ГУЛаг Палестины

the British courts against The Observer, Deborah

Lipstadt, (whose odious little tract has been

foolishly published here, i.e. within the jurisdiction,

by Penguin UK Ltd) and Svenska Dagbladet. You

have been warned!

In a recent fax printed in the K-W Record, he is reported as

saying, "I have warned 22 British newspapers that I shall not

hesitate to commence libel action if they use smear phrases

such like 'Hitler apologist' or 'Holocaust denier' to embellish

their writings." But Bernard Levin, writing in The Times of

London in May of this year, quoted Irving as saying, "I hope

the court will fight a battle for the German people and put an

end to the blood lie of the Holocaust which has been told

against this country for 50 years."

Irving first entered the headlines in 1970.

* Incorrect. Ever since 1963 my books have been

the subject of wide comment and much praise in

the British media.

In July of that year, he was forced to apologize in the High

Court of London for "making a wholly untrue and highly

damaging statement about a woman writer."--not an

auspicious start for someone who claims to be in pursuit of the

truth.

* Correct. A Sunday Express journalist, Jill -----,

stated that Rolf Hochhuth, the German playwright

and one of my closest friends had granted her an

exclusive interview. Hochhuth assured me he had

not even spoken to her. I mentioned this in a letter

to the newspaper's editor. She sued. As I was

fighting the hideously costly PQ.17 Libel Action at

the time, I had no alternative but to settle out of

court-- "shortening the front," is what military

commanders call such action. Make of that what

you will. Nothing has been heard of that

"journalist" since.

Later that year, Irving was back in the headlines, concerning

publication of his book, "The Destruction of Convoy PQ17".

Ostensibly an expose of an ill-fated 1942 Arctic convoy

headed for the Soviet Union during World War II, it eventually

resulted in Irving being fined 40,000 British pounds for libel.

* Incorrect. In actions for Libel--a tort--the defendant

is not fined, but can be required to pay damages.

The book was published by Simon Schuster and

other leading pubishers around the world. Not bad

for an "historian", eh?

Irving's book faulted Captain John Broome, commander of the

convoy at the time, saying he was guilty of "downright

disobedience" and "downright desertion of the convoy."

* Incorrect. No such allegations or quotations are

contained within the book.

Broome brought suit against Irving for false statements, and

won a judgment in August of 1970. Irving's lawyers appealed,

and lost in March, 1971.

* Correct. We then appealed to the House of Lords,

twice, and lost 4-to-3,which is a pretty close call.

Needless to say the insurers of Cassell Co Ltd,

the British publishers, would not have authorised

such defence actions had their counsel not studied

all the documents available and concluded that we

had a powerful defence, based on the Admiralty

records; this they in fact did, and wrote Opinions to

that effect. Libel actions in Britain are tried by jury.

Make of that what you will.

The case is revealing because of what it says about Irving's

abilities as a historian and his motives as an author.

According to The Times of London, Irving showed a copy of

the manuscript to Broome before publication.

* Correct. I showed the late Captain Broome the

mansucript in 1966, and he agreed to read it and

make comment (as did a score of other officers

involved); breaking his undertaking, he alone

decided not to co-operate, but to wait for

publication and then sue for profit. So be it.

Broome objected to the accuracy of some thirty passages in

the book, and threatened to sue for libel if Irving did not make

changes.

* Incorrect. He objected in reality to six words

("Captain Broome was a broken man"), and after

these words were expunged, years later, his

lawyers permitted the book's republication by

William Kimber Ltd.

At that point, William Kimbers Ltd., Irving's publisher, notified

him that they would not publish the book as it was then

written.

* Incorrect. I was in dispute with William Kimber

after they paid me only J67 instead of the agreed

fee of J200 for translating the book, The Memoirs

or Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. This being so, I

removed the PQ17 manuscript physically from

their offices; Kimber's secretary came running

down the street after me, pleading for me to return

it. I keep a very detailed diary of events. In court,

Kimber, already probably suffering from the

Parkinsonism from which he later died, gave a

totally different version, namely yours; he later

apologised to me, which did not assist me much of

course. Unfortunately, our counsel elected to call

no witnesses in the case but to rest securely on the

Admiralty documents.

Later, Irving published the book with another publisher.

The court found that Irving "was warned from most

responsible quarters that his book contained libels on Captain

Broome ... To make [the book] a success he was ready to risk

libel actions ... Documentary evidence .... showed that [Irving]