⚠️ Historical Documentation Notice
This document is part of a historical archive and is presented for scholarly research and educational purposes.
The content reflects historical perspectives and should be understood within its historical context.
As years passed, the Library became less helpful. While I have never hesitated to assist historians, whatever their religious background, its current director Dr David Cesarani refused all access to documents when we were fighting the Lipstadt legal action in 2000. I have perhaps unkindly christened him “Ratface” for his looks. Even-handedness is not their forte. Es gibt sotte und sotte , as the Swabians say; not all folks are alike.
The JC ‘s main article is quite wrongly headed, Why Irving regretted his days in court . I did not, they were exhilarating. They were the first time that the Holocaust industry had been put on trial and required to prove what it had been whining about for fifty years.
The three authors state straight away that I was “comprehensively shredded” by the Lipstadt Trial — well that is true, rather as the puny might aver that the reputation of the German armed forces was shredded at Stalingrad: yet they carried on against the weight of the entire world for two and a half more years, because they believed the battle against Judeo-Bolshevism was important to humanity and worthwhile.
The JC editorial dips deeply into the pot of Schmiertinte which journalist Arthur Pottersman first flipped open against me in April 1963 (and whatever happened to him?);
Roget’s thesaurus lying ever-helpful at their side, the write of me as a self serving, widely discredited, former convict, with no reputation, desperate, suffering abject humiliations, distasteful and cynical, a historian whose “career has been built upon shaming the memory of the six million” — a sentence which puzzles me, as I have written not a single book or play or article let alone produce a Hollywood movie or, like that New York fraudster, finance a ballet about the tragedy.
However, the warning letter makes my point. When the JC contacted Richard Rampton , Lipstadt’s clever trial QC, his response indicates that he has grasped it: “There is no question,” he claimed, evidently never having read my books, “that from 1988 onwards he [David Irving] was a persistent denier.” He would remain so “if he is still denying the facts about Auschwitz”. Now that’s an odd restriction to apply: is Auschwitz the be-all and end-all of “the Holocaust”?
Whatever is found to have been faked there, nobody must say it? The article continues: “Another member of the defence team, James Libson [that’s him, behind Lipstadt’s right shoulder] stressed that “Holocaust denial can be to accept some but to deny other aspects [of the Shoah]. Irving has a history of trying to accept aspects in a bid to rehabilitate himself.”
What he is saying to the JC is that historians now have to buy the whole Holocaust package, just like Tylenol: that’s what capital letters are for. You are not allowed to open the box, let alone query one of its contents. If you do, you are a denier, and in short order after that self serving, widely discredited, bereft of reputation, desperate, abject humiliations, distasteful, yadder, yadder, yadder, and if they have their way eventually a “former convict,” too.
Evidently writing history in future is going to call for some pretty fancy footwork around the stepping-stones. Libson did most of the trial legwork ( Anthony Julius spoke literally only one word) during the trial. A clever but sinister young Jewish lawyer, Libson told me had had been brought up in a fanatical Zionist seminary. JUST don’t complicate matters by bringing up Auschwitz.
They wince loudest when I “raise questions on individual camp artefacts.” (Try telling that to the judge in a murder case: defence counsel points out that there is no body, there have been no forensic tests on the alleged murder weapon, and the site has been subsequently rigged and faked — “reconstructed” is the word the Auschwitz directors prefer). Hear David Irving speak in British cities .
Register interest Next city Birmingham , October 26, 2007, buffet and talk, 7-10 pm The JC Schmierfinken write of “The sheer unthinkable scale of the Auschwitz death machine.” Well, some of us, even post-Stalingrad, can still think, and one question jitterbugs around inside my head. It concerns the Richard Korherr report – commissioned by Heinrich Himmler , in secret, from Korherr his chief statistician, as an overview of the Final Solution’s first ten years .
I think I am the first author ever to have used it, in my 1977 Hitler biography . It gives an impressive total figure of Jews ” subjected to special treatment ” in the Reinhardt camps by January 1943 (1,264,166, identical to the figure in the controversial decoded Höfle telegram ).
Himmler, interestingly, commands Korherr to rewrite his report more concisely for the Führer, and to change that murky phrase to read, ” channeled through the camps to the East ” instead of “subjected to special treatment in” them. Quite an impressive document in the Holocaust Industry’s hands, but for one thing . . . it makes no mention of Auschwitz, where, according to them, the biggest massacre of the lot was going on.
The deaths at Auschwitz were evidently statistically insignificant at that time. Now that omission really does bug me as an historian, far more than what the JC Schmierfinken can write. Donate once | regularly [ Previous Radical’s Diary ]