David Irving vs.Observer and Gitta Sereny (15 June 1998)

The Observer slipped into the habit of smearing David Irving and ignoring his requests for space to reply . . .

Observer/Sereny libel action David Irving to The Observer, Managing Editor, marked URGENT , asking them to print reader’s letter correcting smear by Lord Goodman, July 26, 1992 David Irving to The Observer, Managing Editor, marked URGENT, warning against publishing Chaim Bermant article, July 31, 1992 David Irving to The Observer, editor, January 7, 1993, complaining about libel published

on January 3, and requesting they print reader’s letter; with attached yellow sticker to “Andrew”. David Irving to Andreas Whittam Smith, The Independent, May 23, 1993 David Irving to The Observer attn. Denis Staunton, January 15, 1994 Coverage by Guardian Newspapers Ltd of the preceding David Irving vs Deborah Lipstadt libel action 81 DUKE STREET LONDON W.1

TELEPHONE 01-499 9409 July 26, 1992 Dear Managing Editor, In view of my recent written warning to the Observer about printing smears like “Hitler apologist” you might see fit to print the following Reader’s Letter from me:- ‘Sir, Lord Goodman calls me “a known Nazi apologist,” an odious term if ever there was one. Has he found even one sentence in my books or speeches that would justify such a phrase?

Gross defamation is an uneasy tactic for an eminent lawyer to adopt; let us hope it is the last shaft left in the Jewish quiver. Yours faithfully David Irving’ To: The Managing Editor The Observer Chelsea Bridge Road Queenstown Road London SW8 4NN The newspaper returned a printed card, Mr Irving’s communication “has been read with interest.” The letter was not printed.

Fax to The Managing Editor, The Observer, July 31, 1992 London, July 31, 1992 Dear Sir, I observe from today’s “Jewish Chronicle” that you are advertising an article this coming Sunday by Chaim Bermant about the David Irving “case.”* May I take this opportunity — while respecting of course the editor’s complete liberty of choice — to remind you that a week ago I put you on notice that if your newspaper uses again the phrases “Hitler apologist” (or Nazi apologist), “Holocaust denier” (or its

variations), or the lie that I told the Sunday Times the “Hitler diaries” were genuine, I shall take action. In this connection, I draw your attention also to the Reader’s Letter which I submitted to the Observer this week, replying to Lord Goodman’s slur on my name; non-publication will be taken into account in any such action, as an aggravating factor.

I am sure you appreciate that in writing this letter my desire is purely to avoid friction with a newspaper which I greatly admire and, indeed, read each week. Yours sincerely David Irving * I take it you are aware that Bermant originally wrote the article for Scotland on Sunday, who rejected it as libellous of me.

The Managing Editor, The Observer The article was published with several libels, leading to months of correspondence with Mr Irving’s lawyers, after which The Observer agreed to published his firm’s letter of protest and a retraction, and pay all legal costs. 81 DUKE STREET LONDON W.1 TELEPHONE 01-499 9409 May 23, 1993 Dear Whittam-Smith, Your article on my fight to be heard in Australia was reasonable enough, and up to your newspaper’s usual standards (though playing to your usual gallery).

Your headline was inexcusable, and I have today lodged an immediate complaint (enclosed) with the Press Complaints Commission. If you wish to commission a reply from me — not in the form of a Reader’s Letter, given the prominence of your slur — I will withdraw the complaint.

You will be aware that a recent complaint by me against The Observer, who published an article by Chaim Bermant which had already been rejected by Scotland on Sunday as too libellous to print, led to them publishing a grovelling apology and forking out about £10,000 pounds in costs incurred by their solicitors and my own. Yours sincerely David Irving Mr Andreas Whittam-Smith, Editor-in-Chief, The Independent on Sunday 40 City Road London EClY 2DB The enclosure is not posted here.

FROM David Irving in S. Florida, phone & fax: (305) .. [omitted] TO: January 7, 1993 The Editor, The Observer, London EC4 (by fax) Dear Editor, The sentence quoted on page 7 of your Jan.3 edition was, once again, grossly libellous of myself. I would have thought that in view of the current negotiations with my lawyers, Biddle & Co., you would avoid defaming me further.

Please print the following Reader’s Letter, and inform me by fax in the United States today (305) [omitted] if you do not intend to do so. Sir, In view of the opinions which Mr Alan Clark expressed privately to me at the cocktail party relaunching my Hitler’s War it is unlikely that he has been correctly quoted (Jan. 3) as saying, “Irving would have made peace in 1940 because he wanted us to be a German satellite.”

Both my Hitler biography and my Churchill’s War make plain that the archives show that Hitler (rightly) admired the Empire, and had no designs on it whatever, at any time, or in any degree; while the half-American Mr Churchill cannot be shown to have prospered it at all. Yours sincerely, DAVID IRVING 81 DUKE STREET LONDON W.1

TELEPHONE 01-499 9409 London, Saturday, January 15, 1994 (5:11 pm) Dear Denis, via Vancouver, I have just received a copy of your article about that Goebbels speech [September 1942]. What a pity you did not contact me instead of the dilettantes ( Reuth, Gilbert , etc). You surely cannot have been unaware that I have the entire Goebbels diaries [for that month]. I have dealt with that speech in ten pages of my upcoming Goebbels biography , using the unpublished diaries and Polish records too!

Much of it is obviously genuine, as textual comparison with other speeches of that time suggest. Yours sincerely, David Irving The Observer attn: Denis Staunton Chelsea Bridge House Queenstown Road London SW8