⚠️ 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.
Real History Focal Point Publications official website Index to the Traditional Enemies of Free Speech Alphabetical index (text) FAQ on your New Zealand visit press reports on your New Zealand visit your dossier on The Mossad George Mason University, USA Should Respectable Historians Attend and Speak at Conferences Hosted by David Irving ? Re: Did Lipstadt treat Irving unfairly before the trial? Who cares? ( #43245 ) by Sara D. Salzman
on September 30, 2004 at 8:47 AM FRANKLY, I don’t care what Lipstadt did or didn’t do — in regards to the subject of this thread. You are now arguing the validity of Lipstadt’s work, the validity of the trial — which Irving instigated and lost — but not the central issue. Every time you bring up the “painstaking research” that Irving did, I ask you again: 1. Since you have no access to the original sources, how do you know that what Irving says is true?
How do you know that his “painstaking research” did not reveal exactly the OPPOSITE of what he claims? When he translates a document and replaces the words “the SS” with “the Jews,” what kind of “research” is that? 2. Since a great deal of Irving’s “painstaking research” involves interviews with former Nazis, yet Irving claims that all witnesses to the Holocaust who disagree with him are liars, why is Irving’s quoted eyewitness testimony valid? Let’s get