Irving v. Lipstadt

Defense Documents

David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, by Richard J. Evans

Table of Contents

(a) The Institute for Historical Review

1. Irving's connections and relationships with well-known Holocaust deniers are numerous and often close. They indicate that he is part of a loosely-organized international network of Holocaust deniers, whose central institution is the so-called Institute for Historical Review. Many of Irving's contacts with Holocaust deniers are also part of his widespread connections in the world of extreme right-wing politics; these are detailed in the expert reports submitted by Professor Eatwell and Professor Funke. Here is it proposed to deal only with a limited number of contacts, sufficient to establish the fact that Irving does indeed have extensive contacts with Holocaust deniers, far more so, indeed, than with professional historians, whether or not the latter are based in universities. It is also clear that he make a great deal more use of the work of Holocaust deniers, whether acknowledged or not, in his own writings, than he does of the use of competent professional historians, which, as this Report has already shown, he openly admits he does not read. Irving, in short, is part of the world of Holocaust denial; he is not part of the world of competent, serious professional history.
2. The so-called Institute for Historical Review, based in California, is the subject of Chapter 8 of Lipstadt's book Denying the Holocaust. It holds regular conferences and issues a journal which is available for perusal in libraries. An examination of the journal and of reports of its conferences indicates that the Institute is dedicated to putting the case for Nazi Germany and against what it regards as the 'myth' of the Nazis' extermination of millions of Jews in the Second World War. At its first convention, held in Los Angeles in 1979, the Institute passed a resolution declaring inter alia that 'the facts surrounding the allegations that gas chambers existed in occupied Europe during World War II are demonstrably false', and stating its belief that 'the whole theory of "the holocaust" has been created by and promulgated by political   Zionism for the attainment of political and economic ends, specifically the continued and perpetual support of the military aggression of Israel by the people of Germany and the US'. The resolution urged the US Congress to investigate, among other things, 'deceitful wartime propaganda masquerading as fact...and the truth of the alleged extermination of 6 million Jews in Europe during World War II.'1
3. The Institute for Historical Review purports to be a respectable academic body. In 1980, the Institute began publishing a quarterly magazine, the Journal of Historical Review, which cast itself in the form of a respectable academic journal. The Editorial Advisory Committee of the Journal includes all the most prominent Holocaust deniers, most notably Arthur R. Butz, Robert Faurisson and Wilhelm Staeglich. Butz's book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, published in 1976, constituted the first attempt to present Holocaust denial in a pseudo-academic form: its eight chapters are adorned with 450 footnotes, 5 appendices and 32 plates and diagrams and it looks at first glance like an academic treatise. The book argues, inter alia, that the Allied bombing of Dresden produced more corpses than have ever been found from the camps, that Zyklon-B gas was used just as an insecticide, that Auschwitz was just an industrial plant, that deaths there were mainly due to typhus, and that there were no gassings there. In Butz's view, when the Nazis talked or wrote about Judentum they meant the destruction of Jewish power, not of Jewish human beings, and when they used the word Vernichtung or Ausrottung in this context they did not mean actual killing. He alleged that the failure of the Yad Vashem memorial to the Holocaust, in Jerusalem, to collect six million names of those who had died, proved that the number of dead was far fewer than six million. The Nuremberg trials were a 'frame-up' in Butz's view, and the 'myth' of the Holocaust was propagated after the war by the Jews for their own advantage. In order to find out the truth,   Butz concludes, 'all one needs to do is consult the relevant German documents. What the German leaders were saying to each other about their policy is obviously the first authority that one should consult.'2 A number of these arguments and methods were taken up later by Irving and presented as if they were his own discoveries.3
4. Robert Faurisson, another leading figure at the Institute and member of the editorial board of The Journal of Historical Review, is a former teacher of French literature who has argued over many years that Anne Frank's diary is a forgery, and that 'the alleged massacres in the "gas chambers" and the alleged "genocide" are part of the same lie' which 'is essentially Zionist in origin' and 'has allowed a huge political and financial swindle of which the state of Israel is the principal beneficiary'. Faurisson has concentrated in particular on attempting to prove that the gas chambers at Auschwitz and in other camps never existed and never came into operation. Faurisson testified to this effect as an expert witness in the first Canadian trial of Ernst Zündel. By this time, however, Faurisson himself had been tried in his native France for slander, violation of Article 382 of the Civil Code by wilfully distorting history, and incitement to racial hatred, which had been outlawed under a law of 1972, and been found guilty on all three counts.4 He has since been one of the most vocal and extreme of Holocaust deniers at the conferences of the Institute for Historical Review, and a frequent contributor to   its journal. His arguments too have been adopted by Irving and presented without acknowledgment as his own original discoveries. Irving has praised Faurisson as 'a very distinguished intellectual in my mind, a very brave man indeed.'5
5. A third key figure on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal from its early days was Wilhelm Staeglich, an academically qualified German lawyer whose book Der Auschwitz-Mythos: Legende oder Wirklichkeit (The Auschwitz Myth: Legend or Reality), published in 1979 by the far-right Grabert-Verlag in Germany, followed Butz in presenting Holocaust denial in a pseudo-academic form. The book argued that there had been no mass extermination of Jews in Nazi extermination camps, and that guilty verdicts in postwar trials of the perpetrators were wrong. Staeglich used minor discrepancies in postwar documents and reports of the extermination to dismiss all such documents as forgeries and falsifications. At the same time, he made claims which could easily be falsified on the basis of contemporary documentation, for example, that before the outbreak of the Second World War, no Jew had ever been incarcerated in a German concentration camp on racial grounds. In this instance he simply passed over the imprisonment of more than twenty thousand Jewish men in concentration camps after the pogrom of 9-10 November, 1938, just as he ignored many other key documents relating to Nazi antisemitism. All the so-called evidence for the Holocaust, he maintained, had been fabricated after the war. As a result of this book Staeglich was dismissed from state employment and his doctoral title was withdrawn by his university, events about which he showed considerable bitterness when he subsequently came to address the Institute of Historical Review.6 Although he had previously criticised Staeglich for not   doing enough research,7 Irving still appeared on the same platform as him at a meeting in Munich on 23 March 1991.8
6. With men such as Faurisson, Butz and Staeglich on the editorial board, it is hardly surprising that leading writers for The Journal of Historical Review have included other prominent Holocaust deniers such as Austin J. App, author of The Six Million Swindle: Blackmailing the German People for Hard Marks with Fabricated Corpses (Tacoma Park, Maryland, 1973) and a contributor to the first issue of The Journal of Historical Review with an article estimating the total number of Jewish casualties of the 'Third Reich' at around 300,000, and declaring the 'six million' to be 'an impudent lie'. Born in 1902, App was for a time President of the Federation of American Citizens of German Descent, and in 1942 he campaigned in the USA in support of Nazi war aims. In the early years after the war, he defended the Nazi mass murder of the Jews and similar atrocities as legitimate acts of war, minimized the numbers of victims, and denied the existence of gas chambers. In his book, he argued, in terms familiar from other Holocaust deniers, that the 'fraudulent six million casualty' figure for Jewish deaths at the hands of the Nazis was used 'vindictively as an external club for pressuring indemnities out of West Germany and for wringing financial contributions out of American Jews'. He alleged that at least 500,000 of the Jews supposedly gassed in the camps had gone to Israel. The perpetuation of the 'swindle' was due to Jewish domination of the media. The Americans   and the British and above all the Soviet Union colluded in the deception in order to distract attention from their own war crimes.9
7. Other articles in the Journal of Historical Review have revealed their Holocaust denial content in titles such as 'The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth Within a Myth',10 'The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews',11 'How Many Jews Died in the German Concentration Camps?' (the author's answer was between 300,000 and 600,000), and so on.12 Bolstered by contributions from Holocaust deniers such as App, Butz and Faurisson, the overall thrust of the journal's efforts is to present a wide variety of arguments in support of the thesis that, to quote one article among many, 'the Holocaust story is absurd'.13 Thus for example it has devoted a special issue to an attempt to vindicate the Leuchter Report,14 carried an article with the title 'Neither Trace Nor Proof: The Seven Auschwitz "Gassing" Sites',15 and devoted several issues and numerous articles to attempting to demonstrate that nobody was ever   gassed at Auschwitz.16 Another article in the Journal underlined Holocaust deniers' tendency to inflate the influence of Jews in the postwar world by claiming that 'Judaism, through the "Holocaust" cult, has become the informal state religion of the West'.17 The centrality of Holocaust denial to the Institute for Historical Review and its journal cannot be doubted.
8. Irving says in his reply to Lipstadt's defence that the Institute is a respectable and non-extremist institution whose Board members hold established academic qualifications; they are not antisemites or racists or ultra-right-wing. However, such academic qualifications as they have are not in history but in other fields. Butz is an engineer; Faurisson a specialist in French literature, Staeglich qualified as a lawyer, and so on. None of them is an established professional historian, academic or otherwise. The same is true of the Journal of Historical Review. The contributions to the journal are often, though not always, academic in format, with footnotes and references; but there is no other example of a learned journal which claims to print academic articles in a specialized field which include on its editorial board barely a single academically accredited specialist in the field with which it concerns itself.
9. Moreover, the Journal and its parent institute have a political rather than an academic background. They were founded and owned by the Noontide Press, whose proprietor, the Legion for the Survival of Freedom Inc., was owned by Willis Allison Carto, a leading proponent of Holocaust denial. He is a former organizer of the John Birch Society, an American neo-fascist political group dedicated to the revival of Nazism and the promotion of white supremacy. Carto's main publication was, and is, the extreme right-wing journal   Spotlight, described by Irving in 1982 as an 'excellent' publication. Irving was already familiar with Carto and his 'efficient and dedicated staff' by the early 1980s and was well aware of what he publicly referred to as 'the ties that exist between the Liberty Lobby and the Institute of Historical Review'. 18
10. The booking for the Institute's opening convention in September 1979 was made by Noontide Press, under the name of Lewis Brandon, a pseudonym for David McCalden, formerly a leading light of the National Party, an extreme racist breakaway from the extreme right-wing political organization the British National Front, founded in 1975.19 McCalden, who also wrote under the name David Berg, was director of the Institute for Historical Review from 1978 until 1981 and a self-confessed 'racialist'.20 The antisemitic and neo-fascist politics of the leading Holocaust denier and Journal Board member Arthur Butz are also well known and have been thoroughly documented.21
11. The Journal regularly purveys the politics of right-wing extremism and carries articles attacking 'multiculturalism', criticising the launching of the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein, arguing that Soviet Communism was a Jewish creation and that Jews were   responsible for its murderous career, and praising the Iranian Revolution which overthrew the Shah in 1978. A lengthy article by the long-lived wartime Belgian fascist leader Léon Degrelle who lost none of his Nazi convictions in the postwar decades, praised Hitler as a radical social reformer who achieved dictatorial power by non-violent means.22 Its hostility to Israel is strongly echoed in Irving's speeches, as this Report has already documented.
12. In 1992-93 the Journal and the Institute came under pressure from Willis Carto, its principal financial backer, to abandon its scholarly pretensions and become a more openly political forum for the propagation of racism. In January 1993 the Journal dropped its academic format and since then has been published as a bi-monthly illustrated glossy magazine. Its contents and its basic thrust, however, have not changed.23 Tom Marcellus, Mark Weber and other members of the staff quarrelled with Carto over this issue, and in September 1993 they broke off all contact with him. In February 1994 they secured and circulated endorsements of their line from six leading Holocaust deniers: Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel, Bradley R. Smith, James J. Martin, Arthur J. Butz, and David Irving. Irving's endorsement praised the Journal as 'sincere, balanced, objective, and devoid of polemics' and its editors and staff as 'staunch and unflinching soldiers in what our brave comrade Robert Faurisson has called "this great adventure", meaning of course the 'adventure' of Holocaust denial.24
 
13. Carto not only fired back in his magazine Spotlight the accusation that the Institute had been taken over by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League - a charge to which, not surprisingly, some of those who supported the existing line of the Institute and its journal strongly objected - but evidently also withdrew his financial backing, for in 1995 the Institute and the Journal were forced to admit that they were in financial difficulties because of what the Journal editors Mark Weber and Greg Raven called 'the massive theft of IHR money by former associates'.25 However, the journal did not go under. It has continued since then to publish articles mainly devoted to advocating Holocaust denial.
14. Like many individual Holocaust deniers, the Institute as a body denies that it is involved in Holocaust denial, calling this a 'smear' which is 'completely at variance with the facts' because 'revisionst scholars' such as Faurisson, Butz 'and bestselling British historian David Irving acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed and otherwise perished during the Second World War as direct and indirect result of the harsh anti-Jewish policies of Germany and its allies'. But as we have seen, the concession that a relatively small number of Jews were killed is routinely used by Holocaust deniers to distract attention from the far more important fact of their refusal to admit that the figure ran into millions, and that a large proportion of these victims were systematically murdered by gassing as well as by shooting.
15. Irving has denied that he is affiliated to the Institute in any formal capacity, and this is strictly speaking true. He is a member neither of its Board nor of the Editorial Advisory Board of its Journal. However, as we have already seen, his informal connections with the Institute and   the Journal are extremely close and have been maintained over a considerable period of time. Irving's website, for example, advertises the 1991 edition of his book Hitler's War as being obtainable through the Institute. He has been a frequent visitor to the annual conferences organized by the Institute for Historical Review, which are devoted to lectures purveying various aspects of Holocaust denial. To date he has spoken to audiences at the Institute five times; his speeches, like other contributions to the Institute's conferences, are printed in The Journal of Historical Review. He spoke at the ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelth conferences in succession. It was hardly surprising that in 1993 the editor of the Journal described him as 'a good friend of the Institute'.26 There were articles about Irving in the fourth and sixth issues of Volume 13 of the Journal. Irving printed an advance copy of his introduction to the 1991 edition of Hitler's War in the Journal, alongside a reassessment of Rommel and a scurrilous attack on Sir Winston Churchill ('almost a pervert - a man who liked to expose himself to people'). The first issue of Volume 13 included one article by Irving and two others about him. The next issue had another article by Irving, and he also printed two more articles in the first issue of Volume 15. Before he established his website on the Internet, it would not be going too far to describe the Journal as the principal forum in which Irving disseminated any historical work of his that was shorter than book-length but longer than a newspaper letter or article. This was certainly the case at the time when Lipstadt completed her book in 1993.27
16. Irving has gladly continued to lend his support to the efforts of The Journal of Historical Review to win more subscribers. A leaflet advertising the journal carries a photograph of Irving and quotes him as follows: 'The Journal of Historical Review has an astounding record   of fearlessly shattering the icons of those vested interests who hate and fear truth. That is why I strongly endorse it...and suggest that every intelligent man and woman in America, Britain, and the dominions subscribe.'28 In the January-February issue of Volume 13 of the Journal, a full-page spread is headed: 'David Irving: Institute for Historical Review: Your Source for David Irving's Masterworks'. After listing and describing five of his books and picturing the cover of each, the advertisement enjoins readers to 'Order these fine books from Institute for Historical Review', and gives the address.29 Irving has close relations with leading figures at the Institute and includes correspondence with them in his Discovery.30
17. In his reply to the defence, Irving maintains that lecturing at the conferences of the Institute for Historical Review does not associate him with Holocaust denial. He points out that other lecturers have included not just Holocaust deniers but writers not concerned with this field at all, such as the Canadian journalist James Bacque, whom Irving described in 1991 as 'a very good friend of mine'.31 This is true only if taken literally. James Bacque gained a brief notoriety in the late 1980s and early 1990s not for Holocaust denial, in which he had never been directl involved, but for his book, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners of War at the Hands of the French and Americans After World War II, published in 1979. This publication alleged that the Americans under General Eisenhower deliberately starved to death over a million German prisoners at the end of the Second World War - a thesis which made its author an obvious person to invite to a conference of Holocaust deniers, given their need to establish that Allied war crimes were as bad as, or worse than,   German war crimes. In fact, the book, which gained some credence on its publication through the appearance of careful archival research, has since been exposed as a tissue of errors and falsehoods and has as little historical credibility as Holocaust denial itself.32
18. A more recent book by James Bacque has claimed that the American occupation authorities deliberately starved to death as many as nine million German civilians after the end of the Second World War. Bacque's work has been described as
part of the trend toward a "paranoid style" in writing recent history. This style is characterized by five elements: the image of a huge conspiracy, a self-bestowed duty to save civilization from apocalypse, a manichean worldview of absolute good versus absolute evil, the conviction that traitors make history, and the amassing of evidence to prove a preconceived thesis.
33
19. Bacque's work has been shown to rest on the manipulation of statistics, in which the population of Germany in 1946 is inflated through double-counting and projected to reach 74 million by 1950, when a census showed an actual figure some 6 million short of this (imaginary) number; Bacque's conclusion that these 'missing' six million were murdered by the Americans is pure fantasy. His work, in other words, bears a striking resemblance to the pseudo-history of the Holocaust deniers, which is no doubt why he has been welcome at their meetings.34 Both Bacque and Irving spoke at a meeting organized by the right-wing Canadian group 'Alternative Forum' in the early 1990s, and Bacque acknowledged Irving's useful   advice in his work.35 Examined carefully, all the other speakers at the Institute's conferences turn out, like Bacque, to be putting forward arguments which, if not directly denying the Nazi extermination of the Jews, are of obvious usefulness to the broader purposes of those who do, for example through the relativization of the mass murder committed by the Nazis by claiming that the Western Allies were engaged in the same kind of thing, or worse.
20. Irving also points out that he has had disputes with well-known 'Revisionists' like Robert Faurisson, and so by implication is not one of them. It is certainly the case that Irving has had his disagreements with Faurisson in particular. In 1983, for instance, he devoted the final part of a rambling speech delivered to the Institute's annual conference to 'the so-called Holocaust'. He told the assembled 'revisionists':
I am sure you realize that I take a slightly different line from several people here. I would specify as follows: I would say I am satisfied in my own mind that in various locations Nazi criminals, acting probably without direct orders from above, did carry out liquidations of groups of people including Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally incurable people and the rest. I am quite plain about that in my own mind. I can't prove it, I haven't gone into that. I haven't investigated that particular aspect of history but from the documents I have seen, I've got the kind of gut feeling which suggests to me that that is probably accurate.
36
21. Responding to Irving later, Robert Faurisson issued a 'challenge' on this point. What use, he asked, was a 'gut feeling' in the absence, as he maintained, of evidence for 'the alleged physical extermination of the Jews', a subject which Irving himself admitted he had not   researched?37 He had a point. Given Irving's insistence on the need to provide documentary evidence for everything, his affirmation of 'liquidations' which most of his audience undoubtedly denied, was far from convincing.
22. But the disagreement proves nothing. This was Irving's first speech to the Institute, and it was delivered at a time - 1983 - when, this Report has demonstrated, he had yet to become a fully-fledged Holocaust denier; that only happened five years later, at the end of the 1980s. In 1983, Irving's speeches and writings showed a general if sometimes vague or qualified acceptance of all the central elements of the conventional definition of the Holocaust apart from the systematic nature of the mass murder. Thus his 1983 speech to the Institute for Historical Review is remarkable mainly for the manner in which it pandered to his audience by qualifying this acceptance with references to his lack of expert knowledge of the subject. The previous year, indeed, he had told the Institute's principal financial backer Willis Carto that the Holocaust was an issue 'of purely academic interest to historians, and of no relevance whatever to modern European, let alone British, problems'. It was, he had said, 'a red herring' with which the right had been 'tricked into poisoning their own operations'.38 He did not explicitly reject Holocaust denial, but he clearly did think it was politically inexpedient at this time, and he still gave at least some credence in the books he wrote at this time, such as the 1977 edition of Hitler's War, to some aspects of the Holocaust as conventionally understood.
23. By the early 1990s, Irving's and Faurisson's positions had converged, they were agreeing on the essentials, and they were only disputing minor points of disagreement within the   Holocaust denial theses.39 Indeed, one authority on Holocaust denial, in the context of discussing Irving's connections with the Institute and the deniers, even went so far in the early 1990s as to claim that 'Irving... has placed himself at the head of the "Revisionists"'.40 In 1995 Irving referred to himself as part of this wider movement, 'people like myself and the brave band of scientists, and writers, and journalists, and historians who have gradually fallen in. I won't say they've fallen in behind me because I'm not going to try and place myself at the head of this revisionist movement. They've fallen in shoulder-to-shoulder with us and are marching at our side in this extraordinarily interesting adventure'.41 By the middle of the 1990s Irving was talking to members of the Institute for Historical Review in terms of 'we revisionists'.42 In all of their work, those associated with the Institute have sought to avoid being labelled Holocaust deniers by describing themselves as 'revisionists', and Irving's appropriation of this label to himself, and his association of his work with theirs, clearly indicated that he regarded himself as one of their number. The close connection between Irving and the Institute can no more be reasonably denied than can the fact that the principal business of the Institute and its journal is, as it has been from the day of its foundation, the denial of the Holocaust as it is conventionally understood.

Notes

1. Printed in Spotlight, magazine of the Liberty Lobby, Washington DC, an antisemitic organization with far-right connections.
2. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (Brighton, 1977 edn.), pp. 30, 36-7, 49, 58-9, 69-73, 100-105, 131, 173, 198, 203-5, 246-50.
3. See for example the discussion of Ausrottung and Judentum in the Reply to the Defence of the Second Defendant, and further quotes from Irving above, passim.
4. Robert Faurisson, Mémoire en Déefense, contre ceux qui m 'accusent de falsifier l'histoire: La question des chambres a gaz (Paris, 1980); Le Matin, 16 November 1978, interview with Faurisson; report of the trial in Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 15, No. 4 (October, 1981), pp. 5155. Faurisson was influenced by Rassinier: see Paul Rassinier, Debunking the Genocide Myth (Torrance, California, Institute for Historical Review, 1978).
5. Videotape 190: Irving at the Bayerischer Hof, Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991.
6. Wilhelm Staeglich, Der Auschwitz-Mythos. Legende oder Wirklichkeit (Tubingen, 1979); Pfahl-Traughber, 'Die Apologeten', pp.86-87; Hermann Graml, 'Alte und neueApologeten Hitlers', in Wolfgang Benz (ed.), Rechtsextremismus in Deutschland. Voraussetzungen, Zusammenhänge, Wirkungen (Frankfurt am Main 1994), pp. 51-57.
7. Audiocassette 99: Irving in Toronto, August 1988: 'I think it's very important to do all the research first. Far more than the established historians have done, so that you're impregnable. And Stäglich hasn't.'
8. Videotape 201: Samizdat zeigt "Der Leuchter-Kongress", Part 2, Munich, 23 March 1991.
9. Austin J. App, A Straight Look at the Third Reich': Hitler and National Socialism, How Right? How Wrong? (Takoma Park, Maryland, 1974), pp. 5,18-20, and idem, The Six Million Swindle: Blackmailing the German People for Hard Marks with Fabricated Corpses (Takoma Park, Maryland, 1973), pp.2, 29. See also Pfahl-Traughber, 'Die Apologeten der "AuschwitzLöge" pp. 82-3.
10. Friedrich Paul Berg, 'The Diesel Gas Chambers: Myth Within A Myth', The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 15-46.
11. Carlo Mattogno, 'The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews', The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 8 (1988), pp. 133-72 and 261-302.
12. Carl 0. Nordling, 'How Many Jews Died in the German Concentration Camps?', The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1991) pp. 335-44.
13. Friedrich Paul Berg, 'Typhus and the Jews', The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 8 (1988), pp. 433-81, here p. 462.
14. Enrique Aynat, 'Neither Trace Nor Proof: The Seven Auschwitz "Gassing" Sites', The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1991), pp. 177-206.
15. The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 4 (1992-93).
16. E.g. Vol. 11, Nos 1 and 2 (1991), Vol. 10, No. 3 (1990), etc..
17. Michael A. Hoffmann II, 'The Psychology and Epistemology of "Holocaust" Newspeak', The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 6, No. 4 (1985-86) PP. 267-78, here p. 478.
18. lrving, 'A Radical's Diary' Focal Point, 8 March 1982, p. 13.
19. N. Fielding, The National Front (London, 1980), for the general backgrounlrving's note in a version of his diary entry pubished in Focal Point in 1982, that the Institute of Historical Review was run at that time by a man calling himself Lewis Brandon' strongly suggests he was aware of Brandon's true identity and background (Irving, 'A Radical's Diary', p. 13).
20. Statement of Record and Letter of Apology to Mel Mermelstein, signed by G. G. Baumen, Attorney for the Legion for the Survival of Freedom, the Institute for Historical Review, the Noontide Press, and Elisabeth Carto, and Mark F. von Esch, Attorney for the Liberty Lobby and Willis Carto, 24 July 1985.
21. Peter I. Haupt, ' Universe of Lies: Holocaust Revisionism and the Myth of a Jewish World-Conspiracy', Patterns of Prejudice,Vol. 25, No. 1 (1991), pp. 75-85; Jacques Kornberg, 'The Paranoid Style: Analysis of a Holocaust-denial Text', ibid.,Vol. 29, Nos. 2-3 (1995), pp. 33-44.
22. SamuelTaylor, 'The Challenge of "Multiculturalism"', The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1992), pp. 159-66; A. R. Wesserle, 'The New World Disorder', ibid.,Vol. 11, No. 4 (1991-92), pp. 389-430; William Grimstad, 'Autopsying the Communist Cadaver', ibid, Vol. 10, No. 1 (1990),pp. 49-58; Ivor Benson,'Iran: Some Angles on the Islamic Revolution', ibid., Vol. 9, No. 2 (1989), pp. 141-76; Léon Degrelle, 'How Hitler Consolidated Power in Germany and Launched a Social Revolution', ibid.,Vol. 12, No. 3 (1992), pp. 299370.
23. 'Record and Mission of the Institute for Historical Review', ibid.,Vol. 15, No. 5 (1995), pp. 18-21, here p. 19.
24. lnstitute for Historical Review: Endorsements, February 1994 (website publication, on http://www.ihr.org/top/endorsements.html). Bradley R. Smith and Mark Weber formed the so-called Committee on Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) in 1987 and placed advertisements in various outlets in the early 1990s claiming the gas chambers were a fraud, the inmates of concentration camps died of malnutrition because of the disruption caused by Allied bombing raids, the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz was much smaller than most historians maintained, and so on. See Bradley R. Smith, 'The Holocaust Story: How Much is False? The Case for Open Debate, Daily Northwestern, 4 April 1991, cited along with other campus papers carrying the article, in Lipstadt, Chapter 10.
25. Letter to subscribers enclosed with August 1995 issue of the Journal.
26. Mark Weber, 'From the Editor', The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 13, No. 1(1993), p.3.
27. Ibid, Vol. 10, No. 4 (1990-1991), pp. 389-416, 417-38 (by Irving); Vol. 9, No. 3 (1989), pp. 261-86 (also by Irving, on Churchill), Vol. 13, No. 1 (1993), pp. 4-19 (three articles, one by, two about Irving); Vol. 13, No. 2 (1993), pp. 14-25 (by Irving), and Vol. 15, No. 1 (1995), pp. 2-23 (two articles by Irving).
28. The title of the leaflet is: Who Reads tho Journal of Historical Review? Copy in the Wiener Library, London.
29. The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, P. 1.
30. lrving Discovery, Irving to Weber, 4 June 1992, doc. 1486., for an example.
31. Audiocassette 158, 'David Irving speaks to NPD audience in Munich, 12 May 1991'.
32. James Bacque, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners of War at the Hands of the French and Americans After World War II (London, 1990), and Günter Bischof and Stephen E. Ambrose (eds.), Eisenhower and the German PoWs. Facts against Falsehood (London, 1992).
33. Günter Bischof, Dewey A. Browder and others, 'Fact or Fiction? The Historical profession and James Bacque', roundtable discussion at the German Studies Association, Salt Lake City, 9 October 1998, reported in Bulletin of the German Historical Institute Washington, 23 (Fall, 198), 19-21
34. Ibid.
35. Videotape 204: 'The Fifth Estate - Rewriting History', at 46 mins. 55 secs..
36. David Irving, 'On Contemporary History and Historiography. Remarks Delivered at the 1983 International Revisionist Conference', The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 5, Nos. 2, 3, 4 (Winter, 1984), pp. 251-88, here pp. 273-4.
37. Robert Faurisson, 'A Challenge to David Irving', The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 5, Nos. 2, 3, 4 (Winter, 1984), pp. 288-305, here p. 305.
38. lrving, 'A Radical's Diary', p. 13.
39. See 'David Irving on the Eichmann and Goebbels Papers. Speech at Los Angeles, California, October 11, 1992' (11th Conference of the Institute for Historical Review, transcript on Irving's "Focal Point" Website), question-and-answer session. Irving referred to subsequent criticism from Faurisson as 'occasional sniping' and chose to emphasise their shared 'intellectual crusade'. See Robert Faurisson. 'On David Irving', Adelaide Institute 43 (August 1996), p.1, and the letter from Irving to Faurisson, 29 January 1997, in Irving's Supplemental Discovery List; see the Expert Witness Report by Professor Robert Jan Van Pelt, pp. 604-8.
40. (Gutman), 'Die Auschwitz-Lüge', p. 125.
41. Videotape 220: David Irving in Tampa, Florida, 6 October 1995.
42. David Irving, 'Revelations from Goebbels's Diary', Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 15 (1995), No. 1, pp. 2-17, here p. 15.
Popups by overLIB