International Campaign for Real History

Libel Action between DJC Irving v Penguin Books Ltd and Deborah Lipstadt
Quick navigation

Alphabetical site index (text)link

Index to daily transcripts

Closing Speech by David Irving

  Part IV



In England a parallel campaign was launched by the Board of Deputies, and by other organisations which we know to have collaborated with the Defendants in producing this libellous book. This had kicked into high gear after my own imprint published an abridged edition of the Leuchter Report in June 1989. Pressure was put on the World Trade Centre in the City of London to repudiate our contract for the press conference. A picket was staged outside our front door to prevent journalists from attending when the conference was switched to my own home. The Board arranged an early day motion in the House of Commons, as a privileged way of publishing a smear on my name. On June 30 of that year the Jewish Chronicle revealed that representations had been made to my principal British and Commonwealth publisher, Macmillan Ltd., to drop me as an author.51

Macmillan had already published several of my books, and were under contract to publish several more. I had no fears that they would succumb to this intimidation. They had informed me that HITLER'S WAR was running so successfully that they intended to keep it permanently in print. I am entitled to mention this background, as I have mentioned the Board's other clandestine activities against me, because it was said by Mr Rampton that I later made one public tasteless remark (in October 1991) about the Board of Deputies.52 If somebody attacks, using secretive and furtive means, the very basis of the existence of my family then it may be at least understandable that I speak ill of them.

It is worth mentioning that when I invited Mr Leuchter privately to address my Clarendon Club at Chelsea Town Hall in November 1991, the Board tried strenuously to have him gagged. They just do not understand the word, "debate". They piled pressure onto Kenneth Baker, then the Home Secretary, to stop him coming, and Ben Helfgott of the Holocaust Education Trust of whom we shortly hear more, threatened in July 1991 that "violence would greet the revisionists if they were allowed in."53 Secretly, on July 17, 1991 fifty years to the day after Hitler granted police powers to Himmler in the occupied Soviet Union the Board of Deputies wrote to the president of the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), a body of which we have heard greatly admiring words from Professor Funke; this English Board urged that they take steps to stop me, a British citizen like no doubt the members of the Board, from entering Germany.

Germany is a country on whose publishers and archives I have been heavily dependent, as the Court is aware.54 We have only the BfV's reply, dated August 9, 1991, to Neville Nagler of the Board of Deputies. I retrieved a copy of this letter from the files of the Prime Minister of Australia; so the same Board, in London, had evidently also secretly sent its dossiers to its collaborators in Canberra, and no doubt other countries, in its efforts to gag me worldwide. That is an indication of the world-wide networking that went on, this secret common enterprise, this frantic international endeavour to destroy my legitimacy as an historian and to deprive me of free speech, of which the Defendants have made themselves the willing executioners.

As is evident from a letter from the Austrian ambassador dated June 22, 1992 the Board also applied pressure on that country to ensure that I did not enter, or that I was arrested if I did.55 The equivalent Argentinean body, the DAIA, launched a well-co-ordinated smear on me when I arrived in Argentina in October 1991 to lecture on historical themes at universities and to private associations in Spanish and German.56 When the DAIA headquarters building was blown up with heavy loss of life a few months later, it now was inevitable that my name would be linked with that outrage too, and my Argentinean publisher was obliged in consequence to abandon its contracts with me, as they revealed privately in a letter to me. (Four years later the similar lie was circulated that I was directly involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.)

These tides of hatred and suppression lapped at the doors of my London publishers. On November 27, 1991 a note appeared in the internal files of my publisher Macmillan Ltd., listing the remaining stocks of my books and the current contract positions. This was an ominous sign. In another internal Macmillan memorandum, editor in chief Alan Gordon Walker stated to his editors, "We will not publish Irving again." I was not told this; in fact my own editor there continued to write oleaginous letters to me, as they were waiting for the GOEBBELS biography which they had paid for and which was under contract.

What had happened meanwhile? Firstly, I had established my own publishing imprint which was capable of producing a better quality of book than Macmillan Ltd. were currently achieving, while using the same printing firm in Somerset. The new omnibus edition of HITLER'S WAR, published in November 1991, was one of its first products. This was just as well. On December 6, 1991 an Internal Office Memo from Macmillan's files records that "quite a number of people" had commented unfavourably to Macmillan's about them publishing my books, and one person, an unnamed "Oxford Professor of Politics," who had evidently learned nothing from the book burning episodes of Nazi Germany, stating "that they would be more inclined to publish with us [Macmillan] if we were not publishing Irving." (The Oxford professor of politics was probably Peter Pulzer, identified by Lipstadt in her book as such and quoted by The Independent at the time).57

This campaign had been co-ordinated by the Board of Deputies. In some of its members, it seems that the illiberal spirit of Dr Goebbels lived on behind the Board's facade. Meeting behind locked doors at their headquarters on December 12, 1991, a body identified as the "Education and Academic Committee" of the Holocaust Educational Trust, registered as a charitable body, had a conference on several matters, of which one pointed specifically indicated that those present, including Mr Helfgott, were searching for ways to silence my publications; after this meeting, minutes were written, including this point 6:


"David Irving: Concern was voiced over the publication of the 2nd edition of Hitler's War. There was debate over how to approach Macmillan publishers over Goebbels Diary. It was agreed to await new[s] from Jeremy Coleman before deciding what action to take."58


We know more of this meeting from the statement to this Court by my witness Dr John Fox, who was present at this cabal in his capacity as editor of The British Journal of Holocaust Education. He testifies:


As an independently-minded historian, I was affronted by the suggestion concerning Mr David Irving [...] At a certain point in the meeting, attention turned to the subject of Mr Irving and reports that the publishing company of Macmillan would be publishing his biography of JOSEPH GOEBBELS. Mr Ben Helfgott, the Chairman of the main United Kingdom Yad Vashem Committee, spoke about how that publication by that publishing firm might be stopped. Mr Helfgott then turned to me, the only non-Jew present at the meeting, and suggested that "John could approach Macmillan to get them to stop publication".

I refused point-blank to accede to that suggestion, arguing that in a democracy such as ours one simply could not do such a thing. That amounted to censorship, especially since nobody present had the least idea what Mr Irving's biography of Goebbels would contain. For me, such attempted censorship was totally unacceptable. I said that if people did not like what Mr Irving wrote, the time to respond to him was when anything was actually published. I - and to their credit, at least two other (Jewish) committee members - rejected Mr Helfgott's proposal out of hand.

Nevertheless, as the Committee minutes make it clear, it was planned by some to consider further action about how best to scupper Mr Irving's publishing plans with Macmillan.


The clandestine pressure on Macmillan's began at once. My editor at Macmillan's, Roland Philipps, who had married the new Managing Director Felicity Rubinstein, noted in an internal memo of January 2, 1992 that they should reassure prospective authors that they had turned down many other book proposals from me, and had no plans to continue publishing me after Goebbels. It was not the bravest of postures to adopt, this Court might think. "If this helps you to reassure any prospective authors we are happy for you to say it (although not too publicly if possible)."59 The desire of Macmillan's for this stab in the back to be kept secret from their own highly successful author is understandable. Their ultimate stab in the back was however still to come, in the summer of 1992.




In May 1992 we find Deborah Lipstadt providing a list of her personal targets, including now myself, to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington; she advised the USHMM to contact Gail Gans at the Research Department of the ADL in New York City for additional names, and "tell her I told you to call her."60 This establishes that the Defendants considered that the museum, a US taxpayer-funded body, was actively participating in their network, and the museum duly provided press clippings from London newspapers relating to me, which have now turned up in the Defendants' files.61

The attempts to suffocate my publishing career continued. A second arm of this attack also needs to be mentioned. Since my own imprint would not be intimidated as easily as Macmillan's, or indeed at all, the hostile groups applied pressure to major bookselling chains to burn or destroy my books and in particular the new edition of HITLER'S WAR. Some of the press clippings reporting this nasty campaign are in my Discovery. They include reports of a sustained campaign of window smashing of the branches of Waterstone's bookstore in the biggest Midlands cities, after complaints by "local Jewish and anti-racist groups."62 Waterstones informed one Newcastle newspaper that they were taking the book off public shelves "following a number of vandal attacks on book stores across the country."63 The Nottingham Waterstones took the book off display after a brick was thrown through its window.64 The campaign was clearly centrally co-ordinated from London. None of this was reported in the national press, but one would have thought that these groups would have recognised the bad karma in any campaign of smashing windows or burning books. I wrote privately to Tim Waterstone guaranteeing to indemnify his chain for their costs of any uninsured claims.65 He refused to be intimidated by the campaign, which is one reason why I removed the names of four Waterstones branch employees from the list of Defendants in this action at an early stage. Others took a different line. According to the Evening Standard, Mr Ivan Lawrence, a QC, MP, and a member of the Board of Deputies, justified the vandals who committed the window smashing and book burning outrages (while formally "condemning" them).66

The Board was at this time actively organising violent demonstrations outside my residence. Its address appeared on at least one leaflets posted over the West End calling for demonstrations outside my private address.67 The Campaign against Fascism in Europe (CAFE, a body identified by a Sunday Express investigation as a Mossad front), set up a "broad based temporary united front" in a "Committee to Stop Irving'." Its primary purpose was to stage what it called "a mass militant demonstration" to prevent me from lecturing to a private seminar in Central London on July 4, 1992 (the topic was Freedom of Speech); it called for "a working class alliance of . . . black, Jewish, lesbian and gay" communities. The leaflets which this faceless body handed out in the West End stated that I "whitewash Nazi crimes and incite racist murder."68 I gave copies of these leaflets to the police. The resulting demonstration was violent and pointless, because I was still in Moscow. A photograph in The Observer shows one of the CAFE posters reading GAS IRVING NOW! The newspaper reported that seven people were arrested in the violence, and that my home was under round-the-clock police guard. It quoted me as saying that I had received four or five death threats in the last twenty-four hours. "For thirty years I have been subjected to a reign of terror."

The same newspaper reported that the Anti-Nazi League and its parent body the Board of Deputies were applying pressure to The Sunday Times to violate its contract with me.69 One reason why I mention all of this may well be apparent to Your Lordship: when I made remarks about certain of my critics, occasionally using vivid language, I had reason.

As an indication of the pressure my family was under: the West End Central Police station telephoned to ask permission to film the interior of my residence, in case we had to be rescued. An officer informed me that they had received information of a planned attack. For twelve months after our young child 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 arranged with the Grosvenor Estate to increase the fire safety precautions in the building. 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. An orchestrated barrage of abuse and death threats began on my unlisted phone number. One of them I recorded. It is one of the transcripts which the Defendants have not shown to Your Lordship.

At the same time as they organised this campaign of intimidation, and the attacks on my London and foreign publishers, the Board and its collaborating foreign bodies did what they could to hamper my freedom of movement. On April 1, 1992 South Africa informed me that I would no longer be allowed to enter the country.70 On June 5, 1992 the South African Jewish Board of Deputies wrote a letter to Michael Whine, executive director of the corresponding London Board, gloating over this success.71 An Israeli survey on subsequent events summarised: "In 1993 the controversial right-wing historian David Irving was granted a three month visa to visit South Africa on condition that he refrain from addressing any public gathering. The South African Jewish Board of Deputies objected to the visit. In December it was reported in the press that Irving had been refused the special permission he needed to visit South Africa during 1994."72 (It has taken Nelson Mandela and the ANC to lift this ban imposed by the outgoing regime.)

On June 9, 1992 I was denied entry to Italy to address university students in Rome.73 That bars me from access to the Archivi Segreti del Stato, the Italian state archives in which I worked on Mussolini's papers.

In Canada, Sol Littman, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Toronto, joined this formidable international endeavour to destroy my career. Once again we do not have to rely on something as vague as a scholarly "consensus," or on the opinion of "the social sciences," to learn what happened. Quoting Littman in their global report Response at the end of 1992, the parent Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles boasted:


"Alerted through its international contacts that Irving was about to begin his 1992 [Canadian] tour, the Wiesenthal Center was determined to drop Irving in his tracks to prevent him from entering Canada. A legal research team provided the Canadian Department of Immigration with a brief pointing to Irving's conviction in Germany"


- which was for describing the Krematorium I currently on display to tourists at Auschwitz, truthfully, as a fake.74 The League of Human Rights of the B'nai Brith Canada made a similar boast in their confidential annual report to the 1993 B'nai Brith Canada convention. Dr Karen Mock bragged in this document and I rely on this too as proof of the international nature of this endeavour, to which the Defendants on this action have added their weight:


British Holocaust denier David Irving attempted to conduct one of his cross-Canada tours in 1992, but thanks in part to League [i.e., League of Human Rights of the B'nai Brith Canada] interventions, and excellent co-operation between a number of police agencies and government departments, Irving was arrested and deported. He is no longer permitted to enter Canada without ministerial consent. In both these cases, the League worked to warn the Immigration department of these individuals' impending visit and provided information to government officials. Australian and South African Jewish communities have used materials provided by the League to lobby their governments for similar treatment of Irving.75


Where did the Canadian "materials" come from? Michael Whine, executive director of the Board of Deputies, unashamedly revealed the answer in an affidavit sworn in November 1996.76 He swore this affidavit in connection with the libel action that I later sought to bring against the Board. He confirmed that in response to an appeal by the Wiesenthal Centre in Toronto for dirt that they could plant on government files in Canada - a country I have visited countless times since the 1960s - the Board of Deputies furnished to their Canadian counterparts two "confidential" Intelligence reports that they had concocted on me; the second such report was covered by a letter dated June 17, 1992. The letter also relayed to Toronto reports from similar Jewish organisations in Cape Town and Germany, boasting of their success in getting me banned from South Africa and fined in Germany.

The intelligence reports which Whine has admitted he furnished to his Canadian friends contained vicious and damaging libels: I was said to have married the daughter of one of General Franco's top generals to ingratiate myself with the Spanish falangist movement. This gives a clue to the fantasy world that the Whines of this world live in. "Uncorroborated evidence," the document continued, "implies that Irving has been the recipient of substantial funding from unknown sources. It has repeatedly rumoured that these sources are Nazis." I had been, the report stated confidently, "active in the British Union of Fascists." That was another lie. There were hints that I had maintained improper relations with the East German authorities, and the totally untrue statement that during the 1970s "Irving appeared annually on the public list of 'Enemies of the State'" compiled by the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution. And so on.77

When I found out - too late - that this fake evidence had been planted on Canadian files, I was angered and astounded that a British organisation could be secretly doing this to British citizens. It turned out from these files that academics with whom I had freely corresponded and exchanged information, including Gerald Fleming, had been acting as agents and informants for this body. I submit that these are the bodies that collaborated directly or indirectly with the Defendants in the preparation of the book and that the Defendants, knowing of the obvious fantasy in some of what they said, should have shown greater caution in accepting their materials as true.

There was an immediate consequence of this fake data planted on Canadian files. One data report recorded the "fact" that I had written many books denying the Holocaust. That was of course untrue. In August 1992 a docket was placed on Canadian Immigration files about me, saying among other things, "Subject is Holocaust denier, may be inadmissible" under section A19(1)(d)(1) of the Act. The Canadian government had been provided by the Wiesenthal centre with a list of my proposed travel dates across Canada in October and November 1992. After more lying data was placed on Ottawa files about me, which I have since retrieved by the Access to Information Act, a letter was sent to me by courier stating that I might not be allowed to enter Canada. I did so, legally, on October 26; I was arrested on October 28 at Vancouver, and deported permanently from Canada on November 13, 1992, causing me great damage and financial loss. Access to the Public Archives of Canada was as essential for my future research as access to the Public Record Office in Kew or those archives in Italy. That is one proof of the direct and immediate cost of the pernicious label, "Holocaust denier."



There was at this time also a determined attempt to secure my exclusion from the United States; if successful, this would finally have sabotaged my career. A document was circulated, purporting to be an official U.S. Government intelligence (Office of Special Investigations) document about me. On my protest to the U.S. security authorities, they were good enough to confirm to me after making inquiries that it was a fake.78 In the same month, when I arrived at Washington's Dulles airport I was held in immigration custody for several hours; a senior official then apologised to me that their inquiries had determined that somebody had planted a forged dossier about me on their Immigration Service computer in an attempt to keep me out. "A yard and a half of garbage," was how he described it. The U.S. government again apologised to me, and assured me in writing that the computer file had now been cleansed. 79 A few months later Washington area Jewish organisations started putting pressure on the big bookstore chains to stop selling my books, but here they met with blank refusals to comply.80

The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Toronto which had orchestrated the Canadian attack on my freedoms prepared similar intelligence reports of its own on me, and one of these eventually came to light - though not without difficulty - in Professor Lipstadt's Discovery in this action, with a covering letter from its chief executive, Sol Littmann, addressed to Professor Lipstadt, the Second Defendant. It goes in my submission to other issues in this action, namely damages and costs, that it required me to issue a summons and make an application for an Unless Order to enforce the proper disclosure of these items; and that copies of the documents to which I was entitled under Order 24 were withheld from me until the eve of the hearing of my application; and that Mishcon de Reya only then furnished me with photocopies of the document, and with a covering letter which had seemingly been backdated - the postmark was dated after the receipt of my summons.

In a letter to Professor Lipstadt, Sol Littman asked her to recognise that one intelligence report was "not for publication or direct quotation." "It contains," he explained, "many phrases and comments that neither you or I would use in a situation which clearly involves considerable delicacy." The paper itself, which was originally disclosed to me shorn of any indication of institution, or author, or date, was entitled History Rewritten: The World of David Irving. It listed a number of quotations from my works, but confirmed what it called (page 256) my "enticing writing style and thorough archival research" and complained that I continued revisionist themes "interspersed with genuine historical insight."

Claiming that it was my underlying purpose to rehabilitate Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich, the anonymous Canadian author stated these words, words coming from my enemies which characterise the whole of the global endeavour to silence me:


"Given this accurate version of reality, it is all the more clear why his activities must be curtailed, and why his alleged legitimacy must be eradicated."81


I make no apology for quoting that sentence in full again notwithstanding Mr Littman's desire that it should not be quoted. The word eradicated may even jar us all somewhat, after two months of debate about meanings of ausrotten: but the fact remains that this is what these enemies of free speech have tried for thirty years to do to do - by hook or by crook, to ruin me, and to destroy my hard won legitimacy as one of the world's most original and incorruptible writers on the Third Reich and its history.

Writing in Response, the Wiesenthal Center world report, Sol Littman reported from Canada that "while David Irving squirmed, bullied, and lied, in the end he was booted out of Canada, never to return without the express permission of the Immigration Minister."82 The Jewish Chronicle reported on November 13, 1992 that Bernie Farber, national director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, had stated that I was "finished" in North America which seems therefore to have been their common intent. Mr Farber was to have been one of the witnesses of fact chosen by the Defendants; he has recently been disallowed by Canadian courts from appearing as a witness in a similar case, because he is held to be prejudiced.83 His evidence is no longer before this Court.


* * *



I now come to Macmillan's final stab in the back. That is, the hand on the blade was Macmillan's, but the blade had been forged and fashioned by all the Defendants in this courtroom, and by their hidden collaborators overseas.

On July 4, 1992, as this Court knows, I had returned from Moscow with the missing entries of the Goebbels Diaries exclusively in my possession, having gone there on behalf of The Sunday Times. This hard-earned triumph caught my opponents unawares. Newspapers revealed that the ADL and its Canadian collaborator, the League of Human Rights of the B'nai Brith Canada, sent immediate secret letters to Andrew Neil at The Sunday Times demanding that he repudiate their contract with me.84 On Sunday July 5 the London Sunday newspapers were full of the scoop and also with hostile comment. On Monday July 6, The Independent newspaper reported under the headline JEWS ATTACK PUBLISHER OF IRVING BOOK, that a U.K. body which it identified as "the Yad Vashem Trust" was piling pressure on to Macmillan's to abandon its contract with me to publish GOEBBELS. MASTERMIND OF THE THIRD REICH, failing which they would urge booksellers not to stock or promote it.

Macmillan's finally took fright that same day, as I only now know. After their directors inquired, in an internal memo, how many of my books were still in their stocks, and having been given totals of several thousand copies of all three volumes of my HITLER biography, representing a value of several hundred thousands pounds, my own editor Roland Philipps on July 6 issued the secret order reading: "Please arrange for the remaining stock of [David Irving's HITLER biographies] to be destroyed. Many thanks."85 They prepared a "draft announcement," but it was not released. Although still a Macmillan author, I was not told. The royalties due to me on the sale of those books were lost, destroyed with them. The Defendants' campaign to destroy my legitimacy as a historian, of which the book published by the Defendants became an integral part, had thus reached its first climax.

Macmillan's were still under contract to publish my GOEBBELS biography. In September that year, 1992, still not suspecting that they had done the dirty on me and destroyed my books, I wrote to them asking them to revert all rights in that new biography to me. Allan Brooke of Hodder Headline, the second biggest U.K. publishing group, made a very satisfactory offer two years later for the rights; he had published my books before while at Michael Joseph Ltd. Within a few days however the offer had been formally withdrawn - something which had never happened to me in a lifetime of publishing. Brooke told me that he had come under pressure to revoke his offer. The Defendants' book had now been published and was now, as yet unknown to me, in the bookstores.



The campaign to silence me was on a broad front, indeed a global scale, but it also took unusual and petty forms. For twenty-five years I had spoken as a guest at my old school, twice a year, to history classes and sixth formers. On September 19, 1992 the school informed me in a letter that under "pressure which built up yesterday from Jewish parents, the Anti-Nazi League and [...] the press" they had to withdraw their latest invitation, which they recognised as "a sad day for the school and for freedom of speech."86 When my club held a private lecture-meeting that same month, leaflets and stickers appeared all over the west end with slogans like "Stop the fascist agitators," "No more Rostocks" (a reference to an incident where an asylum seekers' hostel was burned down), and, more threateningly, "meet at Irving's home," and providing my private address. The global nature of all this is evident from an Israeli survey issued in Tel Aviv "in co-operation with the [New York based] ADL". This stated, among successes in preventing various meetings and lectures from occurring, that "in London the Jewish community and other groups worked together [...] and made it difficult for David Irving and his followers to maintain the fiction of the 'Clarendon Club.'"87

Letters obtained by legal methods in Canada show that on October 21 and November 3, 1992, the Board of Deputies applied secret pressure on the German embassy to stop me, a British citizen like themselves, from entering Germany.88 If a ban was applied, it would spell the end for me as a World War II historian because I could no longer reach my publishers, or access my own collections there (of valuable documents which I had donated to the German archives), let alone the archives of the German government.




Australia was the next country to be worked over. The Israeli document quoted above reported unhappily on the press backlash that had arisen from pressure applied to the Australian government to silence me, which, it said, had attracted editorials in major Australian newspapers unfavourable to the Jewish community: "The implication was that a minority group, with extraordinary clout, had pressured the Australian government to act against the country's interest."89

Nothing, they implied, could be further from the truth.

What had happened was this: In September 1992 I announced to Australian university professors that I would be visiting their continent for a third lecture tour early the following year. Alerted to this tour by the German professor Konrad Kwiet, one of the Holocaust experts I had written to, the same organisations applied secret pressure on the then prime minister, Paul Keating, to refuse me entry. The Australian Jewish News set up a hue and cry, reporting that I had "sneaked into Canada," to give lectures "denying the Holocaust really happened," and stating that I "incite the gullible to racist violence" and that I "have a record of contempt for anti-racism and immigration laws." Every single one of these statements was a lie.90 But the lying was now getting out of hand. When a Munich Court increased the fine on me for denouncing the Krema I building at Auschwitz shown to tourists as a post-war fake, the Board of Deputies issued a press-release calling me a "Nazi propagandist" who attending Nazi training camps, and they welcomed the trebling of the fine. Not surprisingly, no British newspaper dared to reproduce such libels but a copy is, significantly, in Professor Lipstadt's discovery.91 I am of course barred from using it as the basis for the action which it deserved.

Opponents released to Australian television the heavily edited version of Michael Schmidt's 1991 videotape of me addressing the crowd at Halle. As edited, it omitted my visible and audible rebuke to a section of the crowd for chanting Hitler slogans. Grotesque libels about me swamped the Australian press, printed by various organisations including the New South Wales Board of Deputies and the Australian Jewish News (February 5, 12, and 19, 1993). One example was an article by a lecturer in politics: "He [Irving] has a history of exciting neo Nazi and skinhead groups in Germany which had burned migrant hostels and killed people. . . . Irving has frequently spoken in Germany at rallies . . . under the swastika flag . . . himself screaming the Nazi salute. . ."92 Unsurprisingly in retrospect, on February 8, 1993 the Australian government announced, though to the astonishment of the regular Australian national press, that I was to be refused a visa as I was a "Holocaust denier". They had thus adopted the phrase that the Second Defendant prides herself on having invented.

The new and very damaging ban on visiting Australia now made it impossible for me to work again in the National Library of Australia in Canberra. At great personal expense I appealed to the Australian Federal Court. The Court declared the minister's refusal of a visa to be illegal. The government in Canberra therefore changed the law in February 1994 to keep me out, and on May 3, 1994 they again refused my application for entry. We note from Professor Lipstadt's own Discovery that the immigration minister faxed the decision direct to one of her source-agencies that same afternoon.93

In July 1994, as the resulting fresh legal actions which I had started against the government still raged, the Second Defendant was invited by Australian organisations, all expenses paid, to visit their country; she was to hired to tour Australia, and to slander my name and reputation and add her voice to the campaign to have me refused entry. The Court will perhaps remember the Australian TV video which I showed, entitled "The Big Lie." Broadcast on July 1994, it showed both the expert witness Professor Van Pelt, and Fred Leuchter standing on the roof of Krema II which Van Pelt declared to be the centre of the Nazi genocide, and the Second Defendant being interviewed while still in Australia (and refusing once again to "debate" with the revisionists, rather as she has obstinately refused to go into the witness stand here). Thus I found myself excluded from Australia and inevitably New Zealand too. I lost the ability to visit my many hundreds of my friends down under, and my own daughter too, who is an Australian citizen; and I lost all the bookshop sales that this ban implied in Australia - where my CHURCHILL biography had hit the No. 1 spot on the best seller lists.

There was one interesting little postscript which helps to tie all these things together: I produced a video, a rather unpretentious document entitled The Search for Truth in History, which was to travel the Australian continent until I could again enter myself. A closed session of the video censorship authority in Sydney was convened, at the request of the special interest groups who urgently wanted to suppress my video. Afterwards, the security authorities discovered that a hidden microphone had been planted in the chamber. Indicating that he already had the answer, the leader of the opposition, Tim Fisher, challenged the government to admit that it was planted by the Mossad.94 This is an indication that some very dangerous forces indeed had aligned themselves behind the Second Defendant and against me.

My lecturing engagements in the British Isles came under similar attack. I had often spoken to universities and debating societies including the Oxford and Cambridge Unions in the past. But now, in one month, in October 1993 when I was invited to speak to prestigious bodies at three major Irish universities, I found all three invitations cancelled under pressure and the threat of local Jewish and "anti-fascist" organisations.95 The irony will not elude the Court that these Defendants on the one hand have claimed by way of defence that I speak only to the far-right and neo-Nazi element, as they describe it, and that it turns out their own associates are the people who have done their damnedest to make it impossible for many others to invite me.


Deborah Lipstadt had made meanwhile made some progress with her book.

She told her publisher that she had written a certain statement "with the marketing people in mind," - in other words sometimes money mattered more than content. She had revealed in September 1991: "I have also spoken to people in England who have a large cache of material on David Irving's 'conversion' to denial."96 We don't know, but we can of course readily suspect, who in this case those "people" were. She is, once again, not presenting herself for cross-examination, so there are many things we cannot ask her about including (and I would have asked her most tactfully) the reasons why she was refused tenure at the University of California and moved downstream to the lesser university in Atlanta where she now teaches.

In the light of Mr Rampton's strictures on my now famous little ditty, supposedly urging my nine-month old little girl not to marry outside her own people, I should also have wanted to ask questions of Professor Lipstadt's views on race. We know that she has written papers, and delivered many fervent lectures, on the vital importance of people marrying only within their own race ("We know what we fight against: . . .," she wrote, "intermarriage and Israel-bashing, but what is it we fight for?")97 She has attracted much criticism from many in her own community for her implacable stance against mixed marriages. In one book Lipstadt quotes a Wall Street Journal interview with a Conservative rabbi, Jack Moline, whom she called "very brave" for listing ten things that Jewish parents should say to their children: "Number one on his list," she wrote (in fact it was number three), "was 'I expect you to marry Jews'."98 My one little ditty was a perhaps tasteless joke. Professor Lipstadt's repeated denunciation of mixed marriages addressed to adults was deadly serious.

Professor Lipstadt accuses me or error and falsification, but is apparently unable to spot a fake even at a relatively close range. She admitted (in a recent interview with Forward) that she used the memoirs of the spurious Auschwitz survivor Benjamin Wilkomirski in her teaching of the Holocaust, according to Professor Peter Novick. Those "memoirs" have now been exposed, worldwide, as fraudulent. When it turned out that Wilkomirski had never been near the camp, or in Poland for that matter, but had spent the war years in comfort living with his adopted Swiss family, she acknowledged that this "might complicate matters somewhat," but she insisted that the Wilkomirski "memoirs" would still be "powerful" as a novel.99 It may seem unjust to Your Lordship that it is I who have had to answer this person's allegation that I distort and manipulate historical sources.



We have Professor Lipstadt's handwritten notes, evidently prepared for a talk delivered to the ADL in Palm Beach, Florida, in early 1994. In these, if I have read her handwriting correctly - and she appears to be relying on something that Lord Bullock had just said - she states that my aim seems to be to de-demonize Hitler; and that I had said that FDR, Hitler, and Churchill were all equally criminal. This is hardly "exonerating" any of them. Summarising HITLER'S WAR (the 1977 edition), she calls me merely a "historian with a revisionist bent" like A J P Taylor - and she adds, and this seems significant - "Irving denies that Hitler was responsible for the murder of European Jewry. Rather, he claims that Himmler was responsible. But he does not deny its occurrence."100 Had she stuck with that view, which is a very fair summary of my views both then and now, she and we would not find ourselves here now.

But she was led astray. She fell in with bad company, or associates. These things happen. We know that, in conducting her research for the book, she spoke with the Board of Deputies, the Institute of Jewish Affairs, and other such worthy bodies, since she thanks them all in her Introduction. Some time in 1992 her book was complete in its first draft, and she sent it to the people who were paying her, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. We do not know what was in the book, since I cannot question the Second Defendant and she has not disclosed that early draft, with Professor Yehuda Bauer's "scribbles" on it, in her sworn list of documents. It was clearly discoverable. We do know however what was not in it: we know that there was no mention of Hizbollah and Hamas and Louis Farrakhan and the November 1992 terrorists in Stockholm, or of the lie about my speaking on the same platform with them; in fact we also know that in this first draft I was merely mentioned in passing. This is evident from the letter which Professor Yehuda Bauer wrote, congratulating her on November 27, 1992: Bauer complained that the book lacked the "worldwide perspective," and said: "Irving is mentioned, but not that he is the mainstay of Holocaust denial today in Western Europe."101

Somehow therefore I had to be shoe-horned into the text before publication. Bauer urged her too not to write things inadvertently that might convince the reader that there was "something" to what revisionists ("deniers") said although that is hardly a true scholar's method, to suppress mention of opposing arguments. In a letter to Anthony Lerman, of the Institute of Jewish Affairs (the same Mr Lerman who would later spread the lying word that I had supplied the trigger mechanism for the Oklahoma City Bomb), Lipstadt revealed that there was an "earlier incarnation" of the book: that "earlier incarnation" has not been disclosed in her sworn list either.102 She had been ordered to swear an affidavit on her list. When I made a subsequent complaint about deficient discovery, her solicitors reminded me that I could not go behind her affidavit until she presented herself for cross examination. This chance has been denied to me.

Lipstadt spent much of that last month of 1992 putting me into the book, and so herself, into this courtroom today. They were the weeks after the spectacular success of the global campaign to destroy my legitimacy, which culminated in getting me deported in manacles from Canada on November 13. "I am just finishing up the book," she wrote to Lerman on December 18, "and as you can well imagine David Irving figures into it quite prominently". She pleaded with Lerman to provide, indeed to fax to her urgently, materials from "your files". Your Lordship may think that this haste to wield the hatchet compares poorly with the kind of in-depth, years-long research which I conducted on my biographical subjects. "I think he [Irving] is one of the more dangerous figures around," she added, pleading the urgency.103 It was a spectacular epiphany, this Court might think, given that only three weeks earlier the manuscript barely mentioned me, as Bauer had complained.

Lerman faxed his materials to her a few days later: we don't know precisely what, as here too the Defendants' Discovery is only fragmentary, and these items were provided to me only in response to a summons.

That is an outline of the damage, and the people, including specifically the Defendants in this action, who were behind it. Mr Rampton suggested at a very early stage that I had brought all of this on myself, that I had even deserved it - he was talking about the hate-wreath that was sent to me on the death of my daughter. We shall see.