A Holocaust Revisionist Critique
of
the Thinking of Deborah Lipstadt
By Paul Grubach
copyright 2006
Preliminary Note: In the interest of fairness and accuracy, the following
essay was emailed to Dr. Deborah Lipstadt prior to its publication on the
CODOH web site. She was asked to identify any problems, errors, misinterpretations,
falsities, etc. If need be, these would be eliminated or corrected.
Paul Grubach and CODOH have no desire whatsoever to publish any false or
misleading material. Quite predictably, she never responded.
I. The Importance of Deborah Lipstadt
In her 1993 critique of the Holocaust revisionist movement, Denying
the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, Dorot professor
of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, Deborah Lipstadt,
attacked British historian David Irving and labeled him “one of the most
dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial.”1 In response,
Irving sued Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin UK, for libel. The
subsequent trial in London, beginning in January 2000, received world-wide
coverage, as the media spotlight fell upon the historiography of the Holocaust
and the ongoing battle between traditional and revisionist views of the
Jewish tragedy in WWII.
The trial ended in April of 2000. Irving lost his case and Lipstadt’s
victory was front page news worldwide. However, the trial’s implications
were far from over. As historian Daniel Jonah Goldhagen so rightly
noted in The Washington Post’s Book World, “The trial was an event,
covered around the world, of substantial social and political importance.”2
The Daily Telegraph of London proclaimed the Irving-Lipstadt courtroom
drama did “for the new century what the Nuremberg tribunals or the Eichmann
trial did for earlier generations.”3 “A ll critics agreed,” Bookmarks
Magazine noted, “that Lipstadt’s story is a fascinating one and an important
historical lesson for the record.”4 The influential Kirkus Reviews
claimed that Lipstadt’s version of events, History on Trial, is “A
fascinating and meritorious work of legal—and moral—history."5
Even the contemporaneous Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Barak, took
the time out from meetings with President Bill Clinton to praise Lipstadt
for her “important victory on behalf of the Jewish people.”6
Although well known attorney Alan Dershowitz claimed that Lipstadt’s
victory was the most important courtroom defeat for Holocaust “denial” in
recent history, Irving didn’t lose his case because of any inherent flaw
in Holocaust revisionism.7 For one thing, the maverick British historian,
who represented himself in court, is not a lawyer, and he squared off against
a very talented legal team. But just as importantly, David Irving
himself has stated that he is not an authority on the Jewish tragedy of
WWII or Holocaust revisionism. Indeed, he has admitted that he has
not even read important Holocaust revisionist studies--most notably, Arthur
Butz’s The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.8
Even the trial judge, Mr. Justice Charles Gray, pointed out in his final
ruling that Irving was at a disadvantage because he could not cross-examine
Lipstadt in regard to his claim that there was an international Jewish conspiracy
to silence him. “Irving has been greatly hampered, “ the British magistrate
noted, “ in presenting this aspect of the case by the unexpected decision
of the Defendants, in full knowledge of the allegations which Irving was
making about the conduct of Lipstadt, not to call her to give evidence and
to be cross-examined by Irving. It goes without saying that the Defendants
were perfectly entitled to adopt this tactic but it did place Irving, acting
in person, at a disadvantage.”9
In the eyes of the mainstream media, Deborah Lipstadt has emerged as
one of the world’s most important authorities on “Holocaust denial.”
Establishment media sources have “lionized” her, and she is looked upon
as a major defender and spokesperson for the Jewish community in particular,
the forces of “morality, peace and justice” in general. The state
of Georgia’s most important newspaper, the Atlanta Journal Constitution,
put it in these terms: “In Britain, as in the United States, she had been
widely portrayed as the defender of good against David Irving’s bumbling
prince of darkness.”10
In contrast to this bombastic picture, Lipstadt, in a refreshing burst
of honesty, hinted that she really did very little to deserve this exaggerated
praise. “During the [press] interviews,” she writes, “a number of
reporters commented on my ‘dignity’ during the trial. Since I had
done nothing but remain silent, I was, at first, perplexed by their reaction.”11
It is important to penetrate and analyze her thinking, because
it is reflective of a large and powerful segment of the Jewish community
in particular, the Western mainstream media in general—two entities that
wield enormous power and influence. Her books and statements express
in a very clear way the distorted ideological line of thought that “justifies”
and “legitimates” the current sociopolitical status quo in parts of the
world today.
II. Lipstadt’s Dogmatic View of Holocaust Revisionism and Her
Refusal to Debate
One of Lipstadt’s
most important claims is that Holocaust revisionism is utter nonsense, on
a par with flat earth theory, implying that her orthodox view of the Holocaust
is as certain as our knowledge of the earth’s spherical nature. In
her own words: “[Holocaust revisionist] arguments make as much sense as
flat-earth theory.”12
Here we have an excellent example of the fallacy of “faulty analogy.”
As logician Alex C. Michalos points out, this flaw in reasoning is committed
when the analogous or compared things have more differences than
similarities.13
In addition to scientific experiments that can be performed here on earth
to demonstrate the earth’s spherical nature, there are photographs from
outer space.14 By way of contrast, one of the foremost Holocaust authorities,
historian Raul Hilberg, admitted that scientific proof for the existence
of the “Hitler gas chambers” is missing. No authentic and genuine
autopsy report exists to show that Jews were killed with poison gas.
No one has ever produced any photographs of Jews being gassed.15
As the late Jean-Claude Pressac (widely considered to be an authority
on the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers) has pointed out, in the blueprints,
construction documents and work orders that trace the construction and subsequent
use of the buildings that allegedly housed the “Auschwitz gas chambers,”
there is no explicit reference to the use of gas chambers or Zyklon B for
homicidal purposes.16 This was also reluctantly admitted at the Irving-Lipstadt
trial in London.17
Notwithstanding the capture of literally tons of German documents after
WWII, no documentary evidence of a wartime extermination order, plan or
program has ever been found. Hilberg admitted as much during his testimony
in the 1985 trial in Toronto of Revisionist activist Ernst Zundel.18
Lipstadt herself confirms there is no written order from Hitler authorizing
the destruction of the Jews.19
One of the most important pieces of “evidence” traditionally adduced
to “prove” the “Holocaust” is the testimony of Rudolf Höß
, a commandant
of Auschwitz. Lipstadt and Christopher Browning (a prominent Holocaust
historian who was a part of her defense team at the Irving-Lipstadt trial)
have admitted that Höß
’s confessions are unreliable, as he had been tortured
by the British into confessing to a fantastic and unbelievable number of
murders.20
Dr. Lipstadt insists “the existence of the Holocaust [is] not a matter
of debate.”21 But as we have just pointed out, negating this viewpoint
is the fact that all the necessary photographic, documentary, and scientific
evidence needed to prove Lipstadt’s version of the Holocaust is missing.
Lipstadt adds this most revealing caveat to her claim that Holocaust
revisionism is as absurd as flat earth theory: “However, in dramatic contrast
to flat-earthers, they [Holocaust revisionists] can cause tremendous pain
and damage.”22 This may be interpreted as an implicit admission that
Holocaust revisionism has much more credibility that she cares to publicly
admit. If Holocaust revisionism is inherently ridiculous and absurd, the
equivalent of flat-earth theory, how could a public airing of it possibly
cause “tremendous pain and damage?” A public airing of a belief system
that is inherently stupid and foolish would be a golden opportunity for
Lipstadt and her colleagues to expose its absurdity and subject its proponents
to public humiliation, and ultimately, relegate the Revisionist movement
to the dustbin of history.
“When I received invitations to debate deniers,” she writes, “I
consistently declined, explaining that while many things about the Holocaust
are open to debate, the existence of the event is not.”23 To debate
the Holocaust skeptics, Lipstadt insists, “would give them a legitimacy
and stature they in no way deserve. It would elevate their anti-Semitic
ideology—which is what Holocaust denial is—to the level of responsible historiography—which
is what it is not.”24
Despite what Lipstadt writes, if hard evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming
and the claims of Revisionists ridiculous, to engage the latter in debate
would not lend them credibility and respect. Quite the contrary!
Crossing swords with these “cranks” would be a golden opportunity for Lipstadt
to expose their quackery and stupidity. Only if Revisionism has intrinsic
validity will it gain stature by a public hearing. The Jewish lady’s
refusal to debate carries with it the implicit recognition that Revisionism
has more legitimacy than she cares to admit.
Even if Revisionism is pure balderdash, the public interest would still
be served if it was given serious attention in the mainstream media.
The truth of the traditional view of the Holocaust could be proven anew.
Lipstadt has been quoted as saying that she is “only interested in getting
at the truth.”25 If this is so, then a more complete perception of
the truth would be gained in a public debate where her “Holocaust fact”
clashed with “Holocaust denial fiction.”
Karl Popper, a prominent philosopher of science, proposed that a statement
(a theory, a conjecture) has the status of belonging to the empirical sciences
if, and only if, it is potentially falsifiable.26 If the Holocaust
cannot be questioned nor debated, and must be blindly accepted as a “fact,”
then it is not falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is not
a scientific theory. Lipstadt’s position violates the cannons of good
science. A true scientific theory is open to continuous question and
debate.
Lipstadt’s ulterior agenda is, I believe, readily apparent. What
she is saying is that one must accept the traditional view of the Holocaust
doctrine without question, a priori. She wants to prevent the
public and mainstream media from giving Holocaust revisionism a fair and
public hearing, because once the public does this, this would spell doom
for her traditional version of the Holocaust.
Furthermore, her position is self-contradictory. She writes: “Deniers,
I argued, should be stopped with reasoned inquiry, not with the blunt edge
of the law.”27 Reasoned inquiry includes the fair and reasoned examination
of the opponent’s arguments, and a willingness to publicly debate the opposition.
Refusing to debate your opponents is not “reasoned inquiry.”
She continues: “Deniers…distort, falsify, and pervert the historical
record and, consequently, fall entirely outside the parameters of any historical
debate about the Holocaust.”28 If this is indeed an accurate description
of the methods of “Holocaust deniers,” then it would be in the best interests
of Lipstadt and her fellow establishment historians to publicly debate them,
because this would be a golden opportunity to publicly expose their distortions,
falsifications, and overall idiocy. It would be a wonderful opportunity
to expose the “Holocaust deniers” as the fools and charlatans that we allegedly
are. If the “Holocaust deniers” really do distort, falsify and pervert
the historical record, Lipstadt should relish the idea of debating them,
because this would be an opportunity for her to expose them and help destroy
the revisionist movement once and for all.
It appears as though Lipstadt’s “justification” for refusing to debate
is nothing more than a conscience-salving self-deception designed to cover
up her fear and insecurity in regard to the validity of Holocaust revisionism.
It is actually a somewhat favorable sign for Holocaust revisionism that
some of its major detractors like Deborah Lipstadt refuse to debate.
It sends the implicit message to the public at large that Holocaust revisionism
has more credibility than its opponents dare to publicly admit.
Her real ulterior agenda was laid bare by California psychology
professor Kevin MacDonald. At the Irving-Lipstadt trial he pointed
out: “They [the Jewish-Zionist Holocaust lobby] think…that their version
of events [should] be accepted as the truth and that dissent from certain
of these tenets should be viewed as beyond the pale of rational discussion.”29
Lipstadt wants her Jewish-Zionist version of the Holocaust to be accepted
as “the truth,” and all dissent or questioning of it to be rendered taboo.
In this way her traditional view of the Holocaust will be accepted by mainstream
society without question. It thus becomes self-perpetuating.
III. Are Holocaust Revisionists Fascists and Nazis? Lipstadt’s
Serious Omission
Another of Lipstadt’s most important dictums is that Holocaust Revisionism
is intimately connected to a neo-fascist/neo-Nazi political agenda, adding:
“One of the tactics the deniers use to achieve their ends is to camouflage
their goals. In an attempt to hide the fact that they are fascists
and anti-Semites with a specific ideological agenda, they state that their
objective is to uncover historical falsehoods, all historical falsehoods.”30
In History on Trial, Lipstadt makes a determined effort to “prove”
that Holocaust revisionism is, in essence, a “neo-Nazi movement.”
In this regard, she quotes her defense attorney, Richard Rampton: “The bridge
between Holocaust denial and the Hitler apology from antisemitism is very
easy to build, because what more would an historian who is an anti-Semite
want to do in the exculpation of Hitler…what more would he want to do than
to deny the Holocaust?”31
Rampton further charged that David Irving deliberately ignores or attempts
to “rationalize away” evidence that does not fit his preconceptions.
In his own words: “What he [Irving] does not like, he ignores .”32
This charge could very well hurl back at his client, Deborah Lipstadt.
In her 1993 book, Denying the Holocaust, she cited an article
by a noted expert on political extremism, Laird Wilcox.33 In that
1988 article, Wilcox pointed out that possibly 25% of Holocaust revisionists
are neo-Nazi apologists, which meant that the majority, 75%, were not.
She must have been aware that Wilcox made this point, because she briefly
discussed the Wilcox article in which he made this point. Yet, because
it contradicts her claim that Holocaust revisionism is a “fascist/neo-Nazi
movement,” I believe she ignored it and failed to bring it to the attention
of her readers. Thus, Rampton’s charge—that Irving ignores what he
does not like—hurls right back at his client, Deborah Lipstadt.
IV. Miscellaneous Criticisms of Lipstadt’s View of the “Nazi Final
Solution”
A comprehensive discussion of the National Socialist “Final Solution”
to the Jewish Question is beyond the scope of this article. However,
a few important comments are called for, since this is a topic of discussion
in Lipstadt’s books.
Lipstadt has discussed the current debate among establishment historians
concerning the nature of the “Final Solution.” She writes that “intentionalists
contend that Hitler came to power intending to murder the Jews and instituted
an unbroken and coherent set of policies directed at realizing that goal.
In contrast, functionalists argue that the Nazi decision to murder
the Jews did not originate with a single Hitler decision, but evolved in
an incremental and improvised fashion.”34 Yet, nowhere in History
on Trial or elsewhere (to my knowledge) does she cite the evidence from
the Irving-Lipstadt trial that undermines both viewpoints.
Judge Gray made this statement in his “Final Judgment,” which Lipstadt
failed to inform her readers of: “In this connection, Irving, in order
to rebut the claim that Hitler displayed a vindictive attitude towards Jews
on this (or any other) occasion, drew attention to the willingness of Hitler
on occasion to approve some merciful disposal for individual Jews or groups
of Jews. Irving instanced the permission given by Hitler for 70,000
Jewish children to leave Romania and travel to Palestine. Longerich
[a German defense expert for Lipstadt’s defense team] agreed that there
were times when Hitler exempted certain Jews from deportation or extermination.”35
If Hitler ultimately intended to murder the Jews of Europe and wipe them
off of the face of the earth, why would he allow 70,000 Jewish children—the
seeds of future Jewish generations—to escape the National Socialist grasp
and leave for Palestine? It is evidence like this that calls into
question all traditional views of the Final Solution, and which Lipstadt
fails to bring to her reader’s attention.
Lipstadt
tries to explain away the fact that there is no single document to prove
the existence of the infamous “Nazi gas chambers.” In her own words:
“[Historians] do not, as Irving kept demanding, seek a ‘smoking gun,’
one document that will prove the existence of the gas chambers.”36
This is
very misleading. Let us assume for the sake of argument that historians
found an authentic and genuine document (i.e., forensic studies showed that
is was not a forgery), dated between 1941 and 1945, signed by Adolf Hitler
and it stated: “I, Adolf Hitler, hereby order that all Jews under German
control are to be murdered in homicidal gas chambers.” If such a document
were found, this would be proof that the National Socialists did have a
policy (or at least attempted) to murder Jews in gas chambers. In
fact, historians have found a single document that proves that Hitler
did order into existence a policy to kill the incurably sick.
In October 1939, Hitler had
one of his secretaries type on his own headed notepaper a memorandum that
contained this order: “Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. med. Brandt are commissioned
with responsibility of extending the authority of specified doctors, so
that, after critical assessment of their condition, those adjudged incurably
ill can be granted mercy-death.”37 Here we have a single document
proving that Hitler did authorize the incurably sick to be killed.
So if there was a written order from Hitler authorizing the incurably ill
to be killed, why wasn’t there a written Hitler order to mass murder Jews
in gas chambers?
By the mere
fact there is no single, authentic and genuine, war-time document
ordering the mass murder of Jews in gas chambers is just one more good reason
to be skeptical of the existence of the “Nazi gas chambers.” (Establishment
historians offer only twisted and contorted rationalizations as to why there
is no single document ordering the mass murder of Jews in gas chambers.)
Lipstadt
continues. She claims that not a single document, but a “convergence
of evidence” proves the existence of the “Nazi gas chambers.”
In her own words: “[Historians] seek a nexus or convergence of evidence
[to prove the existence of the Nazi gas chambers].”38
Here, Lipstadt
puts forth the worn out and fallacious “convergence of evidence proof” for
the traditional view of the Holocaust that has been refuted by revisionists
in other studies. Revisionist historian Mark
Weber revealed that one could use a convergence
of evidence to “prove” that inmates were gassed en masse at Dauchau concentration
camp, where it is now generally agreed there were no homicidal gassings.39
A convergence of evidence (complete with eyewitness testimonies, expert
reports, and an onsite, physical study of the murder weapon itself) could
be employed to “prove” the Germans murdered prisoners in “steam chambers”
at Treblinka.40 But it is now agreed no one was ever murdered in such
a manner, as this “convergence of evidence” is entirely false. In point
of fact, the evidence used to “prove” homicidal gassings in Auschwitz-Birkenau,
Treblinka, etc. is not really qualitatively different from the evidence
used to “prove” the mythical gassings at Dauchau and in the phony “steam
chambers” of Treblinka.
For a thorough
refutation of this “convergence of evidence proof,” I refer the reader to
the analysis of Revisionist scholar Carlo Mattogno.41
V. Does Deborah Lipstadt
Have the Psychological Characteristic of an Extremist?
Two experts on political extremism, Professor John George and Laird Wilcox,
pointed out that one psychological characteristic of a political extremist
is that she openly advocates double standards and feels no guilt for so
doing.42 As we shall soon see in the following sections, Lipstadt
appears to display this psychological characteristic in regard to the race
and ethnic intermarriage issues. It is somewhat ironic that she condemns
her ideological opponents of extremism, yet she herself exhibits a prominent
characteristic of a political extremist.
VI.
The Zionist Politics and Hypocritical Double Standard
of Deborah Lipstadt
In order to understand the agenda and emotional driving force behind
Lipstadt’s behavior and public pronouncements, one has to know something
about her intense political sympathies.
Lipstadt points out that she is an “openly identifying Jew,” and owns
up to an early perception that her Jewish ethnic group is different from
the surrounding non-Jewish society.43 “As a young child,” she reminisces,
“I remember sensing that these Central European Jewish homes, with their
heavy, dark furniture and steaming cups of tea accompanied by delicate homemade
strudel and other distinctly European pastries, were different from those
of my American schoolmates.”44
She expresses pride in the fact that, early in life,
she marched
in solidarity with those who wanted to implement Black-White integration
policies in the United States: “My mother and I marched in Harlem in solidarity
with the Birmingham-Salem civil rights protestors. We took a vicarious
pride in the fact that Andy Goodman, one of the civil rights workers murdered
in Mississippi, had lived down the block from us and we always pointed out
this building to visitors.”45
Early in life, she did not have a passionate attachment to Israel and
political Zionism: “In 1966, anxious to experience travel abroad, I made
a relatively impetuous decision to attend Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Though my family were supporters of Israel, I was not driven by a Zionist
commitment.”46 Yet, when she visited Israel for the first time, it
was akin to a religious experience: “Going to Israel was not a purposeful
choice but was to have a life-changing impact.”47 In Lipstadt’s own
words: “It was time to go ‘home’ [Israel].” Never before had I thought
of Israel with such emotion.”48
The politics of Deborah Lipstadt are pervaded by a hypocritical double
standard. She actively worked to create a racially integrated, multicultural
society in the United States. And, all throughout her books
she pays lip service to “racial equality,” and ardently condemns non-Jews
that reject ethnically integrated, multiracial societies outside of Israel.
Yet, she most passionately identifies with Israel—an ethnically segregated
society whose government actively works to ensure Jewish supremacy and to
destroy any chance of an egalitarian, multiracial society from developing
between Jews and Arabs.
Far from working for an integrated society in which Jews and Arabs functioned
as social and political equals, the Jews who founded Israel created a society
in which Israeli Jews dominate "Israeli" Arabs, a separate and unequal society
in which discrimination against non-Jews and Jewish supremacy are an integral
part of the established social order.49
Diplomat, international lawyer and statesman (a former Undersecretary
of State in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations), the late George W.
Ball, describes in stark terms the racist foundations of the Jewish state
that Lipstadt so ardently identifies with: “The Jewish plan for an exclusively
Jewish state, free of the inconvenient presence of native peoples was scarcely
new. Theodor Herzl [founding father of modern Zionism] had laid out
the framework for such a system in 1898, when he sought a charter from the
Ottoman Sultan…One of the provisions of that abortive charter gave the [Jewish
Colonial] Society the power to deport the natives, and Herzl sought such
powers whether the new Jewish homeland was to be in Argentina, Kenya, Cyprus
or Palestine. The Jewish Land Trust incorporated this doctrine in
its rules, which designated all of its properties exclusively for Jewish
use and even prohibited the employment by the Jewish tenants of non-Jews,
thereby forcing such persons to seek employment abroad.”50
Predictably, the Zionists ended up producing an Athenian democracy for
Jews and second-class citizenship or feudal servitude for non-Jews.51
Just recently, an important Israeli official made it perfectly clear that
it was a goal of Zionist policy that Israeli Jews in Jerusalem are to be
segregated from Palestinian Arabs in order to make certain that Jews remain
the dominant element in that city, and that the ethnic/racial character
of the city remains predominantly Jewish. In the article's own words:
"
Israel 's separation barrier in Jerusalem is meant to ensure a Jewish
majority in the city and not just serve as a buffer against bombers, an
Israeli Cabinet minister acknowledged Monday."52 This clearly contradicts
Lipstadt’s publicly stated policy of favoring ethnically integrated, multiracial
societies where all ethnic and racial groups function as social and political
equals.
Why the contradiction? That is to say, why does Deborah Lipstadt favor
creating ethnically integrated, multiracial societies in the United States
and Europe, yet she most passionately identifies with the Israel--an ethnically
segregated state where Jewish dominance and racialism are the order of the
day?
Enter California State University Professor Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary
psychologist who Lipstadt bitterly attacks. MacDonald pointed out
that certain powerful Jewish groups favor ethnically integrated, multiracial
societies outside Israel because societies such as these foster and accommodate
the long-term Jewish policy of non-assimilation and group solidarity.53
MacDonald and African-American intellectual Harold Cruise observe that Jewish
organizations view white nationalism as their greatest potential threat
and they have tended to support Black-white integration policies presumably
because such policies dilute Euro-American power and lessen the possibility
of a cohesive, nationalist Euro-American majority that stands in opposition
to the Jewish community.54
In a racially integrated, multicultural society with numerous different
and competing ethnic groups with divergent interests, it is very unlikely
the surrounding gentiles can ever develop a united and cohesive majority
to oppose the very cohesive Jewish community. “Tolerant” gentile populations
that have only a week and feeble sense of their own racial/cultural identity
are less likely to identify certain powerful groups of Jews as alien elements
against which they must defend themselves. Gentile populations that have
a strong racial/cultural identity are more likely to identify certain groups
of Jews as alien outsiders, against which they must compete with. Thus,
a racially integrated, multicultural society (outside of Israel) is what
most Jewish-Zionist groups prefer, because in such a cultural milieu they
can gain tremendous power and influence.55
Lipstadt bitterly condemns the personhood and theories of Professor MacDonald.56
Yet, her hypocritical behavior actually vindicates MacDonald’s theories.
If the creation of racially integrated, multicultural societies were truly
her ultimate goal, we should expect that she would insist on such society
in Israel just as earnestly as she insists on such a society in the US and
Europe. But this is not the case. She is proud of the fact that
she marched in solidarity with those who worked to build an integrated society
in the US, yet she most passionately identifies with an ethnically segregated,
apartheid state in the Middle East. This suggests that she is indeed
using “racial brotherhood” ideologies in the service of her own Jewish-Zionist
nationalism.
V. The “Holocaust,” European and Jewish Identity, and the Ethnic
Double Standard
In her books, Lipstadt condemns the Holocaust revisionist Institute for
Historical Review (IHR) for bringing to light some of the damaging effects
of the lies and exaggerations in the Holocaust story. In a tone of self-righteous
hypocrisy, Lipstadt claims: “[The former Director of the IHR] revealed another
of the IHR’s true agenda items with his warning that acceptance of the Holocaust
myth resulted in a radical degeneration of acceptable standards of human
behavior and lowering the self-image of White people. These racist
tendencies, which the IHR has increasingly kept away from the public spotlight,
are part of the extremist tradition to which it is heir.”57
In other words, it is “racist and extremist” for non-Jewish Europeans
to be the least bit concerned about the negative effect that the Holocaust
ideology has on the European identity.
Enter Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt, an important member of Lipstadt’s defense
team who authored the very important anti-Holocaust revisionist tome, THE
CASE FOR AUSCHWITZ: EVIDENCE FROM THE IRVING TRIAL.58 He claimed that
Holocaust revisionism is an evil assault upon the Jewish self-image and
identity. In a frank and honest discussion, he admitted that when he read
Holocaust revisionist literature, he “had come face to face with a dangerous
personal abyss.” His implicit conclusion is that this is one of the main
reasons why Holocaust revisionism should be attacked and destroyed.59
Professor van Pelt then quotes Jewish writer Erika Apfelbaum as to why
Holocaust revisionism is “so evil” and why it should be attacked and refuted.
She stated: “Current Jewish history is deeply rooted in Auschwitz as the
general symbol of the destruction of the Jewish people during the Holocaust.
For someone whose past is rooted in Auschwitz, the experience of reading
through the revisionists’ tortured logic and documentation is similar to
the psychologically disorienting experience of sensory deprivation experiments
or solitary confinement in prison, where one loses touch with reality. The
insidious effect of reading this [Holocaust revisionist] literature is to
lose one’s identity as a survivor and, more generally, as a Jew. Therefore,
the revisionist allegations serve to dispossess the Jews from their history
and in doing so, in seeking to destroy a people’s history, a symbolic genocide
replaces a physical one."60
Consider the overall “moral” judgments in this whole scenario. According
to Lipstadt, van Pelt and the Holocaust lobby in general, it is “evil, racist
and extremist” for white gentiles to be the least bit concerned about the
damage that certain Holocaust lies and exaggerations are doing to the European
collective identity. Indeed, Europeans and Euro-Americans are supposed to
just meekly accept what the Jewish power elite says about the Holocaust,
no matter how damaging it is to the European collective self-identity. Yet,
it is positively demanded that Jews fight against Holocaust revisionism,
so as to protect and vindicate the Jewish self-identity.
At the beginning of his tome, van Pelt quotes Jewish-Zionist theologian
and “moral beacon” Elie Wiesel. He says that the alleged mass murder of
Jews at Auschwitz “signifies…the failure of two thousand years of Christian
civilization…”61 He is clearly referring to all European Christendom.
Further evidence showing that Lipstadt’s traditional view of the Holocaust
is indeed a psychological assault upon the entire European world, and not
just upon the Germans and those who were allied with them during WWII, was
demonstrated by the remarks of Israel’s Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, in
a special Knesset session marking the 60th anniversary of the
liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. According to The International
Jerusalem Post, “Sharon blamed the Western allies for knowing about
the annihilation of Jews in the Holocaust, but doing nothing to prevent
it.” He said the “sad and horrible conclusion is that no one cared
that Jews were being murdered.”62
According to the “morality” of Lipstadt, van Pelt, Wiesel, Sharon and
the Jewish-Zionist power elite that they represent, European Christians
are supposed to meekly accept the aforementioned statements as “the truth,”
and any attempt to debunk certain Holocaust lies and exaggerations and their
ensuing moral implications is of course “racist, evil and extremist.”
Using language very similar to that of Apfelbaum, the European Christian
could say: “The insidious effect of reading the lies and exaggerations in
the Holocaust literature is to lose one’s identity as a European Christian.
Therefore, the ‘gas chamber’ tale and some other false Holocaust allegations
serve to dispossess European Christians from their history, and in doing
so, in seeking to destroy a people’s history, a symbolic genocide replaces
a physical one.” The problem is of course, the predominate “morality” in
the Western world doesn’t allow the European Christian to think this way.
Just as Jews have the right to maintain a good collective self-image,
so too with non-Jews of European descent. They too have the right
to fight against those historical lies and distortions that damage their
collective self-identity.
VI Deborah Lipstadt and Her Hypocritical Talk on Ethnic Intermarriage
Since Lipstadt’s pronouncements on racial/ethnic intermarriage accurately
reflect the duplicity, deception and hypocrisy that characterize so much
of what Jewish and non-Jewish mainstream media outlets promote, a thorough
discussion is called for.
When asked by Lipstadt’s attorney Rampton about his views on interracial
marriage, historian Irving stated: "I have precisely the same attitude about
this as [Lipstadt]...I believe in God keeping the races the way he built
them.”63
In response, Lipstadt
writes: “As soon as Irving said this, I began to pulsate with anger.
This was not my view. I was deeply troubled by intermarriage between
Jews and non-Jews because it threatened Jewish continuity. Color or
ethnicity were entirely irrelevant to me.”64 She goes on to say that
she was very disappointed that nothing was done to clarify her position
on racial intermarriage at the trial, and that false ideas were floating
around about her position on racial intermarriage.65
If ethnicity is truly entirely irrelevant to her,
and Jewish continuity was her only concern, then we
should expect that she would have adopted the following policy. It
is acceptable for Jews to marry non-Jews of any color or ethnic group, as
long as the non-Jewish partner adopts the Jewish religion and Jewish cultural
customs. But she did not adopt this policy; she is flatly opposed
to intermarriage—period. As the Jewish journalist Dan Gutenplan pointed
out: “[I]t was hard not to feel queasy listening to Rampton quiz Irving
about his attitude to ‘intermarriage between the races’—on behalf of [Lipstadt]
who has written, ‘We [Lipstadt and her fellow Jews] know what we fight against:
anti-Semitism and assimilation [of Jews and non-Jews], intermarriage [between
Jews and non-Jews] and Israel-bashing.’”66
Furthermore, she may not be revealing how she really feels about
intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews. As Jewish author Ellen Jaffe
McClain pointed out in Embracing the Stranger: Intermarriage and the
Future of the American Jewish Community, Lipstadt is simply flatly opposed
to intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews: “Although people like Deborah
Lipstadt, the Emory University professor who has written and lectured widely
on Holocaust denial, have exhorted Jewish parents to just say no to intermarriage,
much the way they expect their children not to take drugs, a large majority
of parents (and more than a few rabbis) are unable to lay down opposition
to intermarriage [between Jews and non-Jews] as a strict operating principle.”67
According to this, she is not just “deeply troubled” by intermarriage between
Jews and non-Jews—she loathes it.
There is even evidence within History on Trial itself that suggests
Lipstadt may be engaging in deceit when she claims that “ethnicity is entirely
irrelevant to her.” On pp. 12-13, she implicitly condemns the policy
of the former Soviet Union on the issue of the Holocaust, because of the
USSR’s refusal to validate the concept of a “Jewish ethnicity” by identifying
the victims of the Holocaust as Jews. In her own words: “To have identified
the victims [of the Holocaust] as Jews would have validated the notion of
ethnicity, a concept contrary to Marxist ideology.”
So let’s get things straight. She implicitly condemns the Soviets
for refusing to validate the concept of “Jewish ethnicity.” (The reader
is encouraged to read pages 12 and 13 to see for himself that this is correct.)
Yet, when it suits her ideological purposes to condemn David Irving and
weasel her way out of her dilemma, on page 182, she claims that “ethnicity
is entirely irrelevant to her.”
There is more evidence that she is possibly being duplicitous when she
claims that “color and ethnicity are entirely irrelevant to her.”
Dr. Oren Yiftachel, an Israeli professor at Ben-Gurion
University, pointed out that Israel is not a democracy in the sense in which
it is currently understood in the West. Rather, it is an “ethnocracy”—a
land controlled and allocated by ethnicity. In his own words: “The Israeli
regime is ruled by and and for one ethnic group in a multi-ethnic reality.
Factors that make Israel an “ethnocracy” include the facts that 1) immigration
to the Jewish state is restricted to Jews only. Some 2.5 million displaced
Palestinians who would like to return are not allowed to migrate to Israel;
2) military service is according to ethnicity; 3) economic control is based
on race, religion, and ethnicity; 4) The country’s land regime entails transfer
of land ownership in one direction, from Arab to Jewish control, but never
back again.”68
If ethnicity is entirely irrelevant to her, then why does she passionately
identify with apartheid Israel--a state that is based on the principle that
the Jewish ethnic group is to be preserved for all time, and is to remain
separate from and dominant over non-Jews within the state?
Lipstadt may have made this statement—“color and ethnicity are entirely
irrelevant to me”—to meet the propaganda needs of the moment. That
is, to “refute” the allegation of David Irving and hide her strong feelings
of Jewish racialism. Said claim does not appear to reflect her real
feelings.
VII. Closing Statement
The work of Deborah Lipstadt contains fallacies, apparently false claims,
omissions and flawed judgment calls that are riddled with a hypocritical
double standard.
One question remains. Why Didn’t Deborah Lipstadt testify at the
Irving-Lipstadt Trial? She pointed out that Rampton
was against putting her on the witness stand. In his own words: “If
we go to trial, I will probably not put you in the witness box. You
are being sued for what you wrote. Having you give testimony will
not advance our case. It will only divert the judge’s attention from
the main focus, David Irving.”69
She then adds that “according to British law, Irving could not compel
me to give testimony. I listened to Rampton with mixed emotions.
I was relieved that I would not have to be cross-examined by a man whose
views I abhorred and who certainly would use the opportunity to cross-examine
me as a way of ‘settling scores’ for the wrongs he felt he had suffered.
At the same time, I was disappointed that I would not be able to openly
express my contempt for him. I feared that people would think that
I was frightened of facing him.”
In the same vein, she adds: “…I was worried we had made a tactical mistake,
allowing Irving to portray me as not only scared of facing him but having
something to hide.”70
One suspects that Rampton, being the shrewd attorney that he is, may
have realized that it could end up being a total disaster if Lipstadt was
cross-examined by Irving. Irving could have caught Lipstadt in the
hypocritical double standards, fallacies, omissions, bad logic, etc, that
we have shown here.
One of Lipstadt’s defense team experts, Dr. Richard Evans, was quoted
as saying: “Irving is essentially an ideologue who uses history…in order
to further his own political purposes.”71 Should we take out the name
of David Irving from the sentence and put in Deborah Lipstadt’s?
She admits that
Evans may have “thought me a hyperbolic, American, Jewish woman who was
more an ideologue than an open-minded historian.”72 An “ideologue”
is one that promotes a body of ideas, distorted and untrue in the main,
that serves the political, social and psychological needs of a power elite.
Based upon what has been revealed in this essay, could Deborah Lipstadt
be described as a Zionist ideologue?
Prominent British intellectual John Keegan made this most cogent comment:
“Prof. Lipstadt…seems as dull as only the self-righteously politically correct
can be. Few other historians had ever heard of her before this case.
Most will not want to hear from her again.”73
Is Deborah Lipstadt a self-righteous Zionist ideologue that operates
with hypocritical double standards? I will let the reader be the judge.
At the dawn of a new age of reason, Lipstadt’s books will, I believe,
stand as a testament to the political, moral and ideological corruption
that currently pervades Western Society.
Footnotes
1.
Deborah E. Lipstadt,
Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (The
Free Press, 1993), p. 181, passim.
2.
See Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s
book review of Deborah Lipstadt’s History on Trial in The
Washington Post’s Book World. Online:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0060593768/ref=dp_nav_1/104-4071788-3073504?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books.
3.
Quoted on dust jacket of
Deborah Lipstadt’s History on Trial: My Day in Court With David
Irving (Harper-Collins, 2005).
4.
Online. For URL,
see footnote 2.
5.
Ibid.
6.
Lipstadt, History on
Trial, p.278.
7.
Ibid, p.304.
8.
Personal communication
to Paul Grubach.
9.
See The Hon. Mr. Justice
Gray, “Judgment to be Handed Down on Tuesday, 11th April 2000,
Between David John Caldwell Irving and Penguin Books Limited, Deborah Lipstadt.”
Paragraph 3.7.
10. Lipstadt, History on Trial, p. 268.
11. Ibid, p.269.
12. Ibid, pp. 16, 301.
13. Alex C. Michalos, Improving Your Reasoning (Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1970), pp.109-110.
14. Irving Copi, Introduction to Logic, 5th ed., (Macmillan,
1978), pp.486-491.
15. The Sault Star (Canada), “Scientific evidence of Holocaust
missing,” January 18, 1985, p.A11; See Hilberg’s testimony in Barbara
Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the Evidence in
the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zundel—1988 (Samisdat, 1992),
p. 39. Online:
http://zundelsite.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd09hilberg.html. Jean-Claude
Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (Beate
Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989), p.429. Online:
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0429.htm
16. Pressac, p.429. Online:
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0429.htm.
17. See Paul Grubach, “Convergence of Evidence: Reflections on the Irving-Lipstadt
Affair,” The Revisionist. Online:
http://www.codoh.com/revisionist/tr09irving.html.
18. Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die? Report of the
Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zundel—1988 (Samisdat,
1992), pp.24-25. Online:
http://zundelsite.org/english/dsmrd/dsmrd09hilberg.html.
19. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, pp.127-128.
20. Vanity Fair, December 1993, p.117.
21. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, p.1.
22. Lipstadt, History on Trial, p.301.
23. Ibid, p.18.
24. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, p.1.
25. Vanity Fair, December 1993, p.117.
26. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1967 ed., s.v. “Karl Raimund
Popper,” by Anthony Quinton.
27. Lipstadt, History on Trial, p.xx.
28. Ibid, p.25.
29. Ibid, p.158.
30. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, p.4.
31. Lipstadt, History on Trial, p.260. Also, see Rampton’s
statements on p.259.
32. Ibid, p.259.
33. See Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, p.187. The article
being referred to is Laird Wilcox, “The Spectre Haunting Holocaust Revisionism,
“ Revisionist Letters (Spring 1989). Online:
http://www.codoh.com/revisionist/letters/rlspectre.html.
34. Lipstadt, History on Trial, p. 23.
35. See Hon. Justice Mr. Gray, Paragraph 5.209.
36. Lipstadt, History on Trial, p.133.
37. See Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews: Student
Edition (Holmes & Meir, 1985), pp. 225-226.
38. Lipstadt, History on Trial, p. 133.
39. See the video, “The Weber-Shermer Holocaust Debate: The
Holocaust Story in the Crossfire.” Available online:
http://store.noontidepress.com/.
Also, see Pat N. Mason, Jr. , "Exchanging Views on the Holocaust: Debating
the Undebatable: The Weber-Shermer Clash," The Journal of Historical
Review, January/February 1996, p.30.
40. See Paul Grubach, “Convergence of Evidence: Reflections on the Irving-Lipstadt
Affair,” The Revisionist. Online:
http://www.codoh.com/revisionist/tr09irving.html.
41. Carlo Mattogno, “’Denying History’?—Denying Evidence!:
The Phony ‘Convergence of Evidence’ to ‘Prove’ the ‘Holocaust,’” The Revisionist,
September 2005, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 9-44.
42. See discussion in Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman,
Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They
Say It? (University of California Press, 2000), p.88.
43. Lipstadt, History on Trial, p.283.
44. Ibid, p.3.
45. Ibid, p.5.
46. Ibid, p.6
47. Ibid, p.6.
48. Ibid, p.9.
49. See the study by Israeli academic, Dr. Uri Davis, Israel: An Apartheid
State (Zed Books Ltd., 1987).
50. George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball, The Passionate Attachment:
America’s Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present (W. W. Norton
& Company, 1992), p. 29.
51. Ibid, p.65.
52. Mark Lavie, “Barrier Meant to Ensure Jewish Majority,” Associated
Press Release, July 11, 2005. Online:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2005/07/11/international/i073139D24.DTL
53. Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis
of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements
(Praeger, 1998).
54. Ibid, pp. 255-257.
55. MacDonald, passim.
56. Lipstadt, History on Trial, pp.151-159.
57. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, p.144; Denying History,
p.17.
58. Robert Jan van Pelt, The Case For Auschwitz: Evidence From the
Irving Trial (Indiana University Press, 2002).
59. Ibid, p.70.
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid, p.6.
62. Liat Collins, “From the Ashes,” The International Jerusalem Post,
February 4, 2005, p. 3.
63. Lipstadt, History on Trial, p.182.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
66. Lipstadt quoted in D.D. Guttenplan, The Holocaust On Trial
(W. W. Norton & Company, 2001), p.209.
67. Ellen Jaffe McClain, Embracing the Stranger: Intermarriage and
the Future of the American Jewish Community (Basic Books, 1995), p.18.
68. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, July/August 1999,
p. 120.
69. Lipstadt, History on Trial, p.53.
Ibid, p.89.
71. Ibid, p.43.
72. Ibid, p.67.
73. Ibid, p.282.
|