Scrapbookpages Blog

August 30, 2014

Deborah Lipstadt, who defeated hard-core Holocaust denial, now worries about soft-core denial

Filed under: Holocaust — furtherglory @ 8:52 am
Deborah Lipstadt gives a victory salute after defeating David Irving in his libel lawsuit against her

Deborah Lipstadt gives a victory salute after defeating David Irving in his lawsuit against her

Deborah Lipstadt is a professor of modern Jewish history and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta; she is back in the news, speaking about soft-core Holocaust denial, which is a new threat to the Shoah (Holocaust).

You can read an article about her in The here.

This quote is from the article in The

[Deborah Lipstadt] The woman who fought one of the most high-profile Holocaust denial legal cases [against David Irving] claims it [Holocaust denial] is on the rise and taking on a new and disturbing form.

Prof Deborah Lipstadt identified the trend of equating the Shoah with modern-day events as a “soft-core” form of denegrating the Nazi genocide.

“It’s used politically, glibly, and I don’t like it. It’s a grim, cheap way of getting to your point.

“It’s much more frequent than in the past. I don’t think there’s much we can do about it,” she said

Topics as wide-ranging as abortion, animal rights and sporting defeats have been likened to the Shoah [Holocaust] over the recent months.

I am writing about this because the subject of the lawsuit, brought by David Irving, against Deborah Lipstadt, has come up recently in the comments on my blog.

This comment was made on my blog on a previous post:

You’re not forced to use the term “Holocaust denial” […] That term [Holocaust denial] was invented by Deborah Lipstadt to demonize, belittle and ridicule Holocaust revisionists and their works. The Mainstream Mass Media then turned Lipstadt’s insult into an official term by using it systematically when they talked about Holocaust revisionists.

Isn’t it very ironic that a Jewess [Deborah Lipstadt] who has never produced anything about the “Holocaust” (her only ‘research’ topic is Holocaust revisionists, not the “Holocaust” itself) could decide that Holocaust revisionists are not researchers but only deniers? Men and women who worked very hard for decades and were persecuted very harshly for that are suddenly mere deniers because Missis Zero Contribution Talmudic Hatred Lipstadt decided so…

When Lipstadt defeated David Irving in his libel lawsuit, this was acclaimed by the media as proof that the Holocaust happened, just as the Jews claim that it did, and that “Holocaust denial” has been defeated.

Irving was suing Lipstadt for libel, and he could have won the case, but he made the mistake of including Penguin Publishing in the lawsuit. He was suing for money damages because Lipstadt called him a dangerous Holocaust denier, which hurt his reputation and his income from his books, but I don’t think he sued to have her book removed from the market. Her book was published in America in 1993 but it was not published in the UK until 1996.

It has been many years since the trial. I followed the trial on the Internet at the time, and as I recall, Irving also sued Lipstadt because she went to book stores, along with some other Jews, and demanded that Irving’s books be taken off the shelves. Irving was also suing because he had a firm contract with a publisher to publish his next book, but Lipstadt went to Irving’s publisher and persuaded him to break the contract to publish the book.

It is very clear that Lipstadt was guilty of wrongdoing with regard to preventing Irving from publishing and selling his books. Irving included Penguin in the second part of his lawsuit even though the publishing firm was not involved in preventing Irving from earning his livelihood. This was the big mistake that caused him to lose the case.

Irving and Lipstadt disagreed on the details of the Holocaust, and the judge sided with Lipstadt. The Holocaust was not proved during the trial, but Irving claimed a victory when he got Robert van Pelt to admit that there were no holes found in the roof of the two underground gas chambers that are now in ruins. This was the famous “No holes, no Holocaust” slogan that Irving claimed as a victory.

The judge was not a Holocaust expert; he ruled in favor of the defense because he did not want his life and his career to be ruined. Irving made a mistake in defending himself. He should have had a lawyer present at his table, so the lawyer could stand up and say, every five minutes: “Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence.”

Lipstadt had all of the Holocaust True Believer experts on her side, but Irving made the mistake of not asking any of the Holocaust revisionists to testify for his side.

In doing some searching on the libel trial, I found nothing about Irving’s charge against Lipstadt for conspiring with others to go to book stores and persuade them to remove his books.

Nor did I find anything about Irving’s charge that Lipstadt persuaded Irving’s publisher to break his contract to publish Irving’s new book.

The judge in the case wrote a 333 page judgment. I downloaded the judgment from the Internet at the time of the trial and read it. The judge ruled in Irving’s favor on some points, although his overall judgment was against Irving. On the subject of Lipstadt going to bookstores and on Lipstadt preventing Irving’s book from being published, the judge ruled that Irving was correct in his claims, but that Penguin was not guilty of these charges, so because of that, he had to rule against Irving.

In searching the Internet about the case, that part of the judgement was not mentioned. Everything on the Internet now is against Irving and in favor of Lipstadt.

During the trial, it appeared that Irving was winning, as far as the daily transcripts were concerned. The judge even mentioned that Irving did a good job representing himself.

The burden of proof was on Lipstadt, and in following the case from day to day, it did not seem that her side was proving it’s case. In spite of that, I didn’t expect the judge to rule in Irving’s favor because if he had done that, the judge would now be reviled by the whole world, just as Irving was.

David Irving has now redeemed himself, to the point where he can now go on making a living because he now says that he believes that Treblinka was a death camp. I wrote about this on this blog post:

I wrote about Irving’s visit to Treblinka on this blog post:

Lipstadt’s side of the story is official history and Irving’s side of the story is a crime, punishable by prison time in 19 countries today. So which side is the judge going to believe? The judge could have been thrown into prison in any one of 19 counrties if he had ruled in Irving’s favor.

As I mentioned before, I followed the libel trial very closely. I put this quote from the trial testimony on my website. I have quoted from my scrapbookpages website below:

The following quote, regarding the purpose of the Treblinka camp is from the trial transcript of David Irving’s libel case against Deborah Lipstadt which is on this web site:

(Richard Rampton, the lawyer for the defense, shows David Irving a map of the railroad lines to the Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec camps, as he questions him about the purpose of these camps.)

[Mr Rampton] Then there is that another marking, which we do not have to bother about, which is the actual, I think, German railway as opposed to the Russian one or the Polish one. A different gauge, I think. The line runs north/east or east/north/east out of Warsaw to a place called Malkinia; do you see that?
[Mr Irving] Yes.
[Mr Rampton] Just on the border with White Russia?
[Mr Irving] Yes.
[Mr Rampton] And there is a sharp right turn and the first dot down that single line is Treblinka.
[Mr Irving] Yes.
[Mr Rampton] Then if you go to Lublin and you go east/south/east towards the Russian border you come to a place Kelm or Khelm.
[Mr Irving] First of all Treblinka and then Kelm, yes.
[Mr Rampton] And you go sharp left northwards to Sobibor?
[Mr Irving] Yes.
[Mr Rampton] Which is just again next to the border. If on the other hand you turn right before you get to Kelm or Khelm and go to Savadar, again, travelling right down to the border on single line you get to Belsec?
[Mr Irving] Yes.
[Mr Rampton] Those, Mr Irving, were little villages in the middle of nowhere, and from the 22nd July 1942, if these figures you have given in your book are right, which they are not quite, but the volume, if you multiply, must be hundreds of thousands of Jews transported from Lublin and Warsaw and as I shall show you after the adjournment also from the East; what were those Jews going to do in these three villages on the Russian border?
[Mr Irving] The documents before me did not tell me.
[Mr Rampton] No, but try and construct in your own mind, as an historian, a convincing explanation.
[Mr Irving] There would be any number of convincing explanations, from the most sinister to the most innocent. What is the object of that exercise? It is irrelevant to the issues pleaded here, I shall strongly argue that, it would have been —
MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you want to take that point, can you
[Mr Irving] — it would have been irresponsible of me to have speculated in this book (Hitler’s War), which is already overweight, and start adding in my own totally amateurish speculation.
MR RAMPTON: No, you mistake me, Mr Irving, it is probably not your fault I, as his Lordship spotted what I have done, I have taken what you have wrote (sic) in the book as a stepping stone to my next exercise, which is to show the scale of the operation, and in due course, and I give you fair warning, to demonstrate that anybody who supposes that those hundreds of thousands of Jews were sent to these tiny little villages, what shall we say, in order to restore their health, is either mad or a liar.


MR RAMPTON: No. I suggest, Mr Irving, that anybody — any sane, sensible person would deduce from all the evidence, including, if you like, the shootings in the East which you have accepted, would conclude that these hundreds of thousands of Jews were not being shipped to these tiny little places on the Russian border in Eastern Poland for a benign purpose?
End of quote

Neither Rampton nor Irving seemed to know the reason why “hundreds of thousands of Jews” were shipped to “these tiny little places.”

I explained the reason that the Jews were shipped to “these tiny little places” in this blog post:

and also in this blog post: