Irving's take on the trial

Today I was looking at the David Irving website not in the haphazard way I had previously viewed it, but with a fresh eye, looking for specifics. I found a post made on his website regarding the Lipstadt trial filed under the section, "Some traditional enemies of Free Speech". His use of rhetoric is evident in this particular passage. 

He refers to himself as "a British author of about thirty works of history, published by respected mainstream UK and international publishers since 1963, and accorded the widest attention in the popular and serious press. He has been called one of the most widely read historians in the English language. His books are widely quoted as references by others including HM Government's official historians."

He believes he has been wronged by "various British and international organisations, primarily of the Jewish communities, [who] began in the 1970s to make overt and covert attempts to destroy the plaintiff's career by robbing him and his works of their legitimacy. They also secretly sought to have him physically barred from other countries and their archives."

Now, if we contrast his description of himself to his description of Deborah Lipstadt and her alleged vendetta against him, we see obvious bias. "The Second Defendant [Prof Lipstadt] made herself the willing executioner of this campaign, accepting a fee to insert Mr Irving's name and works into a manuscript that she had written analysing the people whom she calls the "Holocaust deniers", an odious phrase which she herself claims to have coined; until thus instructed by those paying her, Prof Lipstadt had not even mentioned Mr Irving in her completed book."

The post was in fact a copy of the case summary Irving was required to submit in court. Yet, let me list the many unfounded claims he makes in this legal document:

1. "He has been called one of the most widely read historians in the English language"

2. "primarily of the Jewish communities"

3. "secretly sought to have him physically barred from other countries and their archives"

4. "accepting a fee to insert Mr Irving's name into a manuscript"

5. "until thus instructed by those paying her, Prof Lipstadt had not even mentioned Mr Irving in her completed book"

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/docs/summary.html - (accessed 21/2/11)

So, I guess this is just a little example of the analysis I plan to make. Would love to know whether I'm doing at all the right thing, or heading in an even remotely okay direction. I am still SO unsure about this topic, so would love to get any feedback or thoughts.