Чтение онлайн

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

would help sell the book." The court labeled Irving's conduct

as "outrageous and shocking."

Irving's misrepresentations did not end with the publication of

his book. According to Cesarani, in 1979 a German publisher

had to pay compensation to the father of Anne Frank after

printing the German edition of Irving's book, Hitler's War. Irving

had claimed that Anne Frank's diary was a forgery.

* Correct as written. Without consulting me, the

Ullstein Verlag publishing firm, part of the

pro-Israeli Axel Springer Group) made some

unspecified payment to Otto Frank at his demand. I

had already halted production and publication of

the book for other reasons (tampering by Ullstein

with my text). The German Bundeskriminalamt

found that parts of the diary had been written in

(post-war) ballpoint ink-paste, which made its

authenticity problematic. My opinion on it now is

ambivalent: it is unimportant, not a historical

document of any value.

Irving claims that according to his "research", the Holocaust is

greatly exaggerated.

* Correct. I think the figures have been magnified

by an Order of Magnitude. Events in Auschwitz

alone suggest that I am right:: here the figure has

been effortlessly brought down from 4 million to 1

million, and now to even less.

(He was recently quoted in the K-W Record as saying that the

number of Jews who died in concentration camps was "of the