| How
the great Irving-Lipstedt libel trial in
London will turn out I don't know.
Neither does anyone else. But one thing
is certain. Professional Holocausters
have been given a black eye. They have
been forced to debate what they have
always refused to debate, namely,
whether their version of the
"Holocaust" is true.
As could be expected, Canadian
coverage of this fascinating event has
been abysmal. It would warrant daily
reports, but we are more concerned with
important matters like hockey fights.
Still, you can get the news from the
Internet and the international press.
 Historian
David Irving has been a target of Jewish
invective ever since he testified for
the defence in the second Zündel
"false news" trial in 1988.
Now, in one of the longest libel cases
ever, he is suing Deborah Lipstadt (and
Penguin Books) for claiming that he is
"one of the world's most dangerous
Holocaust deniers", that he is a
falsifier of history, that he applauds
the internment of Jews in Nazi
concentration
- Deborah Lipstadt
| Lipstadt is professor of
modern Jewish and Holocaust
studies at Emory University in
Atlanta, Georgia, and her
statements on Mr. Irving were in
her book, Denying the Holocaust:
The Growing Assault On Truth And
Memory.
As far as most Jews are
concerned, what she has to say
about Irving is a bit like Moses
bringing those tablets down from
the mountain. As for his being
"dangerous", he has
thrown no bombs - apart from the
bombs he has thrown at the
profitable Holocaust Industry.
|
About that black eye: professional
Holocausters hold to the view that the
story of six million Jewish deaths at
the hands of the Nazis is both
self-evident and sacrosanct. Hence their
refusal to discuss it except in
proclamatory terms, a line that is laid
down from the top and followed by the
media.
An example: when Charles Maclean,
lawyer and open liner, asked Bernie
Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress
to debate Mr. Irving on air, Farber
refused. Sol
("Oliver is the hate capital of
Canada") Littman of the Simon
Wiesenthal Centre and the rest of
the Jewish prominente take the same
tactic, here and in the U.S. They won't
debate "the obvious".
They must be losing some sleep now.
The Atlantic Monthly magazine did a
cover story entitled "The Holocaust
On Trial" even before the case
began. The Jewish writer, D.D.
Guttenplan, while basically backing the
Jewish line, pointed out a few truths
right off the bat. |
The
story
about soap being made from the fat of
murdered Jews, he wrote, is now
universally rejected by historians as a
fabrication. Dachau had a gas chamber
[it was there for delousing inmates] but
he states it was never used. He also
points out that there were no gas
chambers at Bergen-Belsen.
I saw that place myself in 1945. The
camp was captured intact and if there
had been any gas chambers there they
would be featured on TV every time the
Holocaust is mentioned, which is
practically every night. But that didn't
stop the Montreal Gazette in 1993 from
reviewing a book by Montrealer Moshe
Peer in which he claimed to have been
put through them six times when he was a
child, managing to escape death every
time. Miraculous!
Our media will print anything a
"survivor" tells them. But I
digress.
The London trial has led to enormous
publicity on this issue, but one doubts
that it will make any difference to the
constant beating of the Holocaustomania
drum by Jewish organizations and
Hollywood. It may even increase it. What
is important, though, is that they
haven't been able to cast the Irving
trial into the sea of silence, which is
what they did when the second Zündel
trial took place.
Headlines from the first one, like,
"Gas chambers did not exist"
gave them migraines. So, going along
with Jewish demands, the media virtually
blacked out the second one. In Britain,
too, the media put their pens down
during Mr. Irving's lengthy cross
examination of the leading expert for
the defence, during which Irving was
scoring points.
In Britain, much of the coverage has
been snidely anti-Irving. "Irving
doesn't deserve title of
historian", etc. On the other hand,
the normally "correct" BBC has
asked whether there might indeed be a
"Holocaust industry", and on a
related issue an Evening Standard writer
stated before the trial began that
"enough has been made of their
Holocaust".
That Jews and others died in their
thousands in the camps is beyond
question. But Irving says that the
Auschwitz gas chamber story is fiction
and that no order from Hitler exists for
the destruction of the Jews.
I expect Irving to lose. He has the
courage of a lion but is fighting the
case alone and is facing twenty lawyers
for the defence, which has unlimited
funds. The whole Jewish establishment is
arrayed against him.
That establishment has a lot riding
on this trial and it would be a brave
judge who came down in his favor. But
whatever the outcome, the trial
transcripts will be there for the world
to muse on and the fight for truth and
free debate will go on. |
