Irving v. Lipstadt


Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Judgment: Electronic Edition, by Charles Gray

Table of Contents
Conclusion on meaning >>

The Defendants' case on meaning

2.12 The Defendants are also obliged to set out the defamatory meanings which they contend are borne by the passages in question (and which they seek to justify). These meanings are set out in paragraph 6 of their Defences in the following terms:
  • (i)
    that the (Claimant) has on numerous occasions (in the manner hereinafter particularised) denied the Holocaust, the deliberate planned extermination of Europe's Jewish population by the Nazis, and denied that gas chambers were used by the Nazis as a means of carrying out that extermination;
  • (ii)
    that the (Claimant) holds extremist views, and has allied himself with others who do so, including individuals such as Dr. Robert Faurisson, and Ernst Zundel;
  • (iii)
    that the (Claimant), driven by his obsession with Hitler, distorts, manipulates and falsifies history in order to put Hitler in a more favourable light, thereby demonstrating a lack of the detachment, rationality and judgement necessary for an historian;
  • (iv)
    that there are grounds to suspect that the (Claimant) has removed certain microfiches of Goebbels' diaries contained in the Moscow archives, from the said archives without permission; and that the (Claimant) lied and/or exaggerated the position with regard to the unpublished diaries of Goebbels on microfiche contained in the Moscow archives, and used by him in the Goebbels book;
  • (v)
    that in all the premises, the (Claimant) is discredited as an historian and user of source material, and that there was an increased risk that   the (Claimant) would for his own purposes, distort, and manipulate the contents of the said microfiches in pursuance of his said obsession.