The Atlanta Constitution, which is the major paper in prof. Lipstadt's home
town of Atlanta, says developments in the trial have not warranted coverage
by the paper since the first week.  The editor's response to a reader's
complaint about the lack of news coverage in the paper about the trial is
included below.

There are no other new media reports as of 0630 MST 02.14.00.


ATLANTA CONSTITUTION

http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/today/news_19.html

Q&A on the News
Colin Bessonette - Staff Monday =95 February 14

Q: An author in Britain named Irving sued an Emory professor and her
publisher for calling him a "Holocaust revisionist." The trial was covered
extensively for some days, then disappeared from the news. What's the status
of that?

--- Ruby Saks, Norcross

A: The trial of historical writer David Irving's libel lawsuit against Emory
University professor Deborah Lipstadt ended its fifth week Thursday. It is
expected to continue until late March.

The defense has been presenting a series of witnesses to challenge Irving's
merits as a historian, and to attack his honesty as a writer. Under English
libel law, attorneys representing Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Press,
must prove the truth of assertions contained in a book by Lipstadt that
Irving denied conventional accounts of the Holocaust and manipulated
historical facts to support his position.

Lipstadt's book, "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and
Memory," was published in Britain in 1994. Irving says the book
misrepresented his position, damaged his reputation, and generated waves of
hatred against him. Lipstadt's lawyers accuse him of being a liar and a
falsifier of history.

Journal-Constitution correspondent Bert Roughton Jr., who is based in
London, is following the trial and will continue to report on it when
developments warrant coverage.

###


Copyright 2000 PR Newswire Europe Limited
Press Association Newsfile

February 14, 2000
HOLOCAUST HISTORIAN DENIES 'UNCRITICAL' APPROACH

Cathy Gordon, PA News.

Historian David Irving today rejected an accusation that he placed a faith
in the reliability of oral testimony given to him by Hitler's former aides
that was "almost entirely uncritical".

The author, who denies distorting history to exonerate Hitler, told the
Holocaust libel trial at the High Court that on "numerous occasions" he had
persuaded those he interviewed "to reveal to me matters which were against
their interest or against that of Hitler" and had not concealed that
information.

Mr Irving, who is representing himself in his damages action at London's Law
Courts over a claim that he is a "Holocaust denier", was answering one of
the criticisms of him contained in a 740-page report before the court by top
academic Richard Evans, professor of modern history at Cambridge University.

Cross-examining Professor Evans, who has been called as an expert for the
defence by author Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books, Mr Irving put to the
witness that he was accusing him of "gullibility in falling for what they
told me".

Professor Evans, who says he does not regard Mr Irving as a "reputable
historian", replied: "I wouldn't accuse you of being gullible Mr Irving."

In his report, Professor Evans states that Mr Irving makes "massive use of
oral testimony" and, in particular, had over the years "interviewed a large
number of Hitler's former aides and other leading former Nazis, and he
places, as this report will demonstrate repeatedly and in detail, a faith in
the reliability of their testimony that is almost entirely uncritical".

It was in the interest of former Nazis of all kinds, he wrote: "to deny all
knowledge of, let alone participation in, the crimes of Nazism, including
the extermination of the Jews".

Professor Evans said that if they had an incentive to avoid implicating
themselves before a court: "they had a motive for persuading Irving to be
their mouthpiece in continuing their personal quest for public exculpation
at a later date".

He added: "Their testimony has to be subjected to particularly searching
critical scrutiny. The need for a critical attitude is borne out by the
evidence of the memoirs that many of them published - self-serving,
mendacious, dishonest and designed to minimise their own involvement in the
crimes of Nazism.

"This report will examine many examples of this kind of evidence, much of it
relied on by Irving in an entirely uncritical way."

Mr Irving claimed that Professor Evans had made: "an over-hasty rush to
judgment on me which is not borne out by the evidence".

Professor Evans said he did not deny the fact that Mr Irving had obtained "a
great deal of material" which others had not, and that his interviews with
former members of Hitler's staff "have contributed in some way to historical
knowledge".

The author of Hitler's War is suing Professor Lipstadt and Penguin over her
1994 book, Denying The Holocaust: The Growing Assault On Truth And Memory,
which he says has generated waves of hatred against him.

The defendants, who deny libel, have accused Mr Irving, 62, of Duke Street,
Mayfair, central London, of being a liar and falsifier of history.

###





BBC 02.14.00

Historian 'believed what Nazis told him'
http://news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid%5F642000/642724.stm

David Irving is defending himself at the High Court

Historian David Irving has denied claims that he placed too much faith in
Nazi accounts of World War II.

In his continuing libel trial at the High Court, Mr Irving insisted that
before conducting interviews with senior Nazi figures, he had persuaded them
to be frank enough to reveal information even if it was against their
interests, or those of Hitler.

Mr Irving is suing author Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books over a claim
that he is a "Holocaust denier".

He insists on "numerous occasions", he persuaded Hitler's former aides and
other leading Nazis to reveal full details of what had happened.

Mr Irving's comments came as he cross-examined a defence witness, Professor
Richard Evans, who states in a 740-page report to the court that Mr Irving
placed an "almost entirely uncritical" faith in the details supplied by his
Nazi interviewees.

It was in the interest of former Nazis of all kinds, he wrote: "to deny all
knowledge of, let alone participation in, the crimes of Nazism, including
the extermination of the Jews".

"They had a motive for persuading Irving to be their mouthpiece in
continuing their personal quest for public exculpation at a later date".

Mr Irving put it to the witness that he was accusing him of "gullibility in
falling for what they told me".

Rush to judgement

Professor Evans, who says he does not regard Mr Irving as a "reputable
historian", replied: "I wouldn't accuse you of being gullible Mr Irving."

Mr Irving claimed that Professor Evans had made "an over-hasty rush to
judgement on me which is not borne out by the evidence".

Professor Evans said he did not deny the fact that Mr Irving had obtained "a
great deal of material" which others had not, and that his interviews with
former members of Hitler's staff "have contributed in some way to historical
knowledge".

The defendants, who deny libel, have accused Mr Irving, 62, of being a liar
and falsifier of history.

The hearing was adjourned and is expected to last for several months.


JEWISH TELEGRAPHIC AGENCY
http://jta.virtualjerusalem.com/index.exe?0002145
Holocaust scholar rejects revisionist's title of historian By Douglas Davis

LONDON, Feb. 14 (JTA) =97 Holocaust revisionist David Irving has no right to
call himself a historian, according to a leading scholar of Nazi Germany.

Richard Evans, a professor of modern history at Britain's prestigious
Cambridge University, made the remark last week while testifying in the
trial here where Irving is suing American historian Professor Deborah
Lipstadt and her British publisher, Penguin Books, for libel on the basis of
Lipstadt's 1994 book "Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth
and Memory."

Irving, who denies that Jews were systematically exterminated in the gas
chambers at Auschwitz, is claiming that Lipstadt ruined his reputation and
career by labeling him a Holocaust denier =97 and asserting that he twisted
historical data to suit his own bias.

Irving's confrontation with Evans was just one that he had with other
scholars last week who are testifying in the trial.

After producing a 740-page critique of Irving's historical method, Evans
said he had been unprepared for the "sheer depth of duplicity" he had found
in Irving's treatment of Holocaust-related historical sources.

In his report, Evans asserted that Irving had relied on his audience lacking
the time or the expertise to study his sources in order to discover the
"distortions and manipulations."

Irving, who is representing himself, charged that Evans's "sweeping and
rather brutal" attack on his career was based on personal animosity: "I
think you dislike what I write and stand for and what you perceive my views
to be," he said.

But Evans denied this was true and said he had sought to be as objective as
possible when examining Irving's work.

Evans said he had little prior knowledge of the work, although he had
thought of Irving as a sound historian. But he said he was "shocked" at what
he found when he closely examined Irving's writings and speeches.

The court proceedings reinforced the view he had expressed in his report
that Irving had fallen so far short of accepted standards of scholarship
that "he doesn't deserve to be called a historian at all."

But Irving declared that he was always "scrupulously fair," and the "total
opposite of being unscrupulous and manipulative and deceptive, as you say in
your report."

Evans agreed that Irving had a very wide knowledge of the source material
for the Third Reich and that he had discovered many new documents: "The
problem for me," he said, "is what you do with them when you interpret them
and write them up."

Irving's writings and speeches, said Evans, contained statements that he
regarded as anti-Semitic =97 to the extent that he blamed the Jews for the
Holocaust.

Irving's belief that he was the target of "a worldwide Jewish conspiracy,"
Evans continued, was "a fantastic belief which has no grounds in fact."

Irving also had a bruising encounter last week with Professor Christopher
Browning, of Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Wash., who also appeared
as a witness for Lipstadt.

Asked by Irving to comment on a Nazi plan to settle Jews on the Indian Ocean
island of Madagascar, Browning, author of four books and more than 35
academic papers on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, said it was a "bizarre
fantasy."

Browning added that the result of such a population transfer would have been
disastrous as "a large percentage of the people would have perished."

"I think," countered Irving, "that the Jews are a very sturdy people."

Earlier, military historian Sir John Keegan, compelled by subpoena to
testify for Irving, said he found Irving's ideas to be "perverse," while his
claim that Hitler did not know about the fate of the Jews until late 1943
"was so extraordinary it would defy reason."

Sir John, who was knighted for his contribution to military history, agreed
that he had in the past recommended students of World War II to read
Irving's book "Hitler's War," but he told the court he had also advised them
to read Chester Wilmot's "Struggle for Europe."

"Together," he said, "they gave Hitler's side and the Allies' side."

His recommendation to students did not mean he endorsed the opinions in
Irving's book, he said.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor