AAARGH
David Irving, the irascible British
author of Hitler's War,
Churchill's War, The Desert Fox, and
biographies of Goebbels
and Goring, is making one final push into the
front line of his
enemy after his near-catastrophic defeat last year
in one of the
biggest Holocaust court cases since the Adolf Eichmann
trial.
Despite the fact that the defendant -- Deborah Lipstadt
--was
unable to prove that several of her statements about Irving
were
true (libel law in England requires that the defendant prove
he/she
did not libel the plaintiff), the judge ruled in her favor
because
the overall trend in Irving's work is to whitewash the Nazis
and
especially Hitler. For example, Lipstadt said that Irving has
a
portrait of Hitler over his desk. In actual fact, Irving has
a small
self-portrait of Hitler that was given to him by Hitler's
secretary.
Irving keeps it under glass in a small wooden box that
he
occasionally brings with him to his lectures (I have seen it).
The
judge's decision reminds me of a great quote from Isaac Asimov,
from
his book The Relativity of Wrong, 1989:
"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong.
When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong.
But
if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just
as wrong
as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger
than both
of them put together."
Lipstadt made errors in her
book. Irving made errors in his
books. But the difference is
profound. It brings to mind historian
of science Dan Kevles's book
The Baltimore Affair, in which
he shows that if you look deep
enough into any lab or research
project you are going to find a fair
amount of sloppiness and
minor errors. The difference between this
and directional deceit
is whether the errors are random or directed.
As the judge ruled
in the Irving case, Irving's errors were
systematic and nonrandom.
Irving, however, is a tough soldier and
is not about to go down
without a fight. He is preparing an appeal
and came to Southern
California last Saturday (March 3) to give a
lecture for the Institute
for Historical Review (revisionist
central), entitled "How
We Will Overturn the Lipstadt
Judgment." The event was attended
by approximately 120 people
and held at a hotel in Orange County,
the location of which was kept
secret to avoid a not-so-friendly
visit from Irv Rubin and his
cronies at the Jewish Defense League
who make a habit of disrupting
such meetings and stirring up trouble.
Since I received a personal
invitation from Irving to attend,
I was allowed in and treated
politely by Mark Weber and Greg Raven,
the Directors of the
IHR.
The demographic profile of this audience was noticeably
different
from previous IHR events I have attended over the years,
which
have typically been mostly old white guys complaining about
the
Jews. At this event were a broad mix of men and women
complaining
about the Jews (I estimated several dozen women rather
than the
token attached two or three one usually sees), or "the
traditional
enemy" in the not-so-coded language of this
movement. The
IHR had a book table set up displaying their books,
back issues,
and videos, as did David Irving displaying his,
including numerous
foreign language translations of his most
important books.
Mark Weber opened the evening with his usual
evangelical energy,
reviewing their most recent legal tangles with
the IHR's former
head Willis Carto, who has been a prominent thorn in
their side
for the past decade since they parted company over the
controversial
"Edison" money (Edison's granddaughter, Jean
Farrel
Edison, willed 15 million dollars to the IHR, most of which
has
disappeared--where it went is what is under dispute). Weber
discussed
the latest legal travails of Canadian-German Ernst Zundel,
whose
adopted country is once again trying to send him back to his
native
land, where he dares not go because their draconian laws
against
"hate speech" would soon find him in jail. The
editing
of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review is being
turned
over to Ted O'Keefe, as Weber is overworked with the general
running
of the IHR.
The next big event, however, is not an IHR
sponsored conference.
Weber announced that over the first weekend in
April a major revisionist
conference would be held in Beirut,
Lebanon, the first of its
kind in an Arab/Muslim country. The
"traditional enemy,"
Weber noted, is up in arms about this,
doing everything in its
considerable power to squelch the conference.
The World Jewish
Congress, the ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center are
all pressuring
Lebanon's Prime Minister to put a stop to the
conference. The
publicity generated by their efforts to stop it,
however, will
likely give it more press than revisionists could ever
purchase.
Go to the IHR web page to download all the press articles:
<http://ihr.org/conference/conferencetoc.htm>
Weber
wrapped up his comments by discussing the recent book about
and
lawsuit against IBM and its role in the Holocaust. IBM, it
seems,
sold punch card technology to German firms, who in turn
used this
technology to take a census of the German population,
from which it
was easier for the Nazis to sort out the Jews from
the non-Jews.
"This is madness!" Weber concluded. "If
every company
who ever dealt with Germany were to be sued it would
be utter chaos.
If an alien landed on Earth he would be utterly
astonished at the
obsession everyone has over the Holocaust."
In support of his
statement Weber cited Norman Finkelstein's controversial
book
The Holocaust Industry, in which this second
generation
child of Holocaust survivors says that the Jews have
exploited the
Holocaust for financial gain and moral leverage.
The book was
recently translated into German and quickly shot
up the bestseller
list in Germany, one of the biggest book-buying
markets in the world.
The IHR, of course, carries it in their
catalogue.
Next up to the
podium was Germar Rudolf, who regaled the audience
with tales of his
flight from an oppressive German government
who is after him for
publishing works in which he claims to demonstrate
that chemical
evidence shows that no gassing ever took place at
Auschwitz. To
escape incarceration Rudolf moved to Britain and
changed his name. By
the fall of 1999, however, the British government
tracked him down
and he was nearly nabbed and extradited back
to Germany, so he moved
to America where we have this seemingly
unheard of thing called free
speech. Rudolf is now trying to gain
political asylum but it is a
bureaucratic nightmare to get, so
he's laying low for the moment. His
purpose at attending this
conference was to report on his preparation
of an extensive expert
witness report for Irving's forthcoming
appeal, during which he
(Rudolf) intends to prove scientifically that
no gassings ever
took place at Auschwitz. (At last year's conference
the quip "No
Holes, No Holocaust" was the rage, referring
to the alleged
lack of holes on the roof of Krema 2 at
Auschwitz-Birkenau where
the SS poured the Zyklon-B pellets. When I
pointed out to Irving
that there are, in fact, holes in the roof and
that I have a photo
of one in my book, his rejoinder was "those
holes are not
in the right place." So I suppose the quip should
be "No
Holes in the Right Place, No Holocaust.") Rudolf
also intends
to show that one of Lipstadt's expert witnesses --
Robert Jan
Van Pelt -- was not an expert in architecture as he was
portrayed.
In Germany, Rudolf said, to appear as an expert witness onemust
have
a formal degree or training in that field. Van Pelt has neither,
he
explained. What that has to do with a trial in England was
not made
clear.
Since Rudolf is a chemist who was a Ph.D. candidate at the
prestigious
Max Planck Institute (before he was given the boot when
they found
out about his revisionist activities), his defense of
Irving in
the appeal will focus on the chemistry of Zyklon-B
staining. He
intends to show that in the first trial a number of
scientific
mistakes were made. For example, it was claimed that
Zyklon-B
cannot penetrate more than 10 microns into brick, as was
portrayed
by the chemist interviewed by Earl Morris in his film
Mr. Death,
the story of Fred Leuchter in which Leuchter
chipped off chunks
of brick and concrete and sent them to a lab for
testing. In fact,
Rudolf says, the Zyklon-B staining penetrates deep
into the bricks
and concrete of the gas chambers. So what? These were
strictly
used for delousing clothing, not as homicidal gas chambers.
He
also intends to prove that Kremas 2 and 3 at
Auschwitz-Birkenau
were built and used as air-raid shelters for both
the SS guards
and the prisoners whom the Nazis wanted to keep alive
for work.
At the Irving appeal Rudolf will also attempt to show that
Van
Pelt's statements that it only takes 3 kg of coke to burn a
body
is off by an order of magnitude, and that it is actually 30
kg,
of which the Nazis did not have enough to burn the number of
bodies
claimed. Van Pelt says that the SS installed air blowers to
make
the fire burn hotter, but Rudolf claims that this would mean
MORE
coke was needed, not less. Rudolf will also present the
results
of a study made at Treblinka with ground penetrating radar
in
which the scientists conducting the study were unable to
detect
any large burial pits.
Finally, Rudolf updated the crowd
on his most recent research
into the origins of the Holocaust
"story" which, he
explained, arose in the 1960s during the
Auschwitz trial in which
90% of the witnesses were
"prepared" by KGB agents and
other Soviet organizations,
whose purpose it was to continue their
war against the Nazis by
exaggerating their war crimes. This would
account for the
"convergence of evidence" I present
in Denying History
-- of course the stories are all alike;
the Russians made 'em all
up at the same time.
At last David Irving took the podium to a
rousing ovation, as
he always does with this audience, despite his
public statements
about revisionists, such as this one to journalist
Ron Rosenbaum:
"I find it odious to be in the same company as these people. There is no question that there are certain organizations that propagate these theories which are cracked anti-Semites. But what else can I do? If I've been denied a platform worldwide, where else can I make my voice heard? As soon as I get back onto regular debating platforms I shall shake off this ill-fitting shoe which I'm standing on at present. I'm not blind. I know these people have done me a lot of damage, a lot of harm, because I get associated then with those stupid actions." (p. 53 of Denying History).
Irving's appeal (for money in this case)
began with his typical
militaristic rhetoric: "We lost the
battle but we have not
lost the war. This is a real battle. The
battle for real history."
"Real History" is Irving's
catch phrase for what he
is doing, as opposed to the fake history
most historians write.
Irving believes in the truth, and his
letterhead carries this
quote from Goethe: "The main thing is to
have a soul that
loves the truth and harbours it where he finds it.
And another
thing: truth requires constant repetition, because error
is being
preached about us all the time, and not only by isolated
individuals
but by the masses. In the newspapers and encyclopedias,
in schools
and universities, everywhere error rides high and basks in
the
consciousness of having the majority on its
side."
Irving, you see, is in the minoritywho seek truth
while the rest
of the unwashed masses of historians, under the thumb
of the ruling
elite (the "traditional enemy"), propagate
error. "I
write real history, 'they' write fake history. It's
'David versus
Goliath'!" he quipped. Irving stood all alone
against the
Lipstadt team backed by a six million dollar donation
from none
other than Steven Spielberg himself, "the Spielberg
campaign
against real history," Irving complained. "My
appeal
will focus on money. Not just the money the witnesses
got,"
Irving continued, referring to the quarter million dollars
each
of Lipstadt's expert witnesses received for their reports
written
and submitted into evidence for the trial, "but on the
money
I need!"
At this moment, just as Irving was warming up
and about to burst
forth with one of his characteristic paroxysms so
eloquently expressed
with his commanding vocabulary and formidable
rhetorical talents,
he suddenly stopped, announced that the real
purpose of this lecture
was to raise money for his appeal, and that
his legal representative
would now take the podium. At that point
Adrian Davis, Irving's
Barrister, stepped in to pinch pitch for
dough, explaining that
he, in fact, would not be the legal
representative of Irving because
for that they needed a QC, or
Queen's Counsel -- the best lawyering
money can buy in England --
at a cost of roughly $250,000.
The rest of Mr. Davis's
presentation was a rambling and disorganized
plea for money, in which
he finished by punching home the Irving
message: "This is the
battle that is the turning point for
Real History. This will be the
turning point. This will get people
to ask questions."
Of
course, what questions people will be asking may not
be those
Irving hopes they will be. Time, and perhaps another
trial, will
tell.
---------------------------------
Michael Shermer
is the Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the
Director of the
Skeptics Society, the host of the Skeptics Science
Lecture Series at
Caltech, and a monthly columnist for Scientific
American. Go
to <http://www.skeptic.com> to join
the Skeptics Society
and subscribe to Skeptic magazine.
E-SKEPTIC FOR MARCH 10, 2001
Copyright 2001 Michael Shermer, Skeptics
Society, Skeptic magazine,
e-Skeptic magazine (<www.skeptic.com>
and
<skepticmag@aol.com>). Permission to print,
distribute,
and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. We
encourage
you to broadcast e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers.
For newcomers
to e-Skeptic you can subscribe for free: just send an
e-mail
to
<join-skeptics@lyris.net>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Displayed
on aaargh: 10 April 2001