David Irving Stops Sale of Evans Book

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Lying about Irving...

Post by Scott Smith » 09 Mar 2003 03:06

Maple 01 wrote:Having bored the community to death with Evans' book I feel it's my duty to ask Mr Smith, Tonyh and Dan to step forward and condemn Irving's attempts to ban free speech in the UK. Perhaps he should concentrate on paying off his legal debts rather than spreading denialist c**p and making more libel threats.
Posting on the Irving-Lipstadt affair is the first thing that I ever posted on in the original Third Reich forum and I've said many times that suing people for libel to defend your own free-speech is a legal strategy that I don't understand. I have long said that Irving needs to leave pious zealots like Lipstadt to stew in their own juices and go back to writing his worthy books.

On the other hand, Irving is under the gun because any of his income is ordered by the courts to go to Lipstadt and her lawyers, which is curious since she had the backing of billionaire Zionist apostles like Spielberg and Bronfman.

I'm pleased that Evans' book is still sold in the USA, and I linked to it myself in another thread (which seems to have been forgotten). Here it is again, with a small kickback going to the Third Reich forum if you use this link.

The more people that actually read Irving (free) and buy or checkout Evans from the library, the more Evans is in danger of discrediting himself with his tough words. Of course, if nobody does more than read reviews from establishment newspapers, then Irving is a liar whether he is or not. I've read enough of Irving's works to have an opinion here, even though Evans barely makes the bottom of my long reading list and I don't intend to any time soon. I did read Lipstadt and was not impressed; indeed I was alarmed at such anti-intellectualism coming from a professor. The only professors like that who I have known were theologians not real historians.

Of course the establishment MUST be right since they all seem to think that Saddam is Hitler, i.e., a cardboard cutout of Evil. And they can draw a specious causal connection between a terrorist attack on the USA and any other countries that simply don't like us and our Zionist foreign policies. That's like saying that I'm a Communist because I don't like Bill Gates and George Bush, Jr. Truth by stampede! So, if the literati says that Irving is a liar then there is no point in his denying it; he is therefore mentally ill, and he is a Denier to even confront his accusers, according to Mr. Maple.
:roll:

CLICK! Image

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 09 Mar 2003 03:23

Scott Smith wrote :
The more people that actually read Irving (free) and buy or checkout Evans from the library, the more Evans is in danger of discrediting himself with his tough words
"Discrediting "..?
Does this mean that you can point out that Evans is not trustworthy describing Irving's distortionis somewhere in his book ?
:)

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

Post by Tarpon27 » 09 Mar 2003 03:29

Dan wrote:
No, but she ranks lower than Irving in mine, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You see, three lies in 5 pages trumps 17 lies in 30 books.
Just by way of explanation, I think there is possibly some confusion over the Evans Report as evidence in the Irving/Lipstadt libel trial.

Apparently, there seems to be a consensus, done by some accountant "bean-counting", that in the sum total of the professional life of David Irving, including books, articles, letters, his journal, etc., that "17 lies" were found.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Evans Report. This was a report commissioned specifically for the defense of this case, and in no way represents a thorough in-depth accounting of everything Irving has ever written.

This is the introduction, by Evans, to his Report:
1.5.8 The two researchers compiled transcripts of the salient parts of the audiocassettes and videotapes and went through the material supplied by Irving during the process of Discovery, taking extensive notes. It was of course impossible to cover the whole of Irving’s oeuvre with complete thoroughness, and some principle of selectivity had to be applied. We decided that I would cover Irving’s general reputation as a historian, Irving’s attitude to Hitler, and the central issue of whether or not Irving was a Holocaust denier. On the equally important matter of whether or not Irving distorted and falsified history, we decided to concentrate on the ‘chain of documents’ which Irving on various occasions had claimed proved Hitler’s ignorance and disapproval of the Nazi persecution and extermination of the Jews. Each document was assigned to one or other of the research assistants for preliminary analysis. In this way we covered the entire documentary basis for Irving’s controversial claim.
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/

(Look under the "Evidence" section and the Evans Report)


Irving contends that there is a "chain of documents" that support his claim that Hitler was not the instrument of the Jews destruction, and in fact has even stated that Hitler was the "biggest friend" the Jews had in the Third Reich. Obviously, part of the problem Irving has with Jewish groups is such a statement. However, Irving argues that events such as the Horthy-Hitler meeting, as one (of nine) of his "chain of documents" prove his contention.

Evans analyzed this "chain of documents", along with other topics in his Report.
The meat of his report, though, and the pillars of the defense case against Irving, are two sets of case studies. The first examines the nine links in Irving's "chain of documents." The second set, which takes up over 200 pages of the report, looks at Irving's use of evidence at three different stages of his career: his first book on the firebombing of Dresden, his treatment of the testimony of Hitler's adjutants in his book _Hitler's War_, and the explanation Irving gives for Nazi anti-semitism, mostly taken from his Goebbels biography.

D. D. Guttenplan, _The Holocaust on Trial_, ISBN 0-393-02044-4, 2001, p. 225

It is, in my opinion, an error to believe that all Evans found in the prodigious output of Irving's career is "17 lies" or whatever number. For example, on the Dresden book:
_The Destruction of Dresden_ launched Irving's career; first published in 1963, it is still probably the most most widely read of his books, and certainly the most widely admired. Yet Evans reveals that Irving

(1) fabricated a strafing attack on German civilians and refugees by British and American pilots, rearranging dates and misattributing testimony to bolster his account,

(2) knowingly took an account of a bombing run on Prague and pretended the events happened over Dresden,

(3) derived his own initial estimate of 135,000 dead from the testimony of a lone source who supplied no documentary evidence of any kind to back up his figure,

(4) raised the count to 202,040 on the basis of a typed copy of a document which later turned out to be a forgery,

(5) refused to modify the figure even when the man who supplied the document wrote to Irving to complain that he had been wrongly identified as Dresden's Deputy Chief Medical Officer when he was merely a urologist at the local hospital and "only heard of the numbers third-hand",

(6) suppressed internal evidence suggesting that the document was a fake, and

(7) also suppressed testimony--a letter to Irving--from a man whose job had been to tally the dead, and who put the number at just over 30,000,

(8) grudgingly acknowledged the discovery of an official "Final Report" that estimated the death toll at 25,000, but later discounted it, and finally

(9) ignored the discovery of the genuine document whose forged copy was referred to in (4) above.

The authentic total was 20,204--the forgers had simply added an extra zero!


Evans's dissection of _The Destruction of Dresden_ runs to over sixty pages; his analysis of the way Irving "uncrticially accepts the the testimony of Hitler's entourage when it is suitable to his arguments, but ignores it, suppresses it, manipulates it, or attempts to discredit it when it is not" goes on for more than a hundred pages.Neither gets more than a glancing mention at the trial. [Emphasis mine]


_The Holocaust on Trial_, D. D. Guttenplan, 2001, ISBN 0-393-02044-4, pp. 225-6

The Evans Report is over 700 pages. It was specifically designed and written for use by the defendants (Penguin Books and Lipstadt) to prove that what Lipstadt said about Irving was justifiable. To make the claim that Evans found "17 lies" in all of Irving's work is simply inaccurate.

Mark

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 09 Mar 2003 03:34

Apparently, there seems to be a consensus, done by some accountant "bean-counting", that in the sum total of the professional life of David Irving, including books, articles, letters, his journal, etc., that "17 lies" were found.
Hi Mark.

We've discussed one of Irving's lies over the last few days. The consensus seems to be that he was wrong, but not on a monumental scale.

I'd be very glad to see the faults discussed in the trial to be subjected to the scrutany of this board, since we have some of the heavy hitters one both sides here.

Regards
Daniel

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

From Irving's Website

Post by Tarpon27 » 09 Mar 2003 03:39

Irving posts an article from _The Guardian_ on his FPP website:
The latest company to be worried about Irving is Amazon.co.uk, which has removed from sale Telling Lies About Hitler, Richard J Evans's account of Irving's libel action against Deborah Lipstadt.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, March 8, 2003


The Bookseller

Nicholas Clee on the latest news from the publishing industry



THE last time David Irving brought a libel action to trial, he left court with his reputation in ruins. Despite that result, the discredited historian continues to exert influence on the book industry. The latest company to be worried about him is Amazon.co.uk, which has removed from sale Telling Lies About Hitler (Verso), Richard J Evans's account of Irving's libel action against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt. Professor Evans was the chief defence witness at the trial, and he uncovered the telling material that led to the branding of Irving as someone who "persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence".

Telling Lies About Hitler has a complicated history, recounted in this column before. Amazon appears to have sold it until January. The problem is that booksellers may be liable for prosecution if they are told that a book is potentially defamatory - and Irving has given Amazon that message. The company says:

"We will not list Telling Lies About Hitler or any other book over the objections that the book contains defamatory content, at least not without a commitment by the publisher to defend us in any legal action brought against us under UK law."
Verso says that it does not feel inclined to indemnify a retailer that has already removed the book from sale. Amazon says that the law as it stands has "a chilling effect on free speech".

=======================
David Irving comments:

OF COURSE I have had no contact with Amazon whatever. This is just another Guardian lie. I have no objection whatever to a publisher publishing, and a bookseller selling, books that propagate the truth; if a book contains deliberate, malicious and defamatory lies however, then both author and bookseller must continue to risk the consequences.
Since Deborah Lipstadt's lies cost her publisher Penguin around £3 million in unrecoverable legal and other expenses, part of them ironically the bribes paid to Professor Richard "Skunky" Evans for his testimony in the trial, their reluctance to publish future works by her and other authors is understandable.
More serious for Evans is not the prospect of a civil action for libel, but a criminal action for perjury, which a legal adviser has recommended to me press.

Related file:

How Macmillan Ltd came under pressure to destroy Mr Irving's books (1992)

How St Martin's Press came under pressure to cancel Mr Irving's "Goebbels" contract (1996)

Index on Richard "Skunky" Evans and his book
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html


This seems to me to be a remarkable non-denial denial; a classic bit of work, on par with many of our "best" American politicians and their ability to muddy their words so effectively.

Mark

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

Post by Tarpon27 » 09 Mar 2003 03:52

Hello, Dan

You wrote:
We've discussed one of Irving's lies over the last few days. The consensus seems to be that he was wrong, but not on a monumental scale.

I'd be very glad to see the faults discussed in the trial to be subjected to the scrutany of this board, since we have some of the heavy hitters one both sides here.
I read the "David Irving and the Klessheim Conference" thread here at the Forum, and thought it as thought provoking as many threads here are.

I also posted the relevant section from the Evans Report on the Hitler-Horthy meeting; the site where it is at had been down for several days. One can read exactly what Evans wrote on the incident and his objections to Irving's handling of it.

Along with what David Thompson and Michael Mills posted, it seems to be pretty much the record of that event, and readers can make up their own minds on the validity of the points made.

Regards,

Mark

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 09 Mar 2003 04:14

witness wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:he more people that actually read Irving (free) and buy or checkout Evans from the library, the more Evans is in danger of discrediting himself with his tough words
"Discrediting "..?

Does this mean that you can point out that Evans is not trustworthy describing Irving's distortionis somewhere in his book ?
:)
No, it means that I have seen no compelling arguments yet that Irving did what Evans boldly claims he did, which is lie about Hitler.

And I don't expect to.

But I admit that I have to read Evans myself to argue this convincingly.
:)

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 09 Mar 2003 04:53

Scott Smith wrote :
But I admit that I have to read Evans myself to argue this convincingly
"To argue this convincingly ".. :? :wink:
One might say that in this case you would not be reading with an open mind leaving out your past preconceptions..
"To argue this convincingly" means you 'll try to pick up on what you might conceive to be wrong in his book.
BTW I didn't find the Evans book to be too belligerent. Mostly facts.
Quite convincing.If you can argue them of course..Good luck ..
And again the phrase "dicrediting himself" when it comes to the evaluation of the Evans book seems to be quite dubious. Even more so on the background of the fact that you didn't read the book to begin with. :)

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

Post by Tarpon27 » 09 Mar 2003 05:41

Scott wrote:
No, it means that I have seen no compelling arguments yet that Irving did what Evans boldly claims he did, which is lie about Hitler.
David Irving stated (and it is on his website, uncontested, at least in one article he has posted):
"Hitler was probably the biggest friend the Jews had in the Third Reich, certainly at least when the war broke out."
Any German whoever saved a single Jew makes that statement a complete lie.

Regards,

Mark

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Post by Scott Smith » 09 Mar 2003 06:23

Tarpon27 wrote:
Scott wrote:No, it means that I have seen no compelling arguments yet that Irving did what Evans boldly claims he did, which is lie about Hitler.
David Irving stated (and it is on his website, uncontested, at least in one article he has posted):
"Hitler was probably the biggest friend the Jews had in the Third Reich, certainly at least when the war broke out."
Any German whoever saved a single Jew makes that statement a complete lie.
Hitler favored Jewish emigration to "Israel" (or any country that would take them) and this makes him a friend to the Zionists who milked anti-Semitism and were employing terrorism against the British who controlled Palestine then.

But I wouldn't argue that Hitler was the friend of the Jews, nor that the Zionists were. They didn't care about the fate of Europe's unwanted Jews; they just wanted their Israel so that some other Jew would live prophecy in the Promised Land.

I would have supported increased Jewish immigration into the USA since they were a persecuted minority--something that nobody seemed to want then except for the Germans, and the Zionists didn't support immigration to the U.S. either. When the war came they wanted American-entry into the war, which was (at least in the short-term) bad for Europe's Jews (but not for Zionism or modern Israel).

Anyway, regardless of what Irving meant, no Jews were gassed before the war, unless they put their own heads in the oven over anti-Semitism, and that would be unfortunate. But the Nazis hardly invented anti-Semitism or the persecution of minorities. One could argue (as some Black nationalists have) that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest friend of the Blacks, not because he ended slavery but because he proposed shipping them to Africa, as would have likely happened had he not been assassinated. Since he didn't favor making voters or jurors out of Negroes and ultimately ended slavery but not truly freeing them with full equality, does that still make him the greatest friend of the Blacks? As one surviving former slave said on a WPA sound recording, "Abbaham Linkum nebber freed nobody."

No-War/then No-Holocaust.

History is full of bitter ironies.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 10 Mar 2003 13:41

Scott Smith wrote:
Tarpon27 wrote:
Scott wrote:No, it means that I have seen no compelling arguments yet that Irving did what Evans boldly claims he did, which is lie about Hitler.
David Irving stated (and it is on his website, uncontested, at least in one article he has posted):
"Hitler was probably the biggest friend the Jews had in the Third Reich, certainly at least when the war broke out."
Any German whoever saved a single Jew makes that statement a complete lie.
Hitler favored Jewish emigration to "Israel" (or any country that would take them) and this makes him a friend to the Zionists who milked anti-Semitism and were employing terrorism against the British who controlled Palestine then.
Aber natürlich.
Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is to carry this measure through, is doing it with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention. A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them. The prophesy which the Fuehrer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters. If we did not fight the Jews, they would destroy us. It's a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Here, too, the Fuehrer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable.[my emphasis] Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.

The ghettoes that will be emptied in the cities of the General Government now will be refilled with Jews thrown out of the Reich. This process is to be repeated from time to time. There is nothing funny in it for the Jews, and the fact that Jewry's representatives in England and America are today organizing and sponsoring the war against Germany must be paid for dearly by its representatives in Europe - and that's only right.
Translation of Goebbels' diary entry of 27 March 1942, transcribed under

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goe ... ts-02.html
Scott Smith wrote:No-War/then No-Holocaust.
Aber natürlich. As Goebbels put it in the above quoted diary entry:
[...]Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.[...]

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Post by tonyh » 10 Mar 2003 17:06

I feel it's my duty to ask Mr Smith, Tonyh and Dan to step forward and condemn Irving's attempts to ban free speech in the UK
While I find the concerted efforts to strangle Irving's right to free speech disconcerting, likewise the same method employed by Irving results in much the same response.

Tony

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8988
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 13 Mar 2003 01:13

The following appeared in the New York Sun on 12 March:
WASHINGTON - Richard Perle, the influential foreign policy hawk, is suing journalist Seymour Hersh over an article he wrote implying that Mr. Perle is using his position as a Pentagon adviser to benefit financially from a war to liberate Iraq.

"I intend to launch legal action in the United Kingdom. I'm talking to
Queen's Counsel right now," Mr. Perle, who chairs the Pentagon's Defense
Policy Board, a non-paying position, told The New York Sun last night.

He said he is suing in Britain because it is easier to win such cases
there, where the burden on plaintiffs is much less
[my emphasis].
Sound familiar?[/quote]

User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002 20:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

Post by chalutzim » 13 Mar 2003 15:07

michael mills wrote: (...) Sound familiar?
Very familiar... :D

User avatar
chalutzim
Member
Posts: 803
Joined: 09 Nov 2002 20:00
Location: Südamerika - Brazil

Post by chalutzim » 13 Mar 2003 15:13

Scott Smith wrote: (...) History is full of bitter ironies.
:)
From now on I will call you zionist-public relations spokesman. Incredible how you can grasp all their intentions, read their minds... Incredible! :D

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”