ГУЛаг Палестины
Шрифт:
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]
had deliberately set out to attack Captain Broome and in spite
of the most explicit warnings persisted in his attack because it