permit a new one, he can do so. Presumably, a prudent judge tries to avoid decisions which cause uproar and consternation. This case has no jury, possibly because it was deemed too complex; so far as I know, all sides agreed to this arrangement. (I've since found that this is likely to work to the advantage of truth, wherever it lies. If there's a jury, the judge doesn't have to give reasons for his decisions. But without a jury reasons must be explicitly given, and can't, therefore, be too obviously feeble. And this applies to appeals too.)
-
Reporting
is 'privileged'. So far as I know, this means anything said in court can be repeated, as a quotation, without being libellous. This is useful of course for hack reporters!
BUT on checking more carefully, this seems wrong. In the courts (or Parliament) the official speakers can say what they want—this is 'absolute privilege', the idea being that these people necessarily need to state unpleasant things; it's an essential part of their work. But reporters only have 'qualified privilege'—they're allowed to state the unpleasant things, but are also supposed to give a 'fair and accurate report' and give all sides of the story. So perhaps some of the British newspapers in this case (see 'Hackwatch' on the final days) have checked up on this point and revised their reporting, while others haven't. Conceivably surprises may be in store. (Info from e.g. BMJ of 23 Jan 1993).
Cast of Characters
[Back to start of this page]
-
Lipstadt.
Although the author (or nominal author) of
Denying the Holocaust
(see below for specifically Irving references), some legal quirk—I think the jurisdiction—permits her to say nothing; I gather she will not speak at any time in this trial. On the face of it this indicates less than complete faith in her work. She's often quoted as saying such things as "I won't lower myself to debate with revisionists" but, of course, a debate is something in which both sides present their views and reasoning; a cross-examination is different. It sounds much less impressive to say "I won't answer questions on the subject in which I'm a paid expert."
In my view it's unnecessary to have the slightest sympathy with Lipstadt; she represents a ridiculous racist and supremacist superstition and has no objection to genocide of anyone who isn't Jewish, insofar as she bothers to inform herself of such events. Why she was selected as author of this book I simply have no idea; I'd imagine she has the intellect of a housewife, though of course, since she won't speak, this is necessarily a guess. It seems fair to speak of her as 'selected': the introduction lists something approaching fifty assistants and organisations, and, as we'll see, the work is thin; presumably almost any of them could have assembled much the same volume. She has the misfortune not to be photogenic; she seems to be experimenting with coloured silk scarves; and I'm told she's lost weight.
My guess, for what's it's worth, is that she spent the whole of her life listening to variations on the same theme; I doubt if it ever occurred to her to check any of it.
-
Rampton.
The position (I think) is that Rampton is hired by Anthony Julius, on behalf of Mishcon de Reya, themselves hired by Viking-Penguin at an hourly rate (so far as is known), with the hours largely under their own control. (There were other defendants, who have settled out of court, presumably giving Irving some income). All the talking, from the defendants' side, comes from Rampton.
Perhaps I can tell an anecdote from the McLibel trial: the point at issue was somebody who'd died, electrocuted while doing something with 'french fries'. There was a statistical point at issue; Rampton jumped in, saying he'd already prepared the material, my Lord, and would be pleased to help out by reading his figures. These turned out to omit the relevant point, like a child changing the subject hoping to be undetected. Other typical activities included deliberate delays of documents, certainly for more than a year, and blacking-out of bits of documents which might prove embarrassing. Another useful technique is to send a submerging snowstorm of massed documents. True to form, the Irving case has already had concealed evidence—a video which the defendants claimed not to have, but which they sent, inadvertently, to Irving. (This may be Mishcon de Reya's fault, not Rampton's—I don't know). Why the pre-trial people, and the trial judges, allow this sort of thing is beyond me. However, clearly Rampton must know about all this—it's his stock-in-trade and his strength.
I was interested to watch his modified persona for this trial: in McLibel, he was scornful of youthful environmentalists, openly huffing and snorting, and parading his dog Latin. Here he appears to be going for the persona of the grave citizen, with what I take to be synthetic indignation against Irving.
After some weeks, I think I've identified the pattern. Think of an old-style barometer, with a figure which pops out of its little house when wet weather impends. In the same way, when Irving gains on his witness, and the defence seems likely to get wet, up pops Rampton with some digression or irrelevance. Yes!
One notes (for example) that tens of thousands of children are killed yearly in South East Asia by unexploded American bombs. Has Rampton represented them? You must be joking! So my working hypothesis is that he's mainly motivated by money. Nobody can deny the power of such a motive. But it has the drawback of bringing with it a lack of disinterested curiosity. Irving, though of course not knowing everything, has unrivalled knowledge of documents of the Second World War. Rampton hasn't.
It's worth commenting on the ethical position of legal representatives: in my view, the shaky nature of the evidence on Auschwitz must be known by Mishcon de Reya—they've had years to work on it. If this information is communicated to Rampton, what is his ethical position? This of course is a silly question—obviously he must continue to take the money and represent his clients. There is therefore no way in which outsiders can tell whether he means what he says. (There's another possibility, that Rampton is being misled by his hirers). So a number of morasses lie in wait, into which the ungainly form of Richard Rampton may sink.
Another image occurred to me, in addition to the depressing skilled hireling view, namely that of a conjuror, suggested by the patter, the smiling dressed-up silent assistants handing props, the servantes with concealed materials, and the ambience which prevents audience involvement. Luckily there are no coloured lights and smoke.
-
Viking-Penguin.
Penguin developed (in Britain) before the Second World War and fed the market for cheap and quite intellectual books. Many of these were reprints of out-of-print hardbacks. After the Second World War more titles were written specifically for paperback publication; and many, in retrospect, can be seen to be not-very-readable special pleading for money for academic interests—nuclear power, philosophy, physics, psychology, or whatever. Much more recently their list has been dominated by modern pseudo-science. They publish a few good books. For example, the first book by Chomsky in a couple of decades to be published by a big publisher was theirs. Or, to put it another way, for decades they would publish nothing by authors like Chomsky. From the rationalist point of view, therefore, it seems to be no great tragedy if this company loses millions of dollars.
The Penguin website (so far as I can find, the case is only to be found on the UK part of www.penguin.com) has this statement, a few advertising pictures but nothing else on the case. Connoisseurs of hypocrisy might be amused at the remark on 'academic channels' and on Penguin's claim on freedom of speech.PENGUIN DEFENDS DAVID Irving LIBEL ACTION AGAINST PUBLICATION OF HOLOCAUST BOOK
Possibly , though I have no evidence for this, Penguin may be a victim of its own legal department: the thought stuck me that a law department might make up its mind to take a risk, even if the company would have avoided it if they'd known. Perhaps this is a variation on the theme that lawyers don't care if the parties lose a fortune, provided they get something out of it. If I were Anthony Forbes Watson, I think I might make a few enquiries.
The case opened on 11th Jan and continues in the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Penguin Books will commence its defence of the libel action brought by David Irving in connection with Penguin's publication in the UK of a book entitled DENYING THE HOLOCAUST by Deborah Lipstadt.
DENYING THE HOLOCAUST was published by Penguin in 1995. The author, a co-defendant in the action, is a highly respected American academic who occupies the Dorot Chair in Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta.
The book is a scholarly work which presents a thorough examination of the Holocaust denial phenomenon and the methods used by deniers to publicise their message. It names David Irving as such a denier who distorts history and this is the basis for his libel action.
Penguin very much regrets that Mr Irving has chosen to pursue his arguments through the courts rather than through academic channels. Penguin is, however, confident that Mr Irving's claim for libel will fail in the light of the weighty evidence gathered from eminent academics who will appear for the defence.
Anthony Forbes Watson, Managing Director of Penguin books Ltd said "Penguin has a history of upholding freedom of speech for itself and its authors. We will vigorously defend David Irving's claim and look forward to the courts vindicating our right to publish this important work"
For further information please contact: Joanna Prior, Penguin Publicity Director on 0171 416 3250 or Helena Peacock, Head of Legal on 0171 416 3017
-
The judge, Mr Justice Gray
(who's been involved mainly with libel cases, I think) seemed quite good as far as I could tell from his few sentences. He's homed in on the relevant detail and seems likely to be able to corral things. He has a difficult and unenviable task. Or, at least, I suppose he has: perhaps someone of great intellect can unravel the strands and make a Solomonic decision.
An emailer who wants anonymity says: 'I conclude that the judge is simply keeping a score card with four or five columns: (1) Agreement or stipulations (2) Points conceded by Plaintiff (3) Points conceded by Defendants (4) Points to be decided by Judge's own panel of researchers (5) Points that seem to be deliberate falsifications in Defendant's published material (6) Points that seem to be deliberate falsifications in Plaintiff's writings. The Judge probably has a point system, with the greatest weights going to falsifications; and then he will have to decide if a pattern of 'innocent' errors amount to a pattern on one side or the other. He, as all judges, hopes one of the parties will decide the case for him by admissions one way or the other.'
Will Gray wish to become famous as the man who said gas chambers didn't exist? Ponder this question when considering some of the replies made by Irving when addressing the complex of evidence around this issue.
-
Irving
said his sole member of staff, a young woman barrister with a northern accent, left his employment recently, leaving him alone to do all his preparation. He has spent years on preparation, and one wonders whether anyone's vitality can be equal to such a task. If he loses, he will be asked to pay a lot of money—six figures. He's polite—I watched him explain to a clutch of young woman journalists that the
New York Times
is a very good newspaper, with very well written articles which people want to read. He likes CNN, though perhaps this attitude may have changed since an interview—which took all day to film—was first pulled and broadcast a week late (the text, and sound, is on his site) which mostly consisted of other people talking and included a promotion for a hack writer. I suspect Irving likes to tease a little, and exploit his reputation: I watched him say that, when young, he had a collection of news clippings about murderers.
Watch for another thing: Irving knows his material, and his opponents don't. In simple language, he knows his subject, they are frauds. The media have some difficulty with this: you find paragraphs almost side by side which say that he's a meticulous and unparalleled researcher, but also that he's discredited and generally no good. Obviously these statements are inconsistent; so a typical technique is to say something like 'Irving has a phenomenal memory' as though the point is what Americans would no doubt call a memory freakshow.
His opening statement plays interestingly on the ideas of English fair play; I have to say his scepticism doesn't seem to extend outside his documents. In his opening speech he said he could think of only the Gestapo which behaved like the ADL. (One of his phrases is 'the traditional enemies of the truth', by which he means Jews, or, perhaps, just activist Jews. It may signify something that this phrase does not appear anywhere in Lipstadt's book). But in fact, to take Britain, there's a very new MI6 building with activities kept completely secret; people aren't allowed to look at the records kept by many government organisations; the Special Branch taps phone calls; and (for example) there's a shady commercial outfit which advises big corporations on people to avoid employing, which keeps uncheckable information on card-indexes to avoid computer data legislation. And Irving said that conditions in Russian archives, with people eating sandwiches surrounded by a litter of documents, couldn't happen anywhere else, whereas (for example) it appears to be the case the CIA regularly shred documents on sensitive issues like their phoney research, and war crimes.
He also displays touching faith in British law, which seems odd when addressed to a courtroom; these are the people actually responsible for, who administered, frauds like the Saunders 'senility' trial and Maxwell's years of fraud. Perhaps this was a recheché joke by Irving? Or possibly it reflects his far more unpleasant experiences in Germany, Canada and other foreign parts.
Irving's whole outlook is somewhat different from the defendants, and this promises a great deal of mutual incomprehension—and the possibility of revealing slips of the tongue. He asserts flatly that he isn't a 'holocaust denier' since he's always insisted that mass killings of Jews took place, and that there's no doubt whatever that he insisted; and so he has no place in a book entitled Denying the Holocaust . He insists he found no evidence for gas chambers or a general order from Hitler, or anyone else, and says so. Whether he's right can only be established by cross-examination, and if this happens he will have to demonstrate his grasp of documentary sources. In fact it is essential for him to do so, assuming that he can; and, similarly, if the defendants can fault him, they will gain a probably complete victory. However, Irving must have some strategy if they fail; he would have to prevent them changing the subject quietly.
Another difference is that he has managed to retain moral indignation, something which is very unusual, for example in such issues as bombing civilians, even in Iraq.
He seems to have paid much less attention to the minor aspects of the case; I happen to know he knew nothing about Farrakhan, and was investigating the twentieth century usage of word 'Holocaust' quite recently.
Irving likes publicity, and gives interviews, as far as I know, to any moderately influential newspaper or TV source. His recent CNN interview, which occupied him for a whole day, (the full script is on his site) is typical: mostly other peoples' views and very little about him. For some time I was puzzled by this, until I saw him interviewed by two people from (I think) The Jerusalem Post —the exact publication hardly matters. Then I understood the symbiotic relationship. The fact is, of course, that journalists know very little; no serious issue has ever been revealed by a journalist in a timely way. And the fact is that Irving has merely read a great many archives, and written up his findings. There's a double bluff—the journalists think they're getting something dramatic (and Irving, sitting behind his big desk, claustrophobically hemmed in by filing cabinets and papers, keeping them waiting with phone calls, plays on this). And Irving, in turn, imagines these hacks will be able and willing to convey his life's work to their readership. He might do better to hand out press releases.
[Back to start of this page]
-
David Irving's books.
Irving is, or was before this case, a prolific author. I decided to write out and include this list when I realised that most people just don't know the books Irving has written. The list below is not exhaustive—please bear in mind that these books have been issued in many languages, with titles reflecting national tastes, and variously edited and updated. (Note the absence of Himmler—possibly not unconnected with the fact that Himmler's diaries are held in secret in Israel:—)
1963 [and many editions]: The Destruction of Dresden
1964: The Mare's Nest—The Secret Weapons of the Third Reich
1965: The Memoirs of Field Marshal Keitel , translated and edited. [Not a big seller!]
1967: Accident—the Death of General Sikorski. [Despite wide TV publicity, this book sold few copies. Irving regards it as proof that hype, alone, doesn't sell books.]
1967: The Virus House —the History of the Wartime German Atomic Research Programme [The rather puzzling title refers to the building]
1973: The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe. [Largely about Milch]
1975: German edition of Hitler's War . [Withdrawn. English translation 1977. This book was later reworked omitting the unproven 'holocaust' material]
1977: The Trail of the Fox—Field Marshal Erwin Rommel . [German 1990 version, eine Biographie]
1978: The War Path [Expanded version of first part of Hitler's War (I think)]
1981: The War Between the Generals [Montgomery, Eisenhower, de Gaulle et al]
1981: Uprising! One Nation's Nightmare: Hungary 1956
1982: von Guernica bis Vietnam [never translated into English]
1983: Adolf Hitler, the Medical Diaries [Edited/ translated Diaries of Dr Theo Morrell]
1985: der Morgenthau Plan [facsimile documents of notorious plan for Germany]
1987: Churchill's War . Vol I The Struggle for Power. [Vol ii Triumph in Adversity still unpublished]
1987: Göring
1987: Hess: the Missing Years [Published in German as 'Rudolf Hess']
1989: das Reich hört mit [History of the Forschungsamt]
1995: der Unbekannte Dr Goebbels: die Geheimen Tagebücher [Diaries]
1996: Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich [The book St Martin's Press was armtwisted into dropping. Published by Irving's Focal Point]
1997: Nuremberg, the Last Battle [Also published by Focal Point Press]
What Lipstadt's Book says about Irving
[Back to start of this page]
Denying the Holocaust is online on at least two sites. One site is aaargh (chapters are separate). There are a few scanner errors; I haven't checked whether the text is otherwise correct, although it certainly seems to be. I dislike linking to sites without copyright clearance, and will remove this link if asked; the site itself claims to be presenting information in a way which doesn't infringe copyright.
Note: it's important to understand that this legal action could only take place because the book was published for a time in Britain, I think in 1994. If publication had been confined to the US, Irving, had he started a case, would have got nowhere. Irving insists that Viking-Penguin merely had to phone him to check the contents, but didn't. From his point of view, the book appears to have been something like the last straw.
My own guess is that Viking-Penguin in effect dumped the book; they have thousands of titles, and the standard way to issue ones printed in America is to send a few thousand spare copies to Britain, a few hundred to Australia, a thousand to Canada, a few hundred to South Africa, and so on, in their shipments. I've seen a figure of 2,000 copies distributed in Britain, though I forget where I found this; and I suspect most copies ended in libraries, either bought or 'donated'. There is a theory that the publishers cunningly engineered this situation, hoping to provoke a law case; but my guess is that the trial was not foreseen by the publishers—the title probably wasn't seen as anything special, just another low-selling title which wasn't worth editing for the local market.
Irving states that Lipstadt's book had passages about him inserted at a late stage, suggesting she hadn't even heard of him. This seems likely, as the references to Irving, which are few, are inserted into chapters on other subjects. The 'research' seems to be of extraordinarily low quality—or perhaps it's just ordinarily low. There's little evidence and Lipstadt seems to have no facility for separating hearsay, testimony, and evidence.
Anyway, below I attempt to extract the main points she makes about Irving, ignoring the rest of the book. (My edition, available in Britain, was published by 'The Free Press', which has some connection with Maxwell, the well-known fraud, and Macmillan; Viking-Penguin isn't listed, and is perhaps involved through a merger or buyout—I don't know. It's dated 1993 and already seems careless—for example, she takes Pressac seriously, and is casual in her treatment of pre-World War II Judaism. My copy, judging by spelling, is identical to the US edition, so I'll assume its page numbering applies generally.)
The only four passages found for me about Irving are on pages 8 (1 paragraph), 111 (part para only), 161-162 (3 paras), and 179-181 (8 paras). There are about 40 statements made about Irving, the exact number depending on how they're counted. Of these, about half are referenced—they have endnote numbers. The remainder are, of course, unreferenced. This gives a manageable set, which I'll now examine at not too great a length:—
- Referenced Statements.
- Unreferenced Statements.
About twenty: Page 8: denier, gas chambers a "propaganda exercise" (n22), regular participant at Deutsche Volks Union (n23), women built to "produce men" and be subservient (n24), not a credible figure to German deniers (n25). Page 111: David Irving quoted by Nolte re prewar Nazi persecution of Jews (n33). Pages 161-2: Scholars have accused him of distortion (n16), scholars have dismissed the idea that Hitler did not know about the Final Solution (n17), has been accused of skewing and misrepresentation (n18), spiritual experience at Hitler's retreat (n19), Hitler helped Jews (n20), self-described "moderate fascist" (n21), Hess should have received Nobel Peace prize (n22), marriage a detour and being born in 1938 (n23). Pages 179-181: converted by Leuchter to Holocaust denial (n105), swindle of 90 Bn deutsche marks over Auschwitz (n106), Auschwitz monument a "tourist attraction" (n107), British Psychological Warfare 1942 story of killing millions (n108), Sunday Times in 1992 may have revived his reputation (n110), ludicrous to refer to Irving as transcribing technician (n111), TV rarely addresses neofascist or denial connections (n113), double standard of absolute proof for Germans, circumstantial to condemn allies. (n114). Page 180 has a footnote relating to the glass plates on which the Goebbels diaries are microphotographed. The reference is dated January 1993, (Lipstadt's foreword is dated Jan 14th 1993), so one guesses it was shoehorned in after the main text had been assembled. This is important as regards Irving's competence, and much of Irving's opening speech dealt with the claims as regards archival material. In full, this is:
The Russian archives granted Irving permission to copy two microfiche plates, each of which held about forty-five pages of the diaries. Irving immediately violated his agreement, took many plates, transported them abroad, and had them copied without archival permission. There is serious concern in archival circles that he may have significantly damaged the plates when he did so, rendering them of limited use to subsequent researchers.Comments: It's possible all the above points will be examined in the trial. Irving's behaviour at the Russian archives certainly will, as we've seen. I'll point out here that the endnotes refer mostly to newspapers and small magazines which are probably unobtainable for most people in the USA. We've just seen, above, a magazine called Midstream treated as a serious source, with no information about the article's author; I wonder how many people have heard of either? Other sources include Daily Telegraph , a book by Robert Harris called Selling Hitler, and a magazine called Searchlight.
Irving believes Jews are "very foolish not to abandon the gas chamber theory while they still have time." He "Foresees [a] new wave of antisemitism" due to Jews' exploitation of the Holocaust "myth". C.C. Aronsfeld, "Holocaust 'Revisionists' are Busy in Britain," Midstream , Jan. 1993, p. 29.
[Harris is another Jew liar. See e.g. Harris: Fatherland.]
Unwary readers may get the impression that there's some form of scholarship behind Lipstadt's footnotes, rather than a paperchase which mostly leads nowhere. To take the quotations on page 8 , we find they are from the Daily Telegraph , which is a vicious and grubby rag, the sort of thing read by vicars and retired persons who lovingly recall running over blacks in tanks in Africa. For years it supported apartheid, and other things—but I won't weary you with this. We find, consulting the relevant CD ROM, an article by Mick Brown, in which we find: 'The ‘legend’ of gas chambers, he says, was ‘a propaganda exercise’'—a phrase repeated by Lipstadt. That's all. The reader might imagine that the intrepid reporter would enquire of Irving what he meant, whether he was serious, or what evidence he had. But Brown, no doubt accurately assessing his readership, prefers to discuss Himmler in the east, Irving's daughter, his school beatings, and his lack of homosexuality. Thus, Lipstadt's quotation is simply quoting someone else, without supporting evidence. If this is research, anyone quoting something they've seen on TV or read in any newspaper is a 'researcher', or 'scholar'.
The next claim made on page 8 is that Irving 'regularly participated in the annual meetings of the extremist German political party Deutsche Volks Union.' What we actually find in the Sunday Telegraph article of 19th Jan 1992 is: 'In March he is due to speak at the annual conference of the neo-fascist Deutsche Volks Union in Passau. He expects 10,000 people to be there—if the Germans let him in. He has been banned before.' In other words, Lipstadt has lied—one projected talk has been represented as 'regular meetings'. The Deutsche Volks Union, whatever it is, is not described; on the face of it, it seems unlikely to be neo-fascist, since one gathers there are German laws banning this. However, the Telegraph , like Lipstadt, prefers not to worry over small matters like evidence.
Page 161 has bits taken from Selling Hitler (1991) by Robert Harris, [Note that 'Robert Harris' may be a ghostwriter, Andrew Crofts-RW 15 01 2020. See big-lies.org/reviews/robert-harris.jpg] about the 'Hitler Diaries' fraud. Unfortunately, again we find that Lipstadt has simply quoted someone else's unsourced quotation. Harris says, for example, 'Irving admitted that in writing Hitler's War he had identified with the Führer. Looking down upon him.. was a self-portrait of Hitler.. He did not smoke or touch alcohol. .. He shared Hitler's views on women.. In 1981.. he had founded his own right-wing political group, built around his own belief in his 'destiny' as a future British leader. ..' This may be true, but there's no background and an irritating lack of detail: what was the 'right-wing political group'? This book repeats the 'moderate fascist' comment, but I haven't been able to identify the source—forgive my laziness. Incidentally, I noted Hitler's War was, says Harris, 'savaged by Walter Laqueur in the New York Review of Books and boycotted by the major US paperback publishers.' (Without commenting on Laqueur, Lipstadt seems to think the New York Review of Books , which is of course an ordinary commercial/state rag which routinely censors material its advertisers or owners doesn't like, gives some sort of imprimatur—she mentions a review of Churchill's War , though, perhaps wisely, hiding the reviewer's name in the endnotes).
Page 179 has a "one-man intifada" quotation attributed to Searchlight , a shady publication, which I think is subscription only, and so far as I've found, essentially an anonymously-funded one-man operation; my specimen copies are full of intelligence jargon.
I suspect therefore that Irving will be able to make a good case here, more especially as he is accustomed to dealing with the intricacies of documents, and following threads from one to another. However, we shall see.
These of course tend to be vague. Page 8 includes: 'long considered a guru of the extreme right', and 'extremist-sponsored rallies', 'an ultra-nationalist'. No evidence is adduced. (It might be amusing to hear Lipstadt try to explain exactly what she means by 'the extreme right'. Trevor-Roper wrote that to describe Hitler's takeover as 'far right' was part of the 'sterile vocabulary of the left.')
An important issue could be Irving as a revisionist of Second World War historiography. Several times Lipstadt says this sort of thing: '[Irving is] The writer of popular historical works attempting to show that Britain made a tactical error in going to war against Germany and that the Allies and the Nazis were equally at fault for the war and its atrocities' ( p. 8 ) and '[Irving is] convinced that Britain's great decline was accelerated by its decision to go to war with Germany...' ( p. 181 ). One gets the impression that anyone examining the Second World War—which after all was quite an important event—and its conventional presentation—which was almost entirely shaped by thoroughly-controlled wartime propaganda— would be automatically condemned by Lipstadt.
Another little trick is worth pointing out, namely the ascribing of a point of view to an entire well-known organisation, when in fact it's the viewpoint of one person or group. Thus ( p. 180 ) Lipstadt's book says the 'British House of Commons denounced the former [Irving] as a "Nazi propagandist and longtime Hitler apologist"..' And 'Condemned in The Times of London in 1989 as a "man for who Hitler is something of a hero.." ..'
My Guesses as to Courtroom Battles, and their Outcomes:—
[Back to start of this page]
-
Things which I think will happen:
- Witnesses: I'm all but certain these will include an architectural expert on the plans of Auschwitz, sociological evidence on Judaism, evidence of ground-penetrating radar used at Treblinka, and John Keegan subpoenaed to talk on the Second World War, on which he's regarded as a military historian.
- Things which I think may happen:
-
Jewish conspiracy against Irving
I think probably has to be raised, since Irving's damages depend (I think) on his showing that there were plots to prevent his books being published, distributed, reviewed and so on, and so damage his income. If he can show action was taken to damage him, presumably he'd be in a strong position. But this raises difficult questions—is such action in fact illegal; can private organisations legally do it? And what surveillance in fact actually goes on? (Also, if a conspiracy were investigated and proven, and damages decided, should Penguin pay all damages, or others too?)
The question also may arise as to what is a 'conspiracy'; everyone laughs at conspiracy theories, but, when there are problems, they start to see them everywhere. All this is a can containing many unpleasant and varied worms. - Gas chamber controversy seems likely, but not certain, to surface. This is because the conventional definition of 'the Holocaust' includes gas chambers, but Irving's definition doesn't. So presumably either side, depending on how it views the evidence available to it, might decide not to investigate the issue, and it might not arise. It's now, of course, surfaced. However, the issue of forensic evidence was evaded by Professor van Pelt.
- Follower or admirer of Hitler is an accusation often made about Irving. Close examination of his books may incline the defendants against, or for, this view; I can't guess. I'm not sure what is needed to make such an accusation libellous. But clearly the issue is likely to surface.
- Part played by Jews in the Soviet Union and for example Hungary. Irving claimed that all the worst Hungarian torturers were Jews. If the disputes start to rage about eastern Europe, as they presumably must, issues of this sort will probably come up.
- International Law , such as it is, and Hitler and Jews before the Second World War, might be investigated. It would be interesting to have light shed on this, and, on the face of it, it's a topic which ought to be investigated, but, one guesses, probably won't.
- Things which I think won't happen:
- Khazars as Jews. The Khazaria theory has existed for most of the 20th century, although it's been suppressed for various reasons. Despite its importance, I doubt it will surface here. This is because (1) the plaintiff, Irving, accepts many or all Christian beliefs, and seems to feel obliged to believe modern Jews originated in ancient Israel; (2) Lipstadt and her supporters can't consider it, since it's incompatible with their system of pretences; (3) Rampton probably won't have heard of it.
- Christian forgery as a comparative money-making scheme to what may be Holocaust forgery. This, or indeed any other established fraud, and there are many, from AIDS and NASA to physics and weapons, could make an instructive parallel. The reasons I don't expect this to happen are similar to those relating to the previous idea, plus the extra effort needed to reorient thought in several fields. I expect, analogously, links between Catholicism and Fascism will probably be avoided.
- WW2 War crimes against (say) Germans, Indians, Chinese. Again, despite the obvious importance of these comparisons, I doubt they'll be made. Nor will such issues as the non-bombing of Ford factories in Germany be raised. The taboos are probably too strong.
-
What is fascism?
This seems a fair question, especially as the press and many statements use the word rather freely. I predict however that discussion will be discouraged, on grounds familiar to readers of (for example) Chomsky. Any of the possible characteristics—killings of civilians, cruelty on a large scale, forced movements of populations, racist discrimination, for example—took place and take place in the 'post-War' world.
There may however be some interesting footwork as the defendants in particular talk about themselves—but not of course others. An example might be Irving's audiences, which Rampton in his opening speech said 'often consist of radical right wing, neo-fascist, neo-Nazi groups of people.' A video of Irving in the US shows him speaking to what appeared to be Billy-Graham-like fundamentalists, no doubt with an admixture of US war criminals. Will they be pleased to be described as likely neo-fascists? Another example might be some groups, described as campaigning for repatriation and the like. Will the comparison be made with Israel, campaigning to remove Palestinians? -
What is genocide?
This is unlikely to be brought up, for reasons similar to those applying to the previous category. But again there may be some interesting footwork.
As has been pointed out to me, the trial hasn't so far had an attempt at a thorough definition of 'the Holocaust'. Lipstadt's book (chapter 1) says "the attempt to annihilate the Jewish people". Evans in his 'expert witness report' says 'The meaning.. is thus metaphorical rather than literal'. He includes the 'systematic attempt' idea which others have, e.g. Martin Gilbert 'the systematic attempt to destroy all European Jewry'. Another attempt (day 1 of the trial) is in legalistic terms—'as defined by the Nuremberg statute'. On day 2 Irving looked at this and tried to identify the components, all of which are debatable: e.g. Hitler knew/ 6 million figure/ gas chambers/ eastern Europe massacres/ specific to Jews. - Once-important publicists and potential witnesses such as Vrba, Fleming, Hilbert, Elie Weisel, et al. will refuse to appear, because the Zundel trials in Canada have shown such people what happens on cross-examination. (I now note that Professor Browning will appear).
-
Theology:
Why didn't God prevent killings of his chosen people? Lipstadt is supposed to be a professor of this sort of thing. However, long-established convention dictates that, even if she were required to speak, such questions would almost certainly not be put.
Another possibility might have been that Irving may have pointed out that she presumably takes the Kol Nidre seriously, which explicitly pledges her testimony in a non-Jewish court to be deceptive. Conceivably the decision not to use her as a witness may have been to prevent Irving accomplishing this coup de théâtre .
'Holocaust' is presumably used for symbolic reasons by Jews, rather than 'genocide', because it implies a burnt offering which is made as the price for G-d [sic] to donate the Promised Land—though why the 'chosen people' should be burnt in place of some surrogate is unclear, at least to me.
Other interesting points include the vagueness of the word 'survivor', sometimes used by Jews who spent their whole war in the US! And the ritual significance attached to the number '6', referring to Adam, or man, or, specifically, Jews.
Will it Become, or is it Already, a Political Trial?
[Back to start of this page]
I consulted several books on the political aspects of law (for example, Peter Hain's Political Trials in Britain ) and some historical works, but none seem very satisfactory: few people seem able to separate the power structures from the cocooning verbiage of law. We find accounts of Socrates, Bruno, Joan of Arc; blasphemy trials; and people variously described as racists and fascists; and descriptions of judges as conservatives who are appointed in secret ways. I doubt whether military law (with peremptory removal of dissidents) is much of a guide. Possibly there may be analogies from trials of the sort that occurred and occur in what was the Empire; these of course were and are normally kept secret. My only conclusion is that law is generally on the side of the powers-that-be, as one would expect—lawyers have supported slavery, exploitation, and so on, but, then, what else would they do? Change doesn't usually take place as a result of a verdict—changes in the law are more important.
It's possible this case will be decided politically; perhaps it's already been decided Irving must lose. Looking at a mixed bag of cases, it seems clear enough that the British government's recent treatment of Pinochet was political, not legal. The Birdwood case perhaps is a precedent: her prosecution petered out in what I take to be a trumped-up medical let-out, and the copyright status of her booklet was left in suspension. John Pilger was forced to make an obviously unconvinced apology as regards atrocity allegations he made. I haven't made much attempt to follow the 'denial' law in France; but clearly there must be pressure for a similar law in Britain, and if European Union law spreads this may be applied across all Europe.
The nearest analogous case known to me was the Aldington vs Tolstoy libel case. Both Rampton and Gray were counsel. As I understand it, Nikolai Tolstoy circulated a leaflet accusing Lord Aldington (whose name before being made a Peer was Toby Low) of a war crime, viz. sending Yugoslavs back to Stalin after the Second World War was over. Aldington won huge damages, but these seem not to have been pursued. It seems to be British government policy never to admit to British war crimes. It was also government policy to conceal archival records about this case, which disappeared during its duration, then reappeared, which at least proves concusively that there was government collusion.
Unfortunately, Prime Minister Blair seems to be the sort of politician who sees his role as counterbalancing existing groups; not as encouraging some groups and discouraging others. For example, the billion-dollar 'dome' looks like a submission to vested interests; so does his, to my taste, rather contemptible deferring to religious superstitions, and his deferring to NATO. The medical system is in the balance. He has been reported as accepting money from Monsanto. Such a person, under pressure, seems likely to adjust laws to reflect pressures being applied, rather than aim at worthwhile but difficult goals.
Perhaps the money flowing to Jewish survivors has been deemed to be excessive; possibly this rather banal cause will, unexpectedly, cause influential people to change their tune. This seems possible; Catholicism wasn't weakened because princes objected to superstitions amongst their peasantry, but rather because too much money was wanted to pay for them.
Another aspect is the effect on the future; no doubt scare stories will be manufactured, as happens all the time on many subjects. Is it the case that the risk of exposure of myth will cause people to adopt strange ideologies, vote for people with little moustaches, and invade foreign countries? May there be trade threats, or pressure to prevent media people, teachers and historians look foolish? Does it in fact such a trial make any difference?—if Irving won, there would still be countless films, novels, and books in circulation, huge funds to continue the tradition, endless actors and hacks willing to turn out anything paid for. Some revisionists think the newspaper reporting of this trial is a breakthrough; in my view this simply isn't true (see for example the cuttings which Irving put in his website) since the basic assumptions aren't challenged. The effect may be as transitory as the Pentagon Papers .
The first day. Tuesday 11th January 2000
[Back to start of this page]
Note: I attended this day's proceedings in person.
The first day was mainly taken up by the reading out of opening statements: Irving's was first, and it was rather long, partly for some technical reason about the following day which I didn't fathom.
Irving appears to be going for the basis of the libel being that he manipulated and falsified history, i.e. he wasn't lazy or careless, but deliberately lied. His statement began with his account of his life and his histories, and continued with a long passage on the Goebbels diary glass plates, I think to establish his credentials as a serious obtainer, decipherer, and preserver of otherwise-endangered documents. He also mentioned Jews as opponents of the truth (he intends to call a sociologist from America on this subject) and of himself.
Rampton, representing the defendants (Lipstadt et al) seems to follow rather closely the claims made in Denying the Holocaust , putting for example emphasis on Leuchter (perhaps Rampton doesn't know that other forensic investigations of Auschwitz have been made since 1993), and repeating the claim about the DVU (perhaps he can't operate CD ROMs). There's some suggestion that he will treat Irving's lawsuit as a 'campaign'; at any rate, that word surfaced in The Times report. Rampton read out what he regarded as an example, or perhaps the only example, of Irving's lies and fakery: a case in Riga involving orders about liquidation. Irving's account in Hitler's War was supposed not to correspond with the facts. And two editions of Hitler's War were very different.
After this, Irving wished to show a video, but the equipment was not available(!). So it was agreed to adjourn.
[Back to start of this page]
Fourth and Fifth Days. Monday 17th, Tuesday 18th January 2000
[Back to start of this page]
Note: I attended these days' proceedings in person.
Mr Rampton's strategy seems to be this: his aim is to establish a number of what he calls bricks, from which, presumably, to complete his structure. (1) One such brick is 'system': he intends to show the Germans had a system. (2) Next, I think, he intends to establish that Hitler knew of and originated the system. (3) And then he intends to establish extermination. (4) Then he must show Mr Irving is a 'Holocaust denier'. (I'm uncertain how the rest of the case is to be treated).
Mr Irving's counter as to these points is, I think, as follows: (1) He states the Germans unquestionably had a system for moving Jews from the parts of Europe under their control to areas which seem to have been as far east as possible. This was definitely a 'system' (involving e.g. the Gestapo, late-night evictions of families, and train journeys.) But, says Irving, the system ended there; when they arrived, they were expected to build camps (or in some cases moved), and there appears to have been chaos, including murders, which, Irving says, show no signs of having been authorised by Hitler. (2) As to whether Hitler knew what was happening, Irving stated he is "absolutely certain" (his exact words) that the defendants cannot find a single document that shows Hitler was informed of killings or approved of them. (3) Irving states that mass killings certainly occurred; his figure for all shootings of Jews was from 500,000 to 1,500,000. He never denied this and all his books include it where relevant. (4) On 'Holocaust denial', Irving simply states that, in fact, his books describe it perfectly clearly, I think from the documents.
My personal impression was, frankly, that Irving wiped the floor with the opposition. His replies are, or seem, so assured that any statement he makes on dates, German translations, documents, the reading habits of Hitler and Churchill and so on, is simply assumed to be true; I suspect that, if he chose to deliberately manufacture a fake statement (e.g. "Sigmund Freudssohn became temporary adjutant of 2nd August 1942 when Martin Bormann's usual adjutant was ill, and composed a note to.." etc. This example is made up! ) nobody would or could query it. This is rather extraordinary. I can't think of any other witness who could retain credibility after announcing "I never read books." At one point, he pointed out the word 'geheim' (secret) in the middle of a document, which Mr Rampton hadn't noticed, and clearly didn't understand, despite being concerned at the document's security classification. Again, Justice Gray asked Irving whether the 'fragmentary' nature of the documents wasn't a difficulty; Irving replied that the Washington archives have so many documents that they're still unsorted now, more than fifty years later; and that the entire archives of Auschwitz and Maidanek had been captured by the Russians. Justice Gray, who of course seems fairly impassive, looked rather astounded—and it's perhaps significant that it was Irving who had to make that point. (And Mr Rampton seemed a little nonplussed when Irving stated that most of the concentration camp commandants were lawyers). Again, very often Mr Rampton in effect complained that an original document could not be found; on numerous occasions Irving replied that the same document was in his 'discovery' (i.e. copies disclosed before the trial, and now stored in files in the same courtroom). When faced with documents new to him, Irving's practised eye immediately makes deductions: the typewriter keyboard lacked the SS rune, the language has a suspiciously illiterate ring to it; he's just noticed the box has 'AR' in it—probably the German abbreviation for Operation Reinhard, or Operation Reinhardt—the correct spelling is disputed. Again, Mr Rampton seems often to be wrong-footed: he makes a very good observation, but is then floored by a better observation: for example, the questioning turned to Hitler on sending Jews to Madagascar, and (e.g.) Professor Evans (whose report on Irving is frequently mentioned) says something like: Irving is being totally misleading in saying Hitler intended to send the Jews to Madagascar. This was by then firmly in British hands, as of course Hitler knew. So Hitler couldn't possibly have meant this. Clearly, it was a nonsense, a euphemism. One thinks: oh, that's a good point. And Irving replies: the remark makes perfect sense: Hitler was an optimist—he hoped to win the war (and presumably then control Madagascar). In the same way the defendants hope to win the case.
At this time, I concluded that Mr Rampton must have started the case, a few months earlier, all but certain that he'd have a walkover on his hands. He has several professors and numerous helpers on his side—although an observer could be pardoned for feeling that the helpers might more accurately be described as a hindrance. I think this must account for what I take to be his somewhat lacklustre performance, the long pauses, and occasional snaps. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if there's a certain tenseness, some harsh words, behind the scenes in the defendants' camp. It even occurred to me that they may seek an out-of-court settlement (you may recall an offer was made in the McDonalds trial, which however broke down because, I think, McDonalds would not accede to the McLibel Two's request that McDonalds stop suing activists).
What does Justice Gray think of this? One sees him making notes, and putting documents in his own files. Possibly he makes some mark or indication at each point claimed and made, or lost, or left uncertain, by the parties.
One begins to see one reason, at least, while Irving is unrepresented. The replies he makes simply could not be made by someone unfamiliar with the material; questioning would take twice the time as Irving whispered comments or passed notes to his counsel.
Another unsuspected advantage accrues to Irving: since he's a claimant in person, the judge allows him more leeway than ordinary counsel is allowed. In this way he can put in his remarks (you have the document—it was in my disclosure/ Mr Rampton; you have teams of researchers/ the intention is producing a more readable book/ there is an embarrassing superabundance of German material) which might perhaps never be made effectively.
Next week is to be (as I understand it) inquiries into Auschwitz and perhaps other concentration camps. Expert witnesses are to be called, starting, I believe, with Professor van Pelt. I'm not sure whether forensic evidence in the popular sense—actual objects and artefacts—will be examined; I suspect maps, plans, films and photographs will be the extent of the evidence. There may well be some considerable upsets. Irving has already stated, I think as an established fact, that the first references to gas chambers were in British intelligence broadcasts to Germany, which, he said, predate the claims made by some historians as to the starting date of gas chambers.
Ninth and Tenth Days. Tuesday 25th, Wednesday 26th January 2000
Prof. van Pelt on Auschwitz/Birkenau
[Back to start of this page]
Note: I attended these days' proceedings in person.
Professor Robert Jan van Pelt's examination and cross-examination took up most of these two days; and he's due back on Friday (the court is not sitting on Thursday, today,as I write this). The following account is an attempt to describe both days' testimony. I fear it's rather long; however, the subject is important, even if the relevance to the libel case is disputable, so I've taken some trouble to sort out and arrange the claims. I haven't checked the spelling of some names; if they're wrong, I apologise.
Almost all the talking was between Irving and van Pelt; Mr Rampton remained mostly silent. (Indeed, at one point late on the second day, he seemed to be accusing Mr Irving of deliberate rambling to cost Mr Rampton's side more money.)
Van Pelt is Dutch; his English and German are both very good. He is a professor of architecture—or, at least, he is in the department of architecture—at Waterloo University, Ontario, Canada. (Fees something like $10,000 per term, I believe). He's the joint author of a book on Auschwitz with Deborah Dwork, described as 'his partner' by Irving, who now holds the Chair of Holocaust History, endowed with $5M, apparently at Clark University. (I couldn't find this establishment in my reference book collection). She seems to have supplied the historical material for their book. If Irving is to be believed, this book is one of the few which he has read cover-to-cover; he said he couldn't put it down. As well as jointly-writing this book, Professor van Pelt wrote an expert report specially for the trial. He is an attractive figure, somewhat like (I hope this isn't insulting) Benny Hill in a suit. At the start of Irving's cross-examination, he modestly admitted to being the world's leading expert on Auschwitz—or perhaps only the second most expert. It's not entirely clear on what basis this opinion is based: he's apparently in a cultural history department, and has no architectural qualifications, as Irving rapidly established, despite appearing as an expert witness on the architecture of Auschwitz/Birkenau. He delivered his answers with smiles and aplomb, at least at first—later, he became more rattled, refusing, for example, to comment on his own work unless the exact words were in front of him.
What happened is, roughly, that Mr Irving attempted to pin him down, first, as to the building, presumably to avoid changes of subject: Irving showed a video (which his little daughter seemed to have moved to the wrong place) of Fred Leuchter, with Van Pelt's voiceover, talking of the leichenkeller next to crematorium 2 at Birkenau, the centre of 'any map of human suffering', in which 'millions' had died. Irving repeatedly drew attention on his huge recently-taken aerial photo of the ruins of this elongated building. Yes, this is the subject they're discussing. And he had to establish the figures: van Pelt had said 'millions' on the video, but this of course was a slip of the tongue which anyone could make, and not of course a falsification. Van Pelt stated the true figure was probably 500,000. This figure was settled on by both Mr Irving and Professor van Pelt.
Second, Irving's pinning down moved to the evidence which van Pelt could produce with regard to this building. Van Pelt's corpus of evidence is as follows:
-
Eyewitness testimony. The professor proved a little shy of answering the direct question: how many eye-witnesses? The figure appears to be five; all are dead. One is Bimko, who, said Irving, had claimed to have examined the cremation records, and that these proved 4M deaths, and who, they seemed to agree, must have been something of a liar. Another, Henryk Tauber, gave the wire mesh pillar evidence, and is described by van Pelt as 'one of the most important witnesses'. Other names were Pery Broad. Shlomo Draga, Hiss, Kramer.
(At this point, I'll mention that Tauber's testified that the gas chamber, or morgue, below ground, had wire-mesh pillars arranged next to the supporting, structural pillars; the wire mesh protruded above ground, in five or six (I forget) chimney-like structures, down which cyanide-containing diatomaceous earth, Zyklon, was dropped from tins or lowered in a container. The mesh was surrounded by other mesh in the actual room; I think the mesh was supposed to be arranged with a square cross-section. This remains the standard, establishment picture of the gas chambers at Crematorium 2.)
NB: Professor van Pelt felt able to exclude a Russian report in Pravda, which mentioned no gas chambers, and had an account of buildings housing old, sick, young, and otherwise non-working Jews. He excluded the testimony, or alleged testimony, of Hoess—the actual kommandant of Auschwitz! Doubtless other eyewitness evidence is excluded too, though it's of course hard to estimate exactly how much. And let me point out that no living eyewitnesses appear on van Pelt's list. There are (says an e-mailer) hundreds of thousands of holocaust survivors, for example in Israel. Surely the Professor might call a few of them? Granted it's 55 years later; but surely some people, then 20-25, now 75 or 80, might be available? -
Eyewitness testimony in the shape of drawings by a fairly experienced sketcher drawn several years after the event. They include a crematorium chimney belching smoke and flame—something revisionists point out doesn't happen with crematoria. If, perhaps, something specially inflammable could produce this effect, van Pelt (supposedly Professor of Architecture, remember, and world's leading expert) didn't know of it. Mr Irving claimed, though he produced no examples, that the artist had also painted near-pornographic images, mostly with nubile naked young women in the same series. Why had the Professor excluded all of these? One of the drawings (out of style with all the rest) showed a cross-section through a building, with cartoon-like figures; this suggested to Mr Irving that possibly there had been 'cross-pollination' of ideas. Had the artist been supplied with blueprints to assist his memory?
('Cross-pollination' is a phrase selected by Mr Irving to name the process by which people can in principle produce evidence which social pressures point to; think for example of 'UFO' testimony. And Professor van Pelt uses the expression 'convergence of evidence' to indicate the process by which traces of evidence can cumulatively point to the truth; the Tichborne Claimant being my example. There's no doubt this is essentially true; the question is whether, in fact, the bits of evidence exist at all). - Documentary evidence. Mr Irving seemed to lose his way in the jumble of documents, or perhaps I lost my way, but the point seemed to hinge around a document from the manufacturers of cyanide, Tesch, giving delivery figures to Auschwitz, which used about 9 tonnes in a year or two (I think). Granted that legitimate disinfestation could be applied to barracks, and also to standard 10 cubic metres chambers, did this indicate enough surplus to gas half a million people? Mr Irving pointed out that Auschwitz had a history as a quarantine camp, at least since the 1880s, and quoted Bruno Tesch, who was an expert on fumigation, but also a suspect witness. The point was left hanging (I think) partly because little attempt was made by either side to quantify the amount needed to kill people.
-
Air photography evidence. (No photos taken on the ground are being produced. Whether they exist is another matter; van Pelt never spontaneously volunteers what may be called the total universe of discourse of his pieces of evidence.) There are essentially just two: one shows the roof of the leichenkeller under construction, with five (I think—the photo wasn't shown to the public) objects arranged not very evenly down the length of the roof of the leichenkeller. These must be the ends of the wire-mesh cylinders! The other picture showed five rather large blobs on the same roof.
Irving, being aware that these photos have been adduced many times before, counter-attacked by pointing out that the first picture could perhaps be explained as well by barrels or some other sealant being on the roof. (As I've said, the actual photos weren't produced; I can't say how irregularly or asymmetrically these objects were placed.) There was also some dispute as to the height of the objects, based on the shadows they cast; and also on stereo interpretation. These latter topics weren't gone into in detail. The second picture with blobs on the roof was not really dealt with satisfactorily; however, van Pelt certainly seemed to estimate the size of such blobs incorrectly. Irving claimed also to have a picture of the leichenkeller under snow, no protuberances being visible, though he hadn't brought it with him (and apparently the world's leading expert hadn't, either).
Neither of these adversaries showed much grasp of photography. As examples, van Pelt got into a tangle over moiré patterns, which he thought showed on high enlargements, and Irving hadn't checked up on stereo photos. - The last type of evidence is blueprints and/or drawings of the structures. Irving says van Pelt's video used an expression like "we have the blueprints!" But, on cross-examination, it seems that the world's leading expert has a bit of difficulty here; my notes say he said "by itself that drawing means nothing." The evidence here will be produced on Friday. Van Pelt promised a video, including computer graphics, made by several of his students. It will probably take the world's leading expert only a few hours to show his doubtless convincing evidence, which, one gathers, will have no drawings whatever of the wire mesh cylinders.
- The collapsed roof of the leichenkeller was finished with 'fair-faced concrete', which shows the marks of the wood planks which formed it; it's impossible to repair holes through it invisibly; there's always a line or evidence of botching. If the wire mesh had been there, it must have left a hole through the roof (which was reinforced concrete). Irving states he has photos showing there are no such holes. (Incidentally, they should show up on metal detectors too above ground). This is what Robert Faurisson meant when he said "No holes, no holocaust" , presumably in English, as the pun seems unworkable in French. Mr Irving timed his coup, as he hopes it is, on this subject, to 4 pm on day 9, though, unfortunately for him, several press reporters had gone, e.g. from the Times , and others preferred to rely on a handout, perhaps thoughtfully supplied by the defence. (Next morning, asked whether the Auschwitz/Birkenau authorities had looked for evidence, van Pelt said he didn't know; he 'couldn't second guess them.' This is from someone who has access to Auschwitz and has written a big book on it).
- Van Pelt wrote somewhere the "Germans had managed to kill every Jew they had got their hands on". When Mr Irving proposed to dispute this, van Pelt backed away.
- Priority argument. If, as we're told, the whole object of the Nazi program was to kills Jews, how come the building project at Birkenau was delayed by problems in electrical supplies, and building supplies? Irving's reading of documents about V1 and V2 rockets showed that documents stamped as having Hitler's top priority faced no such problems.
- Coke figures; one document, which Irving says is suspect (for one thing, official rubber stamps from that period are still in the Auschwitz archives) says 3.5 kg of coke is enough to cremate one corpse. Is that credible? Unfortunately, van Pelt seemed not to have done any work on this.
- Elevator figures. The leichenkeller has an elevator, apparently occupying a space about 9 feet by 4, which was an open platform. How many bodies could be moved in such a device to the crematoria above, on ground level? There may be a counterweight occupying some of this space. Again, van Pelt, despite being in an architecture department, surrounded presumably by architects whose stock in trade is knowing things like the wattage consumed by large buildings, the percentage of walls occupied by glass, or, in this case, planning of elevators, seems to have made no attempt to examine the possibilities here. (This theme is to be resumed on Friday).
- Phenol injections are a standard typhus treatment, asserted Mr Irving. Professor van Pelt seemed unaware of this.
- Pre-warming the leichenkeller. Ernst Neufert's Bauentwurfslehre (a bit like British building regulations), of which a copy was found in the Auschwitz building department, states corpses have to be kept above freezing by heating, and below (I think) 12 degrees by cooling, if necessary. Van Pelt seemed uninformed on these points, as he did on the question of the temperature of the ground in the leichenkeller; the average must be rather low, rather similar to Canada perhaps, but anyway van Pelt provided no useful information on this.
- Archaeology. Van Pelt several times has talked of 'the field of ashes'. What, in fact, is the evidence for burning pits, mass graves, and exhumations followed by burning? Neither side seems to broach this topic. (NB I've heard from a Polish source that Auschwitz was, in fact, investigated by archaeologists as long ago as the 1960s, with negative results. Perhaps something will come of this. Something beginning with H!)
- Auschwitz death books, which I think I recall were given by Gorbachev back to Germany, seem not to be mentioned, perhaps because the figures are low—it's essential for van Pelt's presentation that the gassed dead should have never been recorded.
- Professor van Pelt has mentioned that there were changes of policy, changes of the use of buildings, sorting of Jews (but not gentiles) on arrival by rail and so on. Again, this is essential to his presentation, but of course has the problem that it looks as if he's inventing things ad hoc, especially where there's no support from documentation.
Eleventh Day. Friday 28th January 2000
Prof. van Pelt on Auschwitz/Birkenau, continued
[Back to start of this page]
Note: I attended this day's proceedings in person.
Today was intended as a presentation and examination of the blueprint, or rather drawing, evidence of the function of crematorium 2. (Professor van Pelt wanted to shift to crematoria 4 and 5, and Gray suggested he was entitled to look at any evidence, supported by Mr Rampton. Mr Irving didn't like this, since, of course, the entire emphasis had been on crematorium 2. In fact most of the evidence dealt with crematorium 2).
As might be expected, van Pelt's visual presentation wasn't very convincing. The courtroom was darkened and slides projected; architectural drawings plus more comprehensible coloured sketches (and a few photos) showed, according to van Pelt, that the building had been through several stages. There was, as we've come to expect, no direct evidence whatever of gas chamber use: no holes were demonstrated in the roof of the underground leichenkeller, nor was there any evidence of drainage to remove the various disgusting by-products—difficult to do underground. Van Pelt's evidence was that the door seem to have been re-hung to open outwards at one point—though even this seemed not visible on the drawings. His computer reconstructions, whether deliberately or otherwise, weren't very convincing. For one thing, there were no indications of scale, such as human figures; the impression was of cavernous interiors, but it's impossible to judge such blank computer-drawn rooms. Also, as van Pelt admitted, his students hadn't done a very accurate job; the light detailing was taken from modern lighting styles, so the impressions had an IKEA-like feel about them. In particular, the elevator, which should have been shown as an open space, and would have benefited from an indication of scale—since one of the essential points is its carrying capacity—appeared inaccurately as a modern metal elevator doors. The surrounding areas weren't shown, so that no feeling was given of the size of the camp and the relation of this building to everything else. There was an Agatha Christie-like feel about the evidence; we were invited to believe in rooms with only one entrance on the basis of, literally, sketchy information.
Much of this evidence was hard to follow; I imagine most of the audience dozed through it. I'll take one substantial point: van Pelt wishes to maintain that the underground entrance, the outside stairway, was the only way into the building; people must he thinks have walked in, but not come out; there was, he thought, little scope for getting corpses into the building. Irving asked him: what about the August 1942 typhus epidemic; were those bodies cremated? For that matter, what about natural deaths? If so, they must have been taken into the building—possibly through the newly-constructed entrance, which was made on the side of the building facing the main camp, so people wouldn't need to go the long way round.
The crematorium drawings showed five sets of three crematories, a total of only fifteen, each designed for one body. Mr Irving established that the shortest distance to the chimney was (I think) seventy feet—quite a way for flames and smoke to travel, as shown in the drawings produced by van Pelt's 'eye-witness'.
Another piece of evidence produced by Mr Irving was a bundle of air photos of the location taken at about the same time, including his snow-covered ground picture (the latest was a German photograph when the site was under Russian control). I think these were based on Ball's air photo evidence, published by him in the early 1990s. Irving asked van Pelt whether he could see the inlets for cyanide on these pictures. Van Pelt (the world's leading expert on the site, according to himself) said he would need a magnifying glass. Irving's photos also included a pair, one, an original, from the Beate Klarsfeld Foundation; the other, identical save for fake smoke put into the background, from Simon Wiesenthal's organisation's website. (This picture has now been removed).
Mr Irving again attacked the credibility of witnesses: Vrba (whose report had been edited by Slovakian Jews, and who had admitted to Christie at a Zundeltrial that he'd never been inside the 'gas chamber building'), the Soviet Report (with Lysenko among the signatories) which sated 4 million had been killed, Tauber again, and a dozen 'eyewitnesses' in the Demjanjuk trial, all, said Irving, liars.
After all this wearying material Mr Rampton had the last word, at about two thirty, re-examining Professor van Pelt. (I think Mr Irving hadn't realised he wouldn't be able to ask any more questions). His material included: a patent document on continuous-flow cremations (with no evidence that it was ever built or would have worked); Pressac (a village pharmacist, apparently) saying that Tauber was a sober, careful witness; the separation of people who'd arrived by train (accepted by the judge, despite being a new point); and a metal grille inside the spyhole of a door—which Irving would have claimed was simply a standard fitting. Mr Rampton also estimated that the hoist could carry 25 corpses; his method was to divide the carrying capacity by average weight of a corpse, irrespective of practicability. Van Pelt also stated that the SS barracks are about a mile and a half from the building; not much use in air raids?
And Mr Rampton caused a minor stir by producing a document, which he said he'd received the previous day from an anonymous source, supposedly dated 8 May 1943 and relating to Auschwitz, complaining that lots of useless Poles had been delivered to the camp, and they can't treat them as they do Jews. (I wonder what the e-mails to Lipstadt/Penguin are like? One imagines enormous numbers of them...) Gray seemed likely to allow this, there and then, but Mr Irving, saying it might take three months to check the validity of such a potentially important document, managed (I think) to postpone assessment of it.
At the end of all this, the judge said he'd like maps of Auschwitz/Birkenau to study, as the arrangement wasn't quite clear to him. I was pleased he said this, since it shows his honesty. I'm certain a poll of the people watching would have yielded a very low comprehension score.
|
Important note:
Irving made an offer [see Day 11, p. 150] to drop his case, immediately, if the defendants would instigate an archaeological/forensic investigation of the supposed gas chamber, which van Pelt had claimed was the centre of the extermination machinery.
No newspaper mentioned this offer.
Professor van Pelt evaded the issue. I will record here my disgust with van Pelt. Tens of millions of people died in the Second World War; van Pelt will not involve himself with investigations in what he claims to be a central issue in the entire war. It's a sad situation that post-war bickering includes this Mickey Mouse pseudo-academic who puts money before truth. May he get what he deserves. |
[A considered reply to van Pelt, by Germar Rudolf has been put on the VHO site.]
On Monday, Professor Kevin MacDonald is due to give evidence, on, I think, techniques of group survival considered in a Darwinian, socio-biological sense. I doubt whether this is relevant to libel; but it may apply to conspiracy and, hence, compensation. (Judging by the transcript, MacDonald arrived with written testimony, not realising he would be required to give only oral evidence. His main function seems to have been to permit the introduction of a document proving the connection between Lipstadt and pressure on St Martin's Press to withdraw Irving's Goebbels —and this document must be important, since the defence attempted to conceal it).
[Back to start of this page]
Thirteenth Day (Tuesday 1 February 2000)
Forgery? Dresden Bombing, and other 'dead cert winners' of Mr Rampton
[Back to start of this page]
Note: I attended this day's proceedings in person.
Forged Documents (with helpful tips to the forgers—perhaps their fakes will improve)
The day began with Irving challenging the document which Rampton produced from an anonymous source on day 11, a few days before (my guess it was faxed to the defendants): this interestingly shows some of Irving's methodology when faced with a document which may be suppositious or fake. (Excluded, are, of course, such things as the physical appearance of the document and the files in which it was supposed to have originated, since there seems to be no such provenance).
According to my notes, Irving's questions included its first date of surfacing, the omission of 'Auschwitz den' from the date, typed (rather than handwritten) letter register line, the use of 'ja./' rather than 'ja/', the use of secretarial initials '/ne.' not found in any other of 50 similar documents, and the omission of 'Waffen SS' from the address.
As regards the contents, Irving presumably had been looking at his card-index or other reference systems, finding that several crematoria were out of service at the time referred to in the document.
Will Professor van Pelt investigate these discrepancies in the document?—Irving wanted this on the record.
Kristallnacht and Dresden Bombing: Mr Rampton thinks these are 'dead cert winners'
Mr Rampton now produced four topics (his count) which he regarded as 'dead cert winners' in the effort to prove Irving had distorted the historical record. These apply to Irving's book Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich . I assume most of the people reading these notes haven't access to this book, so I'll produce some extracts verbatim.
One 'dead cert winner', if we can believe Mr Rampton, was Irving's treatment of Kristallnicht; Irving's view is that Goebbels initiated it, with a series of frenzied phone calls; when Hitler was awaked, at two in the morning, he took action to stop it, as soon as he'd worked out what was happening. The received view is, presumably, that Hitler initiated the whole thing. We see here the relevant parts of pages 276 and 613 as used by Mr Rampton.
|
|
Mr Rampton's case was that Irving had referenced the wrong document. It should, perhaps, be ND:3051-PS, a Heydrich telegram, should it not? [ND = Nuremberg Document]. Irving said this is only a part of his footnote—as indeed you can see it is. Karl Wolff, said Irving, was 'overlooked by Professor Evans' in his Expert Report. Irving said he doesn't know the correct document number—he can't get access to the archives he donated to Germany. This therefore is unsatisfactory. Irving undertook to examine his records (perhaps there was a slip of the pen when he wrote?). And Mr Rampton did not produce Karl Wolff's statement, but instead changed the subject. (Remember this is after months of preparation!) (Irving's book, on page 277, says 'At 2:56 A.M. Rudolf Hess's staff also began cabling, telephoning and radioing instructions to gauleiters and police authorities around the nation to halt the madness.' quoting ND:3052-PS, and this evidence led to another exchange with the cross-examiner).
Mr Rampton's second dead cert related to the morning after: Goebbels was summoned before Hitler. Much of the cross-examination was made to hinge on the German word 'nunmehr' (or 'nun mehr'). And on Goebbels circular to cancel the action (p 279 of the book). And, largely, on whether Goebbels reports were accurate—as of course they are likely not to be. (Irving pointed out that Goebbels intended his diaries, or parts of them, for publication, and had arranged the copyright and terms and so forth).
The third 'dead cert' was, I take, it, the passage in p 281 of Goebbels , which reads: 'He ordered the Gestapo and the party's courts to delve into the origins of the night's violence and turn the culprits over to the public prosecutors. 70 ' where endnote 70 is: 'Communication of SA Supreme HQ, Dec 19, 1938 (BDC file 240/II).' The problem here is whether the passage is misleading: Mr Rampton stating that the courts involved were Nazi courts, not part of the proper legal system at all, so a false impression is given of justice moving into action. Irving said he'd preceded this passage by long accounts of concentration camps, murders and looting, and distortions of the legal system by Goebbels. (It also seemed clear that Evans' Expert Report did not have reliable figures about the legal aftermath of Kristallnacht.)
The fourth 'dead cert' was Irving's treatment of Dresden, in his book on Dresden. This was another long and inconclusive effort on Mr Rampton's part. As usual, Irving provided the background, leaving the defence seeming thin and feeble: the Russians were advancing; it was three weeks after Auschwitz had been emptied; there were one million refugees in Dresden; the town had no bunkers or shelters or other air raid precautions, and no anti-aircraft guns; and a firestorm leaves only ash, making it impossible to count corpses. Taking Hamburg as a point of comparison (much more fully equipped, and yet 48,000 killed) Irving's best guess was 60,000-100,000 dead. Mr Rampton's cross-examination dealt with several aspects of Irving's work—naturally he had no evidence of his own as regards the total number of dead—including a document described rather bafflingly as genuine, but with fake figures (it seems the official deathrate was revised down from a quarter of a million). And a German publisher putting the word 'novel' on its edition of Dresden —perhaps like Schindler's List . And an official document mentioning dead 'so far found'. And the question whether an interviewee of Irving's had, in fact, been deputy chief medical officer of Dresden. And whether, supporting an exhibition in Coventry [twinned with Dresden] in the 1960s Irving had knowingly supplied exaggerated figures. It was interesting to see Irving criticise a war crime by his own side—something rather rare, and, in fact, as far as I can guess, utterly baffling to Mr Rampton.
This was the best the defence could do. (I was rather amazed that Mr Rampton's list of dead certs seemed not to include Hitler's War ). Next Monday, Professor Browning is due to appear. He is an old hand at this sort of thing, having testified for the Crown (i.e. Canada's prosecution) for five days in 1988 in the trial of Ernst Zündel. Mr Rampton said he had a suspicion that Browning will not be in the witness box very long. I have the opposite suspicion!
Fifteenth Day (Thursday 3rd February 2000)
Racism? Extremists? Danger to Archives?
[Back to start of this page]
Note: I attended this day's proceedings in person.
Racism? Extremists?
Irving was cross-examined on racism and extremism by Mr Rampton, whose source was mainly Irving's diaries, written over a period of many years. The press were more interested than they had been over the trivial event of Dresden (here, all four major British papers of four covered it; with Dresden, only one)—I found myself hemmed in by several scribblers. The issues, not very clearly separated by Mr Rampton, were immigration, the loss of the British empire, racist remarks and supposed meetings with extremist groups.
Not for the first time, I was struck by the lack of evidence produced by the defence: in view of the claims made in Lipstadt's book, one might reasonably have expected evidence from their own sources.
What was produced was an Australian video, which the defence seem to have started at the wrong place, as Irving's image immediately stated that there were massacres. Then there was the transcript of a talk, in 1990, at something called the Clarendon Club, in which Irving quoted a politician called Hailsham who, in 1958, said 100,000 coloured immigrants would not be a problem. Considerable cross-examination followed this point: Irving said they were imported as cheap labour, a claim Rampton did not pursue—the full reasons for post-war British policy remaining somewhat obscure. Rampton, quoting I think Irving's website diary, stated that Irving, returning to Heathrow airport from the Florida sun, shuddered when his passport was checked by a Pakistani. Irving maintained that Rampton has misquoted; what he'd shuddered at was a political wrangle between Kinnock (then leader of the Labour Party) and Tony Benn (left-wing politician). Irving disliked mass immigration of any sort, including central Europeans; this wasn't a racist thing, he said. Irving stated that he liked England as he remembered it, in the 1950s—at peace, having defeated a powerful enemy, with no chewing gum on the streets and (in effect) Dixon of Dock Green on TV, a series with reassuring policemen.
It was strange to listen to this and watch the hacks scribble. Britain has had for years a fairly rigorously-enforced policy of immigration, which pretty well exactly conforms to what Irving was saying.
Rampton promised to assemble more documents, for example on the IHR, Zündel, and German right wing persons, which he may, or may not, cross-examine on, next Monday.
Danger to Archives?
The second half of this day's game play revolved around the claim (made in a footnote by Lipstadt) that Irving had endangered the glass plates with Goebbels' diaries photographed on them. 'Serious concern in archival circles' and so on. A freelancer who worked for Andrew Neil of the Sunday Times was sworn in, a rather shabby and untidy bubbly-haired man who sounded Australian or South African, but told me he wasn't. He spoke Russian and had been the go-between. It appeared (I'm abbreviating a longish story) that the archives were in disarray, the Berlin Wall had fallen, many KGB archives had already been sold, the plates had been utterly ignored and some were broken, the building had no facilities even to read them let alone copy them, German archivists were due to come soon and possibly make the plates vanish for decades, and there were only verbal agreements with the Russians over what to do with them—including an agreement to let them be removed by Irving for copying. Two plates had been smuggled out by Irving for validation. Irving's strategy seemed to be to go for contrite humbleness—I am deeply ashamed to have taken them—but also to say in effect that he found the documents about the Night of the Long Knives, hidden for 55 years, published them after learning to read Goebbels' writing, and deposited copies of all the plates for the use of other historians.
Somewhere about this point Mr Rampton produced a negative rabbit from his hat—he announced that the three Russian archivists who were scheduled to appear as witnesses, were not to be called after all! These included Roger Eatwell and Brian Levin.
This was a short day—after lunch, Mr Rampton seemed to run out of steam and suggested an early adjournment. I suspect this may have been a manoeuvre to distract Irving from tiresome questions he might feel inclined to ask about the disappearing witnesses. However, he told Irving he was 'knackered', and since Irving certainly was, the suggestion was taken up and everyone went away. This is why the day's transcript is short. Professor Browning is still scheduled for Monday, after a brief appearance by John Keegan, a conventional-minded military historian subpoenaed by Irving.
In the following weeks, I'll try to include comments on press coverage of this case, and I'll try to talk to some of the hacks in person. Watch this space!
[Back to start of this page]
Sixteenth Day (Monday 7th February 2000)
Sir John Keegan and Professor Christopher Browning?
[Back to start of this page]
Note: I attended this day's proceedings in person.
Sir John Keegan
Looking somewhat like Noel Coward, John Keegan was sworn in, having been subpoenaed or to use the up-to-date term received a 'witness summons'. His role is to assure the judge that serious historians take Irving seriously. And indeed Keegan has high praise for Hitler's War (along with Chester Wilmot) in his book The Battle for History (see my notes below). He seemed unaware that the book had been extensively revised. He thinks Irving on Hitler 'defies common sense', and that Reitlinger is a good source—almost all Keegan knew of the Holocaust is from Reitlinger. He was not in the witness box long.
[Note: I re-read Keegan's rather slender book The Battle for History: Re-Fighting World War Two . (1995). It is an agonisingly lightweight work which is no doubt why Keegan was a, or the, senior lecturer in Military History at Sandhurst, and latterly the Defence Editor for the Daily Telegraph . It's a pretence to look at reconsiderations of the Second World War. He says 'Extermination camps were set up.. both the most shameful and most extensive exercise in massacre in human history, far exceeding the atrocities of Genghis Khan or Timurlane..' Not only is there no consideration of revisionism, but other massacres and genocides are unknown to Keegan. (This is even odder in view of the fact that he puts the death toll of WW2 at 40 or 50 million). Beyond cliche, he makes no attempt to estimate the relative ethical status of the US segment of the world, the British, the Soviet, the German, the Italian. He has no grasp of the technical side of war—how did the US become rich because of a war? Why were Ford's factories not bombed? How come Britain's 'isolation after June 1940 required it to liquidate the majority the majority of it foreign holdings?' He accepts the various implausible stories about 'Ultra', and Turing and so on. He shows no grasp of the cost of the nuclear bomb programme. He has no grasp of the way intrusions into small states can lead to disaster—he seems to think all partisan groups etc are bona fide. He was actually knighted [ceremony involving the Queen and a sword] on the strength of his military history. One hears jokes about armies planning for the last war but one; here we have a mind fixed in Churchillian British propaganda. This sort of unrealism, one fears, may extort a hefty price. Meanwhile Sir John left the witness box, presumably for an office at the Telegraph , like an unusually successful courtesan amid the everyday prostitutes of the Überpimps like Conrad Black.]
Professor Christopher Browning
There was now an interval in which Irving complained about the press, notably articles in Saturday's Guardian and in Sunday's Observer . Since Irving has a pending libel case against Gitta Sereny, who has connections with both papers, shouldn't the court do something? Gray however was reluctant, his main argument being that he himself doesn't read them and therefore can't be influenced. (A jury trial might be different).
Irving also complained about the disappearing Russian witnesses. He intended to put questions to them, including whether they had any right under the Hague Convention to hold the Goebbels Diaries at all. Gray suggested putting his points to the most appropriate remaining expert: "I think you'll get your point across." other matters included the question of van Pelt, and the testimony of Hoess, parts of which—in fact, most of which—haven't been examined. (The point to grasp here is that Rampton, by not calling witnesses, can allow points to pass unnoticed in a way that would not apply if the evidence had been examined.)
Professor Browning was sworn in at about ten past eleven. He resembles J K Galbraith or Edward Said—tall, gray-haired, with matching eyebrows and a matching suit, with a white button-down shirt and patterned dark tie. Despite his patrician-style appearance, Irving soon elucidated the fact that he'd been turned down, in about mid-1997, for a chair in Holocaust Studies at Harvard. My impression was that Browning is rather more interested in his fellow historians and their activities, and non-activities, than in actual history—this, one comes to recognise, is characteristic of the quasi-religious parts of academe—it's essential to know the current taboos, trends, and favourites, irrespective of truth. Browning has contributed an expert report, which was the basis of most of Irving's cross-examination, and perhaps helps explain the rather trackless nature of the questioning. Browning unfortunately is not a stranger to the arts of waffle: asked whether eyewitness reports might be influenced by duress, bribery, promises, he said ".. They are one of the materials we have.. historians have always used them.. Historians are always making decisions about selection of documents." One selection process which Browning didn't mention is letters from Irving: Irving told me Browning never answered his letters.
Irving started, before getting to the expert's report, with some matters which I take it had to be put, as Gray suggested, even though not necessarily quite relevant to the witness. They discussed archives in Russia, US, Germany and difficulties of access; the Goebbels diaries; whether items are liable to disappear into the German system; whether Jews think the Holocaust is their patch; and that few people studied it in the early 1970s, but at the end there were academic conferences and so on. Irving's claim was that Hitler's War had catalysed the process. The question of whether Hitler knew—assuming that the Holocaust of tradition existed, which Browning seems to have never doubted—got a bit of discussion; perhaps, like Nixon, he said do it but don't give me details. This might logically have suggested some interesting remarks on Nixon, but logic perhaps is not Browning's strong point. About this point, Rampton felt moved to intervene: he was concerned that Irving might have a historical forum with Browning—I confess the same thought had occurred to me. So Irving went through his next pieces quickly—what did Himmler mean when he said there can be 'no question of a Bolshevik solution'? Browning replied he hadn't read Hitler's War with its detailed examination of these documents. And Irving produced a book entitled The Yellow Spot , subtitled 'the extermination of the Jews in Germany' or something similar. Browning, who seemed not to know the book, was instructed to look inside at the publication date: 1936. He agreed that 'extermination seems hyperbolical.' Then Irving produced a document containing a word that could mean 'resettlement' which Browning said, in context, definitely meant extermination. Unfortunately for him, Irving pointed out the same word, a bit further on in the same document, which used exactly the same word to mean 'resettlement.'
On to the Expert Report. After a digression on the meaning of 'final solution', Irving tackled the Einsatzgruppen. Did Browning know there were four of these, A to D, with about 900 men down to about 600? Could they really shoot 360,000 people in two days? After a few other things, Irving asked about the asymmetry between shooting and gassing, as mentioned in reports. Large number of accounts of shootings; but none of gassings! Why destroy one category of documents completely, but not the others? Browning replies that shooting was decentralised. And so on. Irving must have been doing the right sort of thing, as Gray said his cross-examination was 'extremely orderly'. I should point out something not visible from transcripts, namely that there were long delays while documents in German were located, then found not to have been translated, except in parts, which were stored in separate files, and so on. Gray in fact ticked off the defence for this. I noticed Heather Rogers, looking, I thought, rather pale, approach Irving to suggest some sort of rationalisation of documents.
The court, by mutual agreement of Irving and Rampton, rose early (at 3.30). If cigarette smoking is a signal of stress, Mr Rampton must have been impacted by the case—I saw him light up just outside the courtroom at the earliest opportunity. This seems to be a habit of his.
[Back to start of this page]
Nineteenth to Twenty-First Days... (Thurs 10th February, Mon 14th, Tues 15th Feb)
Professor Richard Evans
[Back to start of this page]
Note: I wasn't able to attend the first day of Evans's expert testimony. What follows is based on the two subsequent days.
Warning! Forgive me for being so predictable; I didn't think much of Evans. If you like him (or have the misfortune to be a student of his) perhaps you'd better not read on.
[Let me start with a book of his, In Defense [sic] of History (1997,1999. W W Norton). This is a shot at the same market as E H Carr's book on history (there have been many—I imagine he picked Carr because it was current in his younger days). I thought I'd look up the Vietnam War, and found this (p 114): [if JFK wasn't killed] 'the big issues—civil rights, welfare, the Vietnam War—would not have been much affected. We [sic] would still most probably have had Medicare. The student and other radical disturbances of the late 1960s wold not have been prevented by a Kennedy presidency, America would still have been involved in Vietnam and still have been defeated. ...' Note the two examples I've indicated, where the reader is invited to suppose the writer is American; in fact this is a phoney, as he's English (and I'd imagine Jewish, though nobody has explicitly asked him, yet, I think). Following up my interest in what he calls 'equivalence' I also checked on the Belgian Congo, of which Evans appears ignorant. Just two items; enough to establish him as the usual seedy racist. He's fond of the phrase 'Holocaust denial' and uses it all the time against Irving, and all revisionists, somewhat as Zimbabwean TV would always speak of 'racist South Africa.']
In appearance he's rather ordinary, with abundant tidy dark hair, gold rimmed glasses, mediumish height, in a dark suit. He has a chubby and frowny face—difficult to describe. His manner in the witness box is not very respectful to the judge—hands in pockets much of the time. He often reads out long stretches of documents, perhaps to read them into the transcripts, or perhaps to waste time and avoid straight answers. I suspect he is shortsighted: he removes his spectacles, bends his head over the report, and gabbles through long passages. (Three people spent eighteen months each on this report—nominally. I suspect there are passages which Evans has never read; he often appeared completely at sea, leafing frantically through the report to find something saying approximately what he wanted). His voice is entirely ordinary English; for many years Oxbridge academics tended to have BBC voices, but not now; Evans typifies the modern consensus academic, semi-secretly funded, bureaucratic, and uncreative. One imagines him at school, picking history as an easy option.
His report is 700-odd pages, though this of course is double-spaced, so in effect is about 300 pages. (The full report is downloadable from Irving's website in Adobe format). The cross-examination is due to finish, by Irving's decision, on Monday, despite the obvious impossibility of covering the whole report. I think the length must have been a deliberate tactic by the defence; the report is a confused mass of quotations of other peoples' quotations, not, in fact, unlike Lipstadt's book. The judge has not ruled that parts can simply be thrown away, although he did say he doesn't regard Evans as authoritative, I think on Auschwitz, and that much of the information was 'marginal'. There is therefore a problem: when Evans says something like 'Holocaust denier Fred Smithers wrote that 1 million Jews were killed, which influenced Holocaust denier Irving' [my made-up, simplified example] where does Irving start? As Gray said: 'You [Evans] seem to disavow the evidence' when it's challenged. From Irving's viewpoint, it must be like fighting an evasive sponge. It's conceivable that the entire arrangement has been worked out beforehand: after all, it's not Irving's fault that a report is long and unfocussed. Whatever he does, therefore, there must be parts which aren't properly covered. Mr Rampton has stopped interrupting to say the costs are high, so he must be happy with this arrangement. But he also stood up at one point specifically to state that matters not contested by Irving would be assumed to be conceded.
Looking through my scribbled notes, I list below some of the topics Evans said he didn't know about or wasn't expert on:
- He had 'no previous experience' with 'holocaust denial' literature
- Or with personal interviews in Irving's style
- Hadn't looked at evidence of conspiracy
- Didn't know Hitler's Testament was forged
- Wasn't familiar with a document on 40% of prisoners in France being Russians at the start
- He said there's a large volume of documentation on the 'Holocaust'
- Not informed on fake photos in an exhibition
- Didn't seem aware that Churchill, de Gaulle, Roosevelt all wrote on second world war without special mention of killing Jews
- Not an expert on Auschwitz (indeed, he seemed not to know about Birkenau)
- No figures for Jews going to Palestine
- No grasp of causes of typhus
- Seemed unaware of Germar Rudolf, John Ball
- Seemed unaware of documentation on Wannsee
- Seemed not to know about wartime transcripts. (He said he'd 'read a few')
- No knowledge of medical effects of malnutrition, maltreatment
- Didn't know who Cavendish-Bentinck—head of intelligence—was
- Didn't know Anne Frank is described as a 'novel'
- Little awareness of Nuremberg procedures
- Almost no knowledge of British propaganda about gas chambers
- No idea of Internet
- "I'm not an expert on moral philosophy"
- No idea that Kershaw made no use of Goebbels diaries
- By Day 21 (16th Feb) Irving was saying things like: "How mnay times would Goebbels meet Hitler in a year? You haven't any idea, have you?"
I must spend some time describing Evans's techniques for replying to questions. Reducing them to a pattern, we find this algorithm: (i) Try to avoid admitting that you don't know something—Evans seems to have had a lot of practice in this. [Typically, say "Remind me what happened" then "I must have documentary evidence of that."] (ii) If a straight answer is embarrassing, don't give one. [Read out a long passage of doubtful relevance, or waffle. Be evasive] (iii) Appeal to consensus: "It is generally agreed that.." or "There are huge institutions studying these topics". (iv) Provide vague comments which resemble hard evidence: "There is a vast quantity of wartime documents". (v) Someone you don't like is always a 'holocaust denier' and/or 'anti-semite.'
Evans likes the word 'scholar', and to talk of communities of decent and serious historians, all maintaining a consensus (and avoiding serious issues, one should add). The word 'scholar' seems to be slipping back into the medieval meaning. If you read conventional authorities, you are a 'scholar'. If you look at the real world, you're a rude mechanical.
(A unique event, though it needed a sharp eye to spot, took place on one of these days: Heather Rogers actually spoke a few sentences, to the effect that her son told her that computer drop-down menus can't be printed. I wonder what the cost-per-word was).
It was almost a relief to hear a statement from Mr Rampton that the 'Center for Democratic Renewal', 'Coalition for Human Dignity', 'Searchlight', 'Surfwatch Internet Censorship', and 'Community Security Trust' are all Jewish organisations (though Mr Rampton produced no evidence).
As I've implied, it's hard to summarise much of the cross-examination, because Irving has a dilemma with this over-long document, as to whether to tackle every small point, or try to go for the overall picture. Unfortunately Gray is reluctant to dismiss much of the expert report, although he says various things are marginal, that he doesn't regard Evans as an authority on this or that point, and so on. The first 150 pages seem to be a problem, being the ones in which other peoples' supposed opinions of Irving are quoted.
There are three claims invoked by Evans when he has little to say: (i) There is a large volume of documentation, and thousands of eyewitnesses. (ii) No revisionists have achieved anything (but this contrasts absurdly with Evans' occasional statements that 'no one doubts' Mr Irving has personally discovered very many documents). (iii) Irving is full of misrepresentations and distortions. Each time he selects one of these options, Irving has to ask whether he has any evidence. Consequently progress was slow.
As illustrations, the topics examined included: [20th day] different figures for deaths claimed at Birkenau (4 million, 1.5 million..)/ sharing a 1991 platform with someone called Rami/ whether Hitler's staff were as reliable interviewees as men convicted of war crimes/ opacity of footnotes; a move to prevent plagiarism?/ Irving's archives, from which he is barred/ website list of enemies of free speech are all Jewish, says Mr Rampton (apart from governments of Australia and Germany)/ Hitler's Testament forged by a Swiss man known to Irving/ mention of Vrba and Wetzler, unreliable according to Irving, elided away by Evans/ Einsatzgruppen figures reliable?/ Churchill's 6 volume history has no mention of killing of Jews; was he a 'holocaust denier'?/ children in Auschwitz when liberated/ UNRRA/ Evans states the Germans deliberately caused typhus.
And 21st day: Gas vans denied by a respectable historian/ Evans takes Gerstein memorandum seriously/ Irving's criminal conviction in Germany was for quoting l'Express , that the Auschwitz 'gas chambers' are fakes. Gray states he's not interested in German criminal convictions/ discussion on the meaning of 'final solution'/ Holocaust an echo of allied propaganda?/ Anne Frank diary (parts in biro. A point I hadn't grasped is that handwriting analysis supposedly showed all parts were written by the same person. So, however unimportant the text of the bits in biro might be, the whole document could not have been written by Anne Frank—assuming biros were invented when they are supposed to have been. I think Evans failed to grasp this)./ Was Rudolf Hoess reliable?/ Is there a well-financed campaign? Evans doesn't like conspiracy theories, and reads out long passages./ Madagascar Plan/ four criteria of 'Holocaust denial' which are plainly set out, says Gray, who thinks acceptance of any one makes a person a 'denier', though, according to my notes, Evans thinks all four are needed./ guilt by association? Discussion of the IHR, and the total number of 'prominent holocaust deniers-—fewer than ten./ Whether Hitler's War in 1977 was a key event./ How much intimidation was there in the 1938 plebiscite?
They now proceeded to work towards Reichskristallnacht. It was perfectly clear at this point that the expert report can't possibly be tackled in this way, at least not within the time limit that's been agreed. Gray said, I think, that he wouldn't dream of nit-picking.
...Twenty-second to Twenty-third Days... (Wed 16th, Thurs 17th February)
Professor Richard Evans
[Back to start of this page]
In these two days, two main subjects only were examined, namely Reichskristallnacht (as presented in Irving's book on Goebbels, and also, though less so, in Hitler's War ) and what Irving described as the chain of documents supposing the view that Hitler intervened in favour of Jews.
I won't even attempt an overview of the opinions on Reichskristallnacht, which occupied all but an hour of the first day. Evans adopts the conventional view, that Hitler started, approved of, and oversaw the whole thing; Irving maintains that Goebbels started it, under the pretext that the Führer had ordered it, but was brought down with a shock when Hitler became aware of what was happening. (Bear in mind that the courtroom is less tidy than a transcript; at each point documents had to be produced, very often facsimiles of the original German, so there were endless delays, disputes over translations, interruptions, and so on).
On 'chain of evidence' documents, Irving had burrowed around in his apartment and produced about sixteen. An important one is the 'Schlegelberger' document or memorandum, dated by Irving at 1942, but with Evans trying to be convincing at 1941. It's the one in which Hitler says he wants to postpone the 'final solution of the Jewish question' until 'after this war is over'. As with the other documents Irving produced, this brings thorny problems of interpretation. When the court adjourned, we were promised the next stage will be an account of the Jews of Rome and Hitler's intervention.
(It's perhaps worth pointing out that, once a racial basis for a state is accepted, naturally there are liable to be endless disputes over the categorisation of people at the margins. Evans seemed to think this was peculiar to Germany, though in fact, given that Germany was not an island or continent, and had only the vaguest borders, it's easy to see that some vague definition of Germanness had to be accepted—what else could they do?—and that lawyers would wrestle with such cases, and irritate Hitler in the process. In the same way, there are endless disputes in the UK over families and relatives of immigrants, and whether marriages in other countries count as valid, and what is the position of stepchildren or divorcees? The same sort of thing occurs in Israel! Evans accepts the tradition of presenting 'race' as a strange criterion, and so seems to disqualify himself from understanding much of Nazi ideology).
[Back to start of this page]
Day Twenty-five (Wednesday 24th February 2000)
Dr Longerich
[Back to start of this page]
Note: I attended this day's proceedings in person.
Today, about a third of the press chairs were empty; the rest of the courtroom was full. I overheard someone say "I can't understand why they don't call eye-witnesses."
Dr Longerich is youngish, with a plumpish face with near-double chin, with what would once have been called Beatle-length hair. He had a dark suit, dark shirt, and dark tie. He has a German accent. Apparently he pursues his studies at the Royal Holloway College, a set of rather attractive redbrick edifices fairly near Heathrow airport. I believe the previous day was partly occupied by discussions of German words and their changes in meaning since the 1930s—Longerich apparently submitted his own dictionary. However, despite his accent, he seemed not very competent in German. Sitting by him, up in the witness box, was a woman interpreter—who didn't seem very good either. So we have the scene set for plenty of confusion...
After a discussion, remaining from yesterday, about a Karl Wolff manuscript (it was decided to have it faxed from Germany), the first linguistic tussles of the day began. My notes indicate: Another new document, apparently a genuine SS one relating to concentration camps, dated 6 Aug 1942, says the death rates are unacceptable (70,000 of 156,000). They're losing prisoners like flies. Prisoners must be given socks, pullovers, etc 'if available' and not be made to stand around in endless roll calls. Nourishment, medication, food must be improved. Their labour is needed for the forthcoming victory! Irving asks what is Longerich's interpretation of this? — Well, he says, of course it's unprofessional to comment without context, all the other documents. And there was definitely a 'programme of extermination by work'. Irving says this isn't in the document; and what about the hospital? Longerich replies it was only a crude barrack: the main function was to select gas chamber victims. But that's not in the document either. "I have to say I'm not an expert on Auschwitz" says Longerich. Mr Rampton interrupts to say that other people talked of 'slave labour', not 'extermination'.
Having thus settled very little, Irving produces his next document, signed by Pohl, and dated Sept 1943. Statistics of concentration camp mortality for December 1942 (10%), and January 1943 (8%). Irving cautiously avoids the statistical implications (I get the impression he was conditioned against statistics at university). Longerich however is less uninhibited; he says the "life expectation was a couple of weeks or a couple of months." Given that life expectation is the average span ahead of the living, Longerich is obviously wrong, as 10% per month would give five months or so. He seems to have seen no information on quarantining typhus victims, and is otherwise unimpressive.
(I'd read in a 1960s book by a survivor that 'until that time I had not believed that people were capable of hard labour with insufficient food etc' or something similar. It suddenly struck me that the author was trying to reconcile holocaust-type stories with what he'd actually seen.)
Irving now draws attention to a table: 2400 deaths in August 1943 of whatever cause. Did Auschwitz have the cremation capacity, or were the corpses sent to Birkenau? Mr Rampton hastily interrupts with a diversion about workers' housing. Irving asks: why record deaths down to the last digit, if, down the road, they were killing lots of people without keeping any records?
Wasn't Konrad Morgen investigated for atrocities (or theft/corruption) in a camp and hanged? And Koch in Buchenwald? And the Schindler's List camp? Wasn't Höss under investigation?
Longerich has a slightly different style of evasion from van Pelt (architectural terms, omission of detail, vague philosophical material) and Evans (gabbling reports which he seems not to have read). Longerich uses repetitive phrases and waffle based on PhD style commonplaces—it's a research process, it's just a summary, it is generally accepted, has to be used in context. All this in heavily-accented English.
Discussing killing through overwork, Longerich is evasive on documentary evidence; this is not referenced in his report. He talks about 'exchange' of prisoners as though this must mean killing. He uses a German phrase meaning 'extermination through labour', Vernichtung durch Arbeit, which, to non-German-speaking people, sounds like a harsh wartime Nazi expression. But, asks Irving, is it in fact a German wartime phrase? Longerich insists that it is. But his only reference appears to be a postwar book; Longerich is not honest enough either to admit he has no reference, or to state what he knows on the topic.
Irving makes another point, which I think I've not heard him make before, at least not so forcibly: Longerich and his consensus colleagues all rely one eye-witnesses who were convicted of war crimes, mass-murder and so on. Why should their testimony be preferred over people like Christa Schroeder, Hitler's adjutant, various unconvicted Nazi brass and so on, as interviewed by Irving, who were not found guilty of war crimes? Longerich says ".. one can use this post-war evidence if it is supported by other sources."
Irving followed with more in this vein—'They will go hungry' translated by Longerich as 'they will starve'; omission of a passage about 'retaliatory actions' because Longerich didn't see the connection; if there wee a Führer order to kill Jews, why would they need a pretext?
Mr Gray eventually was moved to criticise Irving for cherry-picking; he seemed not to grasp the point that Irving was suggesting Longerich's report was incompetent. This was understandable on Gray's part, as Irving didn't actually say this was his object. Also Irving had the problem that the report is 'a mosaic report', i.e. made of little independent bits and pieces; how can Irving attack it, except piecemeal?
After the luncheon adjournment, there were more tussles along the same lines. With about an hour remaining, the Wannsee Conference was examined. Jan 20th 1942. Was there evidence that deportation plans meant mass murder? Does evacuation mean evacuation or killing? Longerich had written "if released..", but shouldn't this be "On release"? Is there no specific reference to killing in the document anywhere? What sense does it make to say it "can be completed only with a German victory"? I refer the reader to the transcript (pages 167 to about 190) for Longerich's replies.
[Back to start of this page]
Days Twenty-seven and Twenty-eight (Tues 29th February and Wednesday 1st March 2000)
Prof Funke
[Back to start of this page]
Note: I attended this day's proceedings in person.
Prof Hajo Funke is Professor of Political Science at the Free University of Berlin. Appearing in the witness box alongside the interpreter, he wore a dark suit, shirt, and tie. He must be about 50. He has rimless spectacles. I'm uncertain if he's German or Austrian. He has a heavy accent. It soon became clear he likes social science jargon—he 'counts the interactions' between people, who are "interacting, networking, meeting and so forth" at "various levels of intensity". "In a cadre organsiation, the leaders are centre persons". He draws sociological diagrams with arrows—"If you want to centre Irving, you can do so."
When I arrived in court (half an hour after the start) Mr Rampton was discussing the fall of the Berlin Wall and the 'GDR'. Funke seems to date events to before and after the 'Wall'. Before 1989, "they were such tiny liddle groups.. we just looked over it as social scientists", there was no violence against foreigners, no revisionism, no feeling of pro-Germanism (and presumably no democracy). After, there were skinheads, far right groups, neo-Nazis (and presumably ex-Stasi agents). Funke is utterly unable to separate the strands which make up his joint vision with the numerous, though apparently largely anonymous, social scientists who decide the German consensus.
I jotted down some of the topics mentioned by Funke: Son of Rudolf Hess, 'neo-Nazi', pig's head thrown into the garden of a Jew who'd died, protests against a holocaust memorial, holocaust denial, anti-semitism, racism, anti-foreigner, groups e.g. the 'DVU' or 'DNP' with no indication of numbers of members or anything else, violence, "the most frightening thing—it comes always to the front—the Jews carry part of the guilt."
Funke named some holocaust revisionists, but it was obvious that he knew almost nothing about them. Wilhelm Stäglich [elderly judge, now in a north German old persons' home, who wrote 'Der Auschwitz Mythos'], Ditlieb Felderer [shown in a video to have long blond hair, a headband, and a multicoloured 'shell suit'], Udo Walendy ["one of the most outspoken" who "presented" Arthur Butz], Ahmed Rami ["a wild anti-semite originally from Morocco"—this is the 'Radio Islam' man] and others received a ritual mention, but nothing whatever was said of their beliefs, political attitudes, or anything else. Funke relies on the guilt-by-association and horrors-that-dare-not-speak-their-name techniques. He had a copy of Paul Wilkinson's The New Fascists (1981, 1983) which I also have in my second-hand book collection, and so was able to verify that Wilkinson uses the identical techniques.
In addition to the holocaust revisionists, about whom Funke knew nothing, and the world war revisionists, about whom he seemed (if possible) to know even less, is the more serious matter of alleged violence and neo-Nazis. Unfortunately, although Funke had his list of names, such as Michael Swierczek and Thomas Kuhnen (who "died of AIDS"), and political groupuscules known by initials, he gave no information about these groups, all of which seemed legal at the times Irving was speaking in Germany, and no member of which seemed to have been convicted of anything. The absence of evidence was rather amazing—it seemed incredible that any expert could come before a court quite so badly-prepared.
The most juicy piece of evidence, judging by the number of times it was played, was an edited video of Irving speaking in Germany, at Halle, in November 1991, a couple of years post-Wall. This was one of four videos, though only tiny excerpts were played; they all dated from about 1991. Characteristically, nobody had transcribed the relevant bits, despite the length of preparation time available. And there had been a legal flurry over the serious business of concealing evidence: the defence had a copy of an uncut video, showing Irving telling a bunch of possibly hired chatting youths to go away; this had of course been edited, and the defence presented they had no original version.
To give an idea of the flavour of topics which Mr Rampton and Prof Funke selected, we have:— Thomas Hanke, "Chief of skinhead group - very violent." He was in, or near, a meeting at which Irving spoke. The Reichskrieg flag was on display—a pre-WW1 flag which Mr Rampton regards as the nearest legal version of a swastika. Anthony Hancock is, it seems, not a now-dead comedian, but a 'very active revisionist'. He appeared on a video, giving a false name. Gray said he thought this man being evasive on camera isn't obviously relevant. We saw someone called Gerhard Frei standing next to Irving. And Zundel at a Leuchter Congress in Munich in March 1991, which Funke said was "so disgusting": Irving was showing speaking out-of-doors, apparently on the back of a truck, as the police had ruled that he couldn't speak (on Churchill, Pearl Harbor, and the US in the Second World War) at the prearranged venue in Munich's Deutschemuseum . There was a banner with the slogan 'Wahrheit macht frei', or 'truth makes you free'. Could this be related to a well-known concentration camp slogan? Irving says it's a Biblical expression. At some point we see red flags: these are Strasserites, apparently. (I remember hearing about Strasserites at the 'Alliance for Workers Liberty', though I never succeeded in quite working out what they stood for). Judge Gray and Mr Rampton agreed with Irving that, to make things manageable, they would take just six to twelve names and assume their minute organisations were implicit in these.
Funke made it clear (afternoon of 29th) that he had a low opinion of Irving's 20 million word diaries. He said some periods and passages are missing, and things deduced from other sources are underplayed. You might imagine he'd have some evidence for this, but on several occasions, probably about six, he admitted he didn't (unlike the other 'expert witnesses', who avoid being so direct).
Irving didn't do much to help the procedure, perhaps inhibited by the concept of what a proper question should be. He would not, for example, preface his questions in this sort of manner: "I have never met Herr Vinkelpicker. Do you have evidence that I have, Professor?" or "I have six thousand names on my address book. I have no recollection whatever of Dr. Y. Do you have any evidence that I ever met him?" Assuming that he had not, in fact, met these people, this would seem sensible. On several occasions Gray, clearly mystified, was eventually granted comments of this type.
I believe—though this is a guess—that the root concern over Germany is whether it will again do something similar to what happened in the First World War. In view of the results, one might imagine it would be unlikely; but at any rate it's as legitimate a concern as many other things. However, Funke seemed completely unable to isolate this aspect of things: anti-semitism, anti-foreigners, etc are mentally combined in him. The whole cross-questioning process, therefore, seemed rather pointless, and Mr Rampton, under no obligation to be fair or to get at the truth, simply went along with the conventional approach of Funke.
Mr Rampton's re-examination of Funke came close to novelty: one question hinted at the population argument (i.e. add up the number of Jews before and after the war and see..) but shied away from anything serious. And questions on 'convergence' and I suppose 'neo-Nazis', including of course topics which Irving has in his books—guilt of World War 2? Allied atrocities? Nazi war heroes? Greater Germany, out east, including of ethnic Germans?
Funke has a rather starchy manner. In the witness box, he seemed self-assured, at any rate when asked unexacting questions—in rather a similar way, I imagine, to the self-presentation of the few 'Holocaust eye-witnesses' when questioned sympathetically. I thought he was self-righteous and stern, and also mentally inflexible—I could imagine his grandfather as a German schoolteacher exhorting German youth to get themselves killed in the First World War. Funke slightly resembled a Grosz cartoon figure. I'd say he was the least impressive of the 'experts'. Van Pelt at least showed some amateurish pictures; Evans, however little he knew, could at least find passages to read out; Longerich at least had some variety of cliché responses to deploy.
Perhaps it's a myth that Germans sloughed off the excessive respect for bureaucracy and authority which was supposed to have marked them from Bismarck onwards. I wondered what 'Free' University means? No money required? No entrance requirements? Or freedom from intellectual inquiry and rigour?
On one of these days I shared a free taxi with Irving back to his Duke Street flat. I couldn't help noticing his driver, Terry, put an unlabelled audio tape (usual size) into a machine behind his seat. So presumably the amateurish speculation on the court case has been transcribed by someone, somewhere. Irving had invited a clutch of reporters (from Denmark, Canada, Germany, and I think somewhere else) with three photographers and a VCR operator. He obviously likes this sort of attention. His six year old daughter presented him with a bit of a management problem, as he sat behind his desk, surrounded by filing cabinets, bookcases, posters, photographs, mementoes, phones, faxes, printouts and his old and new Macs. (I noticed a letter addressed to 'Duce Street'—someone's little joke?) After this I imagine he collapsed for hours on his sofa.
[Back to start of this page]
Days 29-31. Final cross-examination, Eichmann's Diaries, Gray's list, Irving's Complaints...
Day 29, Thursday 2nd March, which I missed, apparently had Mr Rampton cross-examining Mr Irving again on the videos.
The big news was that the Eichmann Memoirs , which had first been mentioned on Tuesday, the first day of Professor Funke's evidence, had been supplied (in a computer disk form—not the original manuscript!) but after a few days had been dropped by the defence, as, of course, had much of their other proposed evidence.
This is the judge's list of points at issue to be considered by both parties, which he handed out at the start of day 29. I suppose the judge's decision will be based on this list. Irving, on his website, invited comment based on the transcripts, but, I hear, received rather little.
|
LIST OF ISSUES IN DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES
1. The issues of identification and meaning 2. The writings of [David Irving] and his reputation as an historian 3. [David Irving's] claim for damages; his concern about the concerted attempt to suppress his books; his reasons for bringing the action and supporting evidence 4. The defence of justification (including in relation to each of issues listed below introductory or "topic" section, then case for the [The Defendants] followed by the response of [David Irving]) (i) [The Defendants'] historiographical criticisms of [David Irving] in regard to: a. Hitler trial 1924 b. Kristallnacht November 1938 c. aftermath of Kristallnacht d. shooting of Jews in the East e. Hitler's views on the Jewish question f. expulsion of the Jews from Berlin in 1941 g. the 'Schlegelberger note' h. Goebbels' diary entry for 27 March 1942 i. Himmler minute of 22 September 1942 j. Himmler's note for his meeting with Hitler on 10 December 1942 k. Hitler's meeting with Antonescu and Horthy in April 1943 l. deportation and murder of the Jews in Rome in October 1943 m. Himmler's speeches on 6th October 1943, 5 and 24 May 1944 n. Hitler's speech on 26 May 1944 o. Ribbentrop's testimony and evidence from his cell at Nuremberg p. Mme Vaillant-Couturier q. Kurt Aumeier (ii) [The Defendants'] allegation that [David Irving] is "a Hitler partisan" and the extent of Hitler's knowledge of the solution of the Jewish question a. Hitler's anti-Semitism b. execution of Jews by shooting (inc. scale of killings; whether systematic policy and Hitler's knowledge) c. period when deportation was the policy d. genesis of gassing programme (inc. Hitler's knowledge) e. extermination (inc. Operation Reinhard; camps at Chelmno, Semlin, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka; scale of extermination and Hitler's knowledge) (iii) Auschwitz a. [The Defendants'] case
(iv) whether [David Irving] is a Holocaust denier a. [David Irving's] statements as to existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and elsewhere (inc. statements about Leuchter report) b. [David Irving's] statements as to existence of systematic policy of extermination c. [David Irving's] statements as to numbers of Jews killed d. [David Irving's] statements that gas chambers are a propaganda lie invented by British intelligence e. whether [David Irving's] statements are consistent with the evidence (v) whether [David Irving] is anti-semitic/racist/right-wing extremist a. statements made by [David Irving] which [The Defendants] allege are anti-semitic b. statement made by [David Irving] which [The Defendants] allege are racist c. [David Irving's] reasons for denying charges of anti-Semites and racism (vi) whether [David Irving] associates with right-wing extremists a. organisations/individuals with which [David Irving] has associated b. political orientation of those organisations/individuals (vii) Dresden a. claims made by [David Irving] as to number killed b. whether [David Irving] relied on forged evidence c. whether [David Irving] attached credence to unreliable evidence d. whether [David Irving] bent reliable evidence/falsified statistics e. whether [David Irving] suppressed/failed to take account of reliable material f. whether [David Irving] misrepresented evidence (viii) Goebbels' Moscow Diaries a. whether [David Irving] broke an agreement with Moscow Archive b. whether [David Irving's] conduct gave rise to significant risk of damage to plates (ix) [David Irving]'s honesty as an historian |
Days 30 and 31 were mainly taken up with administrative matters: much of the part-day 30 with Irving complaining about the Defendants' methods: wasting Irving's time by not calling witnesses whom he'd been expecting and had prepared to cross-examine; continually producing new documents; and Mr Rampton's interruptions are examples which occur to me. Irving also remarked on the concealment of evidence, in particular a the concealment of a video tape of a speech, which the defence had but did not discover, which is, one gathers, in theory, a serious offence. He also commented on the fact that neither Lipstadt nor Penguin spoke.
Day 31 also ended early, after confusion as to who was to deliver which speech and when. Mr Rampton appears to have written an immensely long statement, which I gather would take a Wagnerian three days to read, but also a heavily-edited oral version for the courtroom. Mr Irving undertook to prepare a single statement of about the length of Mr Rampton's courtroom version.
[Back to start of this page]
Day 32, March 15th 2000: At Last. Closing Speeches
[Back to start of this page]
Note: I attended this day's proceedings in person.
Courtroom 73
The timing was: court hearing begins at 10.30; after some preliminaries, Mr Rampton began his trimmed-down closing speech, reading from A4 papers held together by a bulldog clip, until about quarter to 12. A little before mid-day, Irving (having suggested a short adjournment) began his speech, breaking off some time after 1, then resuming after an hour until about 4.30—much longer than Mr Rampton. Many people had copies of these speeches, Irving's printed from his website. There was quite a lot of paper-shuffling noise. Towards 5 p.m., things somewhat tailed off with administrative material—including Mr Rampton discussing the presentation of yet another new document(!)
Day 32's transcript has both speeches. Note: because both sides were reading prepared texts, this is the longest of all the transcripts. This day attracted by far the largest crowd; Irving's website puts the spectator numbers at 200, but this is on overestimate; the number sitting on seats squeezed in around the walls started at about thirty, and rose to about fifty. Even so, the total, including the press, was no more than 125 at most. There were however twenty or so more unable to get in. There was some traffic/air noise, and someone was moved to close a window, perhaps adding a touch of claustrophobia.
In addition to the hacks (I think I recognised Aaronowitz, plumper than his newspaper picture—who says fraud doesn't pay?—and a clutch of others I've come to recognise) I saw Thomas Stuttaford, Times medical writer. Others I didn't know included, I'm told, Hugo Gryn's daughter and D. Cesarani, 'Professor of modern Jewish history at Southampton University', darting about like a bald Groucho Marx. I overheard a woman called Val Jones of BBC News talk to Irving: at one time I thought women were appointed to give a different perspective and perhaps to allow the newly discovered, rich soil of half the human race to encourage new growth. Now, more cynical, I realise it's because they won't rock the boat or say anything intelligent. I overheard this exchange in the press seats: "Are you going to be able to write an article on this? It's so complicated!"—"I hope so!" In the defence benches was Funke, next to Evans, who grimaced in his short-sighted way.
One would like to hope that some of these people would be removed from their jobs. Here we have Evans, evidently not competent in this aspect of history, and presumably similarly unequipped in others. Quite an important question—not raised in this trial—is whether airing these issues might lead to future war. Is it possible that racism will increase as a result? Or that warning signals will cause it to decrease? Is there a danger from Germany? Is it possible that Israel would use nuclear weapons to enforce its view of the world? How do frauds decline and fall? There are important lessons from history which ought to be drawn—but certainly not by such as Evans and all the clones which he, presumably, is in a position to filter and appoint by control over examinations.
According to a friend of mine (who always arrives late, and thus found himself in the corridor outside) most of the people he spoke to had the perception that Irving manipulates history to his own ends. A Dutch Jew said he had a number of relations in camps, who died immediately after arrival. He thought they must have been gassed—typhus doesn't kill you in a day! This shows a weakness of second-hand testimony: how did he know they died quickly? There was a German student in a QC's chambers who'd been taught the conventional view at school: "stuffed down my throat".
A couple of other points arose in conversation: the Germans had discovered or invented lethal nerve gases. So why use cyanide? A waitress from Poland confirmed that name-changing with Jews in Poland was common; 1956 seems to have been the start of an exodus. She believed there were gas chambers. She also believed that Poles were killed by the Germans, and perhaps deserved an occasional mention. She commented on a Schindlers factory monument, just outside Krakov.
The Defence Team
I found it of some interest to watch the defence throughout this trial. In addition to Mr Rampton, there was Anthony Julius (see e.g. his affidavit, in the dozens of items in Irving's website piece 'The Libel Action: briefly explained'. After Lipstadt and Penguin, the third witness not to be called was someone called Mozzochi, named on Julius' affidavit, who, if Irving is to be believed, is a thug). I confess to taking a dislike to Julius; he has a permanent half-smile, resembling a bonobo monkey being subjected to electrical experiments on its pleasure centre. A youngish person, flanking Lipstadt, with shorn hair and thick spectacles, resembled a myopic hedgehog. I wasn't much taken with Bateman, sitting on the other flank of Lipstadt, who spent much of his time looking backwards, sideways, and generally appearing to pay little attention. I was struck by the comparison with monkey bands, Mr Rampton emerging as the equivalent of the silverback, or perhaps 'silverwig'. When Irving was speaking, Rampton slid his wig back, and the group made sufficient noise, and exchanged eyebrow twitches and glances, as though offered a rich new source of peanuts, to move Gray to request they behave better—not "react overtly".
First Closing Speech: Mr Rampton (transcript pp. 4-33)
It has to be said this speech was what Irving calls a 'gramophone record'—a repetition of what's already been claimed. There's a surreal quality about it (see Day 32 transcript) since Rampton himself has no historical pretensions and therefore this is obviously acting on his part. So far as I know the full 200 page (or whatever) version is not available on any website. Presumably, however, its contents are simply cut and pasted from Evans, van Pelt and a few others, so perhaps this hardly matters, except to Gray, who has to read it.
After listing a few things, mainly racism and similar topics and Hitler, Mr Rampton produced his headlines ".. falsification of history on a massive scale.." Mr Rampton said Evans had found "deliberate falsification" in the figures for Dresden deaths. He also stated that there were "as many as twenty five" falsifications; with Auschwitz and so on, the "number goes well above thirty." What these thirty are, we'll perhaps never know, as Mr Rampton added "I will give but two examples." One was Reichskristallnacht. The other seems to have been an interchange of 16th April in place of 17th. ".. Irving is as was proposed at the outset of this trial—a liar."
Mr Rampton then moved to the 'Holocaust', though what he said was different from what he would have said before this case. Much of his speech dealt with mass shootings, as of course it now had to, with the 'gas chambers' now treated like this: (1) The Auschwitz death books can't be reliable, because of 'selection' and gassing; (2) there's a 'great deal' of eyewitness evidence; (3) what about 400,000 Hungarian Jews?; (4) Incineration problems—Mr Rampton criticised Irving, ".. always challenging the authenticity.." rather than produce a new theory of his own. Mr Rampton of course attacked Fred Leuchter again (rather than face the challenge of the totality of the evidence).
Mr Rampton now moved to the "extremist, racist, anti-semite" part of his speech. He quoted "disliked for 3,000 years". (I once pointed out to Irving the Khazar theory, which makes nonsense of the 3,000 years claim. He said he preferred to pass over that. Very judicious, I said).
"As to the blacks, and the homosexuals" continued Mr Rampton—in reference to a remark by Irving on 'AIDS'.
Mr Justice Gray now produced his list of points to be clarified. (1) Deportation—is this an issue between the parties? (No, it isn't). (2) The genesis of the gassing process. Gray would like this set out. A "sufficient but not over-extended view", please. (3) Is there anything about racism in Lipstadt's book? For the only time, ever, she spoke a word to Mr Rampton, which however I can't decode on my scribble: it looks like 'albino' but can't be. At any rate, Mr Rampton headed her off quickly, politely slapping her down. Why? I don't know. (4) Section IX, on distortion and deliberate massive falsification. Mr Rampton seems to switch to 'deliberate blindness'. (5) Gray asked whether anti-semitism and historical falsehood are linked, but I thought didn't word this very well. (Irving, on his website, says Gray asked about a sincere anti-semite's attitude to history).
Second Closing Speech: Mr Irving (transcript pp. 49-c.210)
An important point to grasp is that, because of the way the evidence is produced, Irving hasn't so far said much on his conspiracy allegations, I suppose partly because neither Lipstadt nor Penguin were willing to testify—indeed, perhaps that's partly why they didn't testify. So Irving's conspiracy material was new to the court, though much of it has on his website for many months.
Because of the length of this speech, and also the fact that it's in full on this site, I'll confine myself to my notes.
Both the start and end of the speech were a bit ill-defined—at the start, he informed Gray he would make omissions. And as the end approached, Mr Rampton started to interrupt (or, if you prefer, make helpful comments) which was an act of some chutzpah , since Irving had sat, quietly fuming, through the whole of Mr Rampton's speech. And Mr Gray requested a few clarifications. The whole thing took a long time, and Irving, at the end, gabbled rather quickly, so that I'm surprised the stenographer kept up; she seemed to be frowning a bit. Irving managed also to make a slip of the tongue—saying "mein Führer" to the judge—at which point it became clear that Lipstadt wasn't quite asleep. Irving thought this would be trumpeted in the press, but this did not, in fact, happen.
The first part was something of an overview:- Section 5 of 'the Act'; criticism of Gray for permitting the defence to juggle; Prof Watt who thought (unnamed) professors couldn't face such detailed examination as had been applied to Irving; written works don't have the lapses of taste of his speeches; original documents were much more difficult to find then than now; Hitler knew nothing and intervened in favour of Jews, though he was clearly responsible (Irving said his thesis was similar to Goldhagen's!); A J P Taylor said much the same as Irving on Hitler's isolated life.
(At the adjournment, I was astonished to find that Irving, despite his impassioned speech, had the attractiveness of one of the women in the courtroom on his mind, whose name I can exclusively reveal to an enthralled world is Laura.)
After the adjournment, and back to the courtroom, now the most crowded it had been, Irving plunged straight back into his closing submission. The Schlegelberger document, whether Hitler knew, Elke Frölich's industrious rummage through archives, Hilberg coming honourably to the same conclusion, and the suggestion that he should have done the Zulu Wars emerged, before he started on the 'International Endeavour' against him, which incidentally referred to as a fantasy at some point.
He spoke about Weisenthal, an anonymous researcher in Toronto, bodies in Britain, Jewish Telegraph Agency, the ADL, Lipstadt apparently starting what became her book as a project for Yehuda Bauer, pressure on St Martin's Press, the Holocaust Education Trust, Fox of The British Journal of Holocaust Education , the Anti-Nazi League. (I wonder how many comrades were aware they were assisting an antique superstition?). And three weeks—the interval between which Irving had been barely mentioned by Lipstadt, to being promoted to 'most dangerous'. About this point, Mr Gray suggested he skip a few pages—which he did.
"My Lord, I now come to Auschwitz concentration camp." This part of the speech repeats what Irving has said elsewhere: he rehearsed Hitler's slender awareness of Auschwitz, the various death roll figures ascribed to it, some historiographical material, and a look at the eye-witnesses as opposed to secretly intercepted messages. He moved on to Fred Leuchter, and various misrepresentations of him, his work, his evidence, and Zündel's trial. And produced his trump card, or perhaps entire royal flush, of the absence of physical evidence: the untruth "has caved in, as surely as that flat roof."
There was more, on air raid doors, 1942 air raids, air photo evidence (incidentally, I had been amused in the morning that Mr Rampton had used a NASA expert to authenticate a photo).
Finally, and with increasing speed, Irving read out his script on 'instrumentalisation' (i.e., I think, 'the Holocaust' as a money-making device), a comparison of his treatment with McCarthyism in the US, the absence of evidence about the National Alliance, the IHR, and the Dresden death toll. This took till about 4.30 p.m., the usual adjournment time being 4 p.m. There were some final bickerings, for example over 'concessions'—did, in effect, Irving agree that he'd changed his story? And then it was over. A din of conversation filled the courtroom and a few hardy souls dared talk with Irving before he left, to be photographed by about six press photographers and a video cameraman outside the court.
[Back to start of this page]
Judgment. Tuesday 11th April 2000
[Back to start of this page]
10th April: Mr Justice Gray's judgment begins at 10.30 in Court 14. The procedure, so far as I'm aware, is for Gray's summary to deal with the points at issue, and deliver his judgment on each of them. I don't think the conclusions are presented, in the style of a scientific paper, at the beginning; instead, they are revealed one by one, each with its reasons. The full judgment differs from the summary, and has full legal status. In it, no doubt, Gray will have his revenge on the more evasive and long-winded witnesses with a massive document of his own.
What will happen? I don't know. However, I'll make these points:
Bear in mind that the trial is about libel. The technical details of English libel law are what matter, not necessarily the controversial material.
Because of this, it's possible there will be upsets. For example, perhaps Gray will judge much of the evidence irrelevant or insubstantial in some way, and strike out huge swathes of it. Perhaps he'll decide that Irving has been attacked in such an outrageous way that he deserves huge damages. Perhaps Irving made mistakes in not challenging certain statements and will therefore be judged to have completely failed in his action. Perhaps the fact that Lipstadt would not speak will be treated in some severe way by Gray (the press reports to the effect that she didn't want to speak, or did want to speak—they seem to have switched after the hearings—have no legal force). Perhaps the defence's lapses in procedural propriety will have repercussions.
I'm sorry I don't have better information and predictions. But I'm in numerous, if not particularly good, company, since the whole of the media seems to have no competent legal commentators.
Watch for tomorrow's report!
11th April: I've already heard that today will be a 'slime bucket' day'. A copy, on paper, of the judgment is given to each party 24 hours before the judgment is delivered (for some reason, Lipstadt and, I presume, Penguin only received one hours' notice). Irving told me he read the entire 333-pages of it—it has plenty of white space and margins. He also told me he faxed a three or four page list of corrections to Gray for 9 a.m. on the morning of the trial, and there was some trace of this in Gray's speech, where Gray mixed up Bischopf (or someone similar) with Muller. (Since the paper version exists, in principle it can be compared with the electronic version. However, I think Gray probably had too little time to react: I suspect he wouldn't operate the word processor himself, and the printouts must have been ready for the press and others to follow).
I arrived early at Court 36; this has a public gallery, perhaps the reason for its choice. I had to wait outside while interminable troupes of lawyers, Penguin people and hangers-on entered. Press passes (plastic ID cards) ensured admittance. I was amused to see sundry people try to get in, for example a BBC woman, who indignantly asked a policeman his name on being refused entry, and an elderly Swiss, who said she was a journalist. I saw Lipstadt, who pointed to her name on a card on the door, presumably still pledged to silence, when the policeman didn't recognise her. There was a larger police presence than at previous hearings. I noticed the initials RCJ on the lapels of their shirts and blue pullovers and deduced like lightning that this must be 'Royal Courts of Justice'.
Outside, the Strand had roadwork outside the courtroom, and barriers with Anti-Nazi League people begin them, with their trademark yellow-and-red stickers. I told a Scottish woman with them that she didn't know what she was talking about, but it was an unpropitious time for debate, or to explain to them that they were in a Jewish front organisation. I found later that Irving arrived by taxi with a Washington journalist, and strategically walked with the journalist on the side away from the street; in this way, as it turned out, the journalist was hit by an egg (which was quite accurately thrown, judging by a TV film).
Court 36 is older than 37; it has a high roof, of baronial type, with coffered—or perhaps caissonned?—ceiling, and stone (or stone faced) walls with dark wood panelling below the half-way point, and deep green-blue drapes in some velvety stuff, probably dusty. It has tall plain glass windows. I counted 130 people in the audience, including the media people over at the left, and about 50 up in the public gallery. There must have been twelve in the legal teams, at the front, with a few hangers-on like Greville Janner. The court officials and stenographers who materialised were mostly the same as before. The benches creaked, the audience were restless, and Gray sat in his wig by a green-shaded desk lamp, reading into a couple of microphones. He wore his red sash and white collar with two vertical ribbons; no doubt there's a technical name for it. His judgment was scheduled for 10.30 a.m.
Waiting for things to start, I noticed Funke chatting; apparently he bills in dollars, as I suppose befits an ex-east-German, probably explaining the odd amount of his £92,558 fee. (Out of interest, Evans, also in the audience, received £70,181; Longerich £76,195; Browning £27,632; van Pelt £109,244. Rampton had half a million dollars, and Miss Rogers half that amount. Julius apparently got nothing. These figures as supplied to Irving; they may of course omit important details, as the fact that pleas for money were made to a fraudster living in Switzerland suggests. In fact I'm sceptical whether Rampton would have received so little. So far as I know, these sums have actually been paid; they're not reliant on Irving.)
Gray read his extracts to a largely hushed audience, interrupted only by the swishings as people turned the pages of the judgments and located the new bits when Gray omitted chunks of text. He spoke for something like two hours, finishing a little after 12.30. He seemed to be in gabbling mode, perhaps conscious of a job ill-discharged. He said his approach is to first analyse Irving's history, then look at the passages in Lipstadt's book, to assess them for defamatory meanings, under six (more-or-less expected) headings, Such as Hitler/ misrepresentation/ double standards, denial of gas chambers, deforming evidence, associating with extremists, 'discredited', with a look at the Goebbels glass plates and Farrakhan. As might be guessed, the glass plates accusation, and the Farrakhan et al claim, were failures for the defence, but Gray said, no doubt rightly, that the 'justification of truth' doesn't fail entirely because of that; in effect, the other matters are more important.
As regards history, after some praise for Irving (".. military historian.. thorough.. discovered and disclosed.. unparalleled.. remarkable.. intelligence.. clear and vivid..") Gray moved to "nine instances relied on by the defence." He said the "defence arguments were almost invariably well-founded"—"in almost all cases Irving misrepresents..." And this is "supported by the evidence of historians of the greatest distinction". Apparently Evans "Justified each and every one." Poor Gray had a bit of trouble producing concrete support for these impressive claims (quite apart from his situationist failure—how important are nine items, considering an output of thirty or forty books? Wouldn't a larger view be better?) His list included a comment on 'the 1941 expulsion of Jews from Berlin' (one has to use inverted commas; there were Jews in Berlin at the end of the war), crime statistics of fraud in Berlin in 1932, which, said Gray, were compiled by a Nazi; lengthy material on Kristallnacht; the 'Bruns Report' of Jews being shot in Riga; the Schlegelberger document (on the postponement of the final solution) which Gray seems to dismiss; 'genocidal intentions re Hungarian Jews'; the Warsaw Ghetto; Roman Jews; Ribbentrop quoted in Nuremburg, where Irving "fails to quote the following remark"; Hitler on antisemitism, Gray considering that Hitler 'reverted to it again and again' at least according to the 'scholarly' (and richer) Longerich.
Gray then looked at Auschwitz (".. I had supposed the evidence was compelling.. however.. set aside this preconception.." You, reader, may look at Gray's document. Decide for yourself whether the evidence converges, and if so, in what direction. You might also ask yourself what further evidence, in the circumstances, a judge might request, to make matters more certain.) Gray concluded, to quote my scribble, ".. no serious minded historian.. gas chambers.. Auschwitz.. hundreds of thousands of Jews." He was even impressed by van Pelt's 'redesign' argument (though evidently not by Irving's pragmatic challenge to go and look). Irving, and others, had got into a tangle over 'gas vans' during the trial, which Gray made use of, here.
Gray didn't read out his material on Dresden, though he concluded that Irving overestimated the dead.
Gray now looked, in his assessment of Irving as a historian, having in the main found against him, at the 'grave imputation' as to whether Irving deliberately biased his works to 'depict Hitler in a favourable light'. (Gray doesn't seem worried whether Stalin, for example, is depicted by anyone in a 'favourable light'). He concluded Irving did, and was ".. perverse and egregious.." A 'prime example' Gray gave was Muller's 1943 letter, which Irving maintains must be a forgery, as it doesn't conform with Irving's thesis. Gray's gravamen was a little shaken when he announced that this letter "should be Bischopf"; how can it be a prime example if Gray doesn't even know who wrote it?
By now, it's hardly a surprise to find that Gray found the pleas of justification of truth "substantially justified". He mentioned Section 5 of the Defamation Act, I think relevant to Farrakhan et al (about whom, by the way, I think I'm right in saying not one single piece of evidence was produced). And that the defence succeeds.
Rampton stood, and asked for an order for costs to be made. He was quite near me, in the same row (the court being narrower and deeper than before), and I could see his bifocals, divided in the centre, next to Anthony Julius, thumbing a copy of The Supreme Court Practice . Irving, with, I think, a slight tremor in his voice, requested a separate hearing on costs: some reports hadn't been produced; why should he pay? There were issues about the conduct of the case. Mr Rampton thought perhaps Miss Rogers should do it. He would prefer Miss Rogers to do it—she understands it better than he does. Rampton, however, understood it enough to request a payment on account. (No figures have been mentioned aloud). Irving says that, under the new rules, substantial powers are invested in judges. Someone said it's plain that the defendants will get the vast part of the costs. Irving discussed the right of appeal. Rampton said there is no question of costs being arranged in such a way as to remove Irving's right of appeal. The fixing of a date to discuss costs was left. Irving formally applied to Gray for leave to appeal; he says he's failed to make his views clear. Gray (looking down) reads; he says the new rules say there must be a real possibility of success. But there are also cases of public interest where this need not be the case. Gray, however, says "there's very little law in it", describing his judgment, no doubt accurately. Rampton says the case is clear. Gray refuses permission to Irving to appeal: "You can go to the Court of Appeal and ask them." (I think this must mean that under some circumstances a judge can pass a case to an, or the, appeal court. However, here, it's hardly to be expected that Gray would relish that, as it would surely make it seem he considered himself less than competent).
Something else happened; I suppose a clerk said "All rise" or something. Anyway, like a crystal dissolving, the formal placing of people loosened and disappeared. Ushers and police started calling for the court to be emptied. I noticed someone who'd better be nameless—one of the repulsive 'on whom assurance sits'—shout "A more unappealable case I have never heard! Mazeltov!", but he was greeted with nothing.
Irving left the court rapidly, heading, perhaps appropriately, since this is where the bankruptcy courts are/were, to the Carey Street exit, where he was temporarily housed in a little police sentry-box structure, before a cab came, and before press photographers turned up. It was raining lightly and the police seemed to enjoy the novelty of shepherding someone around.
Irving, with astounding buoyancy, seemed in good spirits; he was tanned and looked fit, but tired. He took his suit jacket to a dry cleaners, which is why his newspaper photos show him in shirtsleeves. Reporters (Associated Press) and photographers (Times, Telegraph) turned up, and organs like the Los Angeles Times phoned. He appeared in the evening on Channel 4 TV, one of the relatively bright spots in the UK's grey TV. He worked out his phrase: "One word. Perverse!" Then expanded it to two: "Two words, the first unprintable. The second, perverse!"
A friend says he's made audio tapes and video tapes for me of the trial, as presented in the UK media. Tomorrow I'll have to add my press cutting collection.
Irving gets a front page headline in an evening paper, though he's soon pushed off by a cricket bribery event. I also learn that Ken Livingstone, a candidate for the new position of Mayor of London, has said, or repeated, a claim that the financial system kills more people every few years than the Second World War. (15 to 20 million children a year, third world debt). Apparently Jewish spokespeople found this offensive (not the deaths, the comparison). And I noticed at this time an obituary of Andre Deutsch, a publisher whom Irving suspected of contacting Irving's printers with threats to withdraw his printing contacts. Vague allegations surfaced about Bronfman and Atlanta (perhaps someone can invent a rum-'n'-cola conspiracy theory?). The Telegraph , one on Conrad Black's monkeys-at-typewriters rag, had an obituary of a man known as Adam Ulam, a historian: "compelling analysis of Soviet communism'. What it didn't say was that he appeared to be a Jewish 'Pole', an apologist for mass murder. Whatever would Gray say!
I couldn't help contemplating people like Evans (in the audience, with, I think, most of the witnesses) and the inevitable fate of the uncreative, to quote Haldane. He was shown outside the Waldorf saying he had no doubt Irving would continue to publish his books, and lecture. No mention of the forces against publication, or bans in some foreign countries, or, for that matter, threats at Oxford University, where Evans does what work he does. Lipstadt, according to the press, is apparently starting some ritual compulsive cleaning. It was also curious to see, close up, massed legal teams; I suspect a lifetime of suppressing adrenalin, of secrecy and concealment and carefully issued statements, must have some physiological costs; perhaps these people have a higher-than-average rate of disease, probably ending with drugs which don't work provided by researchers who are kept securely corrupt by people just such as themselves. At least that's elegantly symmetrical. And I fear the truth is that Gray is a disgrace to British justice. It's all very well to say he has a difficult decision, but that's what he's there for.
See, next, if you like, my comments, which I've tried to order and collect in a corralled way.
| Unimaginative cartoons the day after Gray's judgment |
|
Gray's judgment
(Note: My electronic version of Gray's judgment isn't converted to HTML, for various technical reasons, including its soft page numbers. It is still in its original 333-page Word format as DAY033.DOC; the zip file is much shorter, but needs to be unzipped. The transcript of Gray's actual readings, if I get it, and the discussions on appeal and costs, will be day033.html)
(And remember: an advantage of a judge's decision over a jury trial is that the reasoning must be given. With a jury decision, nobody knows how they came to their conclusions).
** Gray's review of Hitler on 'the Jewish question' shows Gray hadn't got the point of the reasons for hostility to Jews in Germany. This, arguably, is Irving's fault, since obviously the defence wouldn't examine this. Irving, I take it, preferred to avoid the issue, Gray thus being permitted to say "Irving's arguments appear to be hopeless" [re Hitler after 1933].
** As that example shows, Gray proved unable to throw off, or as he put it 'set aside' most of his preconceptions, despite making some effort, for example, in noting that he hadn't expected the case for genocide at Auschwitz to be as uncompelling as it is. At most turns of his analysis, he adopted the view promoted through the media and TV for years, despite there being no evidence adduced for it at the trial. In a way, it was quite funny: the entire Second World War seen through a deeply coloured filter. Examples: (1) Considering the uncertainties of translation, context, and meaning of German phrases, he is satisfied that there are "sinister connotations". (2) He inserts phrases like ".. the reality of what was happening in the death camps", or "the notorious concentration camp at Mauthausen" assuming the points at issue. (3) The Warsaw ghetto uprising, barely examined in the trial, is assumed to have its conventional force, without examination of the evidence. (4) [Irving] "appears to take no note of the mass murder of the Jews which took place soon after" is a typical remark. (5) On the Schlegelberg Document, with its mention of Hitler and the final solution's 'postponement until after the war', Gray said the sensible historian 'takes into account surrounding circumstances' when, of course, the circumstance are a point at issue! This must have been particularly galling to Irving, who, I think, unearthed this document. (6) Gray said Irving is 'often distinctly pro-Nazi - .. tend to exonerate Nazis from their appalling atrocities against the Jews..' when, of course, there are two points at issue here.
** The lesson here seems to be that, when attacking a complex set of claims, it's essential to investigate them all—tedious though this may be. For example, it's necessary to examine the situation of Jews in Soviet Russia. And figures of Jewish populations are obviously another possible point of evidence. Perhaps I can give an analogy: if someone wishes to criticise a religion from a rationalist point of view, it's not enough to show some of its beliefs are absurd or wrong. It's also necessary to examine unconscious assumptions, archaeological evidence, philosophy, economic power, and all the other ramifications. As another example, if you wish to remove a weed from flower-beds of truth, it's necessary to look carefully at its roots, runners, etc. Irving, for, of course, what seemed perfectly good reasons, such as Rampton claiming he was short of time, neglected to do this.
** It's rather absurd that Gray should be called upon to judge fine points in history; evidently he had little knowledge of the subject. This of course is part of the wider problem of any system of law; it's not Gray's fault. However, a number of serious errors crept into Gray's report, which perhaps provide some evidence that he himself wrote most of it (I have my doubts about the word-processed hate material). For example, Gray takes the Wannsee Conference as serious evidence, and the statement attributed to Hoess, since the procedures of Nuremberg were not examined in court.
** Gray's omissions: I found these extremely disturbing. (1) Lipstadt's lack of any evidence, (2) the witnesses who never appeared, (3) Gray's failure to remember that Irving had been excluded from Auschwitz, Germany, and so on, (4) His failure to notice the figures of six million revised down, the dropping of the soap story etc, while insisting that Irving 'resiles' various points in his accounts, [NB Gray talked of "hundreds of thousands of Jews" in Auschwitz 'gas chambers', hedging his bets] (5) His failure to notice that no 'survivors' had been called, unless, when Gray said ".. unchallenged evidence of large numbers of witnesses..", he was taking the common view into account even though no witnesses were produced, (6) The Rudolf Report was ignored, which is important because of its evidence of cyanide penetrating completely through brickwork, contradicting the "tenth of a thickness of a human hair" argument adopted by some critics of Leuchter..
** It was fascinating to see Gray look at such phrases as 'cross-pollination' and 'convergence of evidence'. One might have hoped for a confident handling of evidence. Gray presumably is supposed to be trained in assessing evidence. In my opinion, 'convergence of evidence' reduces belief in a holocaust, rather than increasing it. In Gray's hands, convergence seems to prove, for example, that 3.5 kilograms of coke are enough to cremate a corpse.
** Gray seemed not to tackle important legal points. Indeed, (1) when discussing (with Rampton) the possibility of an appeal by Irving, he said his judgment had "very little law in it." Unless I blinked, or more likely dozed, he said nothing about the issue of St Martin's Press and the pressure put on it and other publishers. (2) The question of the imbalance of forces, though raised by Irving at the end, seemed not to be faced by Gray. If someone writes a book, why should they be allowed to be backed by enormous resources? It was nominally Lipstadt's book, after all. (3) Irregularities in procedure seemed not to trouble Gray. If Rampton had such a good case, why did he continually delay supplying evidence? Why lie about a video tape? Why pull supposedly important witnesses? Why silence Lipstadt? Why interrupt all the time? Why keep on producing supposed evidence? (4) The offers made by Irving to end the case weren't mentioned. In particular, the evidence to stop if Auschwitz were examined was not mentioned. (5) Gray's judgment had long passages on racism and anti-Semitism. However, neither of these were an issue in Lipstadt's book!
** The issue of 'holocaust denial' figured prominently in the judgment, despite the fact that Irving had insisted on large numbers of shootings of Jews. In fact, the phrase wasn't really defined, mainly I think through failure to be radical enough. My own view is that 'Holocaust denial' would assert that the idea of a Jewish holocaust is a myth: the idea being that, if you examine Jewish influencer and behaviour in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and compare it with the behaviour of other groups, and also try to get some idea of death rates, the true figures for Jews, in view of their activities, in fact are equal or less than other groups. I should say this is holocaust denial; I'd also say that it's probably true—as for example Churchill and Liddell Hart and others imply—despite the intensive repetition of the post-war idea that Jews were specifically damaged. At any rate, Gray, by leaving this a grey area, or perhaps a Gray area, was able to simply use the sound-bite aspect of this phrase. (Another undefined vague expression of course is 'anti-Semitism'. Thus for example Rami, of 'Radio Islam', and Zundel, of 'the Zundelsite', are described as anti-Semitic; not one word of evidence was produced as to what this means. Nothing substantial was said about the IHR. And so on).
What has this trial achieved so far? It has forced historians to provide evidence for their claims. Although, of course, Rampton and the others did their best to obstruct, free transcripts exist with a great deal of admittedly filtered information. The subject can at least be approached with some degree of rationality.
Lessons for Revisionism: (1) Because Internet is almost the only medium for transmission of new ideas, it will be a target for censorship. Very rarely, TV programmes/ news items stimulate interest in small numbers of people, as happened with several important revisionists. (2) Revisionism will develop splinter groups: for example, there will be Catholics, fundamentalist Christians, anti-Semites, conventional US-empire types, Pro-Germans, and others. They will not agree a common agenda; for example, on such topics as the Vietnam War. (3) In my view, one way to erode censorship is to mimic the hacks and produce sound-bites, which have to be repeated, and repeated, and repeated, until they may stick. (This is something Irving failed to do in his trial). Thus, Evans might be known as a historian who ignores most atrocities unless they involve Jews - the Congo, for example. He seems to see no objection to violence in these cases. This combination of racism and violence surely makes him a neo-Nazi. Or van Pelt, the architect, or rather pretend architect, who refused to investigate the Auschwitz 'gas chambers' . (4) It's also important to counter common misunderstandings, such as the idea that revisionists deny that Auschwitz existed. (5) Fault lines will develop amongst 'Jews'. Some will adopt a full-censorship fanatical hard line. Others will see that this is unlikely to work, and go for reformism, as Shahak illustrates. Obviously they will try to avoid topics such as return of moneys obtained by fraud, and payment for unpropagandised compensation. Whether 'holocaust' education, and of course its implied censorship of other atrocities, will be legally imposed, remains to be seen. It will be interesting to see whether fault lines will develop amongst academics.
Future Legal Cases? (1) If awareness of the magnitude of the fraud increases (it may not) there will no doubt be more legal cases. If this case is anything to go by, it's essential to have information on all aspects of the 'holocaust'. There must be a coherent picture; all aspects must be touched on. (2) There's a difficult question of presentation. Irving, throughout the case, was affable, only occasionally showing emotion (for example, when he utterly baffled Rampton by saying he was ashamed that Britain had committed a war crime in Dresden). He addressed everyone politely. He even said "Mr Rampton, well done" on the day of Gray's judgment, a bit like Oscar Wilde 'in the grip of a machine that cares nothing for human values'. Possibly, in retrospect, this was a mistake. Although obviously it mayn't be good policy to offend a judge, Irving might have reminded Gray rather more often that after all he, Irving, had unearthed and read the archival material and spoken to people. Gray might have thought twice about including the limp and feeble material in his judgment.
[Back to start of this page]
Note on the Psychology and Advantages of Intellectual Fraud
|
These are not all frauds in the usual sense; I'm looking at intellectual constructions which rely either on censorship or on promotional activity, typically carried out continuously over time by one or more organisations. My mixed bag of samples (NOT AT ALL EXHAUSTIVE; and which assume wide knowledge on your part, reader!) shows that there are huge variations in the lengths of time, costs etc for which frauds flourish. It's difficult to get a true historical picture, because, once a fraud is clearly pinned down, everyone immediately pretends they knew that all the time. As regards monetary benefits, the point is that with any ordinary business—building, farming, mining, education—most people have some idea of what things usually cost. But with frauds the sky's the limit. A biological analogy is, perhaps, with parasites: consider the Rafflesia , with the most spectacular, biggest flower of any in nature; it gets its nourishment by tapping into other plants. In the same way, a successful fraud attracts resources in a more effective way than its conventional rivals, and avoids their costs.
[Back to start of this page]
|
|
— COMEDY CORNER — |
|||||
THE PLACE: Royal Courts of Justice, London. DATE: Thursday 17th Feb 2000. TIME: 1 p.m. (adjournment for lunch). NOW READ ON... Fascinated by the problem of why author Deborah Lipstadt was being made to remain silent—something apparently completely out-of-character—your intrepid reporter Rae West , amid the chaotic movement of people in the courtroom at adjournment, decided to ask Professor Lipstadt in person. With a carefully prepared list of questions, he waited until Prof Lipstadt was in earshot, then asked: "Ahem. Professor Lipstadt. Have you worked out why it is you're being kept silent?" Imagine the years of professorial training (admittedly, in America) which must have gone into her eloquent reply: "I've nothing to say to you, sir." At this point one of her entourage of goon-like handlers swept her away by another exit. 
Why is she considered such a net negative asset? Perhaps we'll never know! Probably she doesn't know herself. I was later told that she (and
Penguin
) wouldn't talk to me, though I didn't get this in writing. So I don't even know if she pronounces "that guy Irving" as "dat goy Oiving" in Brooklynese.For those interested, some of my other questions were: 'Do you buy your scarves at Nieman-Marcus?' 'Do you think Los Angeles should be renamed with a less obviously Spanish Catholic name?' 'Do Jews have some moral responsibility for Jewish war criminals like Henry Kissinger?' 'Do you have unfulfilled ambitions (apart from yelling at Mr Rampton)?' © Rae West 2000. All rights reserved. World copyright. No part to be reproduced without written permission in several languages. |
|||||
Headlines we're unlikely to see... Bride-to-be Deborah Lipstadt, from Georgia, USA, announced her forthcoming marriage to British author David Irving today. Irving nibbled a kosher vinegar-soaked gherkin dipped in preserved chicken fat, which he said was "delicious". He made no denial when Deborah said "His name may be David, but, believe me, he is Goliath!" The couple are planning to rebuild the kitchen of Irving's Mayfair apartment to include ritual dairy equipment, and to amalgamate their papers into a Second World War research center. Irving, who has a reputation for flirting with younger women, quipped "Now I'm off to beddie with Debbie!" PROFESSOR IN NEW WITNESSES SHOCK Professor Robert van Pelt said he was surprised by a new twist in the Irving/Penguin Books case, when it was announced that 546,439 Holocaust survivors would be called as witnesses. It is intended that witnesses will be shipped into court in groups of 25 on an elevator hoist the size of a table, and on cross-examination will withdraw all the assertions they have made in the past. But, outside, they will announce that millions of people died in the hot air of the small courtroom. Van Pelt said: "In the search for truth, no stones must be left unturned—unless they are in Auschwitz." QC EXPELLED IN DISGRACE In a ceremony dating from the Middle Ages, noted barrister Richard Rampton was yesterday expelled for life from Britain's legal profession after charges of Grandiloquentia cum nulla substantia and extra pecuniarius horrendis were made against him. A kangaroo court composed of men dressed as penguins produced their documents at the last possible moment, according to long-established tradition. Rampton's black gown and horsehair wig were burnt at a symbolic stake, and Latin oaths were chanted. It is reported that he is considering taking to the London comedy circuit in a double act with author David Irving. Yawns as obscure case continues A law case, forgotten by almost everyone, still continues, largely unnoticed. Davod Irvine is believed to be an author who sells few books, and who is living somewhere in London during a libel action. He is not to be confused with Clifford Irving, author of a notorious book on recluse Howard Hughes, which was proven a fraud some decades ago, when Hughes himself dramatically denounced it in a telephone transmission. Yesterday Mr Irvin called a press conference, but nobody attended. David Irven's case created something of a stir when it started, some time ago, but most people have forgotten it now. HONOURS HEAPED ON MS ROGERS AND MR JULIUS Torrents of unforgettably golden eloquence took the Irving case by storm, when two lawyers utterly demolished the claimant, demonstrating unrivalled knowledge of world history, government archives, legal systems, and forensic detection. The entire court, including Irving, rose for an hour-long standing ovation, and the two were carried in a triumphant procession through London. Permanent statues will be erected in their honour. An extraordinary meeting declared that any case in which they participate will automatically be decided in their favour, without the trouble of a trial. |
|||||
|
— HACKWATCH / FLACKWATCH: WIT AND WISDOM IN THE MEDIA? — |
||
|
February 4, 2000.
Ha'aretz
, a US / Israel rag, ran a piece attributed to
Tom Segev
, with this: 'But what interested him [Irving] more than anything else were the holes that were supposed to be in the ceiling of the chambers, which were ostensibly used for introducing the poison gas. No holes were marked on the plans displayed by the defense witness. Perhaps these were not suffocation chambers, but rather shelters to protect from aerial bombing, suggested Irving, and dramatically promised to withdraw his libel suit if he could only be shown the holes. Where are the holes, he asked again and again. "We had so much fun that day," he said later, because it turned out that there were no holes. But the media, of course, did not report that, Irving complained, and informed Internet surfers that Rudolf Hess' son was also infuriated about the gap between the protocols he reads and the media reports.' Read, and probably re-read. My numerous fans will notice that the plans are mentioned; the fact there are no holes in the structure of the 'gas chamber' is omitted by this dishonest and undersized flack. Segev also says 'Lipstadt [in fact, of course, not her but the defence legal team] 'must prove that the Nazis systematically murdered millions of Jews in gas chambers in Auschwitz and the other death camps. This isn't hard to prove; there is a plethora of solid evidence, both written and oral.' [ A S Marques brought this to my attention] |
Jonathan Freedland
Guardian
5 Feb 2000, says: 'The [Auschwitz] gas chambers are intact, but their ceilings have collapsed, allowing Irving to deny their purpose. Since we cannot see them cannot examine the ceiling holes through which the gas seeped, we cannot prove they were what thousands of witnesses said they were.' We have two (presumably deliberate) lies by Freedland. First, they can—and have been—examined. Second, there are not thousands of witnesses; van Pelt could manage only five, all dead. |
|
|
Independent
(28 Jan). Among other absurdities,
James Dalrymple
writes: '[Van Pelt] knows this terrible place as no other human being knows it' [in fact, van Pelt has spent less time there than Auschwitz staff] and 'was "absolutely certain" that at least one million people had died there.' Dalrymple tactfully omits the enormous changes in van Pelt's testimony. |
||
|
Andrew Neil's
1996/7 autobiography covering his editorship of the
Sunday Times
has this: 'I also made the huge mistake of using David Irving, the Nazi apologist historian, to translate the Goebbels' Diaries. He was the only expert able to read Goebbels' writing and all the excerpts we published rather refuted Irving's views on Nazi history. But many were understandably appalled we were having anything to do with him and it did the paper damage—a good illustration of the maxim that if you lie down with dogs you get fleas.' [The Sunday Times of course is mostly junk, tackling only soft targets. An exception under Neil was his allowing AIDS to be examined, though his book shows he personally understood nothing about that either.] |
Richard Rampton QC was featured in the London
Times
Law Section on 8th Feb 2000. To Do you have any unfulfilled ambitions? he is recorded as saying ' To write the definitive biography of Mozart.' As the Irving case shows, Rampton has little knowledge of German, so this ambition is certain to remain unfulfilled. Returning to the real world, we find: 'Have there been any surprising aspects in the case?— Only how little I knew before I started it. ' Just as I thought! |
|
|
Mon 7 Feb: no British press coverage of this trial, apart from
three letters
in the
Guardian
—with impending libel case— 1. 'I consider Irving a near-monster.. That a large and terrifying atrocity was committed by the Nazis is not doubtable. The sad fact is that there are many questions about the Holocaust which haven't been answered.. is it any wonder that those on the far-right use our frightened silence to propagate lies?' garrick23@hotmail.com - Garrick Alder 2. '.. If one must play such perverse games.. Irving's own evidence could just as well have been forged by a sinister Aryan group.. When will the madness stop? Nick McAdoo 3. '.. each successive generation of young Europeans must be reminded of the horrors of Hitler's "Final Solution to the Jewish Question".. David Irving richly deserves to lose his case and be bankrupted.' Prof Howard Elcock |
||
| Professor Evans's first day: a piece attributed to Ian Burrell ('Home Affairs Correspondent') in the Independent also appears, rewritten, and anonymous in the Times and Guardian . Typical phrases were 'sheer depth of duplicity' and 'doesn't deserve to be called a historian'. The careless reader mightn't note that these are privileged, i.e. unactionable, quotations from Evans's 'expert report', unsupported by evidence. | I was amused to find a comment somewhere in David Irving's vast website, from (I think) a Sydney paper, that a 'quietly spoken middle-aged woman' would soon defend herself against a libel case. I wonder if he knows that Lipstadt in fact will remain unnaturally silent throughout the trial. | Martin Mears , Times law section (Feb 15): 'Irving, for instance, contends that Hitler knew nothing about the Holocaust because no one is able to produce a piece of paper which says: "Dear Heinrich, please kill all the Jews. Adolf." To punish an argument of this kind is to dignify it.' Mears must be considerably stupid: he's incapable of criticising the holy writ of the 'Holocaust', and unable to paraphrase Irving's work. (Mears was President of the Law Society). |
| Professor Evans' expert testimony (despite occupying six full days) has, as far as I know, been completely unreported, a computer search of The Times , for example, revealing nothing. It's true that Evans' testimony is about as interesting, reliable, and knowledgeable as a typical medical expert report. Even so, it's strange nothing is printed. Why do they bother to send the hacks along? |
|
1993 Fascism for Beginners , by Stuart Hood (sketches by L Jansz) repeats the false claim that Irving 'describes himself as a mild Fascist.' There's a cartoon of Irving with swastika spectacles (an image also in the 'definitive' Anne Frank). But the caption is accurate: 'The myth of the mass murder of Jews in the death factories of Auschwitz.. which in fact never took place.' Hood was 'BBC Controller of Programmes'. Spot the neo-fascist. |
| I hear Channel 4 [British TV] plan a TV piece on this trial. (They did a transcript-based McDonalds libel reconstruction, in a mock courtroom, with actors playing the McLibel Two). Presumably it will be anti-Irving. I tried to suggest Irving could act as himself. He is irritated that his words may be used without his copyright permission. | The Guardian 1 Mar, Jonathan Freedland: '.. Spielberg and others.. want to refute those who deny the Holocaust ever happened. Enter the Irving trial.. He is suing Ms Lipstadt He could have been ignored. The decision to take him on instead, at enormous cost, is typical of a strong current in contemporary Holocaust thinking: the desire to defeat "revisionism" once and for all. ..' | |
| Jeremy Jones (I think 1 Mar; don't know which rag): '.. Irving.. is claiming that Lipstadt ruined his career..' In fact, of course, this is untrue; Irving claims there was joint action; Lipstadt was just a small cog in the machine. | What action should we take against Austria ? wondered Yahoo , tied with Reuters . They didn't wonder what action should be taken against Israel, bombing Lebanon. |
26 Jan: official announcement in Britain that there may be a 'Holocaust Remembrance Day'. Presumably by coincidence this was the very same day on which Irving made his offer (relating to holes) disproving the Auschwitz gas chamber . |
| A reporter saying she's from 'Salon' is in court. A piece of their site is Ramsey Clark, the war criminals best friend ! My advice: don't waste your time |
Times
1 March.
Sam Kiley
and
Michael Binyon
repeat, of the 'Eichmann diaries', they were '.. simply forgotten until late last year, when scholars decided they should be released.' I doubt even their readers are so stupid as to believe that. |
Michael Horsnell
(
Times
1 Mar 2000) throughout this trial has specialised in simple-minded reportage of the laziest sort, relying on privileged quotations by Mr Rampton without evidence, such as the headline Irving 'was an ally of neo-Nazis'. (Horsnell didn't, of course, mention Irving's suggestion that perhaps the Israelis might unearth Himmler's diary, which they still hold in complete secrecy.) |
| Geoffrey Wheatcroft in the New York Times (12 Oct 98): France and Germany passed 'Holocaust denial' laws perhaps because they have 'consciences to assuage'. | ||
| Der Tagesspiegel (Jan 18, 2000; on Irving's site), has quite a funny piece including phrases like 'mediocre monster' and 'self-taught paranoid'. It talks of 'obsessive dedication to detail'. The author appears to have read none of his books. (Because of articles of this sort, I decided to list Irving's books—see above). | Irving's site has a 17th Feb piece by Waldo Profitt , apparently 'former editor of the Herald-Tribune'. If you want to see a dishonest hack without grasp of evidence relying on second-hand quotations, read Mr Profitt and laugh. | Simon Jenkins in The Times on the death of Charles Schultz, the suburban cultural desert cartoonist:— 'Humour renders even atrocity bearable. To some, Robert Benigni's clowning over the Holocaust in Life is Beautiful [a film?- RW] was too much to bear; for others the revelation was masterful.' (Jenkins once edited the Times but seemed to have been demoted). |
|
Jewish Chronicle
(London)'s searchable website has only eight items on Irving (some are missing):- 1.) Jan 24 1997 D Cesarani [then 'Director, Institute of Contemporary History and Wiener Library'] letter on van Pelt & Dwork's Auschwitz book. Cesarani says its "superbly reproduced plans of the camp [drawn up by the SS and hidden for 50 years in the Russian state archives] are a devastating refutation of Holocaust denial." Cesarani adds: 'they respect the integrity of historical texts as they do the work of fellow scholars.' (See box somewhere below for newspaper article by Cesarani). This was in reply to a letter from Irving , which is not on their site ; nor is any response from Irving on these absurd claims. 2.) Jan 14 2000. A very long, very shallow piece about a passenger in a car saying the BBC shouldn't have a 'Jewish' reporter describing this case. 3.) Jan 14 2000 Lee Levitt ( Irving in court: aspects of Shoah 'debatable' ) says correctly that the 2nd edition of Hitler's War, dropped the previous view that Auschwitz was a dedicated extermination centre, and removed the word "Holocaust". Levitt gave none of Irving's reasons. 4.) Jan 21 2000 Lee Levitt ( 'Hitler did not know of gassings' ) Adds misleadingly 'until 1943'. Levitt quotes Irving on Hitler putting "the Jewish problem... on the backburner." Of course, Levitt doesn't give Irving's evidence (or state his doubts over a 97,000 figure). 5.) Jan 28 2000 Levitt supposedly deals with van Pelt, but in fact mostly looks at financial arrangements behind professorial chairs and books. 6.) Feb 4 2000 . Levitt does not mention van Pelt's dishonesty over the holes question (day 11—28th Jan) and Irving's offer to end the trial if an investigation were to be carried out. MacDonald of course is unmentioned. Kristallnacht—which Rampton had fixed on as a 'dead cert'—is unmentioned. Levitt prefers the topic of 'Jewish greed'. 7.) Feb 25 2000 What seems to be an editorial says '.. Israel Singer, .. general secretary of the World Jewish Congress.. having paid a visit to the David Irving libel trial.. portrayed.. a courtroom gallery virtually devoid of Jewish spectators and full of neo-Nazi sympathisers. .. to judge from the.. trio of JC reporters [sic-RW] who have reported on the proceedings daily [sic-RW] since they began, .. he was mistaken...' [Maybe 25 Feb 2000 —not on JC site:] Bernard Josephs when Gray supposedly loses patience over 'offensive' exchanges, re Evans' 'expert report'. That's about it. Detail of Kristallnacht, Wannsee, Auschwitz appears to be of no interest to Josephs, nor presumably the readers of this racist rag. 8.) Mar 3 2000 Joseph Millis, on the 'Eichmann Diaries': 'The decision was taken with a view to helping American academic Professor Deborah Lipstadt..' An official supposedly said "There is importance, as part of Israel's historic duty, in publishing the memoirs..." Three undated pieces [not on JC site] again by the tedious Levitt. These deal with (i) whether Evans did or didn't like Irving; (ii) interviews, or supposed interviews, with people in the courtroom—Levitt seems unable to count and thinks 'court full' signs prove there is a 'clamour' for places. He mentions 'communal personalities' (e.g. Martin Gilbert) who turned up; (iii) Both a chauffeur and a cook of Hitler being 'Jewish'. Irving went out of his way to praise the Jewish Chronicle in his closing speech. Perhaps it was a low-budget special effect. |
||
|
David Aaronovitch
(
Independent
, Sunday 4 March 2000) has what he thinks is a definitive argument: '.. all children need to know is this. They went into the forests, the ravines and the depots, those millions, and they didn't come back. .. a line a thousand miles long and a hundred miles deep..' [sic—easily enough for many times the entire world population]. What racists and liars-for-money, like Aaronovitch, don't face is the fact that the population figures before and after the war don't support this idea. |
Times Feb 24, full-page Penguin book promo about Hugo Gryn ['the rabbi whose very particularly Jewish suffering made him alive to others' pain and oppression'] quotes: 'I suspect he [Irving] finds the concept of gas chambers so unimaginable that he can't imagine it.' Accompanied by a picture of Gryn 'after release from Auschwitz.' | You might hope that Evans is exceptionally ignorant. But Norman Stone , who occupied a prestigious chair, hedged with "probably four million died, of whom a significant number died of hunger or disease." Trevor-Roper , or Dacre, who wrote mostly on pre-19th century Britain despite being Professor of Modern History, fell for the Hitler diaries and Table Talk frauds. Hobsbawm 's recent book included childish errors on science, apart from its judeocentric racism. And so on. Such people are not merely clowns: they control the entry to the historical world of young people. |
|
Eichmann's 'diaries'
also known more accurately as
prison writings
caused a brief press flurry (e.g.
Guardian
, 29 Feb, and
Times
, 1 March 2000). Each was illustrated by photos, including in each case a sheet of paper with German handwriting and scribbled emendations. There is careful avoidance of any detail in these pieces and it remains unclear whether the actual documents were released (Mr Rampton only had a computer disk, which he seemed not to understand). Although
Sam Kiley
in Jerusalem said they 'detail his involvement in the gassing and shooting of millions of Jews', in fact there's only an account similar to one in Himmler of a baby's brains, and a denial of cyanide, suggesting his Israeli captors hadn't fixed their stories properly, before the 'only time Israel has carried out the death penalty'.
Suzanne Goldenberg
in Jerusalem says he 'devised the extermination of Europe's Jews'. She prodcues no evidence apart from Chlemno gas vans; the actual detail of course isn't quoted. Most of the piece is irrelevant. It's amusing to see
Gavriel Bach
(described as 'assistant prosecutor during the trial'; a picture shows him with an understandable half-smile) repeat the fantasy of 'geysers of blood'. Small wonder these documents were not produced in court as evidence against Irving. |
I recall with amusement that
Index on Censorship
ran at least one article supporting censorship of revisionism. (Their more usual fare is criticisms of secrecy in places like Morocco; not, of course, of western governments, armies, banks, secret aspects of science etc. A 1999 issue had an article on science by Colin Tudge —a nice chap, but, sadly, with little knowledge of science. In my view this is just another phoney group). |
Ian Burrell
(again; sorry) of
The Independent
4 March 2000 said '.. Penguin, the publisher, has summoned an impressive array [sic] of Second World War experts.. Yet the onus is on Penguin and Ms Lipstadt to prove their case.. Mr Irving.. has repeatedly denied awareness of documents [sic].. if he [Irving] wins, it will open the door for revisionists to rewrite any event in history without the requirement to consider evidence [sic]..' This is the piece which Irving found exceptionally irritating; one wonders whether poor Burrell had listened to any evidence. And whether he's noticed that Penguin/Lipstadt have failed the simple test ['onus'] of producing their evidence to support Lipstadt's derivative claims. |
|
Final day:...
Times
and
Guardian
(16 March) unexpectedly had headlines 'Holocaust trial about freedom, says Irving' and 'Irving: rabid racist or victim?'. Both pieces were 15 column-inches or so, the Guardian padded with huge photos. Perhaps someone re-read the legal small print on 'qualified privilege' (see above, on UK libel). Both were largely the usual fragments of speeches... |
... Final day:
Evening Standard
(15th Mar) had headline Historian Irving is branded a 'Right-wing extremist and rabid anti-semite' by an anonymous hack; Irving says
Mr Rampton
likes morning speeches, as he can then hand his work to the press for printing. Whether this is true, I'm uncertain—if the judge doesn't read it, it seems pointless. But perhaps it makes Mr Rampton's paymasters think they're getting something for their money. On 16th, the ‘quality’ press Telegraph and Independent stuck to the same guns: ‘David Irving is a racist and rabid anti-semite, says QC’ and ‘Irving ' falsified history on a staggering scale'.’ |
|
|
Observer
(Sunday 19 March).
Gerald Posner
(described as 'celebrated American author') at Irving's apartment. Posner
pretends he was the only journalist there;
in fact there were 5 or 6. Posner shows no knowledge of the evidence, as he asks about shipments of Zyklon B to Auschwitz. Or perhaps this is just a pretence—as with all these hacks, the archaeological evidence is ignored. Irving may have taken the opportunity to air his views on conspiracy/ies against his books, which at the time of the interview hadn't been raised in court. Posner of course makes no useful comment. (He's listed as the author of a book on J F Kennedy. Based on Posner's command of evidence here—don't waste your time). |
Translator Peter Millar ( Sunday Times , Mar 19) seems to be cashing in with Why I spoke up for David Irving . He doesn't give an answer. He promotes a novel of his own. He wrote: '[Irving]'s views are undoubtedly.. "institutionally racist"'. This piece gives the comparison with Hamilton, Aitken, and Oscar Wilde. Millar says 'If even half of Irving's claims were true, it would.. be evidence of a massive conspiracy of lies and distortions.' Millar clearly doesn't understand intellectual fraud. |
Times
9 March has two reviews by
David Cesarani
in the usual picture book style (caption: A German woman.. overcome with horror.. bodies of Jews.. murdered by the Nazis.' Where is this photo from?). The blurb says 'Was the Holocaust a unique evil.. or a promotional tool..?' The obvious fact is that it was not out of the ordinary in the Second World War. Caesarani's ignorance and racism know no bounds: I was amused to find for example 'Black awareness, with its focus on slavery and the Vietnam experience,.. fostered a "culture of victimhood"..' (Though this is not very relevant here, Southampton University also hosts Ray Monk, who helped produce an unutterably third-rate pair of TV programmes on poor Bertrand Russell. I do hope they have at least a few competent academics in their higher reaches). |
[Back to start of this page]
* © Rae West 29 April 2000. (Day 033 added 15th May 2000. Appeal announcement added 15th March 2001). This piece doesn't represent legal opinion. It's my personal interpretation of the event. I believe the content to be essentially correct, but of course the situation is complex, and unfortunately I can't guarantee that I haven't missed the point of some events, or the significance of other non-events. In fact, I probably have, since the courtroom situation has evolved in an opaque way—out-of-court settlements, for example, often being secret. The relevant pages of Denying the Holocaust were found by a friend of mine and may be incomplete. Archived pieces, for reference, written at earlier stages of the trial, are unaltered; I don't want to be misrepresented. The court transcripts are completely unedited; I've left even very obvious mistakes, in case I might be accused of altering the sense. In such cases keyword computer searches with the correct spelling will not work.
. . . . [ To Home Page of Rae West's site ]