The Campaign for Radical Truth in History, Box 849, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816

Check out Hoffman's investigative books & tapes in our Bookstore


David Irving vs. Deborah Lipstadt Libel Trial in London England

Part Nine


David Irving and the Verdict of History

After a two month trial in London, British High Court Judge Charles Gray ruled on April 11 that revisionist historian David Irving was not libeled by Deborah Lipstadt, whose book, "Denying the Holocaust" has become the manual of the new Holy Inquisition against those who dare to practice the virtue of skepticism and doubt the dogmas of Jewish supremacy.

Irving had contended that his 1996 biography, "Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich" was suppressed by means of clandestine pressure exerted against his publisher, St. Martin's Press, due in part to the influence of Lipstadt and her book.

The suppression of Irving's work was a classic example of the absurdity and obscurantism of the "Holocaust" lobby. His Goebbels book shows the Nazi propaganda minister to have been the evil genius behind many of the crimes of the Nazis. It is the most exhaustively researched biography of Goebbels ever produced. It was blocked only because it was written by the blacklisted Irving.

In his ruling against Irving, Justice Gray, in his traditional British magistrate's wig, which conjures the spectacle of countless indigent whites sentenced to hang or to "transportation" (enslavement) by his august, bewigged predecessors on the British bench, pelted Irving with the familiar sing-song ("racist and anti-semite"), refused him leave to appeal and stuck him with Lipstadt's legal costs which are estimated in the millions of dollars. Lipstadt was funded by Canadian liquor baron Edgar Bronfman Sr. and Hollywood director Steven Spielberg, who set up a foundation to record memories of the "Shoah" -- and was "said by informed sources to be among a small group of prominent American Jews who helped fund Professor Deborah Lipstadt's defense." (Jewish Chroncle, April 14, 2000).

Eleven years ago Mr Justice Gray was Charles Gray QC, Lord Aldington's barrister in the "Cossacks Libel Trial" of 1989 in which Aldington sued the revisionist scholar Count Tolstoy. Aldington had been named in Tolstoy's book, "The Minister and the Massacres" as responsible for an Allied war crime, the handing over of 70,000 anti-Communist Russian soldiers to the mercies of Stalin at the end of WWII. Aldington prevailed in his lawsuit thanks to Gray.

Gray's verdict in the Irving-Lipstadt case was predictable given the display of naked Jewish power during the trial, which saw the intervention of a sovereign state on Lipstadt's behalf, when the Israeli Attorney General, with the customary media flourish, rushed Lipstadt's legal team the jailhouse memoirs of Adolf Eichmann, the Yiddish-speaking, confirmed Zionist among the Nazi high command.

It turned out that Eichmann's writing contained nothing particularly valuable for the defense -- no lurid account of a tour of the alleged homicidal gas chambers for example, even though the Nazi officer had been to Auschwitz. But the gesture could hardly have been lost on the judge: Lipstadt not only had the best British legal team money could buy (including the late Princess Diana's solicitor, Anthony Julius), but the full might and influence of the Israeli government.

After the verdict was announced, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak who last winter ordered the bombing of civilian power stations in Lebanon stated that "... a persistent, determined battle is being fought against people who try to deny the Holocaust, which brought about the destruction of a third of our people." Barak told Lipstadt that her struggle and victory is a triumph for "free people against dark forces which want humanity's lowest point to be forgotten." (Ha'aretz, April 12, 2000).

A member of Barak's cabinet, Social and Diaspora Affairs Minister Rabbi Michael Melchior declared that the court's verdict "sent a message to the whole world" that the reality of the Holocaust is not open for philosophical or historical debate, and that Holocaust deniers should be ranked among "the worst Nazis."

Speaking for the Israeli government, Rabbi Melchior congratulated Lipstadt for the "strong moral stature" she showed throughout the trial. She served as a "model of Jewish determination," Melchior concluded. (Ha'aretz, April 12, 2000). Melchior's observation is laughable in light of the fact that Lipstadt was so unsure of her facts that she refused to take the witness stand in her own defense, sitting mute behind her laptop computer throughout the trial.

The media also flexed their muscle. The London "Times" and the Manchester "Guardian" turned their coverage off and on like a spigot. When Irving had a good day against his detractors the newspapers published nothing, whereas when a witness for Lipstadt offered a scathing denunciation of Irving, coverage magically resumed in detail.

The establishment media see their mission as shoring up "correct" beliefs rather than reporting the news fully and freely, encouraging vigorous competition between rival viewpoints, and healthy skepticism toward the dogmas of church, state and synagogue. In this respect they are the very organs of propaganda, something they decry when practiced by Serbia, Syria, Iran and other "rogue states."

In addition to being savaged by the fourth estate, Irving has come in for criticism from revisionist colleagues, largely because he represented himself in the non-jury trial and because he chose not to call revisionist experts as witnesses, with the exception of evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald (author of a trilogy on the Jewish mentality and its survival strategies) and an involuntary witness, Sir John Keegan, who grudgingly testified to Irving's competence as a military historian (a fact seconded by Gray in his judgement).

The fugitive German scientist Germar Rudolf, who last autumn lectured at a revisionist history conference in Ohio organized by Irving, writes:

"David Irving refused to present Germar Rudolf as an expert witness. Here is the price he has to pay for it: He lost his lawsuit, and has to pay $3.2 million (AP) or even $4.5 million (Reuters).

"Justice Gray made it pretty clear that refusing to present Rudolf as a witness forced him to reject Irving's law suit. From Justice Gray's summation:

"The Leuchter report

"13.79 The reason why Irving initially denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz was, as has been seen, the Leuchter report. I have summarized in some detail the findings made by Leuchter at paragraphs 7.82 to 7.89 above. I will not repeat myself.

"I have also set out at paragraphs 7.104 to 7.108 above the reasons why van Pelt on behalf of the Defendants dismissed the Leuchter report as flawed and unreliable. Those reasons were put to Irving in cross-examination. It is a fair summary of his evidence to say that he accepted the validity of most of them. He agreed that the Leuchter report was fundamentally flawed.

"In regard to the chemical analysis, Irving was unable to controvert the evidence of Dr. Roth (summarized at paragraph 7.106 above) that, because the cyanide would have penetrated the brickwork and plaster to a depth of no more than one tenth of the breadth of a human hair, any cyanide present in the relatively large samples taken by Leuchter (which had to be pulverized before analysis) would have been so diluted that the results on which Leuchter relied had effectively no validity.

"What is more significant is that Leuchter assumed, wrongly as Irving agreed, that a greater concentration of cyanide would have been required to kill humans than was required to fumigate clothing. In fact the concentration required to kill humans is 22 times less than is required for fumigation purposes. As indicated in paragraph 7.105 above, and as Irving was constrained to accept, Leuchter's false assumption vitiated his conclusion. Irving conceded the existence of many other factual errors in the Leuchter report.

"13.80 In the light of the evidence of van Pelt and Irving's answers in cross-examination, I do not consider that an objective historian would have regarded the Leuchter report as a sufficient reason for dismissing, or even doubting, the convergence of evidence on which the Defendants rely for the presence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. I have not overlooked the fact that Irving claimed that Leuchter's findings have been replicated, notably in a report by Germar Rudolf. But that report was not produced at the trial so it is impossible for me to assess its evidential value." --Judgment of Justice Gray.

For Germar Rudolf's critique of van Pelt and Roth's testimony, see http://www.vho.org/GB/Contributions/RudolfOnVanPelt.html

(End quote from Rudolf and Gray)

There is no question that Irving crafted a highly individualistic, even eccentric attack on the libeler and her publisher (Penguin Books) and that his strategy contained flaws and shortcomings.

But his single-handed performance in court was consistently magnificent and the gallery was frequently bowled over by his near total recall of the most minute details and recondite facts of the military history of the Second World War.

Under relentless assault for two months, including material researched by a Cambridge University professor who was paid to pore over every line Irving ever wrote, Irving was seldom short of a credible retort or a telling bon mot and maintained his composure and credibility thoughout intensive cross-examination by the lead barrister for the defendant, Richard Rampton.

Harvard's Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, whose bestselling book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" was denounced as a "crazy thesis" and demolished by Prof. Norman Finkelstein, would have been reduced to shards in court had he faced the kind of legal firepower Irving stared down (Jewish historian Raul Hilberg was destroyed on the witness stand by defense attorney Doug Christie during the 1985 thought-crime trial of Ernst Zundel).

Irving may have impoverished himself for life and may not have dotted every "i" nor crossed every "t" in the course of his trial, but thanks to his prodigious memory, work ethic, command of the primary source materials and personal courage, he astonished courtroom observers and reporters alike by putting before the judge a giant portion of contrarian historical research of the first order; research which the establishment has decreed can't exist.

Moreover, his audience was not limited to the Royal Court of Justice in London's Strand, or even to those dependent on the spoon-fed pabulum of the New York Times and CNN. Though there have been others online, the Irving-Lipstadt trial is the first virtual trial of this proportion and significance thanks to Irving's highly professional website, where the entire transcript was posted weekly and read, without editorial omission or falsification, independent of the system's journalistic filters.

There has been very little interest in this remarkable transcript on the part of Irving's detractors. Mystification abhors details and the gas chamber legend is mystification par excellence. "Holocaust" movie director Ra'anan Alexandrowicz has written, "My generation doesn't know what to do with the historical details concerning the gas chambers. These facts estrange us from the subject of the Holocaust. Therefore, it's useless to chase these answers." (Jewish Chronicle, Feb. 25, 2000).

Even though the high priests of Holocaustianity won the legal case, they are very well aware that damage was done to their historical case due to the existence of an independent Internet source of trial news and daily transcripts.

Jewish Agency Chairman Salai Meridor stated that "it's regrettable and sad that a court had to be involved in matter of this kind." He expressed hope that "this will be the last time statements of this kind denying the Holocaust will be articulated in normal society around the world."

Israeli Knesset member Abraham Hirchson (Likud) added his hope that "the verdict will put an emphatic end to abominable attempts to deny the Holocaust." Yad Vashem announced that "the primary meaning of the verdict is not that the Holocaust occurred; the huge amount of documents and evidence held at Yad Vashem, and archives and libraries around the world prove this, undoubtedly. The verdict's meaning is to be found in the sharpening of borders between what counts as logical, and illogical, discussion about the Holocaust. The ruling has sent a message to the entire world, most significantly to young people, that the arguments used by Irving and others to deny and diminish the events of the Holocaust are not within the realm of acceptable or reasonable discourse." (Ha'aretz, April 12, 2000)

The arbiters of official conformity to what they in their fantastic hubris demarcate as "reasonable discourse" and "logical" history rely on government decrees, judicial proclamations and when those fail, imprisonment (the list of incarcerated "deniers" is too lengthy to mention here), beatings (revisionist Prof. Robert Faurisson was badly beaten in 1989), terror (the revisionist Institute for Historical Review's $400,000 archive of books was burned to the ground in 1984) and even assassination (revisionist scholar Francois Duprat was murdered in France).

The power of money and the power of the state (and not just the Zionist state, but the governments of Europe, North America and Australia) have all made "denying" what Jewish power-brokers hold sacred either an outright crime, or a career and reputation-destroying outrage against decency.

But anyone with half a brain can see that this emperor has no clothes, that history by decree is no history at all. In the course of the trial, historian John Charmley, taken with Irving's performance, contacted him and offered him public support, at risk to his own career. Charmley is the historian who reversed one of the most of-repeated cliches of the 20th century, that of Neville Chamberlain's infamous "Munich appeasement" of Hitler (cf. "Chamberlain and the Lost Peace").

There are tens of thousands like Charmley, in key positions, who have been energized by the quintessentially Western role that Irving has recreated, that of the lone hero, of George before the dragon, of Christ before the mob, of David before Golipstadt.

From England's "Observer" newspaper, April 16, 2000:

Professor D.C. Watt, in the April 11 "London Evening Standard," asserted that historians were uneasy about the trial, that Penguin had been 'out for blood' and that 'the truth needs an Irving's challenges to keep it alive'...Sir John Keegan, another historian of war, wrote after the judgment that Irving 'has many of the qualities of the most creative historians ... if he will only learn from this case, [he] still has much to tell us'. Keegan dismissed Lipstadt, whose remarks about Irving were the pretext for the trial, as 'dull as only the self-righteously politically correct can be'.

Both men are scrupulous scholars; neither could possibly be suspected of fascist sympathies. Yet both see Irving as still somehow 'one of us' - wrong but romantic... On the day after the verdict, the headlines unanimously pronounced Irving dead and buried. Unquiet grave! People like that always bounce back. And Irving's reputation has always been a double one: as a writer of history, but also a hunter of unknown, sensational documents...

Irving lost his case April 11. Does that mean Lipstadt and her supporters won on the same scale? As a lawyer explained to me, it's not that simple. She won a battle, but not necessarily the war. She is the author of "Denying The Holocaust" - the book in which she accused Irving of being a racist, a right-wing extremist, an anti-Semite, a twister of evidence and a Holocaust-denier - and the judge endorsed almost every allegation she made. And yet, in the wider sense, her victory may not have done much to help her cause.

Lipstadt sat in court for three months and said nothing. This annoyed Irving, who plainly longed to have her at his mercy in the witness-box, and it did not endear her to the public. It may be that she was simply afraid of what Irving could do to her. More probably, she was sticking to her own precept: never debate with deniers. Never act as if there were two sides to this question. There is only one. The Holocaust did happen. End, Schluss , no argument.

This has proved an unpopular view. The "Jewish Chronicle" took the Lipstadt line: 'Merely to suggest the fact of the Holocaust... is somehow open to debate is obscene'. So did David Cesarani, Professor of Modern Jewish History at Southampton. He reproached the media for continuing to talk to Irving and ask him for his opinions.

Most British commentators found this repugnant. They had no doubt the Holocaust happened. But in the old liberal way, they felt like fighting for a man's right to express views they found loathsome.

They were also worried that the judgment could deter 'genuine' historical argument about the details of the Holocaust. The total of the victims, some of the methods and the genesis of the plan itself are all uncertain...

How about Lipstadt's even more passionate belief that the Jewish Holocaust was unique - that to set it in the context of other great atrocities is blasphemous? Again, Irving's defeat did nothing to support her. But the reporting of the trial seemed to some to imply an exclusiveness about Jewish victimhood. This disturbed both historians (such as Mark Mazower, author of Dark Continent: Europe in the Twentieth Century) and minorities who have themselves been subjected to genocide, like the Armenians. As Mazower said last week, more data have come to light in recent years which multiply the scale of great atrocities in the past. These include the death toll in King Leopold's Congo Free State, which may have reached 10 million, and the famine deaths caused by Mao's Great Leap Forward in China, now thought to number more than 20 million. " (End quote from The Observer)

David Irving, previously a chronicler of history, has now made history and history of an electrifying kind. Great libel trials are dramas that stick in the memory for generations and posterity often takes a very different view than contemporary received opinion. The trial of Oscar Wilde is but one example of a protaganist whose cri de coeur, "De Profundis" (from out of the depths) resonates down the corridors of time in his vindication.

Revisionists were hoping for a world-shaking miracle in the Irving-Lipstadt face-off, instead they got another revisionist weed pushing itself up through hairline cracks in the Jewish concrete that covers our planet.

In so gigantic an imposture, so merciless and all-encompassing an inquisition, it is ever thus. It may take decades, even centuries before the world acknowledges that an immense tyranny interdicted the progression of free inquiry and independent research in our time, with the victims being the German people (but not their leaders) and the Palestinians who have been holocausted with impunity under the cruel irony of the rubric of Never Again.

The battle is for the long haul and only those with a goodly portion of backbone and elbow grease will finish the course. We revisionists of this time may yet end our days in collective shame and penury or even in a dungeon.

We should not think ourselves better than Michael Servetus, the mathematician burned by Calvinists in Geneva because he doubted the Holy Trinity; or the poet Edmund Campion, hanged by command of the Queen at Tyburn, not far from the Strand courtroom, because he doubted the Reformation tenet of the Divine Right of Kings.

Calvinism and Anglican Divine Right have long since tottered into the dust of time where Jewish orthodoxy will one day also find fitting repository. How grand a fate to stand against that orthodoxy now, when it is still the reigning king of the world, enjoying the obeisance of presidents and prime ministers, moguls and merchants, pundits and peasants.

What an honor to be among the few who refuse to dance attendance on propaganda, who live for conscience' sake, come rack, come rope.

To David Irving may be applied the phrase which Horace wrote about Daedalus seeking to fly to the heights of heaven on the wings of Icarus: "Si non tenuit, tamen magnis excidit ausis." (Even though he succeeded not, he failed in daring and noble attempts).

Such daring will not be forever circumscribed by the verdict of a minor functionary in the British bureaucracy. The verdict of history will be another matter altogether.

--Michael A. Hoffman II

Hoffman is a former reporter for the New York bureau of the Associated Press and the author of "The Great Holocaust Trial: The Landmark Battle for Freedom of Speech" (Wiswell Ruffin House, 1995).


Return to Libel Trial Main Directory


libel trial / world war two revisionism / archives / bookstore / news bureau
Copyright ©2000 by Michael A. Hoffman II