2shelbys wrote:
I will be the first to admit that I did not follow the trial very closely. One thing I do know is that the biggest mistake Mr. Irving made was his attempt to represent himself against an opponent with staggering monetary support. I believe there was something on the order of 6-7 Million dollars from Steven Spielberg alone.
Perhaps 2shelbys, because he didn't follow the trial very closely, doesn't realize that it was Irving who initiated the action by filing suit for defamation against Prof Lipstadt and Penguin Books. It was Irving who sought to silence his critics, not the other way around. This must be clearly understood because Irving, in the aftermath of his total defeat, sought to paint himself as a victim. Surely 2shelbys would agree that if one has been sued, one is entitled to defend oneself.
I would like 2shelbys to give us his source for the "6-7 million dollars from Steven Spielberg alone." Professor Lipstadt states:
Soon a collaboration developed between [Les] Wexner and Steven Spielberg, whose own Shoah Foundation was deeply engaged in taking survivors' testimonies. This collaboration resulted in the effective solicitation of a number of $100,000 dollar contributors.
Lipstadt
"History on Trial," p. 38
So, while Mr Spielberg certainly assisted in raising funds for Prof Lipstadt's defense, there is no indication from Prof Lipstadt that Speilberg personally donated so large a sum.
It should also be noted that Lipstadt's publisher, Penguin Books UK, agreed to bear most of the cost:
By May, 1998, the date of my next visit to London, Anthony [Julius, Lipstadt's lawyer] and Penguin had hammered out the terms of a joint defense. Penguin would carry all the "shared costs" and pay for any expenditure relating to both parties, including experts, barristers, and researchers. I still faced substantial expenses, but this agreement lifted a major burden from me. Their insurer would pay the bills.
ibid p.44
2shelbys wrote:
I found this excerpt from the trial which casts some doubt on the conclusive nature of the decision:
"13.7 My assessment is that, as a military historian, Irving has
much to commend him. For his works of military history Irving
has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the
archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and
others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have
remained unnoticed for years. It was plain from the way in
which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and
penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World
War Two is unparalleled. His mastery of the detail of the
historical documents is remarkable. He is beyond question able
and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance
of documents which he had not previously seen. Moreover he
writes his military history in a clear and vivid style. I accept the
favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan
of the calibre of Irving's military history (mentioned in paragraph
3.4 above) and reject as too sweeping the negative
assessment of Evans. (quoted in paragraph 3.5)."
This paragraph casts no doubt on anything, as shown by the
following paragraph:
13.8 But the questions to which this action has given rise do not relate to the quality of Irving's military history but rather to the manner in which he has written about the attitude adopted by Hitler towards the Jews and in particular his responsibility for the fate which befell them under the Nazi regime.
(emphasis added)
Thus Judge Gray understood exactly what the case was about, and focused his decision on the salient questions.
Having framed the case and the key issues involved, Judge Gray goes on:
13.9 As appears from section V above, the Defendants have selected nineteen instances where they contend that Irving has in one way or another distorted the evidence. Having considered the arguments, which I have summarised at some length, I have come to the conclusion that the criticisms advanced by the Defendants are almost invariably well-founded. For whatever reason (and I shall consider later the question of Irving's motivation), I am satisfied that in most of the instances cited by the Defendants Irving has significantly misrepresented what the evidence, objectively examined, reveals.
13.15 Readers of the account in Goebbels of the events of 9 and 10 November 1938 were given by Irving to understand that Hitler bore no responsibility for the starting of the pogrom and that, once he learned of it, he reacted angrily and thereafter intervened to call a halt to the violence. I accept the evidence of Evans and Longerich that this picture seriously misrepresents the available contemporaneous evidence.
13.16 Irving's endeavour to cast sole blame for the pogrom (Krystallnacht) onto Goebbels is at odds with the documentary evidence
13.18 In my judgment the account given by Irving of the interventions by Nazi leaders during the night of 9/10 November distorts the evidence.
Hitler's views on the Jewish question (paragraphs 5.123-150 above)
13.26 Irving's submissions on this topic appear to me to have a distinct air of unreality about them. It is common ground between the parties that, until the latter part of 1941, the solution to the Jewish question which Hitler preferred was their mass deportation. On the Defendants' case, however, from the end of 1941 onwards the policy of which Hitler knew and approved was the extermination of Jews in huge numbers. Irving on the other hand argued that Hitler continued to be the Jews' friend at least until October 1943. The unreality of Irving's stance, as I see it, derives from his persistence in that claim, despite his acceptance in the course of this trial that the evidence shows that Hitler knew about and approved of the wholesale shooting of Jews in the East and, later, was complicit in the gassing of hundreds of thousands of Jews in the Reinhard and other death camps.
13.31 It is my conclusion that the Defendants are justified in their assertion that Irving has seriously misrepresented Hitler's views on the Jewish question.
Findings in relation to the instances of Irving's historiography cited by the Defendants
13.51 For the reasons which I have given, I find that in most of the instances which they cite the Defendants' criticisms are justified. In those instances it is my conclusion that, judged objectively, Irving treated the historical evidence in a manner which fell far short of the standard to be expected of a conscientious historian. Irving in those respects misrepresented and distorted the evidence which was available to him.
13.58 It inexorably follows that Irving was misrepresenting the historical evidence when he told audiences in Australia, Canada and the US (as he accepted he did) that the shooting of Jews in the East was arbitrary, unauthorised and undertaken by individual groups or commanders.
(emphasis added)
all quotes from Judge Gray's decision which can be read in its entirety at:
http://www.hdot.org/ieindex.html
2 shelbys goes on to say:
He [Judge Gray] also found that Mr. Irving was unjustly defamed:
"13.166 But there are certain defamatory imputations which I
have found to be defamatory of Irving but which have not been
proved to be true...Furthermore the Defendants have, as I have held,
failed in their attempt to justify the defamatory imputations
made against Irving... The question which I have to ask myself is
whether the consequence of the Defendants' failure to prove
the truth of these matters is that the defence of justification fails
in its entirety."
This is in direct opposition to other comments made in the decision .
This comment is not in any way in "direct opposition" to other comments made. First, let's quote the
entire paragraph:
13.166 But there are certain defamatory imputations which I have found to be defamatory of Irving but which have not been proved to be true. The Defendants made no attempt to prove the truth of Lipstadt's claim that Irving was scheduled to speak at an anti-Zionist conference in Sweden in 1992, which was also to be attended by various representatives of terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hammas. Nor did they seek to justify Lipstadt's claim that Irving has a self-portrait by Hitler hanging over his desk. Furthermore the Defendants have, as I have held, failed in their attempt to justify the defamatory imputations made against Irving in relation to the Goebbels diaries in the Moscow archive. The question which I have to ask myself is whether the consequence of the Defendants' failure to prove the truth of these matters is that the defence of justification fails in its entirety.
Judge Gray addressed three specific issues that Irving had cited in his suit. They were: 1. the claim that Irving was scheduled to speak at an anti-Zionist conference in Sweden in 1992, which was also to be attended by Hezbollah and Hamas reps; 2. That Irving had a portrait of Hitler hanging over his desk, and 3. that Irving had misused and potentially damaged the original plates of the Goebbels diaries which were discovered in Moscow. The Judge ends this paragraph with a question to himself as to how much weight he should give those failures of the Defense to prove their case on those three issues.
As can be seen quite readily, 2shelbys omitted the most salient parts of that paragraph in an effort to represent it as saying something that it didn't. In 2shelbys's selective quote, none of those three issues is mentioned and the reader is given the impression that Judge Gray was commenting on the Defense's case as a whole. This is a deliberate misrepresentation that is, well, Irvinguesque.
Judge Gray answers his own question in the very next paragraph which 2shelbys neglected to mention:
13.167 The answer to that question requires me to decide whether (I am paraphrasing section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952) the failure on the part of the Defendants to prove the truth of those charges materially injures the reputation of Irving, in view of the fact that the other defamatory charges made against him have been proved to be justified. The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-semitic and racist and that he associates with right wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism. In my judgment the charges against Irving which have been proved to be true are of sufficient gravity for it be clear that the failure to prove the truth of the matters set out in paragraph. 13.165 above does not have any material effect on Irving's reputation.
13.168 In the result therefore the defence of justification succeeds.
So, as can be seen clearly, Judge Gray's decision was thorough, complete and decisive.
2shelbys also states:
Mr. Irving has never even published a work on the holocaust.
Another misrepresentation. The bulk of Mr Irving's work, from his first book on Dresden to "Hitler's War" (including the revised version where Irving specifically deleted all references to the holocaust because he says it didn't happen), and the books on Goebbels and Göring and the Nuremberg trials all share the same theme: distorting and misrepresenting the facts in order to argue that there was no "Holocaust," and if there was, it was all the Allies' fault.
2shelbys's post is a blatant attempt to distort the record and mislead the reader, much like the works of David Irving are.