Ирвинг против Липштадт


Holocaust Denial on Trial, Statement of Mark David Bateman: Electronic Edition, by Mark David Bateman

Table of Contents

1st annex to First Defendant's submissions dated 15th May 2001 (para 7)

Outline chronology of Irving's contact with Germar Rudolf
(see paragraph 7 of the First Defendant's outline submissions dated 15th May 2001)
    • 1991 First meeting, according to Germar Rudolf. According to Rudolf, he first met David Irving ("Irving") at a lecture in Germany and Rudolf gave an early version of his report to Irving. [See Libson witness statement paragraph 70, quoting from Rudolf s "The Hunt of Germar Rudolf"]
    • Early 1992
      Germar Rudolf's Report first published, the "Rudolf Gutachten". [see MDB 1 tab 1 page 4]
    • 5 May 1992
      Irving's appeal hearing in Munich
      On 21 April 1990, Irving had spoken at the 1st revisionist conference in Munich, referred to Leuchter, and claimed that there 'were never any gas chambers at Auschwitz'. On 17 July 1991, he was convicted, in his absence, of defamation and reviling the dead for what he had said on that occasion.
      At the appeal against that conviction, Irving's lawyers applied to call evidence from (amongst others) Germar Rudolf. Irving was present in court. Irving's diary entry refers to the hearing and states: 'Every single application by us for the introduction of defence evidence and witnesses including.... Dipl Chemiker Germar Rudolf, who was in court to testify..." [see MDB 1 tab 2 page 2]
    • July 1993
      'The Rudolf Report: A discussion of the Rudolf Report on the formation and demonstrability of cyanide compounds in the gas chambers at Auschwitz...' published by Cromwell Press (in English).
      Page 2 states "A German language edition of the complete Rudolf Report, 120 A4 page on gloss paper with numerous illustrations in brilliant colour is now available from Cromwell Press....'.
      [see MDB I tab 3 page 2]
    • 3-5 Sep 1994
      12th Institute for Historical Review ("IHR") Conference
      Irving spoke at the IHR conference in California (the topic was his book about Goebbels).
      A statement was read to the conference from Germar Rudolf, who had been billed as 'mystery speaker', about why he could not participate, [see MDB 1 tab 4 page 6 ]. Irving had been told on 1 September 1994 that Rudolf would be unable to attend: according to Irving's diary, during dinner with 'the gang', Ernst Zundel had said that Rudolf's home had been raided by German police two weeks earlier, that books, his computer and research had been taken and that he had been evicted by his landlords. Irving notes: 'Not surprisingly, Rudolf is unable to attend the IHR Conference after all.'
      [see MDB 1 tab 5 page 582)
    • 10 Oct 1994
      Irving's speech in Portland, Oregon
      (this meeting was promoted by the IHR)
      Irving referred to Rudolf, a 'brilliant chemist'>, being brought in 'in the defence of one of these miserable trials in Germany - one of these teachers who questioned the Holocaust. The defence team brought in Germar Rudolf in as the expert in solid state chemistry to prove that there should have been some trace cyanide compound left in the brickwork at Auschwitz, after 50 years. He did it easily as part of his doctoral dissertation, He proved without doubt the brickwork in the Auschwitz gas chambers, crematories, so-called, contained enough iron to create a compound called Prussian blue..., So permanent nothing would wash it out. No wind, no rain no tempest would wash out the trace of cyanide from the brickwork of the gas chambers if it was there in the first place.' Irving went on to talk about Rudolf's dismissal from the Max Planck Institute.
      [see MDB 1 tab 6 pages 8 and 9 The whole of Irving's speech was available at trial: D2 (iii) tab 20].
    • 6 Oct 95
      Irving speech in Tampa, Florida
      (National Alliance meeting)
      After referring to Leuchter (who 'proved' that there was never any cyanide gas or compounds in the so-called gas chambers), Irving referred to Germar Rudolf, a 'leading expert in German on solid state chemistry at the Max Planck Institute in Germany which is a scientific institution of the same calibre as the national institutes of Health in this country. Germar Rudolf carried out a 1-year examination on that very subject. He wrote a dissertation on the permanence of cyanide compounds in brickwork. And that dissertation was sent in 2,000 copies to every German Professor of Chemistry and History with the result that Germar Rudolf has just been sentenced to prison for 14 months by the German government for writing this report.'
      [see MOB 1 tab 7 page 20 The full text of Irving's speech at Tampa was in Trial File K 3 tab 20).
    • 5 Mar 1996
      Irving's "Action Report" No 9.
      Irving's Action Report is headed 'Distributed for the information of donors to the fund', with a sub-heading 'Published by Focal Point for David Irving's world-wide legal fighting fund'. This edition included the following:
      "A German Court has sentenced Germar Rudolf, former Max Planck Institute scientist who authored a dissertation on the permanence of cyanide compounds in brickwork, to fourteen months in jail, accusing him of complicity in publishing the report to two thousand other academics, The report demolished the lynch pin argument of exterminationist historians, that the total absence of cyanide compounds in the alleged former homicidal gas chambers at the Auschwitz site is explained by the effects of wind and rain....'
      [see MDB 1 tab 8 page 5].
    • 5 Sep 96
      Irving issued his writ and statement of claim in this action.
      [Trial File A, tabs 1-2]
    • Late 1996
      According to Rudolf, Irving asked him to testify in this action.
      In the 'Hunt of Germar Rudolf, Rudolf described how Irving asked him in 1996 if he would testify at the trial of this action. Rudolf agreed, but heard nothing more from Irving about it.
      [Libson's witness statement, paragraph 70]
    • 1 Dec 97
      Irving Action Report No 13
      Irving appealed for bequests for 'courageous fighters who have lost everything' including Leuchter and '2. Germar Rudolf, the brilliant young German scientist whose lab tests confirmed that there should have been such cyanide traces, even after all these years: ...'
      [see MDB 1 tab 9 page 7].
    • 6/8 Nov 98
      Irving's interview with filmmaker Errol Morris
      Irving set out his arguments on Leuchter and the other 'proofs' (see, for example, pages 9-10 and 15ff of the transcript). He then referred to other reports which had 'emulated' Leuchter's report, including the Rudolf Report, which was 'very good and technically unassailable . .." (page 20. See also page 22, where he referred to the Rudolf's dismissal and to the 'quite unequivocating' content of the report).
      [ see MDB 1 tab 10 pages 9-10 and 15.22. The whole of Irving's interview with Morris was available at trial: D 2(ii) tab 24].
    • 1 Feb 1999
      Irving responded on his web-site to a New Yorker article.
      Irving annotated the article and, at note (2) referred to Rudolf, who had 'determined that precisely the opposite was true - cyanide forms a chemical compound with iron that is so permanent that it is used as a dyestuff, Prussian blue...' and then to the prosecution and dismissal of Rudolf.
      Also, where the article reported statements by chemist Jim Roth, who had said to Morris that he did not think that the Leuchter results had any meaning, Irving responded with note (12): 'Then how to explain the saturation of the brickwork of the delousing chamber, with the cyanide-blue stains permeating right through the bricks to the outside wall (see the photographs in the Rudolf Report)? That is more than "a few microns. If Mr Roth is not to become the laughing stock of his profession, he must have been misquoted.'
      [see MDB 1 tab 11 pages 4-5]
    • July 1999
      Irving's Action Report for July 1999 (online)
      The index for the online Acton Report for July 1999 includes a photograph of Rudolf with the note 'we have briefly posted a complete illustrated copy of the Germar Rudolf Gutachten in German [zipped file 1.3MB].' The index linked to the report. That link is no longer available. Immediately below that entry in the index was a reference to this libel action and to Irving's intention to compel Sir John Keegan to give evidence on his behalf.
      [see MDB 1 tab 12 page 1]
    • 29 July 1999
      Professor Van Pelt's Expert Report in this action served on Irving.
      Irving then posted a request for expert assistance with that report on his website.
    • Sept 1999
      "Campaign for Real History" conference: Cincinnati 24-26 September.
      David Irving, as host, introduced Germar Rudolf as a speaker at that event; a photograph of him doing so is on Irving's website.
      [see MOB 1 tab 13 page 2]
    • 10 Oct 99
      Irving posts on his web-site his "Action Report" 16.
      It included Irving's "Radical's Diary" account of the Cincinnati Campaign for Real History conference, which included: "Germar Rudolf delivers a scholarly and scientific address, illustrated by slides which I have entitled Ordeal by Ire: How arriving at a politically incorrect chemical conclusion can just about ruin one's career in modern Germany. He wanted to call it "An expert update about the Leuchter Report", but it is much more than that". (His account also refers to Russ Granata delivering the Activity   Report from Carlo Mattogno, based on 20,000 documents retrieved from the Moscow archives on Auschwitz and the other camps.)
      [see MDB tab 14 page 6].
    • 31 Oct 99
      Irving's letter to the Sunday Telegraph.
      After The Sunday Telegraph published an article about Germar Rudolf, Irving wrote a letter to the newspaper for publication. Both were included on Irving's website. Irving objected to the newspaper's 'ungenerous use of the word 'neo-Nazi' to describe Rudolf (whom I know, and who has less political nous than Rupert Bear)'. It was a 'shocker' that Rudolf was forced to flee into exile after he came up with 'politically unacceptable research results about the permanence of cyanide compounds in brickwork. His thesis has been lauded by all his equally non-political contemporaries, I might add.'
      [see MDB 1 tab 15].
    • Late 1999
      Irving approached Rudolf in connection with this action.
      According to Rudolf (who does not give a precise date), Irving asked him to write an expert report in rebuttal of the Defendants' experts in this case. Rudolf provided comments to Irving "shortly before" the cross-examination of Professor van Pelt.
      [Libson witness statement paragraph 71]
    • Jan 2000
      Irving's request to Rudolf.
      According to Rudolf, Irving asked him in January 2000 to "assist him during his trial as an expert sitting at his side, to help his (sic) answer scientific and technical question, I declined. I knew that I was a hunted man in England. so the risk for me if I appeared was high. I would have risked appearing, in answer to a subpoena, as I believed (whether rightly or wrongly as a matter of law) that if I appeared in answer to a subpoena I would have had some rights at least as long as I was in the witness stand. Appearing as a witness, instead as a private advisor on Irving's side, would have had the advantage that I could have presented my findings for the first time in front of a court of law and a wider public, which alone is worth risking my freedom."
      [Rudolf witness statement page 333]