Om David Irving [Utbrutet ur tråd i historieforumet]

2) Om han inte nazist så är han i vart fall nazistsympatisör och Hitlerbeundrare!

3) Naturligtvis har han ett agg mot judar, precis som mot människor med annan hudfärg och en del andra saker.

Those who choose to be their own lawyer, have a fool as their client

A Predictable Defeat

As harsh as it was, Judge Gray's verdict should not have been surprising. As Irving put it: "The leaders of the Jewish communities around the world have used the most horrific methods to try and destroy me. They had bottomless pockets to afford justice and say go ahead and destroy that bastard -- which they just did."

Irving: This is a point of some substance, my Lord. We need to know precisely what your qualifications are to offer your expertise to the court.... In Britain, of course, we have the Royal Institute of British Architects. Are you familiar with the fact that it is illegal in England to call yourself an architect unless you are registered with the RIBA?

Van Pelt: That is in most countries like that, yes, I know.

Irving: In Holland, the equivalent is the Bond van Nederlandse Architecten, am I correct?...

Van Pelt: Yes, Bond van Nederlandse Architecten.

Irving: ... Am I right in saying that you are not registered with the Bond van Nederlandse Architecten?

Van Pelt: I have never had any reason to do so since I never studied in an architectural school.

Irving: So you cannot legally pretend to be an architect, if I can put it like that?

Van Pelt: No, I could be prosecuted.

Irving: ... Rather like Mr. Leuchter was prosecuted in Massachusetts for pretending to be an engineer?

Van Pelt: Yes.

Irving: ... In other words, your expertise, as an architect, is the same as Mr. Leuchter's expertise was an engineer?

Van Pelt: I do not really know. I have been teaching in architecture school now since 1984. I have taught design courses, specially in small architecture schools one needs to chip in wherever one does. I have been on architectural juries and quick sessions, mostly on a weekly, bi-weekly, kind of frequency. I did --

So I ask you, Ms. Lipstadt, is this the ulterior agenda that explains why you would publicly condemn Harwood and the other “Holocaust deniers” as “racists,” yet refuse to publicly condemn Netanyahu and the other Israeli Zionists for claiming that the Africans represent a threat to Israel’s racial/cultural identity?

A David-Goliath Battle

In terms of manpower and financial resources, the Irving-Lipstadt clash was a David-Goliath battle. Whereas Irving acted as his own attorney, the Lipstadt-Penguin side employed some 20 courtroom lawyers and legal experts.

Irving's adversaries were also fabulously better funded. According to British press reports, generous financial aid for the Lipstadt-Penguin defense came from the American Jewish Committee, Edgar Bronfman, Sr. (co-chairman of the giant Seagram's company, and president of the World Jewish Congress), and Steven Spielberg (filmmaker and Jewish activist). "If that is not evidence of the global scale of the endeavor to destroy me," commented Irving wryly, "I do not know what is."

More than 543,000 pounds (about $841,650) was paid to defense experts and researchers for their testimony, reports and other help. Of this amount, Robert Jan Van Pelt received a staggering 109,244 pounds ($169,330), while Richard Evans, a Cambridge University historian, was paid 70,181 pounds ($109,482), and Peter Longerich received 76,195 pounds ($118,102). In addition, courtroom lawyer (barrister) fees totalled some 509,989 pounds ($790,482), of which Richard Rampton alone reportedly received half a million dollars.

Edit:

Varför inte förresten?
Antingen ljög ju Deborah Lipstadt och då var det förtal, precis som Irving ville ha få det till, eller så talade hon sanning? Men jag antar att det kanske måste till en "rättvis" domstol liknande de nazityska Volksgerichte under Roland Freisler domvärjo för att utfallet skulle ha kunnat bli ett annat?

But by any objective measure of the term, Deborah Lipstadt must herself be considered a "racist." As undisputed evidence presented during the trial established, she publicly opposes Jews marrying non-Jews, and supports discriminatory Jewish-Zionist supremacy in Israel.

Irving: So you cannot legally pretend to be an architect, if I can put it like that?

Van Pelt: No, I could be prosecuted.

Irving: ... Rather like Mr. Leuchter was prosecuted in Massachusetts for pretending to be an engineer?

Van Pelt: Yes.

Irving: ... In other words, your expertise, as an architect, is the same as Mr. Leuchter's expertise was an engineer?

Irving: ... In other words, your expertise, as an architect, is the same as Mr. Leuchter's expertise was an engineer?

Van Pelt: I do not really know. I have been teaching in architecture school now since 1984. I have taught design courses, specially in small architecture schools one needs to chip in wherever one does. I have been on architectural juries and quick sessions, mostly on a weekly, bi-weekly, kind of frequency. I did --

Irving: You have never learned architecture? You have never studied architecture at university? You have never taken a degree in architecture?

Van Pelt: I do not have a degree in it, but I have been confronted with the architectural practice and, apart from that, I have worked for various architects, one of them, Sir Dennis Leston, here in England, when he was designing the Synagogue in Jerusalem. I have worked with Jack Diamond in Toronto. So I have been in architectural offices very often and other practices.

Irving: ... Very well. So if I am called a pseudo historian, then you are a pseudo architect, if I can put it like that?

Van Pelt: Yes, except I have never claimed to be either an architect or a pseudo architect.

[fetning av mig, d00rkey]

Edit:

Vad jag anser om Irvings jämförelse mellan Leuchter och van Pelt borde vara tämligen uppenbart vid det här laget. Men tillåt mig fråga varför du utelämnade fortsättningen på ordväxlingen mellan Irving och van Pelt?

Van Pelt: Yes, except I have never claimed to be either an architect or a pseudo architect.

[fetning av mig, d00rkey]

Institute for Historical Review


From the Trial Proceedings
Excerpts from the Irving-Lipstadt Trial Transcripts
Compiled by Greg Raven
IHR Journal Provides 'Wake Up Call'

January 25, p. 23

Judge Gray: What puzzles me about this is that one of the documents Mr. Irving just handed in says that this further Polish or Auschwitz investigation has been published in the summer 1991 Journal of Historical Review. ["An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz 'Gas Chambers'"]

[Professor Robert Jan] Van Pelt [a defense witness]: Yes. The history of that report was kind of a rude wake-up call for the people at Auschwitz [State] Museum, because what happened was that, one way or another, the document, which had not been finalized as far as I know, was leaked to people of the Institute for Historical Review and then immediately published rather triumphantly as a Polish investigation and/or sister Leuchter investigation. It was this kind of experience which then made both the people at the [Auschwitz State] Museum and the people at the Jan Sehn Institute to decide to move with greater care in the future.
Prof. van Pelt on Qualifications

January 25, p. 38

Irving: ... Professor van Pelt, you are a Dutch citizen or Canadian citizen now?

Van Pelt: I am a Dutch citizen.

Irving: ... And you are now Professor of the History of Architecture at the University of Waterloo in Toronto?

Van Pelt: No.... I am in the Department of Architecture and hence I am officially a Professor of Architecture. Your title as professor depends on the department you are in. However, I teach in what we call the Cultural History stream, so normally, in order to prevent confusion in ordinary usage, I would call myself Professor of Cultural History because, both in my background, my PhD and my teaching duties, I teach cultural history in the architectural school. However, when I was advised about the way I had to create my curriculum vitae for this proceeding, I was told that I had been to be extremely precise in the legal sense of what I was, so again I put in Professor of Architecture.

Judge Gray: So you are really a cultural historian?

Van Pelt: I am really a cultural historian.

Irving: This is a point of some substance, my Lord. We need to know precisely what your qualifications are to offer your expertise to the court.... In Britain, of course, we have the Royal Institute of British Architects. Are you familiar with the fact that it is illegal in England to call yourself an architect unless you are registered with the RIBA?

Van Pelt: That is in most countries like that, yes, I know.

Irving: In Holland, the equivalent is the Bond van Nederlandse Architecten, am I correct?...

Van Pelt: Yes, Bond van Nederlandse Architecten.

Irving: ... Am I right in saying that you are not registered with the Bond van Nederlandse Architecten?

Van Pelt: I have never had any reason to do so since I never studied in an architectural school.

Irving: So you cannot legally pretend to be an architect, if I can put it like that?

Van Pelt: No, I could be prosecuted.

Irving: ... Rather like Mr. Leuchter was prosecuted in Massachusetts for pretending to be an engineer?

Van Pelt: Yes.

Irving: ... In other words, your expertise, as an architect, is the same as Mr. Leuchter's expertise was an engineer?

Van Pelt: I do not really know. I have been teaching in architecture school now since 1984. I have taught design courses, specially in small architecture schools one needs to chip in wherever one does. I have been on architectural juries and quick sessions, mostly on a weekly, bi-weekly, kind of frequency. I did --

Irving: You have never learned architecture? You have never studied architecture at university? You have never taken a degree in architecture?

Van Pelt: I do not have a degree in it, but I have been confronted with the architectural practice and, apart from that, I have worked for various architects, one of them, Sir Dennis Leston, here in England, when he was designing the Synagogue in Jerusalem. I have worked with Jack Diamond in Toronto. So I have been in architectural offices very often and other practices.

Irving: ... Very well. So if I am called a pseudo historian, then you are a pseudo architect, if I can put it like that?

Van Pelt: Yes, except I have never claimed to be either an architect or a pseudo architect.

Irving: Except that you are a professor of architecture, you announce you are a professor of architecture, you leave people with the impression that you are an expert on architecture, and yet you have never studied it and you have never qualified and you are not registered as such?

Van Pelt: I must say that I probably would prefer to be called a professor of cultural history, but the fact of the matter is that the university has given me an appointment as professor of architecture. So --

Irving: But you are not giving evidence here on the culture of Auschwitz; you are giving evidence on the architecture of Auschwitz.

Van Pelt: ... I think, as an historian, you can talk about various forms of evidence and the architectural documents is one of these forms of evidence.

Irving: I do not mean these questions in the least sense as a put down, but I think it is important to draw his Lordship's attention to the fact that your qualifications as an architect are, in fact, no greater or lesser than mine?

Van Pelt: I agree that my formal qualifications are exactly the same as yours.

Irving: So when you look at light switches or architectural drawings or blue prints, as you call them, you are no better qualified than I am?

Van Pelt: No ...

Jag fetstilade för att visa på en viktig passage i ordväxlingen som du av något skäl utelämnade för att den förmodligen stör din tankegång om att van Pelt kanske bara är en simpel bedragare i stil med Leuchter. Att jag anser just det som jag fetstilade viktigt beror på att van Pelts titel, som han fått av universitetet som han arbetade för, var professor i arkitektur. Men själv anser van Pelt att han egentligen bör kallas kulturhistoriker. Titeln har han knappast gett sig själv och hans kunskaper och saklighet om det han debatterar, vad det gäller Auschwitz, kan knappast ifrågasättas!

Jag tar sällan med något som jag inte kommer att bemöta! Däremot anser jag mig ta med den viktiga frågeställningen samt att försöka att inte utelämna något från debattmotståndaren bara för att det stör mig på något sätt eller går emot det jag försöker hävda.

Är det hela förhöret eller ens allt som kan sägas vara relevant, BlizzardKing? Är det verkligen så att något ganska väsentligt inte utelämnas över huvud taget, som t ex fortsättningen på det svar från van Pelt som Irving (eller ihr.org) väljer att utelämna?