The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/judgment-00.01


Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Reply-to: no-spamkmcvay@nizkor.org
Subject: Irving v. Penguin & Lipstadt: Judgment Index
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Keywords: David Irving libel action Deborah Lipstadt

Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/judgment-00.01
Last-Modified: 2000/04/11

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 -I- 1113
                              
                   QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
                              
                           Before:
                              
                  The Hon. Mr. Justice Gray
                              
                       B E T W E E N:
                              
                  DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING
                              
                          Claimant
                              
                            -and-
                              
                    PENGUIN BOOKS LIMITED
                              
                        1st Defendant
                              
                     DEBORAH E. LIPSTADT
                              
                        2nd Defendant

MR. DAVID IRVING (appeared in person).

MR. RICHARD RAMPTON QC (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons and Mishcon
de Reya) appeared on behalf of the first and second Defendants.

MISS HEATHER ROGERS (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons)

appeared on behalf of the first Defendant, Penguin Books Limited.

MR ANTHONY JULIUS (instructed by Messrs Mishcon de Reya) appeared on
behalf of the second Defendant, Deborah Lipstadt.

 I direct pursuant to CPR Part 39 P.D. 6.1. that no official shorthand
note shall be taken of this judgment and that copies of this version as
handed down may be treated as authentic.

Mr. Justice Gray

12:00 am

Index

I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 A summary of the main issues
1.4 The parties

II. THE WORDS COMPLAINED OF AND THEIR MEANING
2.1 The passages complained of
2.6 The issue of identification
2.9 The issue of interpretation or meaning

III. THE NATURE OF IRVING'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

IV. THE DEFENCE OF JUSTIFICATION: AN OVERVIEW

V. JUSTIFICATION: THE DEFENDANTS' HISTORIOGRAPHICAL CRITICISMS OF
IRVING'S PORTRAYAL OF HITLER IN PARTICULAR IN REGARD TO HIS ATTITUDE
TOWARDS THE JEWISH QUESTION
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The general case for the Defendants
5.9 Irving's general response
1. The specific criticisms made by the Defendants of Irving's
historiography:
1. Hitler's trial in 1924
2. Crime statistics for Berlin in 1932
3. The events of Kristallnacht in November 1938
4. The aftermath of Kristallnacht
5. Expulsion of Jews from Berlin in 1941
5.111 Shooting of the Jews in Riga
1. Hitler's views on the Jewish question
2. The timing of the "final solution" to the Jewish problem: the
'Schlegelberger note'
5.170 Goebbels's diary entry for 27 March 1942
5.187 Himmler minute of 22 September 1942
5.194 Himmler's note for his meeting with Hitler on 10 December 1942
1. Hitler's meetings with Antonescu and Horthy in April 1943
2. The deportation and murder of Jews in Rome in October 1
1. Himmler's speeches on 6 October 1943, 5 and 24 May 1944
5.231 Hitler's speech on 26 May 1944
1. Ribbentrop's testimony and evidence from his cell at Nuremberg
5.240 Marie Vaillant-Couturier
5.245 Kurt Aumeier
VI. JUSTIFICATION: EVIDENCE OF THE ATTITUDE OF HITLER TOWARDS THE JEWS
AND OF THE EXTENT, IF ANY, OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF AND  RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE EVOLVING POLICY OF EXTERMINATION
6.1 Preamble
6.3 Hitler's anti-semitism
6.10 The policy of shooting of Jews
6.60 The policy of deporting the Jews
6.68 Genesis of gassing programme
1. The Defendants' case as to the scale on which Jews were gassed to
death at camps excluding Auschwitz and the extent, if any, of Hitler's
knowledge of and complicity in the killing
6.106 Irving's response: the scale of the killings by gassing
1. Irving's response: Hitler's knowledge of the gassing at the Reinhard
Camps
1. Irving's response: Hitler's knowledge of and complicity in the
gassing programme

VII. AUSCHWITZ

7.1 Description of the camp and overview of the principal issue
7.6 The case for the Defendants in summary
7.8 Irving's case in summary
1. The evidence relied on by the Defendants as demonstrating that gas
chambers were constructed at Auschwitz and operated there to kill a vast
number of Jews:
7.16 Early reports
1. Evidence gathered by the investigation under the aegis of the Soviet
State Extraordinary Commission
1. Evidence gathered by the Polish Central Commission for Investigation
of German Crimes in Poland 1945-7
1. The Olere drawings
2. Eye-witness evidence from camp officials and employees
3. Eye-witness evidence from inmates at Auschwitz
1. Evidence from the Nuremberg trial
2. Evidence from the Eichmann trial
3. Evidence from other trials (Kremer; Mulka and others; Dejaco and
Ertl)
1. Documentary evidence relating to the design and construction of the
chambers
1. Photographic evidence
2. Material evidence found at Auschwitz
3. Conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, according to The
Defendants' experts
1. Irving's reasons for rejecting the evidence relied on by the
Defendants as to the existence at Auschwitz of gas chambers for killing
Jews:
7.77 Irving as expert witness at the trial of Zundel
7.79 The impact of the Leuchter Report
7.90 Replication of Leuchter's findings
1. The absence of chimneys protruding through of morgue of crematorium 2
1. The reason for the alterations to crematorium 2: fumigation or
alternatively air-raid shelter
7.98 The purpose of the supplies of Zyklon-B
1. The logistical impossibility of extermination on the scale contended
for by the Defendants
7.102 Irving's investigation of the documentary evidence
7.109 Irving's response to the eye-witness evidence
7.113 The Defendants' arguments in rebuttal:
7.113 The Defendants' critique of the Leuchter Report
1. The Defendants' case as to the absence of signs of chimneys in the
roof of Leichenkeller 1
7.121 The redesign of crematorium 2
7.123 The quantity of Zyklon-B required
7.124 The Defendants' response to Irving's logistical argument
1. The Defendants' response to Irving's argument in relation to the
documentary evidence

VIII. JUSTIFICATION: THE CLAIM THAT IRVING IS A "HOLOCAUST DENIER"

8.1 What is meant by the term "Holocaust denier"
1. The question whether the statements made by Irving qualify him as a
"Holocaust denier" in the above sense
1. The oral and written statements made by Irving which are relied on by
the Defendants for their contention that he is a Holocaust denier and
the evidence relied on by the Defendants for their assertion that
Irving's denials are false:
1. The existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz or elsewhere 2. The
existence of a systematic programme or policy for killing Jews
8.20 The numbers of Jews killed
1. The assertion that the gas chambers were a propaganda lie invented by
the British

IX. JUSTIFICATION: THE ALLEGATION THAT IRVING IS AN ANTI-SEMITE AND A
RACIST 227

9.1 Relevance of the allegation
9.4 The material relied on by the Defendants
9.8 Irving's denial that he is anti-semitic or a racist:
9.9 Anti-semitism
9.19 Racism

X. JUSTIFICATION: THE CLAIM THAT IRVING ASSOCIATES WITH RIGHT WING
EXTREMISTS 252

10.1 Introductory
10.4 Case for the Defendants
10.26 Irving's response

XI. JUSTIFICATION: THE BOMBING OF DRESDEN

11.1 Introduction
11.5 The Defendants' criticisms of Irving's account of the bombing
11.6 Numbers killed - Irving's claims
1. The Defendants' claim that Irving relied on forged evidence
2. Irving's case as to use of TB47
11.41 The claim that Irving attached credence to unreliable evidence
11.45 The allegation that Irving has bent reliable evidence and
falsified statistics
11.48 The allegation that Irving suppressed or failed to take account of
reliable evidence
11.54 The allegation that Irving has misrepresented evidence

XII. JUSTIFICATION: IRVING'S CONDUCT IN RELATION TO THE GOEBBELS DIARIES
IN THE MOSCOW ARCHIVE

12.1 Introduction
1. The claim that Irving broke an agreement with the Moscow
Archive and risked damage to the glass plates
1. The allegation as formulated in the Defendants' statements of case
1. The evidence relied on by the Defendants for the allegation of breach
of an agreement
12.12 The evidence relied on by the Defendants for the risk of damage to
the plates
12.15 Irving's case that there was no breach of agreement
12.19 Irving's denial that the plates were put at risk of damage

XIII. FINDINGS ON JUSTIFICATION

13.1 Scheme of this section of the judgment
1. The allegation that Irving has falsified and misrepresented the
Historical evidence
13.7 Irving the historian
13.9 The specific historiographical criticisms of Irving
1. Evidence of Hitler's attitude towards the Jews and the extent, if
any, of his knowledge of and responsibility for the evolving policy of
extermination
13.68 Auschwitz
13.92 Whether Irving is a "Holocaust denier"
13.100 Whether Irving is an anti-semite and a racist
13.109 Irving's alleged association with right-wing extremists
13.116 Irving's accounts of the bombing of Dresden
1. Irving's conduct in relation to the Goebbels diaries in the Moscow
archive
13.136 Assessment of Irving as an historian
13.164 Finding in relation to the defence of justification

XIV. VERDICT


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.