Letters to David Irving on this Website

Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate.

Quick navigation




After the Trial

"Dear Scumbag", Part II, and other letters

These are edited and spell-checked selections from the thousands of messages received by David Irving during and since the trial of Deborah Lipstadt for libel. Readers are requested not to express comments to these correspondents in intemperate language. [Dear Scumbag, part I]

Matt Ferguson writes from Australia:  It is obvious that you are a extremely astute man, with a politician's ability to avoid the truth of your central concern. It is clear to me that like many extreme right wing leaders, organisations and individuals, you feel you must justify your bigotry and Nazi sympathies by rewriting history and denying you are a racist. As you have voiced more extreme views during your career you have found yourself alienated from respected historians and so have had to pander to your growing army of right wing arseholes.

You know as well as anybody that the people who read and believe the pseudo histories that you write are going to accept your views without challenge, as they are not historians. Therefore you have no need to be accurate or factual, you will always have an audience. As for your view of history as far as I see it you are just playing on the small gaps in evidence created by the Nazis in their attempt to cover-up the horrors that they carried out and you discount the very large amount of evidence that disproves your argument.

But this is the skill of pseudo-academic. Similar methods are employed by those nutcases who claim that Neil Armstrong's great leap for mankind was onto a movie set. Furthermore your belief in some sort of Zionist illuminate conspiracy only serves to highlight your lack of credibility.

To me you are as credible as any other crackpot conspiracy theorist, who I might add, also have large followings and receive good reviews in the popular press, of course they are usually quite harmless, you Mr Irving are not, if you had your way history would be re-written in an Orwellian manner and the Fascists would have a clear conscience to begin again.

Why don't you just cut the crap, unpack the swastikas and goose-step your way out of your transparent closet?

PS: I am no enemy of free speech, I believe in your right to express any opinion you may choose. Yet it seems very strange to me that as such a campaigner for free speech that you are challenging other people's right to express a view with your string of lawsuits. If you want publicity why don't you try television advertising? It is probably cheaper, less damaging and if you try hard enough you might not appear such an arrogant bigoted liar.


PDFFree downloads of David Irving's books:-->
bookmark this page to find new downloads

David Mackenzie who appears to have other Weltanschauung problems too (check out his email address) contributes this insight:

I know where you live, you f****d up Nazi .


Adrienne Clarke responds from New Zealand:

 My understanding is that David Irving does not deny that in the war atrocities were committed by the Nazis, nor that many Jews were killed in the war, nor that Hitler held anti-Semitic views. David Irving does raise questions regarding Hitler's awareness of the extent of the atrocities, and he questions the reality of the gas chambers as a method of killing, and he does question the number of Jews that actually died.

Am I wrong? And if all David Irving does is raise questions, all that needs to be done is disprove them.... which as he points out could be easily done by presentation of documentation or physical evidence from the concentration camp sites.

When I listened to David Irving on [BBC] HardTalk and read his articles, he sounds totally different to what I expected from reading other articles about him in print.

All that the media attention has done is raise my interest in the issues and made me want to read more, not that I believe David Irving is correct, but he has raised my level of interest to question what has been put in front of me as fact.


Bertie Green agrees, in this message from a school in England:

 I cannot see why the modern world is unwilling to accept David Irving's conclusions on the alleged "Holocaust", many of which are both sensible and have been made after due consideration of the evidence and careful recourse to the past. As an A-level student currently studying Nazism, I feel that his views are closer to the truth than many of us believe and are willing to believe. The fact that many people in modern society are naive bigots that have little or no real knowledge to fully understand the events surrounding the "systematic extermination" of the Jews. I would personally like to pledge Mr Irving my full support and my respect for presenting the world with a much more realistic and likely historical representation of Hitlers final solution


Coral Davies, studying history at Aberdeen University, has this serious question about the possible implications for future historians:

 Do you think we are in a sense being conditioned to accept that events happened in a certain way. Do you believe that one cannot deny anything for fear of being branded a racist?


From Marco Bisaccia, who describes himself grandly as "Nazi Hunter at large" and may well be fit to attend Professor Richard Evans' Cambridge classes, comes this contribution to the learned debate:

 Riddance. Thoughtful educated people in the US have never paused to worry about what you have to say anyway. Now you can declare bankruptcy, crawl into your bunker and clench that little cyanide capsule between your teeth. Just like your Führer, you'll quit before someone shows up to kill you.

© Focal Point 2000 David Irving