The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/press/irving-vrs-lipstadt/Press_Summary.000207

Copyright 2000 PR Newswire Europe Limited Press Association Newsfile
February 7, 2000


BY: Cathy Gordon and Jan Colley, PA News.

Leading military historian Sir John Keegan today told the High Court
Holocaust libel trial that author David Irving's views about Hitler and the
Final Solution were "perverse".

Sir John, defence editor of the Daily Telegraph, said Mr Irving's proposal
that Hitler could not have known what was happening to the Jewish population
until late 1943 "defied commonsense".

Mr Irving, 62, of Duke Street, Mayfair, central London, who is suing
American author Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books for damages over a claim
that he is a "Holocaust denier", had subpoenaed Sir John to give evidence.

Sir John, knighted in the New Year Honours for services to military history,
said that just because he "admired" Mr Irving's book, Hitler's War, it did
not mean to say that he endorsed his opinions.

Questioned by Mr Irving in the packed London courtroom, Sir John told him:
"What interested me in Hitler's War was your picture of how Hitler conducted
military operations.

"That's the sort of history in which I am interested and I think you do it
extremely well. It doesn't mean to say I can go further."

Mr Irving, who is representing himself, is suing Prof Lipstadt and Penguin
over her 1994 Book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and
Memory, which he says has generated waves of hatred against him.

The defendants have accused him of being a liar and a falsifier of history.

Mr Irving, who rejects the claim that he is a Holocaust denier, is accused
by the defendants, who deny libel, of resorting to distortions,
misrepresentations and deceptions in "pursuit of his exoneration of Adolf

Mr Irving believes that the killing of the Jews was organised by Heinrich
Himmler, but accepts that after 1943 Hitler had no excuse for not knowing
about it.


Jewish Telegraphic Agency 02.07.00

Past racist, anti-Semitic utterances thrown back at revisionist during trial

By Douglas Davis

LONDON, Feb. 7 (JTA) - A racist poem read to a young child has provided the
toughest test for a Holocaust revisionist who is suing a U.S. Holocaust
scholar and her publisher for libel.

Discussing David Irving's "utterances both in public and private on the
subject" of Jews and blacks, Richard Rampton, scholar Deborah Lipstadt's
attorney, accused Irving last week of teaching his 9-month-old daughter a
"racist ditty" while taking her for a walk.

The senior London lawyer quoted a September 1994 extract from Irving's
private journal, which he was obliged to hand over as part of an exchange of
documents, where the revisionist referred to a song he had sung when
"half-breed children" were wheeled past:

"I am a Baby Aryan / Not Jewish or Sectarian. / I have no plans to marry an
/ Ape or Rastafarian."

Rampton asked: "Racist, Mr Irving? Anti-Semitic, Mr Irving?"

Irving: "I don't think so."

Rampton: "Teaching your little child this kind of poison?"

Irving: "Do you think a 9-month-old can understand ..."

Rampton: "The poor little child is being taught a racist ditty by her
perverted racist father."

Irving: "I am not a racist."

The dramatic exchange came midway through the trial of Lipstadt and Penguin
Books, who are alleged to have libeled Irving in Lipstadt's 1994 book
"Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory."

Irving, 62, who denies that Jews were systematically exterminated at
Auschwitz, is claiming that Lipstadt ruined his career by labeling him a
Holocaust denier and accusing him of distorting historical data to suit his
ideological predilections.

Rampton asked Irving about his 1997 book "A Radical's Diary," in which he
attacked Jews for their greed.

"They clamor, "Ours! Ours! Ours!' when hoards of gold are uncovered," wrote
Irving. "And then when antisemitism increases and the inevitable mindless
pogroms occur, they ask with genuine surprise, "Why us?' "

Irving, who is representing himself, was also asked about a media interview
he gave in November 1998 in which he also suggested that Jews' money and
greed trigger anti-Semitism.

"The question which would concern me if I was a Jew is not "Who pulled the
trigger,' but "Why are we disliked? Is it something we are doing?'

"You people," he told his interviewer, "are disliked on a global scale. You
have been disliked for 3,000 years, and yet you never seem to ask what is at
the root of this dislike," adding that "no sooner do you arrive as a people
in a new country than, within 50 years, you are already being disliked all
over again.

He added, "I would say that they're a clever race. I would say that as a
race they are better at making money than I am. That's a racist remark, of
course. But they appear to be better at making money than I am. If I was
going to be crude, I would say not only are they better at making money, but
they are greedy."

Invited to explain his remarks to the court, Irving said, "In my own clumsy
way, I am trying to find out why we don't like them. It's a very coherent
expression of the anti-Semitic tragedy. I am putting myself in the skin of a
person asking questions about a clever people."

Rampton asked: "Every time there is a pogrom or gassing or machine- gunning
into a pit it is entirely the Jews' fault because some of them are very good
at playing the piano and making money?"

Irving: "That's a childish oversimplification."

Rampton also referred to a September 1992 speech in which Irving suggested
that leading British television news presenter Sir Trevor McDonald, who is
of African Caribbean origin, should be restricted to "giving us all the
latest news about muggings and drug busts" =97 but only after a
"dinner-jacketed gentleman reads the important news to us, followed by a
lady reading all the less important news."

"Are you not appalled by that?" Rampton asked.

"Not in the least," replied Irving.

Irving was reprimanded by the judge after telling Rampton that while he
employed "colored people and ethnic minorities," I "haven't seen a single
colored person on your team behind you."

At one point, the court was shown a video of Irving addressing a right-wing
American organization, the National Alliance, in Tampa, Fla., in October
1995, when he discussed the "legend of the Holocaust."

Irving denied any association with the National Alliance, but Rampton
pointed out that he had spoken at their events eight times between 1990 and

Asked why he had said in his Tampa speech that he found the Holocaust story
"boring," Irving replied, "I think 95 percent of the thinking public find
the Holocaust boring by now, but don't say it because it's politically

"What other explanation is there for the fact that it's all the Jews go on
about now? There have been the most incredible episodes in Jewish history
but all you hear of in films and so on is the Holocaust."

Irving, who has suggested that an Auschwitz survivor may have faked her
tattooed number, said his comments were not intended to be anti-Semitic, but
critical of Jewish survivors who turned "their suffering into profit."

The strain of the bare-knuckle legal slugfest is clearly taking its toll on
Irving, prompting both Rampton and Judge Charles Gray to offer an early
adjournment at one point, but Irving refused.

Irving's opinion of Hitler is perverse, claims Keegan By Caroline Davies

DAVID IRVING'S views on Hitler and the Final Solution are "perverse" and
defy common sense, Sir John Keegan, defence editor of The Daily Telegraph,
told the High Court yesterday.

Giving evidence after being subpoenaed by Mr Irving, he said the author's
proposal that Hitler could not have known what was happening to the Jews
until late 1943 "was so extraordinary it would defy reason". Sir John,
knighted in the New Year Honours for services to military history, had been
called by Mr Irving in his libel action against the American author Deborah
Lipstadt and Penguin Books over a claim that he is a "Holocaust denier".

Mr Irving told the court that Sir John had, in the past, recommended his
book Hitler's War to students of the Second World War. Sir John told the
court that he had recommended two books, Mr Irving's and another, Struggle
for Europe, by Chester Wilmot. He said: "Together they gave Hitler's side
and the Allies' side."

That did not mean, he said, that he endorsed the opinions in Mr Irving's
book. Sir John said: "I read Hitler's War very carefully at the weekend. I
continue to think it is perverse in the proposal that Hitler couldn't have
known until October 1943 what was going on with the Jewish population in
Europe and many other minority groups as well."

Mr Irving, 62, who is representing himself, said he had called Sir John as a
witness to his reputation. But Sir John had been unwilling to attend unless

Sir John, who had never met or corresponded with Mr Irving, said he admired
Hitler's War in what it had to say on the subject he was most interested in
as a military historian - how Hitler conducted military operations. He said:
"That sort of history interests me. It does not mean I endorse your opinions
beyond that."

Explaining his reluctance to give evidence, Sir John said: "It seemed to me
this was going to be a very contentious case and one is easily misunderstood
in discussions of this dreadful episode. I did not wish to put myself in a
position where I might be misunderstood."

Mr Irving asked: "You were apprehensive about giving evidence on my behalf?"
Sir John replied: "But I am not giving evidence on your behalf, but under

Mr Irving claims libel damages over Prof Lipstadt's 1994 book, Denying the
Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, which he claims has
generated hatred against him. The defendants have accused him of being a
liar and a falsifier of history.

Mr Irving believes that the killing of the Jews was organised by Heinrich
Himmler, but accepts that after 1943 Hitler had no excuse for not knowing
about it.

The case continues.


Copyright 2000 The Hearst Corporation   
The Times Union (Albany, NY) 

February 7, 2000, Monday, p. A7

"Denying Holocaust is a clear, future danger"


What a curious people we've become. In the midst of an explosion 
of learning and knowledge, some of us nevertheless try to
rewrite history with a boldness the old Russian Communists no 
doubt envy. 

If history embarrasses, wipe it out. If there aren't any facts to 
support an argument, make 'em up. If certain facts make
someone, or a group of people, uncomfortable, change 'em. 

Blowing the whistle on such shoddy enterprise can be costly. 
Deborah Lipstadt, a history scholar at Emory University in
Atlanta, is learning that in a London courtroom. She and her 
British publisher, Penguin Books, are defending themselves against
the charge that she libeled David Irving, 62, the author of 
''Hitler's War'' and other books on Nazi Germany and World War II,
when she accused him of being a Holocaust-denier. A casual reader 
of Mr. Irving's ideas might easily agree that that's what he

Mr. Irving writes that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, 
that ''only'' 100,000 Jews died at Auschwitz (most of them
from natural causes like typhus), that Hitler was let down by his 
subordinates and suggests that on the whole Hitler wasn't such
a bad chap. If Hitler had known what was going on, Mr. Irving 
writes, he would have shaped up a ''totally ramshackle

Miss Lipstadt cataloged some of Mr. Irving's assertions in a book 
of her own, ''Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault
on Truth and Memory.'' She describes him as ''a falsifier of 
history,'' of being a ''Hitler partisan.'' 

American newspapers are paying little attention, which is 
unfortunate because it's a chilling reminder of continuing anti-Semitism.
(The best coverage I've found is in Slate, the online magazine, 
in which Judith Shulevitz debates those who lend prestige to
David Irving.) 

The stakes are high because libel law in England is much tougher 
than libel law in the United States. Deborah Lipstadt must
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what she said was true. Most 
legal observers in London think she will prevail, but it's no
foregone conclusion. David Irving says he doesn't deny the 
Holocaust so much as ''redefine'' it. 

He has a lot of data in his head, enabling him to confuse others 
with half-lies and half-truths. He argues that Hitler did not know
anything about a plot to kill the Jews until 1943, that no 
document identifies him as ordering the Final Solution, or 
linking him to
the extermination goals. Had Hitler known, the Nazis would have 
shown greater competency, but he had lost control over
those who carried out the murder of Jews. 

''If the killing had been systematic, it would have been done 
with more efficient means,'' he told the court. ''It was a 
totally ramshackle operation, a total lack of system.'' (In ''Hitler's 
War,'' he wrote that the diary of Anne Frank was a forgery, and 
his German publisher later apologized to the Frank family for 
printing it and paid compensation for their mistake.) 

Neo-Nazi movements are increasingly visible in certain nations of 
the European Union. Fourteen leaders of the Union
threatened to isolate Austria if the Freedom Party of Joerg 
Haider succeeds in becoming part of the coalition government. Mr.
Haider has praised the Waffen SS and policies of the Third Reich 
and made the ritual apologies. Not since Kurt Waldheim,
president of Austria for six years (1986-1992) was revealed to 
have been compliant with Nazi villainy in mass deportations of
Jews has Austria seemed so threatening to democracy and decency. 
Jews in Brussels protested at the Austrian Embassy by
wearing yellow stars of David. 

Over the weekend, hundreds of neo-Nazis in Berlin, commemorating 
the 67th anniversary of the Nazi assumption of power,
marched through the Brandenburg Gate for the first time since 
World War II, protesting the erection of a monument to the
Holocaust dead. An equal number of Berliners protested the 

Only this week the world learned of another Nazi atrocity, this 
one in Russia, 55 years ago. Nazi SS guards massacred
thousands of Jews, including women and children, who had survived 
a brutal 25-mile death march. Auschwitz had been
liberated only four days before. 

Deborah Lipstadt does not worry that the Holocaust will be 
forgotten as long as survivors are alive to tell their story. 
''To me this is not a clear and present danger,'' she says. ''To me this 
is a clear and future danger.'' 


Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.