| |
Convergence of Evidence:
Reflections on the Irving - Lipstadt Affair
By Paul Grubach
In winter-spring of 2000, British historian
David Irving brought a libel suit against American author Deborah
Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, in the High Court in
London, claiming that he was libeled in her anti-revisionist tome,
Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory.
Lipstadt and company’s defense attorneys assembled a team of world-renowned
Holocaust experts as part of their campaign to discredit Irving
and validate Lipstadt’s assertions. In April of the same year the
court ruled against Irving, labeling him a falsifier of history
who allegedly manipulates the historical record in order to promote
an ulterior and extreme right-wing agenda.
On July 20, 2001, the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of
April 2000; Irving was denied the right to an appeal.
This important trial garnered much attention from the world’s
media. One journalist and trial observer claimed that the traditional
view of the Holocaust was put on trial—and it emerged triumphant.1
Others have claimed that Holocaust revisionism was put on trial—and
it was judged as “false history.” There is no question that the
judgment in this case will be used by many as “proof” that the traditional
view of the Holocaust is correct, and Holocaust revisionism is a
falsification of history. But how valid is this interpretation of
the trial’s result?
During the trial, the presiding Judge, Charles Gray, was presented
with powerful evidence and arguments in favor of the traditional
view of the Holocaust. Lipstadt’s defense team argued that an ensemble
of eyewitness, documentary, and physical evidence converged on the
conclusion that the traditional view of the Holocaust is correct.
What did Judge Gray conclude?
In regard to the allegedly incriminating words
and statements in Nazi documents that are employed to “prove” the
Nazis had a policy to exterminate all the Jews, Judge Gray concluded
that many of these words and statements are of an equivocal nature
and are capable of being interpreted in a manner that is consistent
with Holocaust revisionist theory. He wrote:
“A considerable number of documents were scrutinized in an attempt
to ascertain whether the words in question [ausrotten, vernichten,
liquidieren, evakuieren, umsiedeln and abschieben]
were being used or understood in a genocidal sense. Irving contended
that most of these words are properly to be understood in a
non-genocidal sense. Longerich [one of Lipstadt’s expert witnesses]
agreed that most, if not all, of these words are capable of
being used in a non-genocidal sense. For example, ausrotten
[exterminate or uproot] can bear such anodyne meanings as ‘get
rid of’ or ‘wipe out’ without connoting physical extermination.
But he asserted that its usual and primary meaning is ‘exterminate’
or ‘kill off,” especially when applied to people or to a group
of people as opposed to, for example, a religion.”2
In a similar vein, Judge Gray also noted: “It is also accepted
by [Lipstadt’s team of Holocaust experts] that in certain respects
the documentary evidence, including the photographic evidence, is
capable of more than one interpretation.”3
In regard to the evidence for mass genocide in the Nazi concentration
camps, Gray admitted:
“What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those
camps? The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary
evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack
of archeological evidence, means that reliance has to placed
on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence…”4
Referring to the evidence used to “prove” the Nazis used gas
chambers and crematoria for mass murder, Judge Gray drew this eye
opening conclusion:
“…contemporaneous documents, such as drawings, plans, correspondence
with contractors and the like, yield little clear evidence of
the existence of gas chambers designed to kill humans. Such
isolated references to the use of gas as are to be found amongst
these documents can be explained by the need to fumigate clothes
so as to reduce the incidence of disease such as typhus. The
quantities of Zyklon-B [the gas allegedly used by the Nazis
to commit mass murder in the gas chambers] delivered to the
camps may arguably be explained by the need to fumigate clothes
and other objects.”5
Gray noted that even the architectural plans of the buildings
that allegedly housed the homicidal gas chambers do not contain
any incriminating evidence:
“None of these drawings refers overtly to any part of the buildings
being designed or intended to serve as gas chambers whether
for fumigation or extermination purposes. In particular the
drawings for [the supposed gas chamber of Krema II at Birkenau]
make no provisions for ducts or chimneys by means of which Zyklon-B
pellets might be inserted through the roof.”6
The same holds true for the extant ruins of the Nazi concentration
camps; Gray pointed out that they contain almost no evidence for
the traditional view of the Holocaust: “[Lipstadt’s team of Holocaust
experts] accept that the physical evidence remaining at the site
of Auschwitz provides little evidence to support the claim that
gas chambers were operated there for genocidal purposes.”7
To be sure, Judge Gray does believe the evidence converges to
the conclusion that the Nazis did have a policy to exterminate world
Jewry, and Jews were killed in large numbers in the “Auschwitz gas
chambers,” but he virtually admitted that the best evidence presented
to him by a team of world renowned Holocaust experts is weak at
best.
The judge stated that it appeared to him to “be important to
keep well in mind the diversity of the categories [of evidence for
the “gas chambers”] and the extent to which those categories are
mutually corroborative.”8 Gray summarized Lipstadt and company’s
case as being “there exists…a ‘convergence’ of evidence which is
to the ordinary, dispassionate mind overwhelming that hundreds of
thousands of Jews were systematically gassed to death at Auschwitz...”9
In regard to the “eyewitness evidence” for the “gas chambers,”
he stated that while he acknowledged, “that reliability of the eye-witness
evidence is variable, what is to me striking about that category
of evidence is the similarity of the accounts and the extent to
which they are consistent with the documentary evidence.”10
Gray added that “the various categories of evidence do ‘converge’
in the manner suggested by [Lipstadt and company’s Holocaust experts]…My
overall assessment of the totality of the evidence that Jews were
killed in large numbers in gas chambers at Auschwitz is that I would
require exceedingly powerful reasons to reject it. Irving has argued
that such reasons do exist.”11
Convergence of Evidence?
Judge Gray’s final conclusion was as follows:
“Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail
the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants,
it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would
have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz
and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds
of thousands of Jews.”12
The following example will illustrate to the reader how questionable
“convergence of evidence” proofs for the traditional view of the
Holocaust really are.
In their article on the Treblinka concentration camp, historian
Mark Weber and attorney Andrew Allen collected six pieces of evidence
that point to the conclusion that Jews and others were murdered
in steam chambers at the site.13 Let us note each of them:
- According to an “eyewitness” account received in November
1942 in London from the Warsaw ghetto underground organization,
Jews were supposedly exterminated in death rooms with “steam
coming out of the numerous holes in the pipes.”14
- In 1943, the New York Times published more
“eyewitness” testimony regarding the mass murder of Jews in
the alleged Treblinka steam chambers. This account provided
readers with essential details about the operation of these
steam chambers.15
- In The Black Book of Polish Jewry, a 1943 work
sponsored by an array of respected dignitaries like Albert Einstein
and Eleanor Roosevelt, the Treblinka steam story was again given
in detail.16
- Another book, Lest We Forget, published in
New York in 1943 by the World Jewish Congress, describes how
Jews were steamed to death, and provides a diagram showing the
location of the purported boiler room that produced the live
steam.17
- According to a 1944 “eyewitness” account compiled by the
OSS, the principle US intelligence agency, Jews at Treblinka
“were in general killed by steam and not by gas as had been
first suspected.”18
- In 1945, the Polish government “conclusively proved” the
Germans operated these death chambers. They carried out “an
onsite, physical examination of the steam chambers,” submitting
an “expert report” to the Nuremberg Tribunal.19
Here we have a convergence of evidence from six sources. The
eyewitness testimony is substantiated by the onsite, hands-on investigation
of the Polish authorities. This convergence of evidence is even
better than the one that Judge Gray heard because it has an onsite,
expert study of the murder weapon itself that “conclusively proves”
the existence of the steam chambers. Therefore, the Germans must
have murdered people in steam chambers at Treblinka. Lo and behold,
the pitfalls of such a conclusion!
Historians now tell us there were no steam chambers at Treblinka.
The convergence of evidence that “proves” their existence is entirely
false. Over the years, the story changed and today it is alleged
that Jews and others were murdered with carbon monoxide gas, generated
from captured Soviet diesel tank engines.20 Neither Judge Gray or
Lipstadt and company’s team of world renowned Holocaust experts
have ever explained why the convergence of evidence for Treblinka
steam chambers points to a false conclusion and the convergence
of evidence for the Auschwitz gas chambers allegedly points to true
conclusion.
Since most of the evidence in the convergence of evidence for
the Treblinka steam chambers is not qualitatively different from
the evidence in the convergence of evidence for the Auschwitz gas
chambers; and since the convergence of evidence for the Treblinka
steam chambers leads to a false conclusion, isn’t it also possible
that the convergence of evidence for the Auschwitz gas chambers
also points to a false conclusion?
Dr. Michael Shermer is the Holocaust historian that formulated
this “convergence of evidence” method for “proving” the traditional
view of the Holocaust. What is not well known is that he also formulated
the criterion for proving that the traditional view of the Holocaust
is incorrect. He wrote: “In order to prove that the Holocaust did
NOT happen, a revisionist…will have to show that the consilience
of inductions method [i.e., the convergence of evidence method]
is either philosophically fallacious in general, or misinterpreted
in the case of the Holocaust in particular.”21 It was shown here
that the “convergence of evidence” method has been misinterpreted
in the case of the Holocaust by Lipstadt’s team of Holocaust experts
and Judge Gray. Shermer’s criterion for proving the traditional
view of the Holocaust “did not happen” is thus satisfied.
This is only one of the many weak points in Judge Gray’s final
judgment. The Holocaust Lobby’s presumed victory in the Irving-Lipstadt
libel trial is a Pyrrhic victory, for the whole affair forced the
Lobby to publicly reveal how weak and questionable the evidence
for the traditional view of the Holocaust really is. Time and the
dawn of a new age of reason will show the world the validity of
Holocaust revisionism.
NOTES
1. D.D. Gutenplan, The Holocaust on Trial (W.W. Norton
& Company, 2001).
2. See Judge Gray’s “Judgment” in the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial,
online: www.focal.org/judg.html,
paragraph 6.107.
3. Ibid, paragraph 7.75
4. Ibid, paragraph 6.80.
5. Ibid, paragraph 13.73.
6. Ibid, paragraph 7.59.
7. Ibid, paragraph 7.118.
8. Ibid, paragraph 13.72.
9. Ibid. paragraph 13.72.
10. Ibid, paragraph 13.77.
11. Ibid, paragraph 13.78.
12. Ibid, paragraph 13.91.
13. “Treblinka,” The Journal of Historical Review,
Summer 1992, pp.134-135.
14. “Likwidacja zydowskiej Warszwy, Treblinka,” Biuleytn
Zydowskiego Instytutu Historysznego (Warsaw), Jan.-June 1951,
pp. 93-100. Quoted in Carlo Mattogno, “The Myth of the Extermination
of the Jews.” The Journal of Historical Review, Fall
1988, pp.273-274, 295 (n.16).
15. The New York Times, August 8, 1943, p.11.
16. Jacob Apenszlak, ed., The Black Book of Polish Jewry(
New York, 1943), pp.142-143.
17. World Jewish Congress, Lest We Forget(New York,
1943), pp.4, 6-7.
18. OSS document, April 13, 1944. National Archives (Washington,
DC), Military Branch, Record Group 226 (OSS records), No.67231.
19. Nuremberg Trial Document 3311-PS. IMT, Trial of the
Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal
(IMT “blue series”/1947-1949), vol.32, pp.152-158; Also published
in Carlos Whitlock Porter, Made in Russia: The Holocaust(Historical
Review Press, 1988), p.2-7.
20. See the statements of Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg in
Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die?: Report
of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel
(Samisdat, 1992), p.31.
21. Michael Shermer, “An Open Letter to Holocaust Revisionists:
In Response to W.D. Brocksmidt’s ‘Open Letter to Michael Shermer’
in Newsletter of the Adelaide Institute, 27, January, 1995.” March
14, 1995. A copy of this letter is the possession of Paul Grubach.
This letter may have been published in Shermer’s Skeptic
magazine or posted on his Website.
© Copyright 2001, Paul Grubach
|
|
