-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
Response to Kris Millegan's summary of the Lipstadt vs. Irving Trial. I
admit I haven't seen everything on the list, but below is a very selective
report on the trial. Regarding the Auschwitz buildings, Irving seemed to
have prevailed convincingly that what is being shown to the public in the
last quarter century can not possibly be buildings that were used to be gas
chambers. Remember, Lipstadt has to prove that Irving's views are
"nonsensical" -- which clearly is not the case as Irving is prevailing and
all the points Lipstadt originally brought up, as far as I can tell. Most
importantly, he is producing films and reports right after the war which
contradict the "unique event in history" claims of present day Hollywood and
other professional propagandists.
Charles Provan, who is a revisionist of sorts himself and was at Irving's
1999 conference along with Jewish writer John Sack associated with Esquire
Magazine --- anyway, Provan did actual experiments where he recycled diesel
gas (twice I believe) into a closed and somewhat sealed barn. The recycled
gas as I understand it becomes very poisonous, and the animals were dead
within an hour or so (I'd stand correction on the exact time needed to
kill). So clearly gassings of these types were possible. It's the extent
that's the subject of legitimate historical inquiry --- and the official
Hollywood version clearly in retreat.
The big story is that Hitler and the Nazis were cooperating heavily with the
Top Zionists to round up the everyday Jew amidst scary speeches and
propaganda from Hitler, -- then provide for a period could choose to leave
Germany for Israel -- then close the borders again, and so on. This evil
charade included FDR who closed America's borders to Jew trying to get out
of Hitler's Germany AND, of course, the New York Times and the rest of the
Jewish run media, which even then was a considerable portion of the media,
who DID NOT complain or run any kind of a public propaganda campaign against
FDR for closing the US border to European Jews trying to come here. To be
blunt: The Jewish run Media outlets in the US have run 1000 times the
campaign against Austria and Jorg Haider (sp?) in the last two weeks, than
they ever ran against FDR for closing US borders to Jews from 1933 to 1945.
WHY? Because the top Nazis and top Jews were COOPERATING to force the
everyday Jew down to Palestine, as a prelude to declaring the State of
Israel in 1948. Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill were all financed
by the Judeo-Masonic top bankers --- with the everyday German, Jew, Pole,
Italian, Russian, etc. -- caught in the unholy crossfire of these on again
off again warring thugs and financiers. That's the real story. David Irving
is basically right in all his thrusts, and will prevail if the judge hasn't
been blackmailed or bought - but even he doesn't seem to understand the
"bottom line" of the whole deal which I have explained above. The Rakovsky
Interrogation, which commentary we will have out soon, will go a long way to
explaining the WW II mystery in a way that all of good will -- will
understand. Jim Condit Jr.
CertainlyThe question is whether the whole German nation and the bulk of the
German war machine under Hitler knew this was going on
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Conspiracy Theory Research List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Kris Millegan
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2000 11:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [CTRL] Lipstadt trial: Denier admits Jews were gassed
>
>
> -Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
> </A> -Cui Bono?-
>
> from:alt.conspiracy
> As, always, Caveat Lector
> Om
> K
> -----
> Click Here: <A HREF="aol://5863:126/alt.conspiracy:594530">Lipstadt trial:
> Denier admits Jews were gassed</A>
> -----
> Subject: Lipstadt trial: Denier admits Jews were gassed
> From: <A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
> Date: Thu, Feb 10, 2000 5:28 PM
> Message-id: <87vok5$8pa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
> <A
> HREF="http://www.jewishsf.com/bk000128/ilipstadt.shtml">http://www
> .jewishsf
> .com/bk000128/ilipstadt.shtml</A>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Lipstadt trial: Denier admits Jews were gassed
>
>
> LONDON (JTA) -- In his trial against an American writer,
> Holocaust revisionist David Irving said last week he was
> "willing to eat humble pie" on at least one issue.
>
> The British citizen, who is suing U.S. Holocaust scholar Deborah
> Lipstadt in a London court, admitted under cross-examination
> that the Nazis "systematically" gassed some 97,000 Jews in
> trucks. Irving acknowledged he had been "quite plainly wrong"
> in earlier statements that the Nazis used gassing trucks "on a
> very limited scale to experiment."
>
> Irving is suing Lipstadt, a professor at Emory University in
> Atlanta, and her British publisher, Penguin Books, over passages
> in her book "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth
> and Memory."
>
> He maintains that by labeling him a denier of the Holocaust and
> accusing him of distorting historical data to suit his own
> ideological goals, Lipstadt has ruined his career as a writer
> and historian.
>
> Irving told the High Court that what he had said in the past
> about the scale and number of the gas truck deaths was based on
> his knowledge at the time.
>
> But under cross-examination by Richard Rampton, Irving admitted
> he was mistaken after being shown a document specifying that
> 97,000 Jews were gassed in three trucks in a period of five
> weeks.
>
> When the judge asked Irving if he would describe that as "very
> limited and experimental," Irving replied: "No, this is
> systematic."
>
> In another exchange, Rampton said Irving must be "mad or a liar"
> to suggest that Jews who were deported during the war were not
> being sent to their deaths.
>
> He was responding to a claim by Irving that messages intercepted
> by British wartime intelligence indicated trains transporting
> Jews to the camps were equipped with a "very substantial amount
> of food" and "tools of the trade" for their occupants.
>
> Rampton inquired why Irving thought the Jews were being sent to
> "little villages in the middle of nowhere" in eastern Poland in
> 1942.
>
> "The documents do not tell me," replied Irving, adding that
> "there could be any number of convincing explanations."
>
> The trial entered its third week Monday.
> For more JTA stories, go to <A
> HREF="http://www.jta.org">http://www.jta.
> org</A>
>
>
> Copyright Notice (c) 2000, San Francisco Jewish Community Publications
> Inc., dba Jewish Bulletin of Northern California. All rights reserved.
> This material may not be reproduced in any form without permission.
>
> ===============================================================
>
> <A
> HREF="http://www.jewishjournal.com/davidirving.1.28.0.htm">http://
> www.jewis
> hjournal.com/davidirving.1.28.0.htm</A>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Undeniable Truth JANUARY 28, 2000 21 SHEVAT, 5760
>
> In Court, Holocaust Revisionist Admits That Nazis
> 'Systematically' Gassed Jews
>
> By Douglas Davis, Jewish Telegraphic Agency
>
>
> A British Holocaust revisionist who is suing a U.S. Holocaust
> scholar in a London court has admitted that the Nazis
> "systematically" gassed 97,000 Jews in trucks.
>
> David Irving, whose trial against Deborah Lipstadt, a professor
> of Emory University in Atlanta, is now entering its third week,
> said last week that he was "willing to eat humble pie" after he
> admitted that he had been "quite plainly wrong" for statements
> in which he said the Nazis used gassing trucks "on a very
> limited scale to experiment."
>
> Irving is suing Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin
> Books, over passages in her book, "Denying the Holocaust: The
> Growing Assault on Truth and Memory."
>
> He says that by labeling him a denier of the Holocaust and
> accusing him of distorting historical data to suit his own
> ideological goals, Lipstadt has ruined his career as a writer
> and historian.
>
> Irving told the High Court that what he had said in the past
> about the scale and number of the gas truck deaths was based on
> his knowledge at the time.
>
> But under cross-examination by Richard Rampton, Irving admitted
> he was mistaken after he was shown a document that specified
> that 97,000 Jews were gassed in three trucks in a period of just
> five weeks.
>
> When the judge, Justice Charles Gray, asked Irving if he would
> describe that as "very limited and experimental," Irving
> replied: "No, this is systematic."
>
> In another exchange, Rampton said Irving must be "mad or a liar"
> to suggest that Jews who were deported to the East during the
> war were not being sent to their deaths.
>
> He was responding to a claim by Irving that messages intercepted
> by British wartime intelligence indicated trains transporting
> Jews to the camps were equipped with a "very substantial amount
> of food" and "tools of the trade" for their occupants.
>
> Irving said this indicated "the system that was sending them was
> apprehending that they would be doing something when they got
> there." Rampton asked why he thought the Jews were being sent to
> "little villages in the middle of nowhere" in eastern Poland in
> 1942.
>
> "The documents do not tell me," replied Irving, adding that
> "there could be any number of convincing explanations.''
>
> At an earlier hearing, Irving told the judge that his
> extradition was being sought by a German court for telling a
> meeting in Germany that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were
> erected as a tourist attraction by Poland's postwar Communist
> regime.
>
>
>
> Virtual Jerusalem Site Terms, Conditions of Use and Warranties.
> Copyright © 2000, Jewish Journal of Greater L.A., All rights reserved.
>
>
> =================================================================
>
> <A
> HREF="http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary.asp?f=000205/196410.h
> tml">http
> ://www.nationalpost.com/commentary.asp?f=000205/196410.html</A>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> National Post Online - commentary
>
>
> Saturday, February 05, 2000
> David Irving v. the dead
>
> Geoffrey Wheatcroft
>
>
>
> Associated Press Photo
> A historian who denies the presence of gas chambers
> at Auschwitz is suing a writer who describes him as
> a Holocaust denier. It only gets weirder from there
>
>
>
> (David Irving)
>
>
> LONDON - As if the greatest and most horrible act of
> murder in history weren't bad enough, the National
> Socialists' "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" has
> become the subject of agonizing and odious controversy. It
> seems we can't leave the dead in peace.
>
> One of the nastiest such feuds is being fought out at
> present in the High Court here. David Irving is
> habitually, and justifiably, if meiotically, described as
> a controversial historian, the author of a series of books
> reinterpreting the Second World War, from The Destruction
> of Dresden to Hitler's War.
>
> He has brought a libel action against Deborah Lipstadt, an
> American historian, and her publishers, Penguin Books. She
> is the author of Denying the Holocaust, in which, Irving
> claims, he was depicted as someone who had denied the
> reality of the extermination of the Jews.
>
>
> It looks like a strange case for Irving to bring. He has
> publicly denied Hitler ever ordered the extermination, and
> has added insult by offering to pay anyone who can produce
> evidence he did. He has claimed that there were no gas
> chambers at Auschwitz, and that to say there were is -- in
> his deliberately and peculiarly offensive choice of phrase
> -- "a blood libel on the German people." He concedes that
> many Jews died during the war of 1939-45, but that these
> deaths were largely caused by disease or overwork.
>
> Not that he is always easy to pin down. Like Joerg Haider,
> Irving has a knack of making outrageous statements and
> then sliding away from them with slippery equivocations.
> But his words are on the record, and it is not disputed
> either that Irving has associated himself over the years
> with fascist groups.
>
> As the case has progressed (if that's the word), it has
> become weirder and weirder. Quite apart from his
> long-established and truly strange view of the death
> camps, placing him at odds with almost all serious
> historians, Irving has been digging himself into an ever
> deeper hole in the courtroom. Last week he called an
> obscure American academic to the stand, who said, "I do
> not consider you to be an anti-Semite."
>
> On the next day, counsel for the defence quoted sundry
> examples of Irving's wit and wisdom. He had sung a "ditty"
> to his small daughter:
>
> "I am a baby Aryan/Not Jewish or Sectarian/I have no plans
> to marry an/Ape or Rastafarian."
>
> When this was read out, Irving denied it was racist or
> anti-Semitic. It's just his idiosyncratic kind of humour.
>
> Without trying to anticipate the outcome, one has to say
> that Irving has said things in court that evidently
> justify "the words complained of," as lawyers say. Because
> the case is expected to last months, a jury couldn't be
> expected to last the course, and it is being heard by a
> judge alone. Even given the notorious perversity of the
> English judiciary, it is hard to see Ms. Lipstadt losing.
> All this might indeed be almost funny, in a macabre way,
> if it weren't so grim. As journalists know all too well,
> "Holocaust denial" is a reality. It is the speciality of
> crackpots who for years have written letters in green ink
> or sent out smudgy pamphlets called Did Six Million Really
> Die? and have now added a new terror to life through
> Internet Web sites.
>
> It seemed at one time that Irving did not quite belong in
> that galere. He has been defended by genuinely eminent
> scholars, on the ground that, however eccentric or
> repellent his opinions, he is an astonishingly industrious
> scholar who has greatly added to our knowledge of the
> Third Reich, and never mind that he writes about it with
> ill-disguised admiration.
>
> Hence Hugh Trevor-Roper recognized Irving's "consistent
> bias," but showered praise on his "indefatigable scholarly
> industry," and John Keegan said that Hitler's War was
> "indispensable for anyone seeking to understand the war."
> Another of Irving's defenders is Christopher Hitchens, a
> witty journalist and engaging rascal, for whom some of us
> have a soft spot and who certainly got President Clinton
> bang to rights, as we Londoners say, who has insisted that
> Irving is not only a Fascist historian but "a great
> historian of fascism."
>
> But these defences may be wearing thin, and not just
> because of Irving's bizarre behaviour in court. It could
> yet turn out that this quaint chronicler of mass-murder
> has got away with murder intellectually speaking.
> Professor Richard J. Evans of Cambridge has devoted much
> time and energy, which he might well feel he had better
> uses for, examining the same archives as Irving, and
> concluding that his use of them had been slapdash or even
> mischievous. Trevor-Roper hasn't seen the same archives,
> or Keegan, and Hitchens couldn't have read them in German
> even if he had wanted to.
>
> As his defenders drop away, there is little sympathy left
> for Irving, though perhaps a touch of pity. He had a grim
> childhood -- his mother was abandoned by her husband, and
> Irving met his father just twice -- and his eldest
> daughter killed herself last year. Behind the cockiness
> and bluster and eagerness to give offence is a gravely
> maimed personality.
>
> There are broader points at issue beyond one man and his
> reputation. Like any other historical episode, the Shoah
> -- the Hebrew word for catastrophe, which some of us
> prefer to "Holocaust," the Greek word for "burnt offering"
> -- is a legitimate subject for historical inquiry. Only
> Nazis and nutters deny the Shoah, but there is another
> serious, though sadly envenomed, debate between historians
> who believe Hitler was all along determined to exterminate
> the Jews and those who think it was a form of
> improvisation.
>
> Again, American Daniel Goldhagen caused a stir of his own
> with his book Hitler's Willing Executioners. To say it was
> written from a different perspective to Irving's would be
> an understatement.
>
> Personally (and to simplify), I find one of Goldhagen's
> arguments correct, the other absurd. It is clearly the
> case that far more Germans participated in, and knew
> about, the great massacre than it was politically
> convenient to recognize after the event.
>
> But Goldhagen's thesis that the German people were
> uniquely permeated with "exterminationist" anti-Semitism
> from well before Hitler makes no sense. All the evidence
> is that, a hundred years ago, anti-Semitism was far more
> rampant in other European nations such as Poland and
> Russia, or even the France of the Dreyfus case.
>
> Why was it Germany and not they which perpetrated the
> murder?
>
> The sad truth is that it is almost impossible to discuss
> these matters sine ira et studio. And we might all agree
> the worst possible place to discuss them at all is in a
> court of law. Indeed, there is one other aspect to the
> Irving case that enrages some of us almost as much as the
> controversy itself, and throws a most ironical light on
> the whole question of Holocaust denial. It is Irving, the
> supposed denier, who is suing Lipstadt, the enemy of
> denial, for accusing him of denying. And he is doing so
> under the dreadful English libel laws. Whatever the rights
> and wrongs, it really is monstrous that Ms. Lipstadt
> should have years of her life taken up with this case,
> should have to give up months to preparing her defence,
> and should be obliged to sit in court for many weeks on
> end, simply because she wasn't prepared to grovel to
> Irving.
>
> She does this in the knowledge, moreover, that even if the
> judge finds for her and her publishers, they will be faced
> with huge costs. That happens regularly in defamation
> cases. You can win and still lose: When "costs" are
> awarded to the successful party, that by no means
> necessarily covers all legal expenses incurred.
>
> While Irving is conducting his own case, the defendants
> have a full legal team, solicitors, Queen's Counsel and
> junior, all costing many thousands a day. Taking part in a
> case like this is catching a cab from Toronto to Vancouver
> and watching the meter tick over. Since Irving cannot
> possibly pay even part of the defence costs, he will
> presumably go bankrupt if he loses, and the defendants can
> whistle for their money.
>
> And this case shows once again how heavily weighted in the
> defendant's favour the libel law is. He doesn't have to
> prove "actual damage" or financial loss, only to assert
> that his feelings are hurt, as aren't ours all from time
> to time. The burden of proof is effectively on the
> defendant. She has no public interest defence, and the
> plaintiff is not obliged to show (as in American law) that
> she acted recklessly and with malice.
>
> If this sounds like a newspaperman's grudge, I would point
> out that the most successful exponents of the English
> libel laws in the past 20 years have been the late Robert
> Maxwell, Jeffrey Archer ("Lord Archer," Lord help us) and
> the Bank of Commerce and Credit International, all of whom
> who used the law to silence their critics. Should David
> Irving's name be added to that roll of dishonour? At any
> rate the present case is a civil action, brought by
> Irving, but in some countries he himself might by now have
> been prosecuted in the criminal courts. Some countries now
> have Holocaust denial laws under which to say what Irving
> has said is a criminal offence.
>
> This is a most retrograde step. Three years ago, the idea
> of such a law was floated in England, and greeted with
> enthusiasm, I'm sorry but not surprised to say, by Tony
> Blair, who can't see a bandwagon without jumping on it. At
> the time, the proposal was criticized eloquently by Robert
> Harris in the Sunday Times, humbly by myself in the Sunday
> Telegraph, and most bravely in the Jewish Chronicle by the
> late Chaim Bermant. As he said, such a law would be
> unthinkable in the U.S. because of its constitution, and
> ought to be unthinkable in England "because of our
> traditions." The answer to lies is to tell the truth, not
> to lock up the liars.
>
> It is indeed possible to detest Holocaust deniers while
> also having grave misgivings about what has been called
> the Holocaust industry, or "Shoah business," about which
> Hal Niedzviecki wrote in the National Post last Saturday
> (Turning the Horror of History into Fun). And such
> misgivings aren't confined to those who are indifferent to
> the sufferings of the Jews.
>
> That great man Isaiah Berlin was an acutely conscious Jew,
> who identified passionately with his people and their
> fate. And in the words of his biographer Michael
> Ignatieff, "he actively despised the Holocaust industry
> and kept his distance from rhetorical invocations of his
> people's horrible fate. Silence seemed more truthful."
> While knowing what I think about David Irving, I also know
> what Isaiah Berlin meant.
>
> Geoffrey Wheatcroft's last book, The Controversy of Zion:
> Jewish Nationalism, the Jewish State and the Unresolved
> Jewish Dilemma, won an American National Jewish Book
> Award.
>
>
>
> Copyright © Southam Inc. All rights reserved.
> Optimized for browser versions 3.0 and higher.
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com <A HREF="http://www.deja.com/">http://www.deja.com/</A>
> Before you buy.
>
>
>
> -----
> Aloha, He'Ping,
> Om, Shalom, Salaam.
> Em Hotep, Peace Be,
> All My Relations.
> Omnia Bona Bonis,
> Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
> Amen.
> Roads End
>
> <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
> ==========
> CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing
> propagandic
> screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are
> sordid matters
> and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections
> and outright
> frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and
> minor effects
> spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
> gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always
> suggests to readers;
> be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
> nazi's need not apply.
>
> Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
> ========================================================================
> Archives Available at:
> http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
