Churchill was fired from the University of Colorado for fabricating and plagiarizing in his published writings, sued the university, claiming he was "unfairly targeted for controversial remarks he made post-9/11. CU found him to be a plagiarist with poor academic integrity." (Daily Camera, March 3).
The author argues that
both Churchill and Irving exhibit the same kind of hubris: both felt, and feel, that nothing they could state, no matter how outrageous, could hurt them. Both of these two self-defined geniuses forgot the basic principle of being a successful prevaricator and that is: do not bring attention to yourself when you know perfectly well you have things that you wish to hide or at least not have generally discussed. Both of these two men used either bogus "historical research" works or, when unable to find data for their ideology, created the data out of whole cloth.
Regarding Churchill's court case, the author observes that
Both Irving and Churchill could have gone along spreading their nefarious lies and fabrications and, in Churchill's case, plagiarism [not one of Irving's "sins" as far as I know] had they not both been blinded by their hubris,
Churchill and his attorneys don't even bother to defend their case by solid evidence against the accusations of plagiarism, subterfuge and scholastic inappropriateness made by CU. Instead, their thrust seems to be to try to disregard such charges and claim that Churchill is being persecuted because of his merely unpopular (but very shrill!) article in which he claimed that the victims of the Twin Tower attack of 9/11 were nothing other but "little Eichmanns."
Had Irving not sued me, we would never have exposed the extent of his lies and distortions. Had Churchill not reveled in saying the outrageous there would not have been the in depth investigation of his plagiarism and his lies about his academic record.
[once again thanks to Sara Salzman for bringing this to my attention]