• Search

    David Irving: A Political Self-Portrait

    150 150 Holocaust Denial on Trial

    OED Definitions

    anti-Semitism Theory, action or practice directed against the Jews. Hence anti-Semite, one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews.
    Misogynist A woman-hater. So misogynic, misogynous adjs. woman-hating.
    Racialism Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one’s cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being.
    Racialist A partisan of racialism; an advocate of a racial theory.



    1.1 Jewish responsibility for anti-Semitism/ pogroms/ Holocaust

    [1.1/A]‘Why are they [the Jews] so blind that they can not see the linkage between cause and effect? They protest, “What, Us?” when people accuse them of international conspiracy. They clamour “Ours! Ours! Ours!” when hoards of Gold are uncovered. And then when antisemitism increases and the inevitable mindless pogroms occur, they ask with genuine surprise: “Why us?”‘ [‘A Radical’s Diary’ – Action Report no. 12 – July 1997, p. 22: K4, Tab. 10, p. 60 (at 1)].
    [1.1/B]IRVING: [….] But, if somebody says to the Jewish community, “We think you’re a liar,” suddenly the jail doors are swung open and people say “This way! Come on! You’ve called them a liar.” And this I think does harm to the Jewish people in the long run, because the non-Jewish people will say, “What is it about these people?” I am deeply concerned about this, and I’ve said this to people like Daniel Goldhagen, who I challenged to the debate at a meeting in New Orleans a few months ago. I said, “You’ve written a book called ‘Hitler’s Willing Executioners’. You’ve talked to us this evening at great length about who pulled the trigger. But the question which would concern me, if I was a Jew, is not who pulled the trigger, but why? Why are we disliked? Is it something we are doing? I’m disliked. David Irving is disliked. I know that, because of the books I write. I could be instantly disliked by writing – I could become instantly liked by writing other books. You people are disliked on a global scale. You have been disliked for 3,000 years and yet you never seem to ask what is at the route of this dislike. You pretend that you’re not disliked but you are disliked. No sooner do you arrive as a people in a new country then within 50 years you are already being disliked all over again. Now, what is it? And I don’t know the answer to this. Is it built into our micro chip? When a people arrive who call themselves ‘The Jews’ you will dislike them; is there something in our micro chip? Is it in our micro chip that we don’t like the way they look? Is it envy because they are more successful than us? I don’t know the answer. But, if I was a Jew I would want to know what the reason is, why I’m being disliked. And not just disliked in a kind of nudge, nudge, wink, wink, he’s not very nice kind of sort of way. But we are being disliked on a visceral, gut-wrenching, murderous level, that no sooner do we arrive then we are being massacred, and beaten, and brutalised and imprisoned, until we have to move on somewhere else. What’s the reason?” I would want to know the answer to that, and nobody carries out an investigation about that.
    INTERVIEWER: What would you say the reason is?
    IRVING: Well, I’m just looking at this as an outsider. I come from Mars and I would say they’re clever people. I’m a racist. I would say they’re a clever race. I would say that as a race they are better at making money than I am. That’s a racist remark, of course. But they appear to be better at making money than I am. If I was going to be crude, I would say not only are they better at making money, but they are greedy. I don’t care about money. I don’t give a hoot about money. As long as I’ve got enough money to pay the school fees and the grocer’s bills, I don’t mind. To me, money is not the most important thing. But the perception that the world has of the Jewish people is one of greed, and they contribute to that by their behaviour. They contribute to that, for example, in recent years by their behaviour over the Swiss gold business. It is a curious kind of vague clamour that has begun. We are not quite sure what the clamour is about. Is it about unclaimed bank accounts? Is it about gold that has been transferred from Nazi Germany to Switzerland? Is it about gold teeth and gold rings? Is it about insurance that they can’t claim on? But suddenly the clamour is there. Fifty hears after the War, an enormous clamour is being beaten up by the New York Jewish community, by Edgar Bronfman, for example, or by the Anti-Defamation League, and here it has to be said that the number of wise Jews – you’ll notice I don’t include them as the “wise Jews” -the number of wise Jews, the English Jews, the Swiss Jews, for example, are expressing profound concern about the long term effects of this clamour. They are saying, “This is just going to nourish the neo-Nazi stereotype of the Jew – grasping, gold hungry, greedy, inconsiderate, vengeful; all these anti-Semitic stereotypes that the neo-Nazis have are just being nourished by this latest clamour about the Swiss gold.”‘[P interview with Errol Morris – 8 November 1998 – K4, Tab. 9, pp. 25-27]
    [1.1/C]‘And Tom McCormack, the Chairman of St. Martin’s Press, said, “What we didn’t like about the Goebbels’ book, when I read it, was the notion that they had it coming to them” – They had it coming to them; the Jewish community, the Jews of Germany had it coming to them! And I was very indignant at that. I thought, that wasn’t in the book. That wasn’t the sense of the book. But then, as I thought about it, I thought, well, he may be right, because you’re reproducing a lot of what Dr. Goebbels, who was the dynamo behind the Holocaust, he was the one who goaded Hitler on to issuing the orders for the Yellow Star, and all that kind of thing; you’re goading him – No, Hitler’s goading him on. I’ve quoted his private diaries. We have watched Goebbels turning from a young innocuous intelligent, rather hypersensitive, lame student of late teens and early twenties at Heidelberg University, when he had no feelings against the Jews whatsoever – in fact he wrote a letter to his private, to his girl friend, criticising her for having made some cheap shot against the Jews in a letter to him, and he writes a letter to her, angrily attacking her – to the time when he arrives in Berlin and he becomes viciously anti-Jewish in consequence. And the American Jews didn’t like that because it did rather look like they had it coming to them. It changed him. The entire Germans were changed also. And, therefore, the Jews were in some way to blame themselves. This was not my intention with the book. But if that is the way the Germans were, then it needs to be said. You can’t just pass a sponge over it and pretend it wasn’t like that. That’s not the way to write history. You have to write what you find.’ [P interview with Errol Morris – 8 November 1998: K4, Tab. 9, p. 42]
    [1.1/D][Commenting on the desire of the German Ministry of Justice to increase the punishment for Holocaust denial to three years imprisonment Irving approvingly quoted Goebbels] ‘How ill considered: Was it not Dr Goebbels himself who wrote in his diary, applauding efforts by another country to introduce an identical law during the war itself, these words: “The more the Jews get these special laws passed around the world, the more anti-Semitism there is as a result.”‘ [‘Law Report’, Action Report, September 1994, p. 10: K4, Tab. 10, p. 37]
    [1.1/E][On the cancellation of the publishing contract by St. Martins Press] ‘This kind of action by the organised Jewish community can only lead to an increase in anti-Semitism because the general public will regard it as the Jews throwing their weight around again.’ [‘The Life and Death of “Dr Goebbels”‘, Action Report, number 10, 5 July 1996, p. 6: K4, Tab. 10, p. 55]
    [1.1/F]‘And gradually the word is getting around Germany. Two years there from now too, the German historians will accept that we’re right. They will accept that for fifty years they have believed a lie. And then there will come about a result, not only in Germany but around the world, which I deeply regret and abhor. There will be an immense tidal wave of anti-Semitism. It is an inevitable result. And when people point an accusing finger at me and say, “David Irving you are creating anti-Semitism,” I have to say it is not the man who speaks the truth who creates the anti-Semitism, it’s the man who invented the lie of the legend in the first place. [Applause] [P speech at Bayerische Hof, Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991, p. 15: K3, Tab. 10, p. 15]
    [1.1/G]‘But if I ever become an anti-Semite it will be their [the Jews who have campaigned against him] fault and if the Australian public has become more anti-Semitic as a result of what they have seen over the last few days, this kind of publicity campaign that was generated against me then once again it will be not my fault, but it will be the fault of Mr Jeremy Jones, Mr Michael Marks [unintelligible name] and all the other, the Rubensteins and all the other commentators and letter writers and authors and journalists and politicians and people who have tried to put pressure on the fair Australian government to suppress freedom of speech.’ [‘The Search for Truth in History -Banned!’ 1993, p. 27:K3, Tab. 15, p. 27]
    [1.1/H]PRESENTER: At times in your speech to these groups you speak at, you ask if the Jews have ever looked at themselves.
    IRVING: Yes.
    PRESENTER: To find a reason for the pogroms and the presentation and the extermination. In other words you’re asking “did they bring it on themselves?”
    IRVING: Yes.
    PRESENTER: Thereby excusing the Germans, the Nazi’s.
    IRVING: Why… well, let us ask that simple question, why does it always happen to the Jews?
    PRESENTER: But isn’t that an ugly, racist sentiment?
    IRVING: It is an ugly, of course it’s an ugly, racist sentiment, of course it is, you’re absolutely right but we can’t just say therefore let’s not discuss it, therefore let’s not open that can of worms in case we find something inside there which we’re not going to like looking at. [‘Cover Story’ (Australian television) Sunday 4 March 1997, p. 7: K4, Tab. 8, p. 7]
    [1.1/I]INTERVIEWER: And you’re telling the Germans that the truth they thought they had before was true, that much of our institutions are controlled by the Jews.
    IRVING: The specific institutions I referred to, yes. Well, if you remember when the Nazis came to power, which was in 1933, Dr. Goebbels made a great deal of mileage out of the fact that certainly in Berlin, the Berlin that he arrived at in 1926, that was very largely dominated by the Jewish lawyers, the Jewish politicians, the Jewish police chiefs, the Jewish ministers and so on. And he made a lot of mileage out of that and it was a very unhealthy political situation for Germany. In fact, the odd thing is before Goebbels came to Berlin in 1926 he wasn’t anti-Jewish. He turned anti-Jewish by what he saw.
    INTERVIEWER: Well I’ll put one point to you. We’ve interviewed a number of skinheads, German and British, who’ve been responsible for some violent attacks on people, stabbings and woundings, that kind of thing. Among the things they tell us are that are that the gas chambers were a lie and that they have read the works of Mr. Leuchter and your works and they tell them that. Are you happy that your works spread like this?
    IRVING: Millions of people have read my works, and I’m not surprised that a number of skinheads, or former skinheads, or future skinheads have read them. It doesn’t surprise me at all. In fact I would be surprised if they hadn’t read them. And I’d be rather depressed if they weren’t convinced and impressed by what I wrote. Why shouldn’t they be?
    INTERVIEWER: Well I’ll go back to my previous question.
    IRVING: But I mean that your question basically is, ‘Do you not feel worried that what you are writing may be generating feelings that may be leading to violence?’
    INTERVIEWER: Absolutely.
    IRVING: Okay. If I may phrase your question for you. To which my standard retort always is, the person who’s guilty of these feelings and for that violence, is not the person who writes the truth it’s the person who writes the lie that the truth corrects. [P interview for ‘This Week’, 28 November 1991: K3, Tab 12, pp. 9-10]
    [1.1/J]‘And in Baton Rouge, Louisiana two years ago this half of the audience was entirely made up of Jewish hecklers who had decided to disrupt the meeting, not from outside but to come in, infiltrate the audience and as soon as I began speaking they began barracking and harassing much to the anger of the rest of the audience who wanted to hear what I had to say. And eventually I said to the ringleader, who came from North London, that anecdote, I know why I’m not liked. And I said to him “you people aren’t liked either. But you’re not liked on a global scale, on a Millennium scale. You haven’t been liked for thousands of years and you don’t ask yourselves the question why. Maybe there’s no answer, I don’t know. You’re not just disliked in the way that I’m disliked, that you get bad reviews in newspapers. You’re disliked in the way that people put you into concentration camps and line you up at the edge of tank pits and machine gun you into them. You’re victims of pogroms and you’re harassed and hounded and made to move from country to country to country and you never ask yourselves “Why us? Is it something we are doing. Is it a perception that people have of us that makes us unpopular?” I don’t, I have to say at this point in the meeting that I don’t know the answer and I cannot offer you an answer. But there must be some reason and if you want to prevent Holocausts, really this is the question that has to be answered, not just the question of what happened by why it happened. Why one nation can turn on its Jews or on its gypsies or on some other little faction who they can identify as a scapegoat and ruthlessly and inhumanely dispose of them. And there is something of the answer in Dr Goebbels’ diaries.’ [P speech in Oakland, California, 10 September 1996: K4, Tab. 7, pp. 14-15]

    1.2 Holocaust “myth” as Jewish extortion

    [1.2/A]‘I hate that word [Holocaust]. Its a word I don’t like using. People say to me, “Mr. Irving do you believe in the Holocaust? Do you deny the Holocaust?” I say that I mistrust words with a capital letter. They look like a trademark, don’t they? Like Tylenol or something. We don’t trust them; no matter how much advertising they put into Tylenol. And so it is with that word “Holocaust”. You get the impression that it is a neatly packaged, highly promoted operation, and you don’t trust it.’ [P’s speech at the 11th IHR Conference, October 1992 – ‘The Suppressed Eichmann and Goebbels Papers’ (also published in the JHR for March/April 1993): K3, Tab. 13, p. 16]
    [1.2/B]‘And this [his thesis that Hitler knew nothing of the Holocaust] is why I’ve become something of an anathema, something of a bete noir, an enemy of the Jewish community of the world because I’m treading on hallowed ground. It’s almost blasphemy. I’m taking a legend, which has been very carefully and sedulously created and cultivated over the 30 or 40 years since the end of the war ended at that time, and I’m shaking it and saying “Come on! Where’s the proof. You said this all years. Where’s the proof; where’s the beef?” And they can’t come up with it.’
    [P interview with Errol Morris, 9 November 1998: K4, Tab. 9, p. 4]
    [1.2/C]‘Ladies and gentlemen, fifty thousand people were killed in Auschwitz, were killed in Auschwitz from 1942 to 1944. That is a crime, as I said. Fifty thousand innocent people. It’s about as many people who died in Auschwitz in those three years as we British killed in Hamburg in one night. [Applause]
    So, you see, if I use the German word relativieren, relativieren [relativise], this is what we can now do, we can now say, “Put an end to your lies about the Germans being the arch-criminals of all time who have committed crimes that are the biggest crimes of this millennium, let alone this century.”‘[P speech at Latvian Hall, Toronto, 8 November 1990: K3, Tab. 8, p. 21]
    [1.2/D]‘Well, they have been dining on Auschwitz. Auschwitz is a big tourist site now. They have millions of visitors every year. It’s like Hitler’s mountain top retreat in Berchtesgaden. They have half a million visitors a year there too. They make money out of it. Auschwitz has become a major money-spinner, the Holocaust. I mean, it sounds distasteful to say it, but its true. There’s big money in Auschwitz, and for somebody to come along who has a reputation and a legitimacy as a historian and say “Hold it, fellahs. Make money if you want but you ought to know that it is a bit Disney-like.” The only answer is to shut him up, don’t let him anywhere near the place. He’s the last person we want here. We are all on to a very nice thing.’ [P interview with Errol Morris, 8 November 1998: K4, Tab. 9, pp. 33-34]
    [1.2/E]‘HOLOCAUSTOMANIA: n, obsession with burnt offerings; hence:} business acumen; greed. (Gr., 1994).’[P’s Action Report, number 9, May 1995, p. 2: K4 Tab. 10, p. 46 (at 1)]
    [1.2/F]‘”One year from now the Holocaust will have been discredited. That prediction is lethal because of the vested interests involved in the Holocaust industry. As I said to the Jewish Chronicle, if a year from now the gas chamber legend collapses, what will that mean for Israel? Israel is drawing millions of dollars each year from the German taxpayer, provided by the German government as reparation for the gas chambers. It is also drawing millions from American taxpayers, who put up with it because of the way the Israelis or the Jews suffered. No one’s going to like it when they find out that for 50 years they have been believing a legend based on baloney.”‘ [‘History’s cache and carry’, The Guardian, 7 July, 1992: K4, Tab. 10, p. 29]
    [1.2/G]INTERVIEWER: When one reads your speeches, one had the impression that Churchill was paid by the Jews, that the Jews dragged Britain into the war, that many of the Communist regimes have been dominated by Jews subsequently, and that a great deal of control over the world is exercised by Jews.
    IRVING: Right, these are four separate facts, to each of which I would be willing to put my signature. They are four separate and unrelated facts. When you string them together like that, you might be entitled then to say: “Question five, David Irving, are you therefore an antisemite?” This may well have been –
    INTERVIEWER: No, this wasn’t my question.
    IRVING: But the answer is this, these are in fact four separate facts which happen to be true, in my considered opinion as a historian. And I think we can find the historical evidence for it. [P’s interview for ‘This Week’, 28 November 1991: K3, Tab. 12, pp. 7-8]
    [1.2/H]‘I remind Fraser that he’s on a BBC contract and will say nothing to jeopardize that; while I am as free as a bird, constrained only by the limits of my own courage. At the end, I say I find the Holocaust boring.
    “But you write about it!”
    “No I don’t. I never have. The reason the others make so much of it is that they are making money out of it, billions in the last year or so, and it is the only interesting thing to have happened to them in three thousand years; they are using it as an adhesive to keep their splintering people together.”
    He found this tasteless: So it is; much that is true is just that.’ [P’s ‘A Radical’s Diary’, Action Report, number 15, 20 July 1999, p. 10: K4, Tab. 10, p. 64]
    [1.2/I]‘We weren’t told the truth about Robert Maxwell. Those of us who suspected the truth about Robert Maxwell, we were hounded. Maxwell was the propagator of the Holocaust myth in Britain. He held the great Holocaust Seminars, because he and his ilk survived and dined out on the Holocaust myth.
    We are all Holocaust survivors, everyone of us who was born in 1939 or, or from then until 1945; but we don’t go dining out on that particular legend. The ones who suffered in the Holocaust are the ones who died, not the ones who survived. But the Holocaust survivors are the ones who are earning of course.’ [P’s talk to the Clarendon Club, 19 September 1992: K4, Tab. 5, p. 8]
    [1.2/J]IRVING: OK, let’s move onto the Jews of Hungary. In the files of the Office of Strategic Services is a report which I found which is about 200 pages long describing how various Jewish underground organisations turned up in occupied Europe, in liberated Europe after the end of the war and screened all the inmates in the displaced persons camps and using the immense organising skills which the Jews are endowed, they shipped all the Jews they found in these camps using the funds of the United Nations Relief and Refugee Agency across Europe, in trucks, straight to the Middle East, where they were given new names, new existence and a new life.
    QUESTIONER: If you’re suggesting that half a million Jews…..
    IRVING: I’ll not say that…
    QUESTIONER: survived the war and have continued to this day to exist in an almost conspiratorial pretence…..
    IRVING: I’m suggesting to you alternative explanations to the gas chamber because obviously as the gas chamber now turns out to be phoney then we have to try and explain what happened to the figures. Now one possible reason is the large number of Jews that turned up in the State of Palestine which is now the State of Israel. The Jews in Israel didn’t come from nowhere. Another part of them when Auschwitz was liberated were set out on the roads and shipped westwards where they ended up in cities like Dresden. I don’t have to tell you what happened in Dresden three weeks after Auschwitz was evacuated by the Germans. One million refugees on the streets of Dresden at the time when we burnt Dresden to the ground killing anything between 100,000 – 250,000 of them. Large numbers of people on the streets in Europe that winter also suffered normal deaths of exposure and starvation and epidemics. I’m offering to you alternative solutions to where the people went.’ [P’s press conference for the FPP publication of the Leuchter Report, 23 June 1989: K3, Tab. 4, pp. 9-10]
    [1.2/K]‘As he [Michael Milken] went to prison little tears rolled down his cheek and he pleaded not to be sent to prison and his beautiful, coiffured wife was aghast that her husband should be maltreated in this way. Thousands of people have suffered because of Michael Milken. But none of the newspapers dare be too harsh on him because of course his people have suffered so much this century, haven’t they? [Laughter]
    And that’s what it is all about. The big lie is designed not only to distract attention from even bigger crimes than what the Nazis did, the big lie is designed to justify, both in arrears and in advance, the bigger crimes in the financial world and elsewhere that are being committed by the survivors of the Holocaust.’ [P’s speech at the Bayerische Hof, Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991: K3, Tab. 10, p. 21]
    [1.2/L]‘Many concentration camps as the Russians approached were evacuated and sent out on a long cold march through the European winter of December 1944/January 1945 to the West. The concentration camp inmates arrived in Berlin or in Leipzig or in Dresden just in time for the RAF bombers to set fire to their cities. In Dresden a million and a half people camping out in the street on the night of February, 13th 1945. Nobody knows who they were, refugees, concentration camp prisoners, citizens of Dresden itself, after the bombers retired, 40, 45 minutes later another wave came and then at noon on February, 14th the American airforce joined in. Over 130,000 people died in that particular air raid. The same kind of raids took place on Leipzig, Berlin, Cottbus, refugee centres up and down the centre of Germany. Nobody knows how many Jews died in those air raids. Nobody knows how many Jews died on the roads of hunger or starvation or just sheer cold.
    Nobody knows then how many Jews survived World War II in the displaced persons camps. This is one of the most interesting aspects. It is possible to research it I suppose but to my knowledge, none of the Holocaust historians have done so. The national archives in Washington houses a report this thick of the Office of Strategic Services, the American Secret Service in which are investigated the activities of the Hagana, the Jewish Zionist underground organisation, in those very displaced-persons camps in the first month after World War II. The Hagana went from DP camp to camp, scouring them for all the Jews they could find who were still living in these camps, these wretched people, loading them onto trucks and shipping them then with the United Nations funds and resources all the way across Europe through the Middle East to Palestine. So Mr Goldman, who is found in a camp somewhere in Bavaria is put aboard a truck with his family and shipped across to the Middle East to Palestine where he is given a new life and a new identity, an Israeli identity, with a Hebrew name. Mr Goldman has vanished and the Hebrew gentleman in the Middle East then starts drawing compensation because Mr Goldman has vanished.
    This is the irony which a lot of Germans are now beginning to worry about, and it has been going on for now for 50 years and you begin to suspect why the West German government for all these years has made it a criminal offence even to challenge and to question what has been going on. As the Chief Rabbi of Britain, Lord Jacobowitz, said it became “big business” and it did no credit to the Jews as a whole because I know thousands of Jews, my publisher was a Jew, my Lawyer’s a Jew, they are all perfectly ordinary, decent respectable people when you know them and those who you speak to thoroughly abhor what has been going on. [‘The Search for Truth in History -Banned!’ 1993: K3, Tab. 15, pp. 26-27]
    [1.2/M]‘I’m, I’m unhappy with the way that the Holocaust legend is packaged, I think the capital “H” makes me suspicious from the start. When you give a word a capital “H” then it begins to look like some kind of brand name that’s been very slickly packaged and marketed…’ [P’s interview for the Holmes Show, (New Zealand television), 4 June 1993: K3, Tab. 16, p. 1]
    [1.2/N]INTERVIEWER: Are you aware that the Dutch Center for War Documentation has made a full report about this? [The authenticity of the Anne Frank diaries]
    IRVING: Doesn’t surprise me.
    INTERVIEWER: And they say it’s, they have made public all the diaries, and they examined the handwriting and all there is to know about it.
    IRVING: Doesn’t surprise me. A lot of money is at stake, The Anne Frank Foundation is a very wealthy, political organization in Amsterdam.
    INTERVIEWER: Yes, well we’re talking about the Dutch state’s…
    IRVING: Yes.
    INTERVIEWER: …War Documentation Center here. We’re not talking about the Anne Frank Foundation. We’re talking about a public institution.
    IRVING: But I’m talking about the financial interests which are at stake here. [Videocassette 213, “Dateline”, 1h 19m 40s – 1h 20m 25s.]
    [1.2/O]‘We’ve only got to go out there long enough and hammer on their doors collectively and say “Come on, show us the evidence. Evidence that is acceptable. Explain this and this and this” and eventually their whole rotten edifice will collapse and fall down. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that either collectively or jointly, or perhaps better still anonymously, we recommend that Holocaust memorial buildings around the world are re-named the Auschwitz buildings. So that when that particular lie comes down they’re going to have the indignity and humiliation of having to re-name them. [Laughter] [Unin] Eventually they will come down and eventually there’s going to be a great rising outcry of indignation and this is what I regret most because let us be plain – certainly the Jews did suffer in World War II along with a lot of other minorities and ethnic groupings. There’s no denying that they did suffer. I don’t think they suffered more proportionally than other groups suffered. I don’t think that their suffering can be said to be worse than the suffering suffered by the Germans after the war. The great mass expulsions, the great population movements – I don’t think that their suffering in that respect is any worse but the fact remains that there was a crime of sorts that has to be atoned for. But to do what Adenauer did in that private conversation with Naim Goldman back in the 1940s, alright, we’ll give you [unin], are you satisfied then? And, of course, the State of Israel happily accepted the billion dollars at that time from Germany, and went on to accept more and more and more and the West Germans are still paying and the bill is going to be presented continually, in alle Ewigkeit, the taxi meter is still running. And the only justification for that is the lie that the German people wanted it to happen. That there was an extermination and the extermination was a measure of the German State conducted by the German Führer in the name of the German people.
    I’ve already long ago established that the German state and the German people and the German Führer had nothing to do with it. Whatever happened and there were individual excesses and atrocities and pogroms in places like Minsk and Kiev and Riga. Whatever happened were the crimes conducted for the most ordinary and repugnant motives of greed and thievery. Whatever happened were the crimes of individual gangsters and criminals, who deserved to be individually and separately punished. But this does not justify making an entire people pay and pay and pay in cash, which appears to be the only language that these victims understand. And this is why I hope that perhaps five years from now when I publish my final book, and it has to be my final book probably on Auschwitz, this is why I hope that people recognise that I’ve managed to pull off a coup even more spectacular than exposing the Hitler diaries as a fake. From one 6 million lie to another. That I will see then some of the world’s most famous historians and politicians have the biggest omelette of all time, all over their face because for me, as an historian, I’ve always been led by one principle, one leitmotiv. In German it’s ‘es gibt nur die eine Wahrheit, die totale Wahrheit, and in English for myself as an historian there’s only one sort of truth that matters and that is total truth. Truth is indivisible. [Applause]’ [P’s speech in Toronto, August 1988: K3, Tab. 2, pp. 22-23]
    [1.2/P]‘So how do we explain the fact that for forty-five years since the end of World War Two, we have all, internationally, globally, been beset by a common guilt: the idea that the human race was responsible for liquidating six million human beings in gas chambers. Well, the answer is: we have been subjected to the biggest propaganda offensive that the human race has ever known.’[P’s speech to the 10th IHR, October 1990, ‘Battleship Auschwitz’ (also published in the JHR): K3, Tab. 6, at p. 499]

    1.3 Identification with the Denialist movement (“Us and Them”)

    [1.3/A]‘We independent historians shall we say, the non-Jewish historians the ones with an entirely open mind.’ [‘The Search for Truth in History – Banned!’ (1993): K3, Tab. 15, p. 7]
    [1.3/B]‘Now it would be wrong of me to suggest that I alone am conducting this fight, I am not so arrogant or selfish to maintain that I am the only person who has gone over the top in this particular historical debate. Later on in the talk I will be mentioning the names of some of the real heroes who have been fighting this particular campaign.’ [‘The Search for Truth in History -Banned!’ (1993): K3, Tab. 15, p. 8]
    [1.3/C]IRVING [on the IHR]: People who don’t follow the established historical tracks.
    INTERVIEWER: How important is it?
    IRVING: It’s a thorn in the flesh. It’s as important as that.
    INTERVIEWER: In whose flesh?
    IRVING: It’s a thorn in the flesh of the establishment, it’s a thorn in the flesh particularly of the Jewish community. [Videocassette 213, “Dateline”, 1h 31m 25s – 1h 31m 45s.]
    [1.3/D]‘You see, what we’re doing now was described in fact by Professor Faurisson who’ll be here in a few minutes; what were doing now is the greatest intellectual adventure of the twentieth century. Were taking something that has become akin to a religion for hundreds of millions of people, hundreds of millions of innocent, intelligent people, believing something because they have been told it by intelligent, innocent people – gullible people, this is true, but innocent, that its not a lie, so much as a legend – the gas chamber story. It’s a legend, but hundreds of millions of people believe it and it’s marching along it’s a militant legend.’ [P’s speech at the Clarendon Club meeting, Chelsea Town Hall, 15 November 1991: K3, Tab. 11, p. 3]
    [1.3/E]‘A lot of you come from Germany and you have winced every time that you have read that word Holocaust or Auschwitz in the newspapers and you have not known what to reply. It is the one unchallengeable smear on your people’s name. In fact it’s a smear on the European people’s name in a kind of indirect way. It’s the one thing you’ve not known how to answer. But over the last four or five years a group of people have come together and have begun examining that tragedy. And they have done it with such courage and such intensity and such detachment and such lack of regard for their own future interests that they have begun to crumble away the veneer that has covered this Auschwitz story, the Holocaust story, ever since the end of World War Two.’[P’s speech in Victoria, British Columbia, 27 October 1990: K3, Tab. 7, pp. 3-4]
    [1.3/F][Explaining why he goes to such efforts to address such small meetings] ‘Small influential gatherings of people – it is dropping pebbles into the water – it’s casting ripples. Otherwise, why would they go to such lengths to try and stop me from speaking? These people who I have now coined a phrase for ‘the tradition enemy of the truth’, ‘the traditional enemy of the truth’ have gone to extraordinary lengths to try and suppress the truth and to try and silence 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 have fallen in behind me because I am 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 sides in this extraordinarily interesting adventure.
    Professor Robert Faurisson the French revisionist historian was the one who first said that it is an intellectual adventure of an enormous scale. When taking, what is believed in by millions if not billions of people. We are taking something they have been told over the last 50 years and they have come to believe it because they have been told it by others who are as innocent and as honest as themselves, Jewish and non-Jewish, makes no difference. They believed it, gullibly, and they have in turn told it to others who believed it because they’ve heard it from reliable people. And it is rather like the way a religion begins isn’t it. It is a legend that we are looking at, not a lie, it’s a legend. Millions, billions of people around the world are encouraged to believe it and every now and then the legend gets a little impetus, a little kick. To give it a boost so that it doesn’t die, it doesn’t wither on the vine.’[P’s speech at Tampa, Florida, 6 October 1995: K3, Tab. 20, p. 2]

    1.4 Mockery of Holocaust survivors

    [1.4/A]‘When I get into Australia I know what is going to happen, the media will be there, they will trot out their own homebred survivors. Every town has a survivor. In Florida, I understand that every school now has its visiting survivor, who comes to inflict the nameless horrors on these eight-year-old toddlers, telling them what happened to them at the hands of the Germans.
    In Australia there are professional survivors, a woman called Mrs Altman who will roll up her sleeve and show the tattoo to prove that, yes, she was in Auschwitz. Of course already we sceptics have caused problems because when I spoke in Cincinnati, my host, his wife, she was a school teacher and she said you know Mr Irving we’ve got a bit of a problem because we now have to teach the Holocaust – the same as you do in Florida – it is part of the school curriculum. You have to teach the Holocaust and last week we had a Holocaust survivor who came and lectured to the children, she was an old woman and she lectured to these eight year old children in my class and several other teachers came along to listen and one of the eight year old children, a girl piped up at the end of the lecture and said “How did you survive then? How did you survive?” Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings come these questions and this woman, this survivor said, “I managed to make a hole in the back of the gas chamber and escape”. [Laughing] And my friend said “we teachers, we looked at each other and we didn’t dare say anything. But the trouble is that the children believed it”. This is the basic problem. And that’s how it’s going to be with Mrs Altman. I was saying Mrs Altman, you have your tattoo this is an interesting thing to show everyone, but we have a basic problem here, you are a survivor. I used to think that the world was full of a thousand survivors. I was wrong. It is full of hundreds of thousands of survivors of the Holocaust if not, in fact, millions by now. The numbers of survivors seems to grow these passing years, it defies all laws of natural deceased and all laws, now the number of survivors is growing. And I said isn’t the existence of so many survivors in itself an indicator, something doesn’t, it doesn’t fit. If the Nazis had this dedicated programme to exterminate the Jews, how come so many of you have survived, were the Nazis sloppy or what? They let you out, they let you escape?” It’s a basic question. And she’ll get very indignant and talk about her honour and her integrity and how she suffered and I’ll say “Mrs Altman, you have suffered undoubtedly, and I’m sure that life in a Nazi concentration camp, where you say you were, and I’m prepared to accept that, we have no reason to disbelieve you, was probably not very nice.” And life in Dresden probably wasn’t very nice, and probably life in Pforzheim wasn’t very nice. “But tell me one thing”, and this is why I’m going to get tasteless with her, because you’ve got to get tasteless, “Mrs Altman, how much money have you made out of that tattoo since 1945? [Laughter] How much money have you coined for that bit of ink on your arm, which may indeed be real tattooed ink? And I’ll say this, “half a million dollars, three quarters of a million for you alone.” It must be in that order of magnitude because think of the billions of dollars that have been sent that way, billions. You American taxpayers are happily, indeed joyously, giving to the State of Israel 3 billion dollars a year, if not 4 by now. The German government is adding another 1 billion dollars a year in compensation. $5 billion go to be spent on people like Mrs Altman with their tattoo. Divide that up amongst all the survivors and it’s a very sizeable annual income that they are getting. And I’ll say – I’m in front of the television, “Mrs Altman there must be a million Australians sitting there thinking to themselves ‘why is it that they have got all the compensation and yet our troops who suffered in the Japanese camps and building the Burma railway and the people who died in the air raids cities and the rest of it didn’t get one bent nickel by way of compensation?’ How is it always these people who get compensation and not the others?” She won’t have any answer for that I’m sure.
    And what these people don’t understand, by way of conclusion, is that they are generating anti-Semitism by their behaviour, and they can’t understand it. They wonder where the anti-Semitism comes from, and it comes from themselves, from their behaviour. We don’t promote anti-Semitism, we’ve got no reason whatsoever to promote anti-Semitism. I find the whole Holocaust story utterly boring. It goes on and on and on and they keep on going on about the Holocaust because it’s the only interesting thing that’s happened to them in the last 3000 years. [Laughter]
    We have no reason to promote anti-Semitism, it’s not in our interest one way or the other, but they are doing it. I don’t know why. Whether it’s because they want to be the centre of attention or what. To an audience in Louisiana, I spoke in Freeport, Louisiana about 6 months ago, and to my embarrassment half the audience turned out to be with the local Jewish community. They’d come along to cause trouble, the rest was normal, but half the audience was this Jewish community with their Jewish community leaders and they showed their true colours after I had begun to speak. And after they had interrupted and behaved in a thoroughly obnoxious manner, for about half an hour while the rest of the audience grew increasingly impatient with their behaviour. I interrupted the flow of my own lecture, and I said to their ringleader, who I recognised by his accent, which came from a particular suburb of London called Colindale or Cricklewood, we English can tell from their accent, from somebody’s what class they are, what family they come from and also what particular suburb of London they come from. I said “Do you come from Colindale or Cricklewood?” and he said “Why do you say that?” and I said “Well I can tell by the way you’re shrieking at me, but do you mind if I say this, I am disliked, I know I’m disliked, I know I’m disliked because the Newspapers say I’m disliked. […] And is it the historian’s job to be liked? Obviously it isn’t. An historian’s job is to find out what happened and why. But I said to this man from Colindale, leader of the Jewish community in Louisiana, I said “I’m disliked and I know why. I look in the mirror when I shave in the morning and I think ‘You’re disliked, you could alter it overnight, but you don’t, it’s your own fault, everything that’s happening to you’ You were disliked, you people. You have been disliked for 3000 years. You have been disliked so much that you have been hounded from country to country from pogrom to purge, from purge back to pogrom. And yet you never ask yourselves why you are disliked, that’s the difference between you and me. It would never occur to you to look in the mirror and say ‘why am I disliked, what is it the rest of humanity doesn’t like about the Jewish people, to such an extent that they repeatedly put us through the grinder?'” And he went berserk, he said, “are you trying to say that we are responsible for Auschwitz, ourselves?” and I said, “well the short answer is ‘yes’. The short answer I have to say is yes”. I mean he really got my gander up. “The short answer is yes, but that’s the short answer obviously between your question and my answer, yes, there are several intervening stages but that is it. If you had behaved differently over the intervening 3000 years the Germans would have gone about their business and not have found it necessary to go around doing whatever they did to you. Nor would the Russians, nor the Ukrainians, nor the Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians and all the other countries where you’ve had a rough time. So why haven’t you ever asked yourself that question?” It’s an interesting point, but they don’t, they go round the other way and they make life unbearable for those who try to analyse whatever happened, whatever it was.’ [P’s speech in Tampa, Florida, 6 October 1995: K3, Tab. 20, pp. 16-19]
    [1.4/B]‘So I’m not liked and I know what I could do to change it to be liked. I look in the mirror in the morning when I shave and I say “David Irving you’re not liked and you know what you could do about it.” And in Baton Rouge, Louisiana two years ago this half of the audience was entirely made up of Jewish hecklers who had decided to disrupt the meeting, not from outside but to come in, infiltrate the audience and as soon as I began speaking they began barracking and harassing much to the anger of the rest of the audience who wanted to hear what I had to say. And eventually I said to the ringleader, who came from North London, that anecdote, I know why I’m not liked.
    And I said to him “you people aren’t liked either. But you’re not liked on a global scale, on a Millennium scale. You haven’t been liked for thousands of years and you don’t ask yourselves the question why. Maybe there’s no answer, I don’t know. You’re not just disliked in the way that I’m disliked, that you get bad reviews in newspapers. You’re disliked in the way that people put you into concentration camps and line you up at the edge of tank pits and machine gun you into them. You’re victims of pogroms and you’re harassed and hounded and made to move from country to country to country and you never ask yourselves “Why us? Is it something we are doing. Is it a perception that people have of us that makes us unpopular?” I don’t, I have to say at this point in the meeting that I don’t know the answer and I cannot offer you an answer. But there must be some reason and if you want to prevent Holocausts, really this is the question that has to be answered, not just the question of what happened by why it happened. Why one nation can turn on its Jews or on its gypsies or on some other little faction who they can identify as a scapegoat and ruthlessly and inhumanely dispose of them. And there is something of the answer in Dr Goebbels’ diaries. [P’s speech at Oakland, California, 10 September 1996: K4, Tab. 7, pp. 14-15]
    [1.4/C]‘Over to a radio station [in Austin, Texas] at three p.m. […] Several callers, all hostile, including a very Jewish Holly, whose mother had suffered and wanted money.
    I pointed out that her mother, like countless millions of others, had also thank goodness survived; but did this not rather highlight the sloppiness of the Nazis who had had her and millions of other Jews in their camps, but allowed them to survive despite their extermination intent?
    The very word Holocaust survivor is an oxymoron: nobody survives a holocaust, it is a whole. I think that bit would have been a bit above her, however.’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’, P’s Action Report, number 15, 20 July 1999, p. 5: K4, Tab. 10, p. 62]
    [1.4/D]‘Hundreds of witnesses, thousands, there are hundreds of thousands of survivors now. There are millions of survivors now. And I’m happy. But of course each single survivor is living proof that the Nazis never did have an extermination programme. Because they were all at Auschwitz.’ [‘Hunderte von Zeugen, tausende, hundert tausende von Uberlebenden gibt es jetzt. Millionen von Überlebende gibt es jetzt. Und ich freue mich. Aber selbstverständlich jeder Überlebende ist ein lebendiger Beweis dafür, daß es ein Vernichtungsprogram der Nazis nicht gegeben hat.’] [P’s speech in Moers, 5 March 1990: K3, Tab. 5, p. 13]
    [1.4/E][Following an exhortation to “Sink the Auschwitz”] ‘I should have warned you that I’m going to be very tasteless this evening, but it gets far more tasteless than this. [Laughter] Why should we be considerate about people who have lied to hundreds of millions of people for forty five years?’ [P’s speech at the Latvian Hall, Toronto, 8 November 1990: K3, Tab. 8, p. 15]
    [1.4/F]‘…these individual crimes did happen [shootings etc.]. And I can tell you later on the kind of evidence there is for these individual crimes, which are crimes on the order of thousands at a time, as I repeated before. Not millions. So, something did happen, but what I can say, with equal firmness, is, you can sum up my case on the Holocaust in the following nutshell: – more people died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy’s motor car in Chappaquiddick then died in the gas chamber in Auschwitz. [Applause]’ [P’s speech at the Latvian Hall, Toronto, 8 November 1990: K3, Tab. 8, p. 16]
    [1.4/G]‘I’ve heard that on September the Twenty First last year, 1989, President Gorbachev, as part of his glasnost, I think personally as part of his overtures to the German people, bear that in mind, he announced that his Archives, an un-named Archives, I think it’s the Archives in the KGB, had found the death books of Auschwitz. And not only that, they’d found the index cards of all the prisoners who’d been in Auschwitz. And alone that fact, that they had the index cards of all the prisoners who’d been in Auschwitz, sent a shudder round the organised Jewish community of the world. ‘Cos hitherto, of course, there has been an inexhaustible supply of Auschwitz survivors. The cruise ship Holocaust which has taken the oceans after the Battleship Auschwitz, this massive cruise ship with luxury wall-to-wall fitted carpets and a crew of thousands, this cruise ship Holocaust which has marine terminals established now in virtually every capital of the world, disguised as Holocaust Memorial Museums, the one in Washington DC alone is costing a hundred and forty six million dollars to build. [Person in audience shouts “Our money”] Your money indeed. A hundred and forty six million dollars, the cruise ship Holocaust, where will this story, where will its crew be, where will the Auschwitz survivors be now the fact has come out that the index cards, lists all the people who ever passed through the gates of Auschwitz – Arbeit machs Frei – know who they were? Suddenly a lot of people aren’t claiming to be Auschwitz survivors any more. Elie Wiesel, for one, for example, he has always been uncertain whether it was Auschwitz he had been in, or Dachau, or Buchenwald. [Laughter]
    Well, I say that, because there’s a photograph, a photograph, in which he identifies himself as being a prisoner in a photograph of various prisoners in a bunk-house in a barracks in the concentration camp in Buchenwald, and he said, “Yes, that’s me”. But it turns out that photograph was in Auschwitz and he says, “Ohh, yes, I meant Auschwitz.” I mean, what can we do about these people? And poor Mr Wiesel, I mean, it’s terribly bad luck to be called ‘Weasel’ but that’s no excuse [Laughter] I mean, these people do have a bad time, they had a very, very hard time and I do want to speak a few words of sympathy for them, like, I mean, like on Halloween’s Night, for example, or say Saint Weisenthal’s Night, as we call it in London. So they have had a very, very bad time and it going to get tougher now that people are going to challenge them as to whether they really were in Auschwitz or not, because we now know exactly who was and who wasn’t. And they have gone to immense troubles, ladies and gentlemen, even the ones who’ve got tattoo marks on their arms. Because the experts could look at the tattoo and say, “Ohh, yes, One Hundred and Eighty One Thousand, Two Hundred and Nineteen, that means you entered Auschwitz in March 1943.” So, if you want to go and have a tattoo put on your arm, which a lot of them do, I’m afraid to say, and claim subsequently that you were in Auschwitz, you’ve go to make sure, ‘A’ that it fits in with the month you said you went to Auschwitz, and ‘B’ that it’s not a number that anybody’s used before. So there are actual, kind of, trainspotter guides of numbers that have been used already. And the whole of that hoax is now going to collapse because the Russians have released the index cards.’ [P’s speech at the Latvian Hall, Toronto, 8 November 1990: K3, Tab. 8, pp. 17-18]
    [1.4/H]‘And the only way to overcome this appalling pseudo-religious atmosphere that surrounds the whole of this immense tragedy called World War Two, is to treat these little legends with the ridicule and the bad taste that they deserve. Ridicule alone isn’t enough, you’ve got to be tasteless about it. You’ve got to say things like more women died on the backseat of Senator Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. [Applause] Now you think that’s tasteless, what about this? I’m forming an association especially dedicated to all these liars, the ones who try and kid people that they were in these concentration camps, it’s called the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S. Can’t get more tasteless than that, but you’ve got to be tasteless because these people deserve all our contempt. And, in fact, they deserve the contempt of the real Jewish community and the people whatever their class and colour who did suffer.’ [P’s speech at the Bayerische Hof, Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991: K3, Tab. 10, p. 18]
    [1.4/I]‘There’s an arrest warrant because when I was in Austria I was tasteless enough to say, that to my mind as an historian and as a neutral observer, these eyewitness accounts are an interesting subject matter for psychiatry to have a look at. And I mean that seriously. People have to explain why people genuinely believe they experienced or seen something years after the event simply when there’s money involved and they can get a good compensation cash payment out of it.’ [P’s speech at the Bayerische Hof, Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991: K3, Tab. 10, p. 17]
    [1.4/J]‘But it’s interesting because the word Holocaust, this cruise ship Holocaust which is now floating around with an inexhaustible crew. I mean there’s no shortage of crew members or applicants for this particular ship. The only requirement to become a crew member of the cruise ship Holocaust, is they should be an Auschwitz survivor, because there’s an inexhaustible supply of Auschwitz survivors. There are millions of Auschwitz survivors now floating around the world or people who purport to be Auschwitz survivors although I must admit that their numbers become somewhat muted. In recent years, over the last eighteen months since the Government in Moscow on September the twenty-first, Ninety Eight Nine, in a statement from TASS, announced that all this time they’ve had a card index of anybody who was ever in Auschwitz. And ever since then the number of new applicants who claim to have been in Auschwitz has somewhat dwindled. Eli Wiesel no longer claims to have been in Auschwitz, for example, the Nobel Prize winner. He now claims to have been in a completely different camp, in the hope that they won’t find the card indexes on that one.’ [P’s speech at Victoria B.C., 27 October 1990: K3, Tab. 7, p. 7]

    (B) Anti-Semitic themes and language

    1.5 International Jewish conspiracy

    [1.5/A]‘Well, what got into Churchill in 1920 [Referring to an anti-Semitic article by Churchill] got out of him in July 1936. (Laughter). At a dinner in north London…on July 22nd, 1936, it was put to Winston Churchill by various influential businessmen – again I’m not going to go into detail about who they were – that they might finance him. One of those present was the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Deputies, Sir Robert Waley[-]Cohen. His biography was published in an authorised version by Robert Henrique[s]; he quite openly boasted that at this dinner they put up £50,000 to finance a secret group to keep Churchill afloat, provided he turned his magnificent oratory, his brilliant writing talents away from his targets at the time, which were India and Defence, and direct his cannon squarely upon their enemy, Nazi Germany. Imagine that in terms of 1990 currency! The secret pressure group was called The Focus.’ [P’s speech to the Clarendon Club: ‘We have lost our sense of Destiny’, 1990: K4, Tab. 10, p. 23 ]
    [1.5/B]‘Why in God’s name did we get into the war in 1939? Because we gave a guarantee in March 1939 to the Poles. We have the records now. Neville Chamberlain was tricked into giving the guarantee by people like Ian Colvin, of the News Chronicle a newspaper heavily financed by the kind of people I have [been] talking about earlier. And here’s Ian Colvin, their young Berlin correspondent, getting an audience of the prime minister in March 1939 1and [sic] telling Mr Chamberlain, on the instructions of The Focus, that Hitler has given orders to invade Poland almost immediately. Chamberlain is panicked into issuing that fateful guarantee – the guarantee of March 31st, 1939, that if Poland was attacked, then Britain would stand by her side. That was the hidden moment which first saw the British Empire beginning to fall apart. And it was all done by these mysterious forces behind the scenes, who for ruthless reasons of their own wanted war in Central Europe.
    What should we have done, if we had had politicians who were statesmen for Britain, through and through, and who knew only the red [ – ] white-and-blue flag of our forefathers, and who weren’t in foreign pay? We should have said to the Poles: so, you’ve got a squabble with Herr Hitler? You’ve got a squabble with Germany? – Sort it out yourselves! Our Empire is more important to us. (Applause). And if we had had true blooded English statesmen at that time, then they should have said to the immigrants and refugees who flooded towards our shores…they should have said to them: You are guests. So long as you are our guests here, then you do as we English decree! But we are not going to be led astray by you. We should have said to these people: so, you have a squabble with the Nazi party? – sort it out yourselves! Because it was a squabble: these people had started an international boycott of Germany as soon as the Nazis came to power; four, five or six years before that they had been fighting a war, from inside the police stations and inside the newspapers in Berlin and Hamburg and Munich against the rise of National Socialism in Germany. Any historian could tell you this. It was a fight between these two forces in Germany. And it was fought with the cudgel and the cosh and the dagger in the darkness. And what had it got to do with Britain or the British Empire? Nothing whatsoever. (Applause). But there we were, encouraged to interfere, because these people who came flooding toward our shores found that their friends were already here in the media. And the situation has become progressively worse over the decades since then. You only have to look at the concentration of British media power in the hands of a foreign-born executive like Mr. Robert Maxwell to realise the danger that the British people, as a proud entity, is now in.’ [P’s speech to the Clarendon Club: ‘We have lost our sense of Destiny’, 1990: K4, Tab 10, p. 24]
    [1.5/C]‘We were [In the 1940s and 1950s] proud of our traditions. Britain was a haven of thriving industries, of intelligent and forthright people whose word could be trusted. But now it isn’t. Britain has become a nation where some people’s rights have to be specially protected by law, instead of by one’s own natural Christian instincts; a nation where the newest newcomer is given preference over the people who have been here, with family and forefathers and ancestors for centuries. […] Everything has been stood on its head. And we are baffled and perplexed and confused by it all, because wherever we turn, we English and Scots and Welsh and Irish – wherever we look we cannot find any political party or any force or any faction that is prepared to stand up for us. Where are the Englishmen in office? Mrs Thatcher? We know whose pocket Mrs. Thatcher is in. She’s in the pocket of her constituents (Laughter and applause). Well, Britain is a “democracy” and it is right that the Prime Minister should be in the pocket of her constituents, if these constituents are a representative cross-section of the English people. I should be interested to know how many of those constituents had their parents or their grandparents in Britain in the 1930s and the 1940s. Take Mr. Martin Gilbert, my great rival as a historian. He was not even in Britain during the war: from the wealthy and the influential family that he came, he was immediately shuffled overseas to Canada, so that no harm should come to him. Perhaps he could not dispose otherwise. Meanwhile we English sat here and sweated out what the other people had inflicted on our country.’ [P’s speech to the Clarendon Club: ‘We have lost our sense of destiny’, 1990: K4, Tab. 10, p. 25]
    [1.5/D][A Japanese magazine published an article on the Holocaust under the title ‘The Greatest Taboo of Postwar History: There Were No Nazi Gas Chambers’. Irving described that the magazine was ordered to close by the Japanese government when] ‘the international Jewish community wagged its bejewelled finger’. [‘Wiesenthalers Zap Jap “Crap”‘, P’s Action Report, number 9, May 1995, p. 11: K4, Tab 10, p. 51 (at 1)]
    [1.5/E]‘When grovelling apologies were not forthcoming the Israelis, proving once again that no, they are not part of an international conspiracy, put pressure through their foreign cohorts, minions, and henchmen at whatever level on every major company currently purchasing advertising space in every weekly and monthly publication in the Bungei Shunju corporation, telling these companies to cancel their advertising contracts.’ [‘Wiesenthalers Zap Jap “Crap”‘, Action Report, number 9, May 1995, p. 11:K4 Tab. 10, p. 51 (at 2)]
    [1.5/F][Commenting on a police raid on Anthony Hancock’s printing works in England at the request of the German government] ‘It seems that having failed to burn this print works down, the traditional enemy of the truth is now putting pressure on Germany to inflict her bigoted methods on the freedom-loving British.’ [‘The Very Whale of a Wail’, P’s Action Report, September 1994, p. 12: K4, Tab. 10, p. 35 (at 1)]
    [1.5/G]‘And in September 1941 when Churchill was still being obdurate, Churchill was promising to deliver the goods to [Chaim] Weizmann, but still not actually signing on the dotted line. Weizmann wrote a letter, which I have found in Weizmann’s private papers because I was given access to his papers in the State of Israel, in return for the kind of horse trading that the Israelis and so on are pretty good at. And they delivered these papers to me and there was this letter in which Weizmann said ‘You’ve got to remember that we are the biggest independent community in the United States”. At this time we were still trying to lure the United States into World War II remember, we were still trying to lure them in and President Roosevelt couldn’t swing round American public opinion Pearl Harbour hadn’t happened, Churchill was having a hard time throughout 1941, the battle of the Atlantic was in sight and Weizmann said “You’ve got to remember the Jewish community in the United States. We are the largest cohesive body in the United States, which is on your side, on the British side, don’t ignore us. We did it before in World War I, and we can do it again now, we can drag the United States into the War. “We did it before and we can do it again.”
    But okay the scales have tilted against us, we can’t always complain the battlefield isn’t level, we win by other means, we win mainly because we have the people on our side, because we have the archives on our side, because we have the documents on our side and that’s why we keep on winning. So they dragged us into two World Wars and now for equally mysterious reasons they are trying to drag us into the Balkans’ [P’s speech at Bow Town Hall, London, 29 May 1992: K4, Tab. 4, pp. 6-7]
    [1.5/H]‘…and I never used to believe in the existence of an International Jewish Conspiracy and I am not even sure even now if there is an International Jewish Conspiracy all I know is that people are conspiring internationally against me, and they do turn out mostly to be [unintelligible]. [Applause].’ [P’s speech at Bow Town Hall, London, 29 May 1992: K4, Tab. 4, p. 16]
    [1.5/I]INTERVIEWER: When one reads your speeches one has the impression that Churchill was paid by the Jews, that the Jews dragged Britain into the war, that many of the communist regimes have been dominated by Jews subsequently, and that a great deal is control over the world is exercised by the Jews.
    IRVING: Right these are four separate facts, to each of which I would be willing to put my signature. They are four separate and unrelated facts. When you string them together like that you might be entitled then to say: “Question five David Irving, are you therefore an anti-Semite?” This may well have been… [Cut off]
    INTERVIEWER: No this wasn’t my question.
    IRVING: But the answer is this, these are in fact four separate facts which happen to be true, in my considered opinion as a historian. And I think we can find the historical evidence for it. [P’s interview for ‘This Week’, 28 November 1991: K3, Tab 12, pp. 7-8]

    1.6 “Traditional enemy/enemies of the Truth”

    [1.6/A][On the acquittal of John Demjanjuk in June 1993] ‘The world will not easily forget how… [he] was detained in custody by his enemies for two more weeks while they thumbed through their sweaty manuals looking for some way to crush him that they might have overlooked; nor how when they failed again, these Shylocks, cheated of their prey, frogmarched him to his plane home to freedom, still in handcuffs – like a convicted criminal.’ [‘Will John Demjanjuk now sue his tormentors?’, P’s Action Report, number 9, May 1995, p. 10: K4, Tab. 10, p. 50]
    [1.6/B]‘I was allowed free speech [in Canada], until I injured one of the most cherished shibboleths of its traditional enemy, the history of the Holocaust: the last ten years have seen a new and uglier breed of Untouchables created, ironically by Edgar Bronfman Jr., whose father made his billions as a bootlegger – the criminal enemies of the first “untouchables” in the FBI.’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’, P’s Action Report, number 12, 15 August 1997 (for July 1997), p. 21: K4, Tab. 10, p.59]
    [1.6/C]‘Every other aspect of world history is open to debate and dispute – except one. Anyone who challenges this one aspect of history is automatically, ipso facto, described as an anti-Semite. Jewish leaders are now saying that anyone who questions any aspect of the Holocaust is an anti-Semite. Of course, that’s not true. We are just great lovers of the truth, and determined to get to the bottom of what actually did and did not happen.’ [P’s speech at the 11th IHR in October 1992: ‘Life Under Fire: The Wages of Apostasy’ (also published in JHR for Jan/Feb 1993), p. 10: K4, Tab. 10, p. 31 (if required, the full text of this speech, as published in the JHR is in file 3(i), tab 29) ]
    [1.6/D]INTERVIEWER: So if you’re not a fascist how would you describe your own politics?
    IRVING: I think that I’m heading on Intifada against the, against the established version of writing the Holocaust. A one man Intifada. But I think more people…
    [P’s press conference for the FPP publication of the Leuchter Report, 23 June 1989: K3, Tab. 4, p. 39]
    [1.6/E][After Ernst Zündel’s house in Toronto was damaged by fire in May 1995, Irving wrote that Zündel] ‘has attracted particular activity from the traditional enemy with mass mailings directed into German “occupied territory”….'[‘Traditional Enemy Torches Zündel’s Headquarters’, P’s Action Report, May 1995, update, p. 1: K4, Tab. 10, p. 45]

    1.7 Adverse characterisations of Jews:-

    1.7(a) Money, attention seeking etc.
    [1.7/A] After the loss of his contract with the Sunday Times to serialise the Goebbels diaries he described a demonstration against him involving] ‘The whole rabble, all the scum of humanity stand outside. The homosexuals, the gypsies, the lesbians, the Jews, the criminals, the communists, the left-wing extremists, the whole commune stands there and has to be held back behind steel barricades for two days.’ [‘Der ganze Pöbel, der ganze Abschaum der Menschheit steht draußen. Die Homosexuellen, die Zigeuner, die Lesben, die Juden, die Verbrecher, die Kommunisten, die Linksradikalen, die Chaoten, die ganze Kommune steht da und mußte hinter Stahlbarrikaden zurückgehalten werden zwei Tage lang.’] [Videocassette 210, ‘David Irving: “Ich komme wieder”, ca. 1994’, 26m 56s-26m 81s.]
    [1.7/B]‘I was toying with the idea of blaming the Publishers Weekly piece on Mad Jew Disease, but this might go too far. These people have no sense of humour whatsoever, these people. The slightest drop of rain falls on their butterfly-wings and they crumple into tears.’ [Diary entry, 23 March 1996: K4, Tab. 10, p. 54]
    [1.7/C]‘HOLOCAUSTOMANIA: n, obsession with burnt offerings; hence:} business acumen; greed. (Gr., 1994).’ [P’s Action Report, number 9, May 1995, p. 2; K4, Tab. 10, p. 46 (at 1)]
    [1.7/D][In February 1994 Irving was briefly imprisoned in Pentonville prison for contempt of court. He described receiving two ten-pound notes and the increase in value as one of them was exchanged around the prison where it was ‘changed into drugs, then tobacco, then smack’ until it returned to him as three phone cards and an ounce of tobacco.] ‘Needless to say the Jew made more profit between the purchase of the smack and it’s [sic] final conversion into the “For Use in Her Majesty’s Prisons Only” telephone card which finally reaches me.’ [‘Law Report’, P’s Action Report, September 1994, p. 10: K4, Tab. 10, p. 35 (at 2)]
    [1.7/E]‘But we cannot help marvelling at the skill with which the world’s media have trod the delicate path – reporting at length on these claims without seeming simultaneously to confirm every antisemite’s distorted view of “the Jews” as people who swiftly amass huge fortunes while residing in the countries of their choice and then furtively squirrel away their ill-gotten fortunes in secret numbered bank accounts in far-away countries to avoid taxation and the other lawful burdens imposed on their host peoples.’ [‘Gold Rush!’Diary’, P’s Action Report, number 11, 18 December 1996, p. 2: K4, Tab. 10, p. 56]
    [1.7/F]‘What is remarkable is that this community have considered it worth taking such a long term risk [with their claims against Swiss banks], possibly even sowing the seeds of future Holocausts in the name of a short term gain in Gold: all the elements of antisemitic stereotype are there. The cosmopolitan, rootless, millionaire bereft of any local patriotism; flinging his (in popular perception, ill-gotten) gains out ahead as he escapes from the country where he has briefly rested; the demand for “unclaimed” Gold regardless of whose it is – whether wedding-rings eased off the lifeless fingers of Hamburg or Dresden air raid casualties for identification purposes, and stor2.ed by the bucket-full in the Reichsbank vaults…, or dental fillings ripped out of the bodies of gas chamber victims by S.S. dentists somehow immune to the Zyklon fumes which had dispatched the others.’ [‘Going for Gold: Opinion’, Action Report, number 12, 15 August 1997, p. 2: K4, Tab. 10, p. 57 (at 1)]
    [1.7/G][Again concerning claims against Swiss banks] ‘…the squabbles that have already broken out between rival factions – Benjamin Netanyahu, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League – all of whom want their pound of Swiss flesh…’ [‘Going for Gold: Opinion’, Action Report, number 12, 15 August 1997, p. 2: K4, Tab. 10, p. 57 (at 2)]
    [1.7/H][Writing on his ‘grim financial history’ being mentioned in a newspaper article] ‘So: like many other hard-working people around the world, I incurred debts, many long since settled. I do not try to coast through life by putting up a Whale of a Wale and whining that the world has wronged me and owes me a (Gold-card) living.’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’, P’s Action Report, number 12, 15 August 1997 [on title page, on pages ‘July 1997’], p. 22: K4, Tab. 10, p. 60 (at 2)]
    [1.7/I][A friend eating dinner with Irving explains that the] ‘real estate deals he is doing at the expense of heavily mortgaged property owners. (Ouch.) I comment, “Sounds like you’re out-jewing the Jews.” He laughs, and agrees.’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’,Action Report, number 14, July 1998, p. 3: K4, Tab. 10, p. 61]
    [1.7/J][On publishing Hitler’s medical diaries] ‘…an American magazine I think it was Newsday or People or Us telephoned me in London and said: “Mr Irving, is it true that you’re publishing the diaries of Hitler’s doctor?” So I said: “Yes,” and they said: “Are the Jews going to like this book?” So I said: “I don’t think so, no.” So he said: “What is the reason for that?” and I said: “Well, they’re not mentioned in it.”
    It is very difficult; we cannot please them. I do my hardest to please them. If you do mention them in a book they are mortally offended, if you don’t mention them in a book they are equally offended.” [P’s speech at the 1983 IHR Conference, Anaheim, California (was also published in the JHR):K4, Tab. 1, p. 20]
    [1.7/K][Describing Anthony Julius’s complaint that Irving had used the word ‘ventilated’ in his affidavit to say that the topic of the gas chambers would be opened to examination, Irving wrote] ‘God – these people are so sensitive, it is a wonder they’re not covered in a permanent and unsightly rash.’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’, P’s Action Report, number 15, 20 July 1999, p. 8: K4, Tab. 10, p. 63]
    [1.7/L][Writing on a visit by a female friend who tells Irving about her partner, Irving wrote] who earns million-dollar bonuses each year as a broker, but, she laments, he does not have much time for her; she just gets talk about money. He squanders it like water, flies her everywhere first class, etc. (By this time I have guessed that he’s Jewish.)’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’, Action Report, number 15, 20 July 1999, p. 20; K4, Tab. 10, p. 65]
    1.7(b) Primacy of ethnic loyalty
    [1.7/M][In his ‘A Radical’s Diary’ of May 1995 Irving wrote about final court demands against Robert Faurisson that he pay a 30,000 franc fine] ‘He asked the court of appeal to allow him to pay in installments. The court president Violette Hannoun refused – oblivious to the fresh concerns that her action, as a Jewess, must stir up among ordinary French people….’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’, Action Report, number 9, May 1995, p. 4: K4, Tab. 10, p. 47]
    [1.7/N][In trying to explain Goebbels’s anti-Semitism, Irving explains that as an aspiring writer his articles and job applications were ‘rudely rebuffed’ by the Ullstein and Mosse families] ‘The Berliner Tageblatt alone returned to him nearly 50 articles he had submitted.’ This was, as Irving explained: “No surprise, if you look at the private papers of Theodor Wollf, chief editor of the Berliner Tageblatt, which was published by the Mosse company. In these papers, which are filed in the German Federal archives, you can see that Wolff was corresponding almost entirely with Jews. It’s what we today would call networking; if you’re outside the loop, you can’t break in.’ [P’s speech at the 12th IHR Conference in September 1994 (published in the JHR for January/February 1995): K3, Tab. 18, p. 6]
    [1.7/O][Writing about the German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom, Irving mentioned its head was ‘Aaron (Ron) Sommer, an Israeli-born American citizen’] ‘Yes, the story gets more incredible as it proceeds: why should Germany, presumably a sovereign nation now, put in charge of DT, its most sensitive telecommunications position a man who is not once, but twice a foreign national?
    It would be like putting that nice Mr Jonathan Pollard in charge of Britain’s GCHQ; or making Mohammed Ghaddafi boss of the National Security Agency.’ [‘Zündelists Multiply in Cyberspace’, Action Report, update, 5 March 1996, p. 3; K4, Tab. 10, p. 52]
    1.7 (c) Physical characteristics of Jews
    [1.7/P][A press conference when a Japanese company publicly apologised for a denialist article is described by Irving as] ‘overshadowed by the gloating, vulpine figure of Rabbi [Abraham] Cooper [of the Simon Wiesenthal Center] himself….’[‘Wiesenthalers Zap Jap “Crap”‘, Action Report, number 9, May 1995, p. 11; K4, Tab. 10, p. 51 (at 3)]
    [1.7/Q]‘Arrived at office of Rubenstein-Nash. After delay, shown into office of Mr. Michael Rubenstein. Thick skinned these Jews are! Didn’t bat an eyelid as he read out excerpts from my Carnival editorial, the “National Press owned by the Jews” the “Jews hating other races claiming to be the master race…”‘ [Diary entry, 10 June 1963: K4, Tab. 10, p. 1]
    [1.7/R][Writing about Dr. Berhard Weiss, the Berlin Deputy Police Chief, Irving wrote that he] ‘…looked so much like a Jewish caricature that his photographs didn’t need to be re-touched by the Nazis. He was stereotypically Semitic in feature: short, with rounded ears and hook nose, and wearing spectacles.
    In London I located Weiss’ daughter, Hilda Baban-Weiss, and pleaded with her for a more attractive photo of her father, pointing out that the ones I have are not very flattering. I got total silence from the daughter, so I abandoned my quest. Unfortunately, when my biography of Dr. Goebbels comes out we’re going to have to use these rather unattractive pictures.’ [P’s speech at the 12th IHR in September 1994, published as ‘Revelations from the Goebbels’ Diaries’ (JHR for Jan/Feb 1995): K3, Tab. 18, p. 7]
    [1.7/S][Commenting on a supposed ‘Jewish-communist assault’ on the Dresden cemetery and memorial to the occasion of the anniversary of the allied air raids. Irving dismissed suggestions that it might have been the work of right-wingers trying to blacken ‘their opponents’ because] ‘framing your opponents is a trick used exclusively by our traditional enemy…’. ‘I doubt they do it on central instructions. Actions like these seem to be embedded into their biological microchip before birth.’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’, Action Report, number 9, May 1995, p. 6: K4, Tab. 10, p. 49]
    [1.7/T][After hiring him to help serialise the Goebbels’ diaries, Irving claimed that Andrew Neil told him that he had never] ‘come under such immense pressure from You Know Whom; from our traditional enemies’ [including] ‘the self-appointed, ugly, greasy, perverted representatives of that community in Britain’. [P’s Clarendon Club speech, 19 September 1992: K4, Tab. 5, pp. 3-4]
    [1.7/U]‘They [a British television company] telephoned me two days ago in Winnipeg to say “Mr Irving, we’ve been told by the British Minister of the Interior, the Home Office that they are going to ban Fred Leuchter setting foot in Britain at the request of the British Board of Deputies of Jews. And this is the way they work, they refuse to allow debate. They scurry and hide furtively, they’re like the cockroaches who you don’t see normally by light of day. They hide, they fear the truth, it bedazzles them, it blinds them, they can’t stand that [unintelligible]. [Applause].’ [P’s speech at the Bayerische Hof, Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991: K3 Tab. 10, p. 27]

    1.8 Jewish/communist/ capitalist nexus

    [1.8/A]‘…because the Sunday Times like many other newspapers needs international capital to survive. And international capital is provided by the great international merchant banks. And the great international merchant banks are controlled by people who are no friends of yours and mine.’ [P’s speech to the Clarendon Club, 19 September 1992: K4, Tab. 5, p. 4]
    [1.8/B][On demonstrators outside his house] ‘This odd, and ugly, and perverse, and greasy, and slimy community of “anti-Fascists” that run a severe risk of making the very word Fascist respectable again by their very appearance.![Loud Laughter and Applause]’ [P’s speech to the Clarendon Club, 19 September 1992: K4, Tab. 5, p. 5]
    [1.8/C]‘It struck me that Horten had not made any reference to the Jews, a typical thermometer of a person’s nationalistic feeling.’ [Diary entry, 13 May 1982: K4, Tab. 10, p. 14]
    [1.8/D][In 1983 Irving explained to the IHR why it was that he was that he was] ‘always running into problems with my critics of a certain persuasion’. [P’s speech at the 1983 IHR Conference, 4 September 1983, Anaheim, California: K4, Tab. 1, p. 11]
    [1.8/E][Whilst explaining that his thesis that the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 ‘had the closest possible analogy to a pogrom’ was not his opinion, but what emerged from his sources, Irving slipped into his own historical and political views on the matter] ‘This Jewish camarilla [Revai, Farkas, Rakosi, and Gerö], this four-headed monster which descended on the Hungarian people, bore down on them from Moscow, had been in Moscow throughout the war years and was imposed upon them as a post-war government, obtaining power by quite illegal and undemocratic means, and exercising that power with brutality and ruthlessness. Its primary executive arm was the secret police, initially called the Allamvedelmi Osztaly (AVO), the State Security Office, and subsequently the AVH. Now it is necessary to know that the officer corps of that secret police was almost entirely Jewish and from the Russian point of view you can understand this. They needed people on whom they could rely 100% to be their officer corps, their secret police.’ [P’s speech at the 1983 IHR Conference, 4 September 1983: K4, Tab. 1, p. 14]
    [1.8/F]‘And everywhere you go across the United States now, and you see these Holocaust Memorials and Museums, the American taxpayer must wonder, what’s it got to do with us? You go to Baltimore, the centre of Baltimore, and there’s this hideous concrete slab, this, this meaningless thing, poked out of a nice park. And you wonder what it’s about. And basically it’s telling the Americans, [gesticulates with upraised finger] “We are powerful enough to do that to you. We are powerful enough to shaft you. We are powerful enough to put the most hideous Monument you can imagine in the middle of Baltimore, and although you people of Baltimore haven’t done anything to us yet, we’re putting up a Monument already to it.” That’s what it’s about. [Laughter].’ [P’s speech at the Bayerische Hof, Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991: K3, Tab. 10, pp. 9-10]

    1.9 Citing (neutrally, or with approval) the anti-Semitism of others

    [1.9/A][In a paper delivered to the IHR, Irving speculated on why, in his mind, the so-called Eichmann memoirs had been supressed. One of the reasons he proffered his audience was Eichmann’s belief that the Nazis had been lured into the Holocaust by Zionism.]
    ‘The second interesting thing that emerges from Eichmann’s own papers is that he’s chewing over in his own mind – he’s frightfully repetitive – he keeps on coming back, again and again, in his manuscripts and in these conversations to who was behind it, and what was behind it. What was behind “the Holocaust” (if we can use that word loosely here now)? He keeps coming back to the appalling thought: Did they manage to use us? Did the Zionists use the Nazis to further their own ends? Was the Holocaust something that they themselves inflicted on their own body, in order to bring about their Zionist cause in the long run?
    This was Eichmann’s theory, at the end of his life.[…] And perhaps this is the reason why the Eichmann papers were not supposed to see the light of day.’ [P’s speech at the 11th IHR Conference, ‘The Suppressed Eichmann and Goebbels Papers’ (published in JHR for March/April 1993): K3, Tab. 13, p. 19 (generally, pp. 18-25)]
    [1.9/B]‘Now I understand that at Mr Zundel’s trial that one of these two Slovaks turned up for the prosecution and gave evidence and made a miserable impression. His name was Mr Vrba, Mr Vrba apparently didn’t know half the things he was supposed to know from his own report. And when Mr Zundel told me this yesterday I could only say this was exactly my own impression, that in fact there were no two Slovaks Jews, that they are fictitious, they never existed, that the report is a concoction of some propaganda agency. And the interesting thing that occurred to me was that when this report came out published by the War Refugee Board in 1944, in November, 5 months after it came out of Europe, two newspapers immediately challenged its authenticity and refused to publish it. The New York Times and the Washington Post. Not just any two newspapers, but the two must prestigious newspapers in the United States. Initially refused to publish this report or to comment on it because it looked too phony to them. One of them pointed out the fact, or raised the startling hypothesis, that the report had actually been masterminded by Dr Goebbels’ propaganda ministry. Lets dwell on that a minute. Let’s wrap our minds around that concept. That this famous report by the two Slovak Jews had been produced by the Nazi propagandists themselves. Not my idea, it’s the idea of the leading columnist in the New York Times for why he was not going to accept this report and publish it. He thought it was such an anti-Semitic report that the burden, of it the balance of the report when you finish reading the 25 pages and put it down your revulsion, is not only at the thought that the Germans were doing this to these helpless victims but you had a secondary revulsion that the people who were actually doing it on the spot, the trustees in the camp, the clerks, the bookkeepers, the people whose job it was to select and deport and ship into the gas chambers and carry out the bodies and so on, were all Jews themselves. This was the real burden of the report of the two Slovaks, to put their fingers on the Jews and say these were the real cruel people, the real atrocities were submitted by the Jews themselves in the camp at Auschwitz. A diabolical piece of propaganda issued by the Nazi Propaganda Ministry itself. This was the conclusion of the New York Times, privately, in reading this report. And if your first response is to say well it’s a rare way to do it, you make people believe the lesser evil that the Jews were doing it but at the same time let them believe that Auschwitz had killed 1.75 million Jews, the answer to that was given by the columnist himself when he said “the world believes that about the Germans anyway”, we’ve been pumping out atrocity propaganda about the Germans, the Germans are believed to have done this anyway and the propaganda Ministry, diabolical as they are, they will say let us put that into our own report and if that doesn’t blacken us any further than we have been blackened by the world media anyway, if only we can get them to believe this vicious lie about the Jews themselves. It’s a very interesting hypothesis.’ [P’s speech in Toronto, August 1988: K3, Tab. 2, pp. 14-15]

    1.10 Adoption of anti-Semitic programmes

    [1.10/A]‘And I think, and I may be considered extremist for saying this, I think the Madagascar Solution would probably have been the most peaceful for the present world. The Jews would have been on an island about the size of Germany with a very temperate climate, interesting agriculture possibilities, far more suitable, I would have thought, than the desert they were finally settled in. And above all, like Australia, like New Zealand, like England, they would have had no neighbours, nobody who they could feel intimated by and, of course, nobody who they in turn could intimidate. What a more peaceful place the world would be today of all days.’ [P’s speech in Christchurch, New Zealand, 26 March 1986: K4, Tab. 3, pp. 14-15]
    [1.10/B]‘When he [Eichmann] addressed his mind to the “final solution of the Jewish problem” in the late 1930s and early 1940s, it was quite plain to him that it was only a plan to sweep all the Jews of Europe aboard boats and transport them lock, stock and barrel down to Madagascar, where they would be on an island where they couldn’t bother any of their neighbours and where none of their neighbours could bother them. I’ve always said and I say it here again – even though I risk making a few enemies-that I think that would have been an ideal solution to a perennial world tragedy….
    What was behind the “Holocaust” (if we can use the word loosely here now)? He [Eichmann] keeps coming back to the appalling thought: Did they manage to use us? Did the Zionists use the Nazis to further their own ends. Was the Holocaust something that they themselves inflicted on their own body, in order to bring about their Zionist cause in the long run?… And perhaps this is the reason the Eichmann papers were not supposed to see the light of day.’ [P’s speech to the 11th IHR Conference, ‘The Suppressed Eichmann and Goebbels Papers’, (published in the JHR for March/April 1993): K3, Tab. 13, p. 19]

    (C) Anti-Semitic abuse

    1.11 Abuse of individual Jews:

    • Elie Wiesel
      [1.11/A]‘No-one’s ever going to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize or Prize for literature for writing a book saying Auschwitz wasn’t. You get it for saying “Auschwitz was and I was there”. And witness the case of Elie Wiesel. A man called Elie Wiesel gets the Nobel Prize because he stands up and repeatedly pontificates about having been in Auschwitz. I feel it’s a wretched enough situation, it’s bad luck to be called “Weasel” for the rest of your life but I don’t think that’s reason to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize either. I would say probably, the maximum I would allow him is some suitable humane society award, but I think the Nobel Peace Prize goes too far.’ [P’s speech in Toronto, August 1988: K3, Tab. 4, p. 21]
      [1.11/B]‘And poor Mr Wiesel, I mean, it’s terribly bad luck to be called ‘Weasel’ but that’s no excuse [Laughter] I mean, these people do have a bad time, they had a very, very hard time and I do want to speak a few words of sympathy for them, like, I mean, like on Halloween’s Night, for example, or say Saint Wiesenthal’s Night, as we call it in London.’ [P’s speech at the Latvian Hall, Toronto, 8 November 1990: K3, Tab. 8, pp. 17-18]
      [1.11/C]‘You know we have heard repeatedly how the eyewitnesses come forward like Elie Wiesel and say, Eli Weasel I don’t know where they get these names from – every time they come up against you, these traditional enemies of the truth, they have a name like “Weasel” or in England the Director of the Board of Directors of British Jews, his name is Mark Whine, W H I N E or in New York it is something called “Weaselt Keir” which means a nasty animal and I don’t know… I think if my name was “Weasel Keir” I think I would change it two or three times, in case anybody asked me what my previous name was before I changed it.[Laughter].’ [P’s speech in Tampa Florida, 6 October 1995: K3, Tab. 20, p. 11]
    • Edgar Bronfman
      [1.11/D][Irving wrote about an appeal letter by Edgar Bronfman the President of the World Jewish Congress – in Irving’s words ‘president of the World (“What? Us – an international conspiracy?”) Jewish Congress’ – to combat the spread of Holocaust denial] ‘…isn’t there something obscene about the spectacle of billionaire Bronfman pleading (“Your money is tax deductable to the full extent of the law”) for funds? Like his bootlegger father, Bronfman makes his millions from distilling alcohol – a poisonous drug which accounts for the one hundred thousand needless deaths each year in the United States alone. Now isn’t that a true Holocaust?
      It’s a wonder incidentally that Brofman hasn’t gone into the lucrative abortion business yet. As of January 1995 one of the biggest abortion businesses, Planned Parenthood Inc., was said by the Miami Herald to be grossing $500 million annually in the United States.”[ ‘Opinion’, Action Report, number 9, May 1995, p. 2; K4, Tab. 10, p. 46 (at 2)]
      [1.11/E]‘I was allowed free speech [in Canada], until I injured one of the most cherished shibboleths of its traditional enemy, the history of the Holocaust: the last ten years have seen a new and uglier breed of Untouchables created, ironically by Edgar Bronfman Jr., whose father made his billions as a bootlegger – the criminal enemies of the first “untouchables” in the FBI.’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’, Action Report, number 12, 15 August 1997 [on title page, on pages ‘July 1997’], p. 21; K4, Tab. 10, p. 59]
    • Rabbi Cooper
      [1.11/F][A press conference when a Japanese company publicly apologised for a Denialist article was described by Irving as] ‘overshadowed by the gloating, vulpine figure of Rabbi [Abraham] Cooper [of the Simon Wiesenthal Center] himself….’[‘Wiesenthalers Zap Jap “Crap”‘, Action Report, number 9, May 1995, p. 11, K4, Tab. 10, p. 51 (at 3)]
    • the Klarsfelds
      [1.11/G][Irving heard that Jean Claude Pressac] ‘has been taking payments and other favours from the Serge and Beate Klarsfeld couple, the Grand Dragons of the Holocaust klan, since 1982. If this is true, it sheds a shameful light on the morality of the opponents of revisionism.’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’, Action Report, number 9, May 1995, p. 5; K4, Tab. 10, p. 48]
    • Simon Wiesenthal
      [1.11/H] ‘I’ve had a lot of trouble with Simon Wiesenthal recently and I remember that 3 or 4 years ago I had the unnerving experience of sitting in my rental car after I had been speaking in London, not London England but London Ontario, which is about 200 miles west of Toronto and I had driven back to Toronto that night, the speaking was very exhausting and I got back in Toronto at half past two on this November morning, and as I drove up [uninintelligible] Street in Toronto, which is the main artery of Toronto, I pulled up at the traffic lights and glaring at me from the car next to me in the traffic lights was Simon Wiesenthal himself, his face hideously contorted by rage. I got a real shock because he looked into me through my driver’s window and there was Mr Wiesenthal, this hideous, leering, evil face glaring at me, then I realised it wasn’t Simon Wiesenthal, it was a Halloween mask. [Applause]. Now those of you who have seen Mr Wiesenthal will know what I’m talking about. Mrs Wiesenthal who has seen Mr Wiesenthal many times of course, and she says to him at Halloween “Simon please keep the mask on, you look so much nicer with it on”.’ [P’s Clarendon Club speech at Bow Town Hall, 29 May 1992: K4, Tab. 4, p. 17]

    1.12 Anti-Semitic ‘jokes’ and anecdotes

    [1.12/A][Irving described the advertising campaign by the Sunday Times for the serialisation of the Goebbels Diaries entries using hoardings ‘in all the of the Jewish ghettos in Britain’] ‘I had nothing to do with that. I thought it was rather tasteless. I got a certain amount of glee out of it I must admit, the thought of these fifteen-foot tall swastikas appearing one morning… [loud Laughter]… But I had nothing to do with it. He didn’t come to me, Andrew Neil, and say, “Irving, what can we do really to get up the nose of those people?!” Because if Andrew Neil had said to me “What can we do really to get up the nose of those people?!” I would have said “Andrew, why don’t put up sixty foot posters, red-white-and-black, with fifteen-foot swastikas and some Goebbels’ phrase like THE WORLD WILL TREMBLE WHEN…”‘ [P’s Clarendon Club speech, 19 September 1992: K4, Tab. 5, p. 3]

    2. Racism

    [2/A]INTERVIEWER: Are you a racist?
    IRVING: Well, are you using the word racist in a, in a, in a derogatory sense? This is it you see, you want to use the word in a derogatory sense. If we look for a different word, which has the same connotations as racist without the same flavor and say, am I a patriot, yes.
    INTERVIEWER: They’re not the same word at all.
    IRVING: It is exactly the same word. I’m proud of being white and I’m proud of being British.
    INTERVIEWER: You went to Britain to be white?
    IRVING: Yes. [P’s interview for ‘Cover Story’ (Australian television) 4 March 1997: K4, Tab. 8, pp. 6-7]
    [2/B][In Africa Irving observed that the black man] ‘With his family, his goat, and his shack he happy […] What a sad end of Empire for the English: what an abject, unwarranted capitulation of wisdom before ignorance, of the brave before the brutal, of a whole nation to the dictates of an uncivilized world!’ [David Irving Diaries (Vol. 57), 23 February 1992: K4, Tab. 10, p. 26 ]
    [2/C][Irving sang racist ditties with his young daughter Jessica. He noted in his diary] ‘There are two other poems in which she stars: My name is Baby Jessica / I’ve got a pretty dress-ica / But now it’s in a mess-ica. And, more scurrilously, that when half-breed children are wheeled past:
    I am a Baby Aryan
    Not Jewish or Sectarian
    I have no plans to marry-an
    Ape or Rastafarian.
    Benté [the mother of Jessica] is suitably shocked.’ [David Irving Diaries (Vol. 60), 17 September 1994: K4, Tab. 10, p. 38]
    [2/D]‘For the last four weeks just for once I have gone away from London, where I have been sitting, down to Torquay, which is a white community. We saw perhaps one black man and one coloured family in the whole time I was down there. I am not anti-coloured, take it from me; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport, or a station, or a seaport, and I see a coloured family there – the black father, the black wife and the black children….When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy (and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy. [Cheers and Laughter]. But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this — the way…the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they’re reading it to me. (If I was a chauvinist I would even say I object even to seeing women reading our news to us.) [“Hear, hear”, and Laughter]
    Because basically international news is a serious thing and I yearn for the old days of Lord Reith, when the news reader on the BBC, which was the only channel in those times, wore a dinner jacket and bow tie and rose to the occasion […] But now we have women reading out news to us. If they could perhaps have their own news which they were reading to us I suppose [Laughter], it would be very interesting. [Good-natured female heckling].
    For the time being, for a transitional period I’d be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, following by a lady reading all the less important news, followed by Trevor Macdonald giving us all the latest news about the muggings and the drug busts – [rest lost in loud Laughter and Applause].’[P’s Clarendon Club speech, 19 September 1992: K4, Tab. 5, pp. 10-11]
    [2/E][In answer to the rhetorical question of why, in his mind, why ethnic minorities have ‘a very high profile’ on television, Irving replied] ‘The answer is of course, they’re trying to force this multicultural, this multi-ethnic mix, what Winston Churchill himself called a kind of artists sludge […] And he [Churchill] knew what he was saying, because he was speaking back in the 1940s and 1950s before this appalling national tragedy.’ [P’s speech to the Clarendon Club, 19 September 1992: K4, Tab. 5, p. 11]
    [2/F]‘…and the Conservatives, I think we’re all ashamed to say, bear the greatest blame for what’s happened to this country over the last 30 years, this act of self-immolation, when you consider that more coloured immigrants are now in this country, 3 times as many as the size of the army with which Adolf Hitler invaded Russia in 1941. You can see the size of the invasion that we have passively, silently and cowardly and cravenly succumbed to in this country. Worst than that of course, anybody who objects to it in this country has to watch his language very closely, as [unintelligible] who’s in our presence today knows, have to watch your language very carefully in order not to fall foul, fall foul of the full majesty of the law.’[P’s speech at Bow Town Hall, 29 May 1992: K4, Tab.4, p. 2]
    [2/G]INTERVIEWER: ..you were quoted on, Mr Irving, you were quoted on radio in Australia yesterday saying it makes you queasy seeing black men playing cricket for England. Can you explain to us what you mean by that?
    IRVING: Well I think probably if you spoke to a lot of English people they’d, they’d find the same thing but not many of them are prepared to say it in public. You see there’s so much intimidation in our so-called liberal free democratic society that that people are forced to live an almost schizophrenic existence. They make statements in public which they consider to be safe but privately at the back of their heads they think differently and I say what I think. And, I’m queasy when I see, now you see I was born in England in 1938 and people will know what I’m saying now, 1938 England was a different country from the way England is now and I’m unhappy to see what we have done to England. We’ve abdicated, we’ve committed a kind of international hari kari, we’ve inflicted great misery on ourselves with coloured immigration and we’ve inflicted, let’s be frank, we’ve inflicted misery on the coloured immigrants as well. It’s a kind of 20th century slave trade. I don’t like it and I’m queasy about it and I’m frank enough to say it and no-one’s going to prevent me from speaking my mind about it.’ [P’s interview for the Holmes Show (New Zealand television) 4 June 1993: K3, Tab. 16, pp. 3-4]
    [2/H]‘Patriotism always involves a certain degree of hostility to foreigners. In fact people sometimes say to me, “Mr. Irving, racism.” And I say, “You tell me this: what is the difference between racism and patriotism?” They’re both two ways of describing the same kind of elemental xenophobia that exists in every human being that God created.’ [P’s interview for This Week, 28 November 1991: K3, tab 12, pp. 10-11]
    [2/I][Setting out a speech he would have made at the Oxford Union had he not been prevented by a ‘campaign of slanders and smear’] ‘..the compulsory repatriation of Blacks from this country is never likely to command an overwhelming majority of votes. True, as both public polls and our postbag show, British citizens as a whole are in favour, but they will hesitate to vote for any policy which may attract the opprobrium of the rest of the world, or drag Britain’s name in the mud. Why not therefore adopt a Benevolent Repatriation policy […] if the introduction of a compulsory repatriation programme is likely to meet with delay, then let us start first with a Benevolent Repatriation scheme as outlined in FP, Dec. 20. The one does not preclude the other.’ [Focal Point, 8 March 1982; K4, Tab. 10, p. 7]
    [2/J]‘I said many years ago, I think that it is time to find some way of persuading the, the ethnic minorities in this country who are unhappy and are causing much unhappiness both to themselves and to others by their presence here to find an upright and honest manner in which we can transport them back, in a benevolent manner, to their homelands if they wish to go.
    But we have to make it attractive to them. We have to provide them with full economy, uh, a full employment to which they can return. We can’t send them back to unemployment; if you pay them five thousand pounds to leave from Heathrow they’ll come back in through Prestwick, and leave again through Heathrow and it’ll be the biggest stage army since Henry the Fifth! [Laughter] So my views are given roughly there.’ [P’s speech to the Clarendon Club’, 19 September 1992: K4, Tab. 5, pp. 6-7]
    [2/K] ‘…and the Journalist has said “Mr Irving, we read in today’s newspapers that you told the ABC radio that you feel queasy about the immigration disaster that’s happened to Britain. Is that your opinion?” and I said “well yes, I have to admit to being born in England in 1938, which was a totally different England, I feel queasy when I look and see what has happened to our country and nobody has stood up and objected it” and he says “well what do you think about black people on the Australian, on the British cricket team then?. How do you feel about that then, the black cricketers?” So I said “that makes me even more queasy…” and so he says right, and I say “no, hang on, it makes me feel queasy but I would like to think we’ve got white cricketers who are as good as the black ones” and he couldn’t climb out of that you see. And then he says “so what you’re advocating then is a kind of race hatred.” So I said “before I answer your questions, would you tell me what you believe in, as a journalist, an Australian journalist. Do you believe in mixing up all God’s races into one super, kind of mixed up race. Are you in favour of racial inter-marriage and racial mixing and he said “well I believe in multiculturalism”, of course that’s the buzzword, it will come here sooner or later.’ [P’s speech at Bow Town Hall, 29 May 1992: K4, tab 4, p. 3]

    3. Misogyny

    [3/A][After a television interview with Jana Wendt] ‘She then asked if it was true I said women were like mental chewing gum. Can’t recall ever having said that, but I told what I had said: 10 per cent less brain, never composed a symphony, even in Czechoslovakia, etc etc.’ [Diary entry, 3 June 1992: K4, Tab. 10, p. 27]
    [3/B]‘Not a word from Ms Bonita: another f*cking unreliable female. They demanded equal pay, but if only they would show 1% of the male’s reliability.’ [Diary entry, 11 October 1993; K4, Tab. 10, p. 34]
    [3/C]See extract 2/D above.

    4. Political chauvinism.

    [4/A]‘I had hoped that you would seize the opportunity, Mr. Judge, to take up cudgels for the German people.
    Because a blood lie has been pronounced on the German people for fifty years by the enemies of the German people, beginning with the original English propaganda lie, that we ourselves put in circulation in November 1942 against the German Reich.’ [‘Ich hatte gehofft, daß Sie die Gelegenheit wahrnehmen würden, Herr Richter, hier eine Lanze zu brechen für das deutsche Volk./ Denn gegen das deutsche Volk ist seit fünfzig Jahren eine Blutlüge ausgesprochen worden, von den Feinden des deutschen Volkes, ausgehend von der ursprünglichen englische Propagandalüge, die wir selbst im November 1942 gegen das deutsche Reich im Umlauf setzten.’] [Schlußwort, München, den 5. Mai 1992, nach der Originaltonbandaufnahme, n.d., 10pp., pp. 4 – 7; K4, Tab. 10, p. 68]
    [4/B]‘And it takes some courage, to stand up today, the way that I and an increasing number of other historians in the whole of the outside world do, and say that the Holocaust, the gas chambers in Auschwitz, didn’t exist. They’re just dummies, which were specially set up by the Polish or some other authorities after the end of the war in order to condemn and def… to defame the German people.’ [‘Und es gehört etwas dazu aufzustehen heute, so wie ich und das zunehmend andere Historiker auch tun in der ganzen Außenwelt und sagen, der Holocaust, die Gaskammernanlagen in Auschwitz hat es nicht gegeben. Die sind nur Attrapen die von den Polen oder von irgendwelchen Behörden extra erstellt worden sind nach dem Kriegende zur Verdammung, und zur Deffamierung des deutschen Volkes.’] [P’s speech in Moers, 5 March 1990: K3, Tab. 5, p. 20]
    [4/C]‘In describing Britain as a Victorious Power, well, I’m happy to think that we’re a Victorious Power and our Forces, British, Canadian, the Empire’s Forces, fought grand individual battles world-wide with all the heroism that you come to associate with the Nordic peoples. The fact that we allegedly lost the war in real terms has still not been discovered by the historians. But to describe us as a Victorious Power when we were already bankrupt by Nineteen Forty, when we then went on for five years to dig ourselves even deeper into debt, destroying thousands of cities and killing millions of people, burning them alive and emerging from World War Two with our Empire already vanishing into nothingness, and to describe us now, forty-five years later, when we’re little more than an off-shore Holland. [Laughter] as a Victorious Power, I mean it’s very nice.’ [P’s speech at the Latvian Hall, Toronto, 8 November 1990: K3, Tab. 8, p. 10-11]
    [4/D] ‘Within ten years you will have recovered your Eastern Territories. Within fifteen years you’ll have all East Prussia, including Konigsberg, Kaliningrad [unintelligible – ‘back under the German flag’] [Applause] It is quite plain to me that the Deutschmark being the most powerful currency in the whole of Europe, probably by then the most powerful currency in the world. The sheer economic imperialism that this makes possible will enable Germany, a democratic Germany, to attain all the aims that Adolf Hitler set out to gain with his Panzer divisions in Nineteen Forty One. You will achieve an economic hegemony in the Ukraine, in the White, in White Russia. You will re-establish German influence in the, in the Baltic Countries.’ [P’s speech at the Latvian Hall, Toronto, 8 November 1990: K3, Tab. 8, p. 11]
    [4/E]‘So they’re beginning to look for other people in the European race [for compensation], so it’s turned to almost into a racial issue. It’s the white Europeans who did this to the Jews and therefore the white Europeans are, it’s a kind of collective guilt which is now spilling out onto all of us. And that nonsense has got to stop now, and I’m glad to say that the Archives make it possible to do so. [Applause]’ [P’s speech at the Latvian Hall, Toronto, 8 November 1990: K3, Tab. 8, p. 14]
    [4/F]INTERVIEWER: You made a very powerful speech tonight […] what is the message you’re trying to get across to an audience of Germans like this?
    IRVING: I’m very fond of the German people and it’s depressed me for 30 or 40 years to see how not only have they lost their national identity, but they have no sense of national pride. They have a great tradition that you look back on and if they can look back beyond World War II. That World War II seems to have blown all the fuses as far as national pride is concerned and I’m trying to do something about restoring their sense of national pride.
    INTERVIEWER: And do you restore their sense of national pride by telling them to be proud of what happened in the war?
    IRVING: Well it depends what events you’re looking at. There are certain events in World War II that I think they’d be justifiably proud of if they were British regiments …. [P’s interview for ‘This Week’, 28 November 1991: K3, tab 12, p. 1]
    [4/G]INTERVIEWER: There’s a great deal of controversy in Germany at the moment about the influx of foreigners, of Poles, Rumanians, gypsies, Turks. Do you think that the Germans, some of the Germans are right to want those foreigners to leave?
    Irving: The Germans don’t have an Enoch Powell to speak for them. The Germans carry such a terrible political mortgage, so to speak, of the events of the Third Reich, the allegations of the Holocaust, and all the rest of it, that they’re worried about speaking out openly. Any politician who was to speak out openly the mind of the German people would lay themselves open to cheap shots.
    INTERVIEWER: What is the mind of the German people about this?
    IRVING: Well you have to realize, this is something that I realized when I first came to Germany nearly 40 years ago as a steel worker in fact. I got to know the steelworkers on the furnace stage in the Ruhr. I worked in there for a year and I very rapidly realized, probably not to my surprise, that there were two Germanys, two Germans. The German you met in public and the German you met in private, in the bar across the beer table. And even now in Germany you’ll find that when you’re talking to journalists or professional people they’ll give you the official opinion to start with, the mask. But behind the mask, at the back of their brain, is a real opinion which is tucked away, which is waiting to come out.
    INTERVIEWER: And their real opinion is that they want to be pure Germans?
    IRVING: Oh yes.
    INTERVIEWER: And rid of foreigners?
    IRVING: Oh yes. The Germans are always very proud of their German-ness…. And this German-ness is something, which persists in Germans abroad. It’s probably where to look for it, this German-ness in its pure form, because you won’t find it in the original motherland, you won’t find it in the German fatherland because here it’s been suppressed. It’s been blanketed out by the events of World War II. [P’s interview for This Week, 28 November 1991: K3, tab 12, pp. 2-3]
    [4/H]‘…I don’t think I encourage any kind of violence, though I do try to encourage people to think for themselves and I’m trying to encourage the Germans to have the courage to speak for themselves and they haven’t found that courage yet.’[P’s interview for This Week, 28 November 1991: K3, tab 12, p. 5]
    [4/I]‘God works in mysterious ways, but here, we agree, he appears to be working [unreadable word] towards a Final Solution, which may cruelly wipe out not only Blacks and homosexuals but a large part of the drug addicts and sexually promiscuous and indiscriminate heterosexual population as well.’ [Diary entry, 10 November, 1987; K4, Tab. 10, p. 19]

    5. Hitler partisan

    [5/A]IRVING: …I think Adolf Hitler made a lot of mistakes. He surrounded himself by people of very very poor quality. He was a rotten judge of character. These are the mistakes that you have to avoid replicating.
    INTERVIEWER: What’s the way in which you would like to resemble Hitler?
    IRVING: I’d like to build Autobahns, I’d like to design great cities and buildings, I’d like to be able to stand in front of an audience which the BBC once showed magnificently in a hundredth birthday film. Bill Jones did this. They took the episode where Hitler delivered a speech. But what they showed was not him speaking, they showed the two or three minutes when he arrived on the podium and just stood there, drinking in the applause of 100,000 people first. Not many orators can do that. It takes, I’m trying to develop oratory. I’m always very grateful when I speak to live audiences. I would be grateful if I could be as magnificent an orator as Adolf Hitler or as flowery an orator as Winston Churchill. [P’s interview for This Week, 28 November 1991: K3, tab 12, p. 11]
    [5/B]‘Fed Ex delivered my missing package and I can see the missing Hitler self-portrait through the burst corners of the box. Hoorah’ [Diary entry, 5 April 1995; K4, Tab. 10, p. 44]
    [5/C]‘At the kiosk was a picture of Hitler and three miners, with bikes, standing on the bridge. “A feiner kerl” [a nice guy] I commented to the kiosk owner, but earned only a sniff in reply.’ [Diary entry for 10 November 1989; K4, Tab. 10, p. 20]
    [5/D]‘I think they’re [the Jews] making a mistake. For thirty years they’ve tried to make my life impossible. But the irony is that because of that I’ve become involved in the whole debate about the Holocaust. And because of that it may make the life of the state of Israel impossible.’ [P’s interview for This Week, 28 November 1991: K3, tab 12, p. 12]
    [5/E]INTERVIEWER: …So that’s beyond dispute. How can you say that, that Hitler was the Jews’ best friend?
    IRVING: What I did in fact say was that, that in view of the fact that without Adolph Hitler and the Holocaust, as it’s now called, the state of Israel might even, might even now very well not exist. In this respect, of course, Hitler did the Jews a great service. [P’s interview with Ray Martin, 21 March 1986: K4, Tab. 2, p. 1 ]
    [5/F]INTERVIEWER: David, do you think Hitler was a…a…a, was a bad thing?
    IRVING: Hitler was a war criminal. He committed crimes on the same scale as, as I maintain on the same scale, as, for example, Roosevelt or Truman, who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima or Stalin who bombed Dresden. The same kind of war criminal. When people get to that stage they forget ethics and morals. [P’s interview with Ray Martin, 21 March 1986: K4, Tab. 2, p. 9]

    5.1 Endorsement of Hitler/Hitler programmes

    [5/G]‘…a man of a certain amount of intellectual honesty’ [P’s speech at IHR Conference, 4 September 1983, Anaheim: K4, Tab. 1, p. 11]
    [5/H]‘Basically Hitler himself determined who should be his biographer. I know that since I found Hitler’s ear, nose, and throat doctor in Krefeld in early 1970, the man who treated Hitler after the assassination attempt of 20 July 1944, Dr. Erwin Giesing. I called on him in his practice. He had no time at that moment and I had to wait for half an hour for him. Already in the waiting room he gave me a file to read, about 500 typed pages. Can you imagine how one feels when one reads the diary of the doctor who treated Hitler after the assassination attempt? It begins on 23 July 1944. I ask him, why are you giving this to me, Herr Dr. Giesing? He answers me, read page 387. It’s about a conversation between Hitler and Giesing. The doctor writes that he had to treat Hitler for the pain in his ears. He writes, I asked the Führer if he knew that the Kaiser also once suffered from a similar ear pain. He nodded. I asked him if he had read that very good book about the Kaiser written by an Englishman, ‘A Mythical Creature of our Times’. The Führer answered in the affirmative to this too. I said, actually the Kaiser came off very well. After all he was an Englishman. The Englishman managed to utilise the Kaiser’s hand-written papers. Hitler said, Herr Doctor Giesing, for two years now I too have also gone over to allowing protocols of my discussions to be taken down. Perhaps an Englishman will also come one day who wants to write an objective biography of me. It has to be an Englishman of the next generation. Because a representative of the present generation cannot write the truth about me and certainly won’t want to either. It has to be an Englishman who knows the archives and who has mastered the German language. And that is why you are getting the diaries Mr Irving, the doctor said. ‘Adolf Hitler hat im Grunde selbst bestimmt, wer sein Biograph werden sollte. Daß weiß ich, seit ich Anfang 1970 in Krefeld den Hals-, Nasen- und Ohrenarzt gefunden habe, der Hitler nach den Attentat vom 20. Juli 1944 behandelt hat: Dr. Erwin Giesing. Ich habe ihn in seiner Praxis aufgesucht. Er hatte gerade keine Zeit, und ich mußte eine halbe Stunde auf ihn warten. Er gab mir aber schon im Wartezimmer einen Akt zu lesen, ungefähr 500 Blatt Schreibmaschine. Das war sein Tagebuch. Können Sie sich vorstellen, wie man sich fühlt, wenn man das Tagebuch des Arztes liest, der Hitler nach dem Attentat behandelt hat? Es beginnt am 23. Juli 1944. Ich frage ihn: Wieso geben Sie mir das, Herr Dr. Giesing? Er antwortet mir: lesen Sie die Seite 387. Da geht’s um ein Gespräch zwischen Hitler und Giesing. Der Arzt berichtet, daß er Hitler wegen eines Ohrenleidens zu behandeln hatte. Er schreibt: Ich fragte den Führer, ob er wisse, daß auch der Kaiser schon einmal unter einem derartigen Ohrenleiden gelitten habe. Er nickte. Ich fragte ihn, ob er das von einem Engländer geschriebene, sehr gute Buch über den Kaiser “Ein Fabeltier unserer Zeit” gelesen habe. Der Führer bejahte auch dies. Ich sagte: Eigentlich ist der Kaiser sehr gut wegekommen. Immerhin war der Autor Engländer. Diesem Engländer ist es gelungen, die schriftlichen Unterlagen des Kaisers auszuwerten. Hitler sagte: Herr Doktor Giesing, seit zwei Jahren bin auch ich dazu übergangen, von meinen Besprechungen Wortprotokolle aufnehemen zu lassen. Vielleicht kommt eines Tages auch ein Engländer, der über mich eine objektive Biographie schreiben will. Das muß ein Engländer der nächste Generation sein. Er kann nicht aus der heutigen Generation stammen. Denn ein Vertreter der heutigen Generation kann über mich nicht die Wahrheit schreiben und will es sicherlich auch gar nicht. Es muß ein Engländer sein, der die Archive kennt und auch die deutsche Sprache beherrscht. Und deswegen, sagte der Arzt, bekommen Sie das Tagebuch, Herr Irving.’ [Guido Knopp (ed.), Hitler heute. Gespräche über ein deutsches Trauma (Aschaffenberg, 1979), pp. 70-71: K4, Tab. 10, p. 69]
    [5/I][After a speech at Oundel school] ‘The Hitler self-portrait is as always the clincher; after I finish they storm the stage to shake my hand, to finger the portrait – something that That Man himself once touched! And to snap up books from the table….’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’, Action Report, number 12, 15 August 1997 (on title page, on pages ‘July 1997’ ) p. 17: K4, Tab. 10, p. 58 ]
    [5/J][At Washington University Irving handed out ‘large HITLER’S WAR posters’ to those ‘good looking’ students who asked ‘intelligent questions’ and added] ‘I point out that (a) they can annoy the pants off their parents with them, and (b) nobody can paint Hitler moustaches on them, as he already has one.’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’, Action Report, number 15, 20 July 1999, p. 22: K4, Tab. 10, p. 66]
    [5/K][Irving offered his readers a ‘historic lesson’ from the Monica Lewinsky scandal that engulfed US President Bill Clinton, and the investigation by Kenneth Starr] ‘If this had been the Third Reich, Starr, not Clinton, would have found himself in hot water. Adolf Hitler would have seen to that. In a Nazi regulation [Irving cites the reference] that is rarely quoted (it is in my Hitler’s War), one which Heinrich Himmler and the Reich Ministry of Justice issued on Hitler’s orders on August 11, 1942, it was forbidden to interrogate women under any circumstances about their sexual relations with men. The lawyer-hating Führer had gained the impression, the new regulation said, that prosecutors conducted such interrogations purely for one purpose: their own sexual gratification. This is an impression, sad to say, which lingers around the whole Starr Report.’ [‘A Radical’s Diary’, Action Report, number 15, 20 July 1999, p. 24; K4, Tab. 10, p. 67]
    [5/L]‘”Irving: I think they have seen me as some kind of Messiah – the first kind of moderately right-wing person who can speak the Queen’s English as opposed to the hobnailed-boot mobs who march up and down the East End of London or in Brixton. I think they’re mistaken. Because I’m not interested in the infantry at present, I’m interested in the officer corps, and it is the officer corps of this particular thinking movement that I’m assembling at present.”‘ [Diary entry, 19 June 1981: K4, Tab. 10, p. 3]

    5.2 Adoption of Hitlerian idiom (prophecies, rhetoric of self-belief etc)

    [5/M][Fade in] ‘…the lid has been kept on them [the East Germans] for 45 years. I remember the first time I spoke to this audience in Dresden, the two or three thousand people there, it was like addressing an audience of adult school children. I could have told them any kind of rubbish and they would have believed it. They just sat there like, like ducklings in a pond, whose, whose mummy duck has gone. They didn’t know which way to swim.’ [Videocassette 213: labelled April 1994: @55m 10s – 55m 40s.]
    [5/N]‘We are hitting home and this is why the fight is hotting up. I think we’re, the next two years, which I think are the last two years before what I see as final victory, I think the next two years are going to be very dramatic indeed, with a lot of violence …[Cut]’ [Videocassette 213: unidentified extracts: @1h 6m 20s – 1h 06m 35s.]
    [5/0]IRVING: I think I know it now. I think I know it all. I’ve seen it all. I’ve seen the mistakes that other people make. One day I’d like to go into politics.
    INTERVIEWER: What kind of politician would you like to be? What would your program be?
    IRVING: Populist.
    INTERVIEWER: A populist?
    IRVING: A demagogic. A populist. The art of the politician is to tell the people what they want to hear. That means you’ve got to listen.” [Videocassette 213: unidentified extract: @1h 07m 10s – 1h 07m 35s.]
    [5/P] ‘The chief editor Sunday Times declared: “Mr. Irving? Well it is regrettable – we admit he is an amateur Nazi…”
    “Now that is despicable”, I said to the press: “That word amateur is a particularly loathsome word, and -” [Laughter]’ [P’s speech to Primrose Hotel, Toronto, 1 November 1992: K4, Tab. 6, p. 12 ].