The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/l/lipstadt.deborah/irving_suit/response-to-irving.01

From: John.Morris@xmunge.UAlberta.CA (John Morris)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Lipstadt Responds to Irving's Libel Suit (1/2)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:37:54 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta
Lines: 1043
Message-ID: <>
Reply-To: John.Morris@xhormel.UAlberta.CA
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
Xref: alt.revisionism:329715

>From David Irving's Website: Documents on the Fight for Real History 

Should David Irving wish to sue me for violating his copyright, he
should bear in mind that court documents are public domain.

The following is Deborah Lipstadt's sworn statement in answer to David
Irving's attempt to silence her with what is to all appearances is a
frivolous libel suit. It is also remarkably detailed guide to David
Irving's distortions of history.

  In the High Court of Justice  





       First Defendants 

        Second Defendant 

          DAVID CRANK 
        Third Defendant 

        Fourth Defendant 

        Fifth Defendant 

           COLIN ORR 
        Sixth Defendant 


1. It is admitted that the Plaintiff is a well-known writer, and the
author of a biography "Goebbels, Mastermind of the Third Reich"
(hereinafter referred to as "the Goebbels book"). It is denied that
the Plaintiff is an historian. Save as aforesaid, paragraph 1 of the
Statement of Claim is not admitted. 

2. Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim is admitted. 

3. It is admitted that the Second Defendant is the author of a book
entitled DENYING THE HOLOCAUST, sub-titled The Growing Assault on
Truth and Memory (the Work), which the First Defendants published
within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court in about July 1994.
The Second Defendant occupies the Dorot Chair in Modern Jewish and
Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Save
as aforesaid, the Second Defendant declines to plead to paragraphs 3
to 7 inclusive of the Statement of Claim, and those parts thereafter
of the Statement of Claim which concern the other Defendants to this
4. It is admitted that in the Work, the First Defendants published the
words (as footnoted but with different numbering) set out in paragraph
8 of the Statement of Claim. The said words formed but part of the
Work, to the whole of which the Second Defendant will refer to put the
said words into their proper context. It is denied the said words
referred to the Plaintiffs save where he was expressly referred to by
name. Save as aforesaid, paragraph 8 of the Statement of Claim is

5. It is denied that the said words, whether in their natural and
ordinary meaning, or by way of innuendo bore or were understood to
bear the meanings pleaded in paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim. 

6. Further, or in the alternative, the said words are true in
substance and in fact. The meanings the Second Defendant will justify
are : 

  that the Plaintiff has on numerous occasions (in the manner
  hereinafter particularised) denied the Holocaust, the deliberate
  planned extermination of Europe's Jewish population by the Nazis,
  and denied that gas chambers were used by the Nazis as a means of
  carrying out that extermination;

7. that the Plaintiff holds extremist views, and has allied himself
with others who do so, including individuals such as Dr. Robert
Faurisson, and Ernst Zundel; 

8. that the Plaintiff, driven by his obsession with Hitler, distorts,
manipulates and falsifies history in order to put Hitler in a more
favourable light, thereby demonstrating a lack of the detachment,
rationality and judgment necessary for an historian; 

9. that there are grounds to suspect that the Plaintiff had removed
certain microfiches of Goebbels' diaries contained in the Moscow
archives, from the said archives without permission; and that the
Plaintiff lied and/or exaggerated the position with regard to the
unpublished diaries on microfiche of Goebbels contained in the Moscow
archives, and used by him in the Goebbels book; 

10. that in all the premises, the Plaintiff is discredited as an
historian and user of source material, and there was an increased risk
that the Plaintiff would for his own purposes, distort, and manipulate
the contents of the said microfiches in pursuance of his said
P A R T I C U L A R S  
Meaning (i) - (iii)(v): The Holocaust and the Gas Chambers 

11. The Plaintiff has publicly claimed as follows : 

12. "There were no gas chambers at Auschwitz.... by logical deduction
that were no gas chambers anywhere in Germany... But this is not an
important issue. I am not a Holocaust Historian. About 100,000 people
died in Auschwitz in three years. If we must assume generously that a
quarter of them were murdered then we must remember that the British
killed 50,000 Germans in one night when they raided Hamburg...."
13. "Auschwitz was not an extermination camp and the Holocaust was a
propaganda hoax by the British... That question [the Holocaust] is
still wide open. I still maintain Auschwitz was not an extermination
camp. There were no gas chambers there, I think they were a figment of
British wartime propaganda..."
14. "I also predict that one year from now [1992], the Holocaust will
be discredited. That prediction is lethal because of the vested
interests involved in the Holocaust industry. As I said to the Jewish
Chronicle, if a year from now the gas chamber legend collapses, what
will that mean for Israel? Israel is drawing millions of dollars each
year from the German taxpayer, provided by the German government as
reparation for the gas chambers. It is also drawing millions a year
from American taxpayers who put up with it because of the way the
Israelis or Jews have suffered. No one is going to like it when they
find out that for 50 years they have been believing a legend based on

15. "I do not think there were any gas chambers or any Master Plan.
It's just a myth and at last that myth is being exploded."
16. "Why dignify something (the Holocaust) with even a footnote that
has not happened" (when dealing with the new edition of "Hitler's
War", written by the Plaintiff and published by the Plaintiff's own
imprint, Focal Point in November 1991); 

17. "The gas chambers were erected in Poland for the tourists".

18. The said claims were variously false and/or misleading in that: 

19. The Nazis established Concentration Camps proper (camps in which
persons were imprisoned without regard to the accepted norms of arrest
and detention), throughout the Third Reich and the Nazi Occupied
Territories: for example, Dachau, Buchenwald, Ravensbruck and
20. The systematic mass murder of the Jews began in about June 1941,
when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union. In the first place, carried
out primarily by the SS Einsatzgruppen, hundreds of thousands of Jews
were shot to death; 

21. After an experiment on Soviet prisoners of war in the main camp of
Auschwitz on 3 September 1941 in which 600 of them were murdered using
Zyklon B gas, extermination camps in Poland at Chelmo, Belzec,
Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek were used and/or
established with (save for the latter two, which were also labour
camps) the sole purpose of murdering every person brought to them,
irrespective of age or sex; 

22. Chelmo was put into use in December 1941. The victims were killed
using gas vans. About 320,000 persons were murdered there; 

23. Auschwitz-Birkenau began operating as an extermination camp in
March 1942. At its height, it had 4 gas chambers in use, using Zyklon
B. Over 1 million Jews were murdered there, as were tens of thousands
of gypsies and Soviet prisoners of war, until it was closed in
November 1944; 

24. Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were established as part of Aktion
Reinhard (headed by Globocnik), the murder operation principally aimed
at the Jews of the General Government in Poland, and used carbon
monoxide gas generated by a diesel or gas engine. About 600,000 Jews
were murdered at Belzec, whilst it operated between March and December
1942; between about 250,000 and 500,000 Jews were murdered at Sobibor
during its operation between April 1942 and October 1943; and between
about 870,000 and 1.1 million Jews were murdered at Treblinka between
July 1942 and August 1943. 

25. The Holocaust, the deliberate planned extermination of Europe's
Jewish population by the Nazis, resulted in the murder of millions of
Jews in extermination camps as set out above. About a further 2
million Jews were killed in Russia, elsewhere in Poland and in other
European countries. 

26. On 5 May 1992, the Plaintiff was found guilty by the District
Court of Munich of defamation in conjunction with the offence of
denigrating the memory of deceased persons. The facts upon which the
said conviction was based were as follows. On 21 April 1990, at a
meeting attended by about 800 people of the Deutsches
Jugendbildungeswerk at the restaurant Lowenbraukeller on
Stiglmaierplatz in Munich, the Plaintiff said (inter alia): 

  "We now know, and I need mention this here only by way of
  footnote, that there were never any gas chambers at Auschwitz....
  We now believe that, just as the gas chambers which the Americans
  built here in Dachau in the days following the end of the war,
  were a sham, the gas chambers which can now be seen by tourists
  in Auschwitz were built by the authorities in Poland following
  the Second World War...For this the German tax payers have had
  to pay about 16 billion Deutschmarks as a penalty for Auschwitz...
  For a sham". 
27. On 14 January 1994, the 25th Criminal Chamber of the Regional
Court of Munich upheld the said conviction of the Plaintiff, and
increased his fine (to 200.00 DM for 150 days). During the course of
his appeal the Plaintiff claimed that his researches had revealed no
evidence of the gassing of the Jews in Auschwitz and scientific
opinions had proved the impracticability of gassing. During the course
of its judgment upholding the Plaintiff's conviction as aforesaid, the
Regional Court further found that (as was the fact): 

  "Anyone denying the gassing and murdering of Jews in the `Third
  Reich' defames every Jews and slanders the memory of all Jews
  gassed in Auschwitz. By calling the mass gassing of Jews in
  Auschwitz an invention, the Accused [the Plaintiff] denies the
  Jews the inhumane fate to which they were subjected in the `Third
  Reich' purely on account of their origins...He knew that the
  so-called Auschwitz lie would be assessed as defamation and
  prosecuted...The Accused is seeking only superficially to paint
  a picture at variance with established research and in truth is
  clearly seeking to deny the mass murder of the Jewish people in
  the Third Reich...The Accused can only reach his conviction by
  failing to heed the historical fact of the gassing of the Jews
  in Auschwitz...and by relying on a few revisionist outsiders and
  pseudo natural history propaganda magazines apologetic to the
  National-Socialist cause. Had the Accused applied his endeavours 
  in an unprejudiced manner, not marked by any ideology of the Right,
  he would always have been in a position to assess accurately the
  numerous historical sources and witnesses...To the extent that
  the Accused is relying on his belief, the Criminal Chamber has
  not taken this into account to reduce the fine...since the gassing
  of the Jews in Auschwitz is such a publicly known historical
  fact that only people - like the Accused - who refuse to acknowledge
  this dreadful truth are able to arrive at such a belief.
  To the detriment of the Accused it has to be said that a denial
  of the fate of the Jews in Auschwitz represents a massive insult
  to Jewish people and a grave defamation of those who died. The
  Criminal Chamber has also appraised as aggravating the fact that
  the Accused from his own testimony disseminated the so-called
  Auschwitz lie even subsequent to the events at issue here....
  there is a risk of the generation which did not experience as
  direct contemporary witness the situation prevailing during the
  National Socialist period and the persecution of the Jews
  accepting this line of thinking without questioning it...
  It also had to be taken into account that the Accused as a
  writer and historian is also in a position to give the impression
  that his thoughts are backed up by scientific evidence. There is
  the risk that by giving voice in this way he will be used by
  revisionists of the neo Nazi movement as a historical-scientific
  signboard and thereby introduce above all uncritical young
  people not versed in history to his ideas...."

28. The Institute of Historical Review ("the IHR") is an ultra-right
wing, pseudo academic organisation which is the centre of revisionist
activities and publications, and which attracts neo Nazis,
anti-semites and racists. The IHR is part of a network that includes
the Liberty Lobby which publishes Spotlight, a journal devoted to the
Jewish conspiracy theory, and the Committee for Open Debate on the
Holocaust. The IHR holds an annual revisionist conference, devoted to
the promulgation of the view inter alia that there was no Holocaust.
On its editorial board was Ditlieb Felderer, an Austrian resident of
Sweden, publisher of the vitriolic anti-semitic publication "Jewish
Information Bulletin", who in 1983 was sentenced to 10 months in
prison for distributing hate material (he had sent leaders of the
European Jewish community pieces of fat and locks of hair with a
letter asking them if they could identify the contents as Hungarian
Jews gassed at Auschwitz).
29. In September 1983, the Plaintiff (described by the IHR as "noted
British revisionist historian"), lectured to the Fifth said
conference. Amongst his fellow speakers was Dr Robert Faurisson,
author of numerous revisionist works, and sued (according to IHR
literature advertising the conference) for defamation for speaking
"independently on the Six Million/Gas Chambers thesis". Dr Faurisson
was in fact convicted by the French courts for the libel of denying
the Holocaust. Dr Faurisson has claimed the "so-called gassing" of the
Jews was a "gigantic politico-financial swindle whose beneficiaries
are the state of Israel and international Zionism" and whose chief
victims were the German people and the Palestinians. He has further
claimed that the Nazi decree making it mandatory for Jews to wear a
yellow star was a measure to ensure the safety of German soldiers
because Jews engaged in espionage, terrorism, black market operations
and arms trafficking; and that Jewish children were required to wear
the yellow star from the age of 6, because they too were engaged in
illicit or resistance activities against the Germans; 

30. In February 1989, the Plaintiff lectured to the Ninth said
conference. Amongst his fellow speakers were Fred Leuchter, a
self-styled engineer, who published a report purporting to prove that
the gas chambers at Auschwitz and Majdenek were never used to gas
people, speaking on "The `Gas Chambers' at Auschwitz...", and Carlo
Mattogno, speaking on "The First Auschwitz Gassings: Genesis of a
Myth". At the said conference the Plaintiff said: 

  "They [the Exterminationists] have realised that they are way out
  of line with the Auschwitz story, and they are frantically
  engaged in damage control at present. They're pulling their
  entire army of liars back from the main battlefront, into the
  second line, because all the artillery that's coming down on the
  front line now is making it too dangerous for them".

31. In October 1990, the Plaintiff lectured to the Tenth said
conference. Amongst his fellow speakers was Dr Robert Faurisson. The
Plaintiff's lecture was introduced by Mark Weber. Mr Weber described
how at the trial of Ernst Zundel (see (7) below), the Plaintiff had
explained in detail why he now accepted the Revisionist view of the
extermination story. Mr Weber called the Plaintiff "a kind of one-man
IHR", and set out the conclusion of the Plaintiff's address in Dresden
on the anniversary of the fire-bombing of that city in which he said:

  "Ladies and gentlemen, survivors and descendants of the holocaust
  of Dresden, the holocaust of Germans in Dresden really happened.
  That of the Jews in the gas chambers of Auschwitz is an invention.
  I am ashamed to be an Englishman".

32. In the course of his said lecture to the IHR in 1990 (to the whole
of which the First Defendants will refer) the Plaintiff said (inter
  "Just picture me seven years ago, in 1983. I'm at the press
  conference of the West German Magazine Der Stern, in Hamburg. I'd
  been smuggled in disguised as a reporter for Bild-Zeitung, which
  is the opposition newspaper group in Germany. I was very familiar
  with the Hitler case: I'd spent twenty years of my life studying
  the story of Adolf Hitler. I'd built up a personal card index on
  his life - about 30,000 index cards - and when they told me that
  they were about to publish the Hitler diaries, I knew it was
  phony! So Bild-Zeitung said: "Will you come along disguised as
  our press correspondence and attend this damned press conference
  and blow it up for them"? So I went along. I was the first one
  at the microphone, and I was the first one to have the chance to
  ask the people at Der Stern certain questions. I said right out:
  "The diaries are fake - the Adolf Hitler diaries are fake!" They'd
  spent nine million deutschmarks on them! And all the German
  historians had said they were genuine. Eberhard Jäckel had said
  they were genuine, so they must be genuine - but they weren't.
  I got the same kind of feeling about the Holocaust. (I'm going
  to come to Rommel further on). But it's the same story, because
  when we come to look at the story of Field Marshall Rommel, and
  the legend that he was a member of the anti-Hitler resistance
  movement, that he was a hero of the twentieth of July, 1944, a
  story that has come down for forty years, since World War Two -
  we find that nobody has bothered to go back and look at the
  actual records. They all believed what everybody else had
  written about him. And it isn't until you go back and look at
  the records that you realise that the truth is somewhere else". 

  This how it was when I was in Toronto a couple of years ago. I
  was called as an expert witness as a historian to give evidence
  at the Ernst Zundel case, where Zundel's researchers showed me
  the Leuchter Report, the laboratory tests on the crematoria and
  the gas chambers. As a person who, at University in London,
  studied chemistry and physics and the exact sciences, I knew
  that this was an exact result. There was no way around it. And
  suddenly all that I'd read in the archives clicked into place.
  You have to accept that, if there is no evidence anywhere in
  the archives that there were any gassings going on; that if
  there's not one sing German document that refers to the gassings
  of human beings - not one wartime German document; and if there
  is no reference anywhere in the German archives to anybody
  giving orders for the gassings of people, and if, on the other
  hand, the forensic tests of the laboratories, of the crematoria,
  and the gas chambers and Auschwitz and so on, show that there is
  no trace, no significant residue whatsoever of a cyanide compound,
  then this can all only mean one thing. 

  So how do we explain the fact that for forty-five years since the
  end of World War Two, we have all, internationally, globally, been
  beset by a common guilt: the idea that the human race was
  responsible for liquidating six million human beings in gas
  chambers? Well, the answer is: we have been subjected to the biggest
  propaganda offensive that the human race has ever known. It's been
  conducted with such finesse, with such refinement, with such
  financial clout, that we have not been able to recognize it as a
  propaganda offensive - from start to finish. And yet there are these
  weapons cruising past us on the horizon - in all their ugliness -
  and the biggest weapon, of course, of all in this propaganda
  campaign against the truth since 1945 has been the great battleship
  Auschwitz! And we have now, at last, the historical profession -
  above all, the Revisionist historical profession - have found as our
  own task, the major task: "Sink the Auschwitz!"
  I warned you that I was going to show no respect for tests in
  the first part of this talk. Sink the Auschwitz! But we haven't had
  to sink the Auschwitz, because the crew of the Auschwitz, Beate
  Klarsfeld, the Wiesenthals, Elie Wiesel and the rest of them, have
  been struggling on the bridge and battling with each other - boxing
  and engaging in fisticuffs - and the Auschwitz has been steering
  itself amongst the icebergs, and finally it has begun to scuttle
  itself. They have begun to haul down the flat of the battleship
  Auschwitz. They've taken down the placard, they've taken down the
  memorial to the four million, and they've replaced it with a rather
  smaller memorial to one million. 

  Of course that's not the end of the story. I'm convinced that it's
  just the "interim memorial". I think it's on cardboard, if you have
  a close look, because why waste money on an expensive memorial when
  you're only going to have to change it again in a few months time!
  They're going to have to change it because it's quite obvious. I'm
  not going to say only a million - I'm not going to say only any
  figure died in Auschwitz. We don't know the exact figures of how
  many people died in Auschwitz...
  That's what's happening in Germany now. They're still sticking
  to the six million figure. And they're still being told that they
  were gassed. Although all the evidence runs the other way. To me,
  Auschwitz is unimportant - I'm happy that the ship is scuttling
  itself. It's vanishing. It's going to be left like the battleship
  Arizona at Pearl - if you ever go to Hawaii and have a look at it -
  with just its mast sticking out of the water to mark where once a
  great legend stood. And when people go there a hundred years from
  now and say: "Down there is the most incredible legend that people
  believed for fifty years: it's the great battleship Auschwitz, it
  was scuttled by its crew!" 

  Why don't we have to believe it? Well, you know about the Leuchter
The First Defendants will further rely on a comparison between the use
made by the Plaintiff in his lecture of what was said by Professor
Arno Mayer in his book "Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?", and what was
actually said in the book in context, as an example of manipulation of
source material (see (16) and following below); 

33. In October 1992 the Plaintiff lectured to the 11th said
conference. Amongst his fellow speakers were Arthur Butz, author of
"The Hoax of the Twentieth Century", which purports to prove that
there was never a Holocaust, Fred Leuchter, Ahmed Rami described by
the IHR as a gallant Moroccan who has become a radio apostle for
Revisionism in Sweden and who tells of his jail sentence for "lack of
respect" for Jews in Sweden, and (by videotape, since he was refused
permission to enter the USA) Ernst Zundel, a Canadian neo-Nazi.
34. Ernst Zundel, is the author of "The Hitler We Loved and Why",
published by "White Power Publications" which concluded with the
proclamation that Hitler's spirit "soars beyond the shores of the
White Man's home in Europe. Where we are, he is with us. WE LOVE YOU,
ADOLF HITLER!"; and also of the book, "UFOs: Nazi Secret Weapons?"
which argued that UFOs were Hitler's secret weapons and are still in
use at bases in the Antarctic beneath the earth's surface. Zundel
advocates fascism, denies that the Holocaust occurred and created
Samisdat Publications to reprint and distribute material which was
racist, anti-semitic and which denied the Holocaust. 

35. In 1988, Zundel was prosecuted by the Canadian Government (for the
second time) for stimulating anti-semitism through the publication and
distribution of material he knew to be false. (Zundel was convicted on
that charge at the first trial, but the conviction was overturned on
appeal). The Plaintiff gave evidence at that second trial on Zundel's
behalf, purportedly as an expert witness. The Plaintiff was shown by
Zundel's researchers, the so-called "Leuchter Report", ("the Report").
which purported to be an expert report based on a visit by Fred
Leuchter and Dr Robert Faurisson to Auschwitz - Birkenau and Majdanek,
and which proved (so its author claimed) that there had never been any
homicidal gassing at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. The Plaintiff
adopted the said report enthusiastically. As he said at the IHR
meeting referred to at (5)(iv) above: 
  "As a person who, at University in London, studied chemistry and
  physics and the exact sciences, I knew this was an exact result.
  There was no way round it. And suddenly all that I'd read in the
  archives clicked into place. You have to accept that, if there is no
  evidence anywhere in the archives that there were any gassings going
  on; that if there's not one single German document that refers to
  the gassing of human beings...and if, on the other hand, the
  forensic tests of the laboratories, of the crematoria, and the gas
  chambers and Auschwitz and so on, show that there is no trace, no
  significant residue whatsoever of a cyanide compound, then this can
  all only mean one thing..." [no gassings of human beings (at
  Auschwitz-Birkenau) in gas chambers]

36. In fact, Fred Leuchter had no expertise in the matters upon which
he purported to give an expert view in the Report, and his evidence as
a self-styled expert was (rightly) rejected (save to a very limited
extent) by the Canadian Court, for that reason. Moreover, the
scientific validity and methodology of the Report were fundamentally
flawed. Though Leuchter claimed an expertise in engineering, he had
none. Indeed in June 1991, 2 weeks before Leuchter was due to go on
trial in Massachussets for practising or offering to practice
engineering without a licence, Leuchter signed a consent agreement
admitting that he was not and never had been a professional engineer,
and had fraudulently presented himself to various states as an
engineer with the ability to consult on matters concerning execution
technology. Leuchter further acknowledged that though he was not an
engineer and had never taken an engineering licensing test, he had
produced reports, including the Report containing his engineering
opinions. Henceforth, Leuchter agreed to cease and desist, presenting
himself as an engineer and issuing any reports, including the Report.
37. By then the Plaintiff had published under his Focal Point imprint,
the English edition of the Report entitled "Auschwitz: The End of the
Line: The Leuchter Report - The First Forensic Examination of
Auschwitz", with a foreword written by the Plaintiff. In that
foreword, the Plaintiff said:  

  "UNLIKE THE WRITING OF HISTORY, chemistry is an exact science. Old
  fashioned historians have always conducted endless learned debates
  about meanings and interpretations, and the more indolent among them
  have developed a subsidiary Black Art of "reading between the
  lines", as a substitute for wading into the archives of World War II
  documents which are now available in embarrassing abundance. 

  Recently, however, the more daring modern historians have begun
  using the tools of forensic science - carbon-dating, gas
  chromatography, and simple ink-aging tests - to examine, and not
  infrequently dispel, some of the more tenaciously held myths of the
  twentieth century 

  Sometimes the public is receptive to the results, sometimes not.
  The negative results of the laboratory analysis of the ancient
  Shroud of Turin is one example: it is not a deliberate fake,
  perhaps, but nor was it nearly as old as the priests would have had
  centuries of gullible tourists believe. 

  It is unlikely that the world's public will be as receptive, yet, to
  the results of the professional and dispassionate chemical
  examination of the remains of the wartime Auschwitz concentration
  camp which is at the centre of this report. 

  Nobody likes to be swindled, still less where considerable sums of
  money are involved. (Since 1949 the State of Israel has received
  over 90 billion Deutschmarks in voluntary reparations from West
  Germany, essentially in atonement for the "gas chambers of
  Auschwitz"). And this myth will not die easily: Too many hundreds of
  millions of honest, intelligent people have been duped by the
  well-financed and brilliantly successful post-war publicity campaign
  which followed on from the original ingenious plan of the British
  Psychological Warfare Executive (PWE) in 1942 to spread to the world
  the propaganda story that the Germans were using "gas chambers" to
  kill millions of Jews and other "undesirables". 

  As late as August 1943 the head of the PWE minuted the Cabinet
  secretly that despite the stories they were putting out, there was
  not the slightest evidence that such contraptions existed, and he
  continued with a warning that stories from Jewish sources in this
  connection were particularly suspect. 

  As a historian, I have, on occasion, had recourse to fraud
  laboratories to test controversial documents for their authenticity.
  In the late 1960s I discarded certain diaries of Vice Admiral
  Wilhelm Canaris, offered to myself and the publishers William
  Collins Ltd, since Messrs. Hehner & Cox Ltd of the City of London
  advised me that the ink used for one signature did not exist during
  the war years. It was I who exposed the "Hitler Diaries" as fakes at
  Der Stern's famous International Press Conference in Hamburg in
  April 1983. 

  And yet I have to admit that it would never have occurred to me to
  subject the actual fabric of the Auschwitz concentration camp and
  its "gas chambers" - the holiest shrines of this new Twentieth
  Century religion - to chemical tests to see if there was any trace
  of cyanide compounds in the walls.
  The truly astounding results are as set out in this report: while
  significant quantities of cyanide compounds were found in the small
  de-lousing facilities of the camp where the proprietary (and lethal)
  Zyklon B compound was used, as all are agreed, to disinfect the
  plague-ridden clothing of all persons entering these brutal
  slave-labour camps, no significant trace whatsoever was found in
  the buildings which international opinion - for it is not more than
  that - has always labelled as the camp's infamous gas chambers. Nor,
  as the report's gruesomely expert author makes plain, could the
  design and construction of those buildings have made their use as
  mass gas-chambers feasible under any circumstances. 

  For myself, shown this evidence for the first time when called as
  an expert witness at the Zundel trial in Toronto in April 1988, the
  laboratory reports were shattering. There could be no doubt as to
  their integrity. I myself would, admittedly, have preferred to see
  more rigorous methods used in identifying and certifying the samples
  taken for analysis, but I accept without reservation the
  difficulties that the examining team faced on location in what is
  now Poland; chiselling out the samples from the hallowed site under
  the very noses of the new camp guards. The video tapes made
  simultaneously by the team - which I have studied - provide
  compelling visual evidence of the scrupulous methods that they used.

  Until the end of this tragic century there will always be
  incorrigible historians, statesmen and publicists who are content to
  believe, or have no economically viable alternative but to believe,
  that the Nazis used "gas chambers" at Auschwitz to kill human
  beings. But it is now up to them to explain to me as an intelligent
  and critical student of modern history why there is no significant
  trace of any cyanide compound in the building which they have always
  identified as the former gas chambers. 

  Forensic chemistry is, I repeat, an exact science. 

  The ball is in their court. 

  David Irving 
  London, W1 May 1989"

38. In an Early Day Motion, in the 1988/9 session of Parliament, 92
Members of Parliament condemned the Plaintiff and the Report as

  "That this House, on the occasion of the reunion in London of 1000
  refugees from the Holocaust, most of whose families were killed in
  gas chambers, or otherwise by Nazi murderers, is appalled by the
  allegation by Nazi propagandist and long-time Hitler apologist David
  Irving that the infamous gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka and
  Majdenak did not exist, ever, except perhaps as the brain-child of
  Britain's brilliant wartime Psychological Warfare Executive; draws
  attention to a new fascist publication, the Leuchter report, in
  which this evil column appears; and condemns without qualification
  such pernicious works of Hitler's heirs."

39. In an Early Day Motion, in the 1991/2 session of Parliament, 43
Members of Parliament condemned the Plaintiff and his aforesaid views
and the Plaintiff's activity in smuggling Leuchter, the subject of an
exclusion order by the Home Secretary into the United Kingdom. The
Plaintiff had done so in order that Leuchter could speak at a meeting
organised by the Plaintiff which coincided with the publication by the
Plaintiff of the revised version of Hitler's War, held at Chelsea Town
Hall in November 1991. The meeting was addressed by the Plaintiff and
was attended by prominent members of the National Front and the BNP
(which organisations were described by the Plaintiff after the meeting
as NCOs and foot soldiers).
40. Whilst publicly denying the Holocaust (for example see (1)(v) and
(5)(iv) above) in the new edition of "Hitler's War" in 1991, the
Plaintiff wrote extensively about the shooting of hundreds of
thousands of Jews, including women and children, by the Einsatzgruppen
in the East, mentioned the 152,000 Jews killed at Chelmo on 8 December
1941 only to propose that an official exchange of letters, six months
later proved Hitler had nothing to do with them, and referred to the
"thousands [of Jews] evidently being murdered", between March 1942 and
July 1942, without explaining how they were killed, again emphasising
that Hitler knew nothing. 

41. The Plaintiff holds extremist views (see above). He described
himself as "a mild fascist" (or took no objection to being so
described until recently), and said he had visited Hitler's eyrie at
Berchtesgarten and regarded it as a shrine. The Plaintiff has also
said, "I am more sympathetic to Hitler than others have been ... I may
well exchange pleasantries with Andries Tremact but he lacks Adolf
Hitler's charisma ...". The Plaintiff has a small self-portrait of
Hitler in a glass case in his study, and other Nazi memorabilia. The
Plaintiff believes in the benevolent repatriation of immigrants. 

42. Moreover, the Plaintiff has strong links with Ewald Althans, the
leading neo-Nazi in Munich, who is anti-semitic, and racist (and proud
of it). Althans booked the Plaintiff's hotel in Munich for him under a
pseudonym in May 1992, and sells and distributes the Plaintiff's
books, videos and cassettes. 

43. As a result of the Plaintiff's aforesaid views and activities, the
Plaintiff has been deported from Austria (inter alia, for his
extremist views and his connections with the German extremist group,
the DVU); and banned from entering Australia, Canada and Germany. The
Plaintiff has also been banned from the German State Archives. 

Meaning (i)-(iii)(v): "Hitler's War" 
(unattributed page references are to "Hitler's War") 

44. In 1977, the English edition of the Plaintiff's book, "Hitler's
War" was published. The purpose of Hitler's War, informing its massive
documentary presentation, was to present a revised picture of Hitler
by transferring both the political and military errors and the crimes
ascribed to him to others: the errors to his generals, the crimes to
his political associates. 

45. As in the case of the death of Sikorski (see (49) below), the
Plaintiff had one vital document, which he declared (p.xiv) was
"incontrovertible evidence" that Hitler was not responsible for the
extermination of the Jews - indeed knew nothing about it (until
October 1943) it was carried out behind his back by Himmler. This
"incontrovertible evidence" is an entry in Himmler's telephone
log-book recording a call on 20 November 1941 made by Himmler, then at
the Führer's Headquarters in East Prussia, to his deputy, Reinhard
Heydrich, head of the Reich Security Main Office, then in Prague. 

46. The Plaintiff claimed (at p.xiv): 

  "Many people, particularly in Germany and Austria, had an interest
  in propagating the accepted version that the order of one madman
  [Hitler] originated the entire massacre [of the Jews]. Precisely
  when the order was given and in what form has, admittedly, never
  been established. In 1939? - but the secret extermination camps did
  not begin operating until December 1941. At the January 1942
  "Wannsee Conference"? - but the incontrovertible evidence is that
  Hitler ordered on November 30, 1941, that there was to be "no
  liquidation" of the Jews (without much difficulty I found in
  Himmler's private files his own handwritten note on this)." 

47. This claimed the Plaintiff, (e.g at pp.332, 393 and 504) proved
that Hitler positively forbade the murder of the Jews (of which
somewhat inconsistently, he was declared by the Plaintiff to be
unaware). Thus, the Plaintiff could conclude, the Final Solution, and
extermination of Jews in the Gas Chambers were the unauthorised policy
of Himmler alone. 

48. In fact, the said note proved no such thing. The Himmler note
actually read (in translation): 

 "Transport of Jews from Berlin. No liquidation".

It is quite clear that the order (even if it was Hitler's) applied (as
the Plaintiff must have been aware, since he read it) to a particular
transport (i.e. train load) of Jews only: it was an exception. A
particular liquidation would not have been forbidden unless it would
otherwise have happened. 

49. Further, the said document, like any document, has to be seen in
its context, from which the Plaintiff detached it. Although the full
diary page entry was reproduced in facsimile in a plate in the book,
the plate was not transcribed apart from the two sentences set out in
(20) above. The lay reader would not have been able to understand
Himmler's handwriting (in German) from the plate or the significance
of the rest of the diary entry. Additionally, the transportation of
Jews from Berlin and their semi-public murder in Riga was causing
unrest both in Berlin and among the occupying troops in Riga; and so
the order was given that this train-load was not to be liquidated
(although in fact it was liquidated since the particular exception
arrived too late). 

50. The Plaintiff, in the context to add credibility to his argument
that Hitler (unlike Himmler and Goebbels) did not know of the Final
Solution, manipulated and distorted the effect of an entry in
Goebbels' diary on 27 March 1942; and further, then placed a remark on
Hitler out of context and out of chronological order: 

51. The Plaintiff wrote: 

  "The ghastly secrets of Treblinka and Auschwitz were well kept [from
  Hitler]. Goebbels wrote a frank summary of them in his diary on
  March 27, 1942, but evidently held his tongue when he met Hitler two
  days later, for he quotes only Hitler's remark: "The Jews must get
  out of Europe. If need be, we must resort to the most brutal methods
  ..." (p.392)
52. In fact Goebbels did not meet Hitler "2 days later". The remark
the Plaintiff attributes to Hitler was actually made 20 March 1942; 

53. The relevant part of Goebbels' diary entry on 27 March 1942 read
as follows: 

  "Beginning with Lublin, the Jews under the General Government are
  now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is pretty barbaric and
  is not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of
  the Jews. About 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated; only
  about 40 per cent of them can be used for forced labour. 
  The former Gauleiter of Vienna [Globocnik] who is to carry out this
  measure, is doing it with considerable circumspection and in a way
  that does not attract too much attention. Though the judgment now
  being visited upon the Jews is barbaric, they fully deserve it. The
  prophecy which the Führer made about them for having brought on a
  new world war, is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner.
  One must not be sentimental in these matters. If we did not fight
  the Jews, they would destroy us. It's a life-death struggle between
  the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no
  other regime would have the strength for such a global solution as
  this. Here, once again, the Führer is the undismayed champion of a
  radical solution, which is made necessary by existing conditions and
  is therefore inexorable. Fortunately a whole series of possibilities
  presents itself to us in wartime which would be denied us in peace.
  We shall have to profit by this. The ghettos that will be emptied in
  the cities of the General Government will now be refilled with Jews
  thrown out of the Reich ..."
54. By not quoting this most significant diary entry, and thereby
avoiding the explicit and significant reference to the Führer in that
entry, the Plaintiff could (and did) misuse the part of the entry in
which Goebbels wrote a "frank summary" of the fate of the Jews, in
order to demonstrate that Goebbels (whilst aware himself of what was
happening) was one of those who hid from Hitler that new acts of
murder had begun on the largest possible scale. In fact, the entry
showed the opposite. 

55. In support of his argument that Hitler was not responsible and did
not know of the extermination of the Jews, the Plaintiff misleadingly
claimed (at p 327) that "Hitler's surviving adjutants, secretaries and
staff stenographers have all uniformly testified that never once was
the extermination of either Russian or European Jews mentioned - even
confidentially - at Hitler's headquarters." The said former members of
Hitler's circle all stated that whilst it was true that Hitler never
spoke in their presence of the extermination of the Jews, they could
not imagine that Hitler had not known about it. 

56. The Plaintiff (in the context, to add credibility to his argument
that Hitler did not know) claimed as fact that "Even SS General Karl
Woolf, Himmler's Chief of Staff and liaison officer to Hitler, was at
this time [summer 1942] ignorant of the [extermination] programme that
now got under way" (p 327). The Plaintiff omitted to inform his

57. that Wolff's claim to that effect in the Munich District Court in
1964, when charged with complicity in the killings, was rejected by
the Court which "could not accept the claim of the defendant [Wolff]
since it is not in accordance with the truth."; and 

58. that Wolff has received a letter dated 11 April 1942 from SS
Gruppenführer Dr. Herald Turner, the SS Military Administrator of
Serbia, which read: 

  "Already months ago I had all Jews we could catch in this country
  shot, and concentrated all Jewish women and children in one camp.
  With the help of the SD [security police] we have obtained a
  "delousing-car" [gassing car] thanks to which we will clear this
  camp within 14 days to four weeks. The moment is coming however,
  when the Jewish officers now under the protection of the Geneva
  Convention in prison camps will discover, whether we like it or not,
  that their families no longer exist, and this could easily lead to
  complications when these individuals are released. They like their
  "racial mates", [Rassengenossen] will not be around for long and
  thus this whole matter will be finally concluded".

59. The Plaintiff, whilst uncritically accepting statements which
supported his exculpation of Hitler (for example, by Wolff, and
Hitler's valet, Krause), ignored those which did not (such as those of
the former SD officer, Wilhelm Höttl, and the commander of Auschwitz,
Rudolf Höss) or distorted such statements. 

60. The Plaintiff manipulated Hitler's discussions at a conference at
Klessheim in April 1943 with the Romanian head of state, Marshall
Antonescu and with the Hungarian Regent Admiral Horthy, in order to
obscure evidence of Hitler's increased intervention in the Final
Solution after Stalingrad: 

61. In April 1943, Hitler attempted to persuade both heads of state to
adopt similar radical measures towards the Jews of their countries to
those adopted against the remaining few thousand Jews of the Reich: in
particular, Hitler was dissatisfied that Hungary's 800,000 Jews could
still move about the country with relative freedom. On 16 April 1943,
Horthy answered the reproaches, and, clearly alluding to reports known
to him about the liquidation of the Jews stated that he had done
everything that could be decently done against the Jews, but it was
after all impossible to murder them or otherwise eliminate them.
Hitler then declared that ... there is no need for that; Hungary could
put the Jews into concentration camps just as had been done in
Slovakia ... When there was talk of murdering the Jews, he [the
Führer] had to state that there was only one murderer namely the Jew
who had provoked this war ... [see minutes of Hitler's conference with
Antonescu and Horthy according to Hillgruber, Stattsmanner und
Diplomaten bei Hitler, Vol. II (1970)]; 
62. On the following day, 17 April, Hitler and Ribbentrop (the Foreign
Minister) brought the subject up again, and according to the record
(op.cit): "In reply to Horthy's question, what should be done with the
Jews after he had already deprived them of almost any means of
existence - he after all could not beat them to death - the Foreign
Minister answered that the Jews must either be annihilated or sent to
concentration camps - there is no other way." Hitler then stated: 

"They [the Jews] are just parasites. This state of affairs had not
been tolerated in Poland; if the Jews there refused to work, they were
shot. Those who could not work just wasted away, they had to be
treated as tuberculosis bacilli which could infect a healthy organism.
This was by no means cruel when one considered that even innocent
creatures like deer and hares had to be put down to prevent damage.
Why should the beasts that had brought Bolshevism down on us, command
more pity."
63. The Plaintiff, when dealing with Hitler's said statements (at
p.509) attempted to modify their obvious significance by the following

Ribbentrop's aforesaid statement in the presence of Hitler (that the
Jews must either be annihilated or sent to concentration camps) was
consigned to a footnote to the appendix to "Hitler's War"; 

Hitler's remarks (only part of which were quoted) were introduced by
the Plaintiff with a reference to the warsaw Ghetto Revolt (which had
not even been mentioned in the conference with Horthy), thus falsely
making them appear to refer only to an action that was limited in
scope and carried out for a specific reason; 

after quoting part of what Hitler said on 17 April (see (ii) above),
the Plaintiff presented the discussion between Horthy and Hitler as
terminating with Horthy's question and Hitler's remark of the previous
day, namely when in reply to Horthy's direct question if he should
murder the Jews, Hitler said "there is no need for that"; thus grossly
distorting the significance of what Hitler had said on 17 April. 

64. The Plaintiff claimed (at page 12) that "it is harder to establish
a documentary link between him [Hitler] and the murderous activities
of SS "task forces"." The Plaintiff omitted to draw the reader's
attention to a document of 9 September 1939 in which Admiral Canaris
tells Field Marshall Keitel that his understanding was that there was
an order from Hitler for "grosse Füsillierungen" (large shootings) in

65. The Plaintiff relied on the absence of any written order for the
extermination of the Jews bearing Hitler's signature, ignoring a basic
feature of Hitler's dictatorship, namely his frequent preference for
oral instructions, over written directives, especially in secret

66. At p.331, in order to suggest that (at the material time) Hitler
did not know of or favour a massacre of the Jews, and was not pursuing
any active policy against them, the Plaintiff falsified and took out
of context remarks recorded as having been made by Hitler on 25
October 1941 (in Hitler's table talk). The Plaintiff was thereby able
to draw a false analogy between Hitler's attitude to the Jews, on the
one hand, and his attitude to Bishop Galen (an opponent of the
Euthanasia Programme) and the Vatican on the other: 

68. The Plaintiff wrote:
  "No documentary evidence exists that Hitler was aware that the
  Jews were being massacred upon their arrival. His remarks, noted by
  Bormann's adjutant Heinrich Heim late on October 25 1941, indicate
  that he did not favour it: "... By the way - it is not a bad thing
  that public rumour attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews.
  Terror is a salutary thing." Hitler added that just as he was
  sidestepping an open clash with the Vatican by postponing the final
  reckoning with Bishop von Galen until later, "with the Jews too I
  have found myself remaining inactive. There's no point in adding to
  one's difficulties at a time like this."" (p.331)

68. In respect of two of Hitler's sentences used by the Plaintiff as
set out above, Henrich Heim in fact recorded Hitler's words as

  "It is a good thing (is useful) if we (our arrival is) are preceded
  by terror-reports that we are exterminating Jewry ... About the Jews
  too, I had to remain inactive for a long time."

69. The Plaintiff by changing the tense of the sentence, "About the
Jews too ...", falsely made it appear that Hitler was not at that
time, pursuing an active policy against the Jews, when the sentence,
as properly translated made it clear that the contrary was true; 

70. Further, by adding the words "plan" and "public rumour", the
Plaintiff completely distorted the meaning of the sentence "It is a
good thing (is useful) if our actions are preceded by terror-reports
that we are exterminating Jewry". Hitler did not say that the
extermination was a rumour, let alone an incorrect rumour as the
Plaintiff implied; nor did Hitler speak of a plan, but of the fact
that Jews were being exterminated (by that time at least half a
million Jews had been shot and buried in the Baltics and Byelorussia);

71. Moreover, the sentence, "There's no point in adding to one's
difficulties at a time like this", in its context, plainly referred to
Hitler's decision to postpone his "settling of accounts" with Bishop
Galen and the Vatican, not (as the Plaintiff falsely suggested), to
any postponement by Hitler of an active policy against the Jews. 

72, As further evidence of Hitler's innocence, the Plaintiff
maintained (at p.851), that Ribbentrop, writing about Hitler from his
cell in Nuremberg, exonerated Hitler of any responsibility for the
extermination of the Jews. The Plaintiff quoted Ribbentrop as follows:
"How things came to the destruction of the Jews, I just don't know ...
But that he [Hitler] ordered it, I refuse to believe, because such an
act would be wholly incompatible with the picture I always had of

The Plaintiff however, omitted the second part of Ribbentrop's text
which read: "On the other hand, judging from Hitler's last will, one
must suppose that he at least knew about it, if, in his fanaticism
against the Jews, he didn't also order it.". 

73. After the publication of "Hitler's War", when challenged about
that omission, the Plaintiff said it was "irrelevant" to the logic of
his argument, and that he did not "want to confuse the reader".
74. The Plaintiff (to give weight to his argument that the killing of
the Jews was of an ad hoc nature), gave a misleading account of the
Wannsee Conference of January 1942, on the Final Solution to the
Jewish Question. The Plaintiff treated the Conference as a routine
meeting in which Heydrich briefed the leading government officials in
Berlin to the effect that "the Führer had sanctioned the evacuation of
all Jews to the eastern territories .. where they would build roads
until they dropped" (p.391). In fact, it was decided at that
conference that, by agreement with Hitler, the emigration of the Jews
would be replaced by "evacuation to the East", a euphemism for
liquidation, and that of the 11 million Jews eventually involved in
this "evacuation", the operation should begin with "the 2.5 million
Jews of the General Government, the majority of whom were unfit for

75. In order, again to exculpate Hitler of responsibility for the fate
of the European Jews, the Plaintiff mistranslated and misrepresented
the meaning of Nazi terminology used for their destruction. Alfred
Rosenberg, the Reich Minister for the Eastern Occupied Territories,
wrote a summary of a conversation with Hitler on 14 December 1941. In
that summary Rosenberg noted that he had recommended that he
(Rosenberg) say nothing in a forthcoming speech about the
extermination of the Jews: "Ich stand auf Standpunkt von der
Austrottung des Judentums nicht zu sprechen". The Führer, Rosenberg
noted, agreed; 

76. The Plaintiff (at p.356) confined the summary of that conversation
to a footnote, and translated Rosenberg's note as follows: "I said I
took the view that I shouldn't mention the stamping out of Judaism". 

77. However, when the verb "ausrotten", or the noun "Ausrottung" was
used in connection with the extermination of the Jews but were not
attributed to, or used in the presence of Hitler, the Plaintiff
translated them as "extermination" (for example at p.867 and

78. In "Hitler's War", the Plaintiff failed to draw attention to one
of Himmler's minutes (dated 7 October 1942), and in the Plaintiff's
possession, which contained the word "Globus" as a subject for
discussion with Hitler on that day. "Globus" was Himmler's pet name
for Odilo Globocnik, the head of the Einstaz Reinhard (see (2)(vi)
above and (22) above); 

79. After the publication of "Hitler's War", when the Second Defendant
drew the Plaintiff's attention to that minute, and asked him what he
thought Himmler could have been discussing with Hitler on 7 October
1942 in connection with Glonocnik other than the murder of the Jews,
the Plaintiff refused to acknowledge the minute's obvious significance
(since it failed to accord with his theory that Hitler did not then
know of the murder of the Jews); and said the Second Defendant and her
colleague would have to look at Globocnik's personnel file in the
Berlin archives to see whether he got a promotion that day.
Meaning (i)-(iii): the Goebbels' book 
(unattributed page references are to the Goebbels' book) 

80. In the Goebbels' book, published by Focal Point in 1996, the
Plaintiff continues his exculpation of Hitler, this time transferring
not merely the responsibility for the extermination camps but the
policy of anti-semitism itself from Hitler to Goebbels: his method is
to dwell on Goebbels' anti-semitism, and to attenuate, or slide-over
that of Hitler. Thus, when Goebbels in his diary reported Hitler as
being in support of the most radical programme of extermination, the

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.