The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/press/irving-vrs-lipstadt/Press_Summary.000316




NEW YORK TIMES 03.16.00
World News Briefing

http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/world/world-briefs.html

BRITAIN: LIBEL CASE ENDING

A lawyer for Penguin Books and the author Deborah Lipstadt, who are being 
sued for libel by the historian David Irving, called Mr. Irving "a 
right-wing extremist, a racist and a rabid anti-Semite" in his closing 
argument in the High Court. Mr. Irving contends Ms. Lipstadt severely 
damaged his reputation in her book "Denying the Holocaust" by painting him 
as a leading spokesman for Holocaust denial. A ruling is expected next month.
Sarah Lyall (NYT)

==


CHICAGO TRIBUNE 03.16.00

http://chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/article/0,2669,SAV-0003160178,FF.html

CHARGES FLY NEAR END OF HOLOCAUST LIBEL TRIAL HISTORIAN IRVING CALLED A 
LIAR; HE SEES A CONSPIRACY

By Ray Moseley Tribune Foreign Correspondent March 16, 2000

LONDON -- British historian David Irving was denounced Wednesday in a 
London court as a liar, right-wing extremist, racist and anti-Semite who 
has "falsified history on a staggering scale" in his books about Nazi Germany.

Irving, denying all the allegations, said he was the victim of an 
international conspiracy led by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League "to 
destroy my position as a historian" and to stifle free discussion.

The comments were made in closing statements of a nine-week trial in which 
Irving is suing American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books for 
libel for branding him a Hitler partisan and Holocaust denier.

Justice Charles Gray said at the end of the hearing that he would need 
several weeks to reach a judgment.

There were few, if any, clues from Gray's comments as to how his decision 
might go. Libel law in Britain is far stricter than it is in the U.S., and 
Irving focused on what he said were factual inaccuracies in Lipstadt's book 
and an organized campaign to "destroy" him.

But he also produced one of the few outbursts of laughter in the court when 
he unintentionally referred to Gray not as "my lord," the British court 
practice, but "mein fuehrer."

Much of the court argument has revolved around Irving's book "Hitler's 
War," in which he contended that the Nazi dictator was not aware of the 
mass killing of Jews being carried out by his subordinates until the later 
stages of World War II.

He also has denied the existence of gas chambers at the Auschwitz 
extermination camp, saying the facilities in question were used for 
delousing inmates or as SS air-raid shelters.

Attorney Richard Rampton summed up the case for Lipstadt, author of the 
1993 book "Denying the Holocaust," and for Penguin. In a 90-minute 
presentation, he repeatedly cited examples in which he said Irving had 
distorted the historical record to show Hitler in a favorable light.

"There are, in relation to Hitler alone, as many as 25 major falsifications 
of history, as well as numerous subsidiary inventions, suppressions, 
manipulations and mistranslations," he said.

"Mr. Irving is, as was proposed at the outset of the trial, a liar."

As a historian, he said, Irving has "a deliberate blindness" to evidence. 
"What he doesn't like, he ignores," Rampton said.

Rampton cited Irving's account of Kristallnacht--the incident on Nov. 9, 
1938, in which Jewish shops and homes were attacked throughout Germany--as 
an example of his misuse of historical records.

He said Irving wrote that Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels initiated 
this without Hitler's knowledge or participation. When national police 
chief Reinhard Heydrich learned what was happening, according to Irving, he 
issued orders to police to restore law and order and to protect Jews and 
their property.

Rampton said Heydrich's telegram to police actually said that Jewish shops 
and homes could be destroyed, but not looted, and that care must be taken 
to protect German life and property.

Rampton derided Irving's contention about the Auschwitz gas chambers, 
citing the testimony of other historians at the trial who said Irving's 
views were "perverse" and "absolutely absurd."

The attorney offered this explanation of Irving's alleged distortions: "Mr. 
Irving is a right-wing extremist, a racist and, in particular, a rabid 
anti-Semite."

Later, he said: "Mr. Irving is a Hitler partisan, who has falsified history 
on a staggering scale in order to `prove' Hitler's innocence."

His anti-Semitism and Hitler apology together, he said, "have led him to 
prostitute his reputation as a serious historian . . . for the sake of a 
bogus rehabilitation of Hitler and the dissemination of virulent 
anti-Semitic propaganda."

In his own four-hour statement, Irving said the media and the defense had 
falsely attempted to present the trial as having to do with "the reputation 
of the Holocaust."

"This trial is about my reputation as a human being [and] a historian of 
integrity," he said.

Irving said he had always accepted that Hitler, as head of state and 
government, was responsible for the Holocaust. But others, he said, were 
involved at different stages.

Hitler, he said, had "a Richard Nixon kind of complex," a desire not to 
know what his subordinates might be doing to Jews.

He quoted British historian A.J.P. Taylor as saying the destruction of the 
Jews may have been designed more by Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, than 
by Hitler.

The defense, he said, had engaged in "a time-wasting and needless effort" 
to rake over "the embers of what may be one of the greatest crimes known to 
mankind."

Irving took exception to two particular points in Lipstadt's book not 
mentioned by Rampton.

One was an assertion that he keeps a portrait of Hitler on the wall behind 
his desk. Irving said that libel first appeared in the Russian newspaper 
Izvestia. The only portrait on his wall, he said, is that of Winston Churchill.

The second point concerned a report by Lipstadt that Irving had agreed to 
speak at a meeting in Sweden in 1992 along with American black nationalist 
Louis Farrakhan, members of the Russian anti-Semite organization Pamyat and 
representatives of two Mideast terrorist groups, Hezbollah and Hamas.

The Swedish government canceled the planned meeting.

By linking him to terrorists and anti-Semites, Irving said, Lipstadt had 
not only written a "reckless lie" but also exposed him to possible 
assassination.

Irving said that various organizations, including the Anti-Defamation 
League, had compiled dossiers on him "with the intent of destroying me, 
with no concern for accuracy," and that Lipstadt had used such information 
without checking it.

He said he had been subjected to "a campaign of vilification" unprecedented 
for any other historian. Under pressure from the ADL, the Board of Deputies 
of British Jews and other organizations, he said, his last book on Goebbels 
had been suppressed, thousands of copies of "Hitler's War" had been 
destroyed by the publisher and he had been expelled from various countries, 
thus denying him access to research sources.

Irving said he had made errors in his books but said that these were 
"innocent mistakes" and that most works of history could not stand up 
unblemished from the kind of scrutiny to which his had been subjected. But 
on his major conclusions, he said, nothing he heard in the trial convinced 
him he was wrong.


INDEPENDENT LONDON 03.16.00
http://www.independent.co.uk/

Irving `falsified history on a staggering scale'

an Burrell Home Affairs Correspondent

THE AUTHOR David Irving is a rabid anti-Semite whose prejudices led him to 
"prostitute his reputation as a serious historian", the High Court was told 
yesterday.

Richard Rampton QC said Mr Irving was so obsessive in his desire to 
exonerate Hitler of responsibility for the Nazi persecution of the Jews 
that he had falsified history on a staggering scale.

Mr Rampton, for the defendants, was making his closing submission in a 
packed courtroom during in Mr Irving's libel action against an American 
academic, Deborah Lipstadt , and Penguin Books over claims in a book by the 
former that the historian is a Holocaust denier.

He said: "As the evidence in this court has shown, Mr Irving is a right- 
wing extremist, a racist and, in particular, a rabid anti- Semite. How far, 
if at all, Mr Irving's anti-Semitism is a cause of his Hitler apology, or 
vice versa, is unimportant.

"Whether they are taken together, or individually, it is clear they have 
led him to prostitute his reputation as a serious historian - spurious 
though it can now be seen to have been - for the sake of a bogus 
rehabilitation of Hitler and the dissemination of virulent anti- Semitic 
propaganda."

Mr Rampton accused Mr Irving, author of Hitler's War, of being a liar whose 
Holocaust denial had been exposed as a fraud, and said he had falsified 
history on a massive scale.

"By the defendants' estimate, there are, in relation to Hitler alone, as 
many as 25 major falsifications of history, as well as numerous subsidiary 
inventions, suppressions, manipulations and mistranslations employed to 
support the major falsifications," Mr Rampton said. "If those relating to 
Auschwitz, Dresden and other matters are added in, the number goes well 
over 30."

Mr Irving, 62, who is representing himself, seeks damages over Professor 
Lipstadt 's 1994 book, Denying the Holocaust, which he says has generated 
waves of hatred against him. He told the court the case was not about the 
reputation of the Holocaust but about his reputation "as a human being, as 
an historian of integrity".

He said: "A judgment in my favour is no more than a judgment that disputed 
points which I have made about some aspects of the narrative are not so 
absurd, given the evidence, as to disqualify me from the ranks of historians."

A judgment against him would mean that no one would dare to discuss who 
exactly was involved in each stage of the Holocaust or how extensive it was.

He added: "A judgment in my favour does not mean the Holocaust never 
happened; it means only that in England today discussion is still permitted."

Mr Irving said that as a result of his work, the Holocaust had been 
researched more and was the subject of "a live and ongoing discussion".

Dismissing Professor Lipstadt 's book as "malicious and deeply flawed", Mr 
Irving said that the defendants had made - and not justified in court - one 
of the "gravest libels" that could be imagined for a respectable English 
citizen.

Mr Justice Gray, who has heard the lengthy and complex case without a jury, 
is due to give his verdict next month.


TELEGRAPH LONDON 03.16.00

David Irving is a racist and rabid anti-Semite, says QC

Neil Tweedie

The Daily Telegraph

DAVID Irving, the historian, was described yesterday as a "rabid 
anti-Semite" and "Right-wing extremist" who had falsified history on a 
massive scale to disprove Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust and the 
existence of Nazi gas chambers.

The accusation was made by Richard Rampton, QC, as he summed up on the 
penultimate day of a two-month libel trial at the High Court in London.

Mr Rampton is representing Prof Deborah Lipstadt , an American being sued 
for libel by Mr Irving for remarks made in her book, Denying the Holocaust.

She accuses Mr Irving, the author of some 30 books, of being a "Holocaust 
denier" who has falsified the results of historical research to serve his 
political purposes.

Mr Irving, who denies the allegation, is also suing her publishers, Penguin 
Books.

There was standing room only in the court room as Mr Rampton and Mr Irving 
made their final addresses to Mr Justice Gray, who is sitting without a jury.

Mr Rampton said Mr Irving had become one of the most dangerous spokesmen 
for Holocaust denial. An extremist himself, he had become an ally of other 
Right-wing extremists, in particular Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites.

He claimed Mr Irving was guilty of 25 major falsifications of history about 
Adolf Hitler, together with numerous subsidiary inventions, suppressions, 
manipulations and mistranslations. When those relating to Auschwitz, the 
bombing of Dresden and other matters were added, the total came to over 30.

Mr Rampton said: "As the evidence in this court has shown, Mr Irving is a 
Right-wing extremist, a racist and, in particular, a rabid anti-Semite. How 
far, if at all, Mr Irving's anti-Semitism is a cause of his Hitler apology, 
or vice versa, is unimportant.

"Whether they are taken together or individually, it is clear that they 
have led him to prostitute his reputation as a serious historian - spurious 
though it can now be seen to have been - for the sake of a bogus 
rehabilitation of Hitler and the dissemination of virulent anti-Semitic 
propaganda."

Mr Irving, who is representing himself, opened his closing submissions by 
saying that the case was not about the reputation of the Holocaust but his 
reputation as a human being, historian of integrity and a father.

A judgment against him would lead to paralysis in the writing of history, 
with no one being allowed to discuss exactly who was involved in each stage 
of the Holocaust or how extensive it was.

He said: "A judgment in my favour does not mean that the Holocaust never 
happened. It means only that in England today discussion is still permitted."

Mr Irving said Prof Lipstadt 's book was a malicious and deeply flawed work 
which contained numerous libels against him.

"The very worst of the libels are so blatant that neither defendant has 
insulted the intelligence of this court by offering any justification for 
them. They hope instead to divert the court's attention by reference to 
distant and notorious matters of history.

"For 30 days or more of this court's time we have had to rake over the 
embers of what may be one of the greatest crimes known to mankind: a 
harrowing, time-wasting and needless effort which has yielded even now few 
answers to great questions and mysteries."

Mr Irving said he had always insisted on using original documents in his 
research. "If, therefore, some of my interpretations are controversial, I 
also do all possible to let other people judge for themselves.

"This speaks strongly against the accusation that I distort, manipulate and 
falsify history." In his book Hitler's War, he had clearly stated Hitler's 
responsibility for the Holocaust.

"Where I differed from many historians was in denying that there was any 
documentary proof of detailed direction and initiation of the mass murders 
by Hitler.

"The view was considered to be heretical at the time. But this lack of 
wartime documentary evidence for Hitler's involvement is now widely accepted."

He had been the subject of a 30-year international endeavour by a group of 
organisations to destroy his legitimacy as a historian. Prof Lipstadt had 
drawn on those "tainted wellsprings" of dossiers and reports for much of 
the poison she had written about him.

"I have been subjected since at least 1973, and probably before then, to 
what would be called in warfare a campaign of interdiction.

"I know of no other historian or writer who has been subjected to a 
campaign of vilification even one tenth as intense. The book, Denying the 
Holocaust, was the climax of this campaign."

The case continues.
===
GUARDIAN LONDON 03.16.00

http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/irving/article/0,2763,147378,00.html

Irving: rabid racist or vilified victim?

Revisionist historian accused of denying the Holocaust as dramatic libel 
trial reaches climax

The David Irving libel trial: special report

Vikram Dodd Thursday March 16, 2000

David Irving is a "rabid anti-semite" who prostituted his reputation as a 
serious historian by falsifying history to exonerate Adolf Hitler for the 
Holocaust, the high court heard yesterday.

The assault on the alleged Hitler apologist came from Richard Rampton QC, 
the barrister for the author Deborah Lipstadt, whom Mr Irving is suing for 
libel.

Professor Lipstadt and her publishers, Penguin Books Limited, both deny 
libelling Mr Irving by branding him "a Holocaust denier" in a book which 
attacked revisionists alleged to have denied or downplayed the slaughter of 
6m Jews during the second world war.

Yesterday both sides made their closing speeches after a three-month trial 
seen as one of the most emotive in a generation.

In his closing speech Mr Irving, 62, said the book, Denying the Holocaust, 
was the culmination of a 30-year campaign against him that had left him the 
most "vilified" historian ever.

Mr Rampton told the packed court that Mr Irving's Holocaust denial, shown 
in his work and speeches to far-right audiences, was caused by his 
anti-semitism.

Mr Rampton said: "Holocaust denial, in the form in which it is purveyed by 
Mr Irving, is an obvious example of anti-semitism, and is music to the ears 
of the neo-Nazis and other rightwing extremists. Mr Irving is a Hitler 
partisan, who has falsified history on a staggering scale in order to 
'prove' Hitler's innocence; which like Holocaust denial, is obviously very 
appealing to his fellow travellers - after all, if the Holocaust were a 
'myth' then, obviously, Hitler could have no responsibility for it.

"How far, if at all, Mr Irving's anti-semitism is a cause of his Hitler 
apology, or vice versa, is unimportant. Whether they are taken together or 
individually, it is clear that they have led him to prostitute his 
reputation as a serious historian for the sake of a bogus rehabilitation of 
Hitler and the dissemination of virulent anti-semitic propaganda."

Mr Rampton accused Mr Irving of being a racist and of perpetrating a string 
of historical falsehoods throughout his work, all designed to rewrite 
Hitler's role in the Holocaust: "By the defendants' estimate, there are, in 
relation to Hitler alone, as many as 25 major falsifications of history, as 
well as numerous subsidiary inventions, suppressions, manipulations and 
mistranslations employed to support the major falsifications.

"If those relating to Auschwitz, Dresden and other matters are added in, 
the number goes well over 30."

The final statements in the marathon libel trial were heard by Mr Justice 
Gray, who is hearing the case without a jury.

In his four-hour closing speech, Mr Irving told the judge he was the victim 
of an international hate campaign led by Jewish groups across the world. He 
claims Prof Lipstadt's book was part of the "climax" of the conspiracy and 
severely damaged his career as a historian.

"I know of no other historian or writer who has been subjected to a 
campaign of vilification even one-tenth as intense," said Mr Irving, best 
known for his book Hitler's War.

He said the case was not about the Holocaust but about his reputation "as a 
human being, as a historian of integrity".

To win the case, Prof Lipstadt and Penguin must prove that their 
allegations that Mr Irving wilfully distorted history are true.

Mr Irving said it was not enough for the defendants to show he had got 
facts wrong: "The matter at issue, as pleaded by the defendants, is not 
what happened but what I knew of it, and what I made of it, at the time I 
put pen to paper.

"The defendants have invested a sizeable fortune in re-researching the 
Holocaust. Fearing or finding that they were unable to prove wilful fraud, 
in effect, they have fallen back on the alternative plea, that 'Mr Irving 
ought to have known'."

Mr Irving admitted making mistakes, but said these were made innocently. He 
stressed he accepted that Hitler, "as head of state and of the government", 
was responsible for the Holocaust.

"Where I differed from many historians was in denying that there was any 
documentary proof of detailed direction and initiation of the mass murders 
by Hitler," Mr Irving said.

"In Hitler's War, I differed from other historians in suggesting that the 
actual mass murders were not all or mainly initiated by Hitler."

Mr Irving accused Prof Lipstadt of reckless lies, and said: "The defendants 
are saying that I am not entitled to continue to earn a living in the way 
that I have earned it for nearly 40 years.

"A judgment in my favour is no more than a judgment that disputed points 
which I have made about some aspects of the narrative are not so absurd, 
given the evidence, as to disqualify me from the ranks of historians.

"A judgment in my favour does not mean that the Holocaust never happened; 
it means only that in England today discussion is still permitted." He did 
admit occasional lapses in taste but said: "If a writer's books are banned 
and burned, his bookshops smashed, his hands manacled, his person 
assaulted, his printers burned down, his access to the world's archives 
denied, his family's livelihood destroyed and a wreath sent to him with a 
foul and taunting message upon the death of his oldest daughter, then it 
ill behoves people to offer cheap criticism if the writer commits the 
occasional indiscretion and finally stops turning the other cheek and 
rounds upon his tormentors."

Judgment in the case was reserved and is not expected to be delivered for 
three weeks.

==


TIMES LONDON 03.16.00

http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/Times/frontpage.html?999

Holocaust trial about freedom, says Irving

BY MICHAEL HORSNELL

DAVID IRVING, the controversial Hitler historian, said yesterday that if a 
judge ruled against him in his libel trial, academics could become too 
scared to discuss the Holocaust.

If judgment went in his favour, he said, it would not mean that "the 
Holocaust never happened", but that debating it could continue in the 
interests of freedom of speech.

Mr Irving was making his closing speech at the end of a two-month hearing 
in which he is suing the American academic, Deborah Lipstadt, and Penguin 
books over her claims that he is a dangerous Holocaust denier and "Hitler 
partisan" who has twisted history.

He said that the trial was not about the reputation of the Holocaust, but 
his own reputation as a human being and historian of integrity.

On the final day of the hearing, Mr Irving, 62, was accused by Richard 
Rampton, QC, for the defendants, of being a "rabid anti-Semite" who had 
falsified history on a "staggering scale in order to 'prove' Hitler's 
innocence" over Nazi persecution of the Jews. Mr Rampton alleged that Mr 
Irving had "prostituted his reputation for the sake of a bogus 
rehabilitation of Hitler".

Mr Irving retorted that Professor Lipstadt's book, Denying the Holocaust, 
was "malicious and deeply flawed" - and that it was the climax of a 
campaign against him.

He said a judgment in his favour would not mean "that the Holocaust never 
happened; it means only that in England today discussion is still 
permitted". Judgment against him would mean no one would dare discuss the 
Holocaust, as it should be by historians.

Mr Irving said that the defendants had, without justifying it, made one of 
the "gravest libels" that could be imagined for a respectable English 
citizen. This involved the "reckless lie" that he consorted with the 
extremist anti-Semitic Russian group, Pamyat, violent anti-Israeli 
murderers and Louis Farrakhan, an American Black Power leader and agitator.

He also told the High Court that he had been the victim of an orchestrated 
30-year international campaign to destroy him and had been banned from 
foreign archives essential to his research.

He said his editor at Macmillans had issued a secret order in July 1992 to 
destroy several thousand copies of all three volumes of his Hitler 
biography worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Mr Irving said his family was placed in constant fear and West End Central 
Police Station in London had asked to film inside his Mayfair flat in case 
they needed to be rescued.

He added: "For 12 months after our young child - Jessica - was born, we 
lived with a wicker Moses basket in the furthest corner of our apartment 
near a window, attached to a length of wire rope in case the building was 
set on fire and we had to lower her to safety . . . I have lived since then 
with a four-foot steel spike stowed in a strategic point inside my 
apartment. No historian should have to live with his family in a civilised 
city under such conditions."

In his closing statement, Mr Rampton accused him of being a liar whose 
Holocaust denial had been exposed as a fraud. He said: "As the evidence in 
this court has shown, Mr Irving is a right-wing extremist, a racist and, in 
particular, a rabid anti-Semite.

Mr Justice Gray reserved judgment.

==


ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH LONDON 03.16.00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=000146214006919&rtmo=kLZYoeYp&atmo=lllllljx&pg=/et/00/3/16/nsem16.html

David Irving is a racist and rabid anti-Semite, says QC

By Neil Tweedie

DAVID IRVING, the historian, was described yesterday as a "rabid 
anti-Semite" and "Right-wing extremist" who had falsified history on a 
massive scale to disprove Hitler's involvement in the Holocaust and the 
existence of Nazi gas chambers.

The accusation was made by Richard Rampton, QC, as he summed up on the 
penultimate day of a two-month libel trial at the High Court in London.

Mr Rampton is representing Prof Deborah Lipstadt, an American being sued 
for libel by Mr Irving for remarks made in her book, Denying the Holocaust. 
She accuses Mr Irving, the author of some 30 books, of being a "Holocaust 
denier" who has falsified the results of historical research to serve his 
political purposes.

Mr Irving, who denies the allegation, is also suing her publishers, Penguin 
Books.

There was standing room only in the court room as Mr Rampton and Mr Irving 
made their final addresses to Mr Justice Gray, who is sitting without a jury.

Mr Rampton said Mr Irving had become one of the most dangerous spokesmen 
for Holocaust denial. An extremist himself, he had become an ally of other 
Right-wing extremists, in particular Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites.

Mr Irving was guilty of 25 major falsifications of history about Adolf 
Hitler alone, together with numerous subsidiary inventions, suppressions, 
manipulations and mistranslations. When those relating to Auschwitz, the 
bombing of Dresden and other matters were added, the total came to over 30.

Mr Rampton said: "As the evidence in this court has shown, Mr Irving is a 
Right-wing extremist, a racist and, in particular, a rabid anti-Semite. How 
far, if at all, Mr Irving's anti-Semitism is a cause of his Hitler apology, 
or vice versa, is unimportant.

"Whether they are taken together or individually, it is clear that they 
have led him to prostitute his reputation as a serious historian - spurious 
though it can now be seen to have been - for the sake of a bogus 
rehabilitation of Hitler and the dissemination of virulent anti-Semitic 
propaganda."

Mr Irving, who is representing himself, opened his closing submissions by 
saying that the case was not about the reputation of the Holocaust but his 
reputation as a human being, historian of integrity and a father.

A judgment against him would lead to paralysis in the writing of history, 
with no one being allowed to discuss exactly who was involved in each stage 
of the Holocaust or how extensive it was. He said: "A judgment in my favour 
does not mean that the Holocaust never happened. It means only that in 
England today discussion is still permitted."

Mr Irving said Prof Lipstadt's book was a malicious and deeply flawed work 
which contained numerous libels against him.

"The very worst of the libels are so blatant that neither defendant has 
insulted the intelligence of this court by offering any justification for 
them. They hope instead to divert the court's attention by reference to 
distant and notorious matters of history.

"For 30 days or more of this court's time we have had to rake over the 
embers of what may be one of the greatest crimes known to mankind: a 
harrowing, time-wasting and needless effort which has yielded even now few 
answers to great questions and mysteries."

Mr Irving said he had always insisted on using original documents in his 
research. "If, therefore, some of my interpretations are controversial, I 
also do all possible to let other people judge for themselves.

"This speaks strongly against the accusation that I distort, manipulate and 
falsify history." In his book Hitler's War, he had clearly stated Hitler's 
responsibility for the Holocaust.

"Where I differed from many historians was in denying that there was any 
documentary proof of detailed direction and initiation of the mass murders 
by Hitler. The view was considered to be heretical at the time. But this 
lack of wartime documentary evidence for Hitler's involvement is now widely 
accepted."

He had been the subject of a 30-year international endeavour by a group of 
organisations to destroy his legitimacy as a historian. Prof Lipstadt had 
drawn on those "tainted wellsprings" of dossiers and reports for much of 
the poison she had written about him.

"I have been subjected since at least 1973, and probably before then, to 
what would be called in warfare a campaign of interdiction. I know of no 
other historian or writer who has been subjected to a campaign of 
vilification even one tenth as intense. The book, Denying the Holocaust, 
was the climax of this campaign."

The case continues.

3 February 2000: Irving 'sang racist poem to daughter in her pram'

1 February 2000: Irving not anti-Semitic, libel case told

27 January 2000: Auschwitz had no gas chambers, says historian

20 January 2000: Irving 'ready to eat humble pie' over gassing of Jews

18 January 2000: Nazi trains carried ample food for Jews, says Irving

13 January 2000: Mass gassing of Jews not feasible, says Irving

12 January 2000: Historian lied about Holocaust, libel trial told


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.