Irving v. Lipstadt

Transcripts

Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 32: Electronic Edition

Pages 121 - 125 of 222

<< 1-5221-222 >>
    We know that the Second Defendant has had
 1letter from its author or custodian and shorn of any
 2identifying material; I wrote more than once in vain
 3asking for the missing pages to be provided.
 4     It is quite evident that the Anti-Defamation
 5League, who were in cahoots with the Second Defendant, set
 6itself the task of destroying my career, in consort with
 7other similar organisations around the world, many of
 8whom, if not all, collaborated with the Second Defendant
 9in writing her book. The pinnacle of their achievement
10came in 1996, when the Second Defendant, as she herself
11boasted to The Washington Post, was among those who put
12pressure on St Martin's Press Incorporated, who had been
13one of my United States publishers for some 15 years, to
14violate their publishing agreement with me and abandon
15publication of Goebbels, my Goebbels biography, "Goebbels,
16Mastermind of the Third Reich".
17     For a few days, these enemies of free speech
18stepped up the pressure. They publicised the private home
19addresses of St Martin's Press executives on the
20Internet. They staged street addresses in Manhattan.
21They organised a walkout by the publisher's staff. When
22SMP refused to be intimidated, Professor Lipstadt wheeled
23out the rhetoric: to Frank Rich, a syndicated columnist
24of The New York Times, she accused me of being a repeat
25killer, if I can put it like that: "What David Irving is
26doing ... is not the destruction of live people, but the

.   P-121



 1destruction of people who already died. It's killing them
 2a second time. It's killing history". This was not far
 3distance from the outrageous claim on page 213 of her
 4book, to which no justification has been pleaded to my
 5knowledge, that I justified the incarceration of Jews in
 6Nazi concentration camps. Quoted by The Washington Post
 7on April 3rd 1996, Professor Lipstadt stated:
 8     "They ... don't publish reputations, they
 9publish books", referring to St Martin's Press. "But
10would they publish a book by Jeffrey Dahmer on man-boy
11relations? Of course the reputation of the author
12counts. And no legitimate historian takes David Irving's
13work seriously."
14     We have heard quoted in this Court two tasteless
15remarks I am recorded as having made, about Chappaquiddick
16and about the Association of Spurious Survivors, and I do
17not deny that those words were tasteless. But bad taste
18is not what is in the pleadings, while express malice is:
19and the odiousness of Professor Lipstadt's comparison, in
20a mass circulation newspaper of record, of a British
21author with Jeffrey Dahmer, a madman who had recently
22murdered and cannibalised a dozen homosexuals in the
23mid-West of the USA, in surely compounded by the fact that
24Lipstadt had at that time not read a single book that
25I had written, let alone the manuscript of Dr Goebbels
26that she had joined in trying to suppress. It is clear

.   P-122



 1that neither she nor the ADL was concerned with the
 2merits, or otherwise, of the Goebbels biography. They
 3wanted it put down, suppressed, ausgerottet: and me with
 4it.
 5     Having, like St Martin's Press, thoroughly read
 6it, the major US publisher Doubleday Inc. had selected
 7this book as their May 1996 choice for History Book of the
 8Month. But that deal depended on the SMP contract, and
 9thus it too collapsed. The financial losses inflicted on
10me by this one episode in April 1996 were of the order of
11half a million dollars, which might seen proper reward for
12the eight years' hard work that I had invested in writing
13this box, and hauling it through its five draft versions.
14The book never appeared in the United States.
15     From the publication of Hitler's War onwards,
16the attitude of the print media to me changed. A
17strategically placed review written in one afternoon, by
18one man furnished with the appropriate dossier on me,
19could go a long way to destroy the product of six or eight
20years' research, as we have just seen. That was why these
21dossiers had been created.
22     To the right journalists or writers, such as the
23Second Defendant, these dossiers were on tap. A fax from
24Professor Lipstadt to the Institute of Jewish Affairs in
25London, or to the ADL in New York, or to the Simon
26Wiesenthal Centre in Toronto, and we have got these faxes

.   P-123



 1from her discovery, released to her a cornucopia of filth,
 2which she had no need to check or verify, because in the
 3United States such writings are protected by the authority
 4of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the
 5laudable name of the freedom of speech, or by the
 6authority of New York Times v. Sullivan, which
 7effectively declares to libellers that it is open season
 8on any public figure.
 9     I turn the page, my Lord.
10     This Court will surely not take amiss of me that
11I refused to be intimidated by these truly "Nazi" methods,
12and that I have on a few occasions used perhaps tasteless
13language around the world about perpetrators. The
14violence against me spread around the world, and always it
15was orchestrated by the same organizations.
16     Turn the page.
17     In England, a parallel campaign was launched by
18the Board of Deputies, and by other organizations which we
19know to have collaborated with the Defendants in producing
20this libellous book. This kicked into high gear after my
21own imprint published an abridged edition of the Leuchter
22report in 1989. Pressure was put on the World Trade
23Centre in the City of London to repudiate our contract for
24the press conference. A picket, a muscle man picket, was
25staged outside our own front door to prevent journalists
26from attending when the conference was switched to my own

.   P-124



 1harm. The Board arranged an early day motion in the House
 2of Commons, as a privileged way of smearing my name --
 3publishing a smear on my name. On June 30th of that year
 4the Jewish Chronicle, which is one of the newspapers that
 5has reported this entire proceedings most fairly, in my
 6view (and I wish to put that on record) revealed that
 7representations had been made to my principal British and
 8Commonwealth publisher, Macmillan Limited, to drop me as
 9an author.
10     Macmillan had already published several of my
11books and they were under contract to publish several
12more. I had no fears that they would succumb to this
13intimidation. They had informed me that Hitler's War was
14running so successfully that they intended to keep it
15permanently in print. I am entitled to mention this
16background, as I have mentioned the Board's other
17clandestine activities against me, because it was said by
18Mr Rampton that I later made one tasteless remark in
19public about the Board of Deputies. If somebody attacks,
20using secret and furtive means, the very basis of the
21existence of my family then it may be at least
22understandable that I speak ill of them.
23     Lower down the next paragraph: Secretly, on
24July 17th 1991, the Board of Deputies wrote to the
25President of the German Office for the Protection of the
26Constitution (which is their MI5), a body of which we

.   P-125


<< 1-5221-222 >>