Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 A summary of the main issues
The parties
II. THE WORDS COMPLAINED OF AND THEIR MEANING
The passages complained of
The issue of identification
The issue of interpretation or meaning
Irving’s case on meaning
The Defendants’ case on meaning
Approach to the issue of meaning
Conclusion on meaning
III. THE NATURE OF IRVING’S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
Relevant considerations
Irving’s case on damages
IV. THE DEFENCE OF JUSTIFICATION: AN OVERVIEW
The parties’ statements of case
What has to be proved in order for the defence of justification to succeed
Pattern of the judgment on the issue of justification
Evidence adduced in relation to the issue of justification
V. JUSTIFICATION: THE DEFENDANTS’ HISTORIOGRAPHICAL CRITICISMS OF IRVING’S PORTRAYAL OF HITLER IN PARTICULAR IN REGARD TO HIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE JEWISH QUESTION
Introduction
The general case for the Defendants
Irving’s general response
The specific criticisms made by the Defendants of Irving’s historiography
(i) Hitler’s trial in 1924
(ii) Crime statistics for Berlin in 1932
(iii) The events of Kristallnacht in November 1938
(iv) The aftermath of Kristallnacht
(v) Expulsion of Jews from Berlin in 1941
(vi) Shooting of Jews in Riga
(vii) Hitler’s views on the Jewish question
(viii) The timing of the “final solution” to the Jewish problem: the ‘Schlegelberger note’
(ix) Goebbels’s diary entry for 27 March 1942
(x) Himmler minute of 22 September 1942
(xi) Himmler’s note for his meeting with Hitler on 10 December 1942
(xii) Hitler’s meetings with Antonescu and Horthy in April 1943
(xiii) The deportation and murder of the Roman Jews in October 1943
(xiv) Himmler’s speeches on 6 October 1943 and 5 and 24 May 1944
(xv) Hitler’s speech on 26 May 1944
(xvi) Ribbentrop’s testimony from his cell at Nuremberg
(xvii) Marie Vaillant-Couturier
(xviii) Kurt Aumeier
VI. JUSTIFICATION: EVIDENCE OF THE ATTITUDE OF HITLER TOWARDS THE JEWS AND OF THE EXTENT, IF ANY, OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EVOLVING POLICY OF EXTERMINATION
Preamble
Hitler’s anti-semitism
The issue between the parties
The case for the Defendants
Irving’s response
The policy of shooting of Jews
Introduction
Evidence of system and the scale of the shootings
Case for the Defendants
Hitler’s knowledge
Irving’s response
Evidence of system and the scale of the shootings
Hitler’s knowledge
The policy of deporting the Jews
Introduction
Genesis of gassing programme
The origins of the use of gas by the Nazi regime
The use of the gas vans to kill healthy Jews
The Defendants’ case as to the scale on which Jews were gassed to death at camps excluding Auschwitz and the extent, if any, of Hitler’s knowledge of and complicity in the killing.
Irving’s response: the scale of the killings by gassing
Irving’s response: Hitler’s knowledge of the gassing at the Reinhard Camps
Irving’s response: Hitler’s knowledge of and complicity in the gassing programme
VII. AUSCHWITZ
Description of the camp and overview of the principal issue
The case for the Defendants in summary
Irving’s case in summary
The evidence relied on by the Defendants as demonstrating that gas chambers were constructed at Auschwitz and operated there to kill a vast number of Jews
Early reports
Evidence gathered by the investigation under the aegis of the Soviet State Extraordinary Commission
Evidence gathered by the Polish Central Commission for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland 1945-7
The Olere drawings
Eye-witness evidence from camp officials and employees
Eye-witness evidence from inmates at Auschwitz
Evidence from the Nuremberg trial
Evidence from the Eichmann trial
Evidence from other trials (Kremer; Mulka and others; Dejaco and Ertl)
Documentary evidence relating to the design and construction of the chambers
Photographic evidence
Material evidence found at Auschwitz
Conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, according to the Defendants’ experts
Irving’s reasons for rejecting the evidence relied on by the Defendants as to the existence at Auschwitz of gas chambers for killing Jews
Irving as expert witness at the trial of Zundel
The impact of the Leuchter Report
Replication of Leuchter’s findings
The absence of chimneys protruding through of morgue 1 of crematorium 2
The reason for the alterations to crematorium 2: fumigation or alternatively air-raid shelter
The purpose of the supplies of Zyklon-B
The logistical impossibility of extermination on the scale contended for by the Defendants
Irving’s investigation of the documentary evidence
Irving’s response to the eye-witness evidence
The Defendants’ arguments in rebuttal
The Defendants’ critique of the Leuchter Report
The Defendants’ case as to the absence of signs of chimneys in the roof of Leichenkeller 1
The redesign of crematorium 2
The quantity of Zyklon-B required
The Defendants’ response to Irving’s logistical argument
The Defendants’ response to Irving’s argument in relation to the documentary evidence
VIII. JUSTIFICATION: THE CLAIM THAT IRVING IS A “HOLOCAUST DENIER”
What is meant by the term “Holocaust denier”
The question whether the statements made by Irving qualify him as a “Holocaust denier” in the above sense
The case for the Defendants
Irving’s denial that he is a Holocaust denier
The oral and written statements made by Irving which are relied on by the Defendants for their contention that he is a Holocaust denier and the evidence relied on by the Defendants for their assertion that Irving’s denials are false.
The existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz or elsewhere
Claims made by Irving
Evidence of the truth/falsity of Irving’s claims
The existence of a systematic programme or policy for killing Jews
Claims made by Irving
Evidence of the truth/falsity of Irving’s claims
The numbers of Jews killed
Claims made by Irving
The Defendants’ evidence of the falsity of Irving’s claims
Evidence relied on by Irving in support of his claims
The assertion that the gas chambers were a propaganda lie invented by the British
Claims made by Irving
The Defendants’ evidence of the falsity of the claims made by Irving
Irving’s evidence of the truth of his claims
IX. JUSTIFICATION: THE ALLEGATION THAT IRVING IS AN ANTI-SEMITE AND A RACIST
Relevance of the allegation
The material relied on by the Defendants
Irving’s denial that he is anti-semitic or a racist
Anti-semitism
Racism
X. JUSTIFICATION: THE CLAIM THAT IRVING ASSOCIATES WITH RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS
Introductory
Case for the Defendants
Irving’s response
XI. JUSTIFICATION: THE BOMBING OF DRESDEN
Introduction
The Defendants’ criticisms of Irving’s account of the bombing
Numbers killed – Irving’s claims
The Defendants’ claim that Irving relied on forged evidence
The case for the Defendants
Irving’s case as to the death toll and his use of TB47
The claim that Irving attached credence to unreliable evidence
The case for the Defendants
Irving’s response
The allegation that Irving has bent reliable evidence and falsified statistics
The case for the Defendants
Irving’s response
The allegation that Irving suppressed or failed to take account of reliable evidence
The case for the defendants
Irving’s response
The allegation that Irving has misrepresented evidence
The case for the Defendants
Irving’s response
XII. JUSTIFICATION: IRVING’S CONDUCT IN RELATION TO THE GOEBBELS DIARIES IN THE MOSCOW ARCHIVE
Introduction
The claim that Irving broke an agreement with the Moscow archive and risked damage to the glass plates
The allegation as formulated in the Defendants’ statements of case
The evidence relied on by the Defendants for the allegation of breach of an agreement
The evidence relied on by the Defendants for the risk of damage to the plates
Irving’s case that there was no breach of agreement
Irving’s denial that the plates were put at risk of damage
XIII. FINDINGS ON JUSTIFICATION
Scheme of this section of the judgment
The allegation that Irving has falsified and misrepresented the historical evidence
Irving the historian
The specific historiographical criticisms of Irving
Hitler’s trial in 1924 (paragraphs 5.17-28 above)
Crime statistics for Berlin in 1932 (paragraphs 5.29-36 above)
The events of Kristallnacht (paragraphs 5.37-72 above)
The aftermath of Kristallnacht (paragraphs 5.73-89 above)
The expulsion of Jews from Berlin in 1941 (paragraphs 5.90-110 above)
The shooting of the Jews in Riga (paragraphs 5.111-122)
Hitler’s views on the Jewish question (paragraphs 5.123-150 above)
The timing of the “final solution” to the Jewish question: the Schlegelberger note
Goebbels’s diary entry for 27 March 1942 (paragraphs 5.170-186 above)
Himmler minute of 22 September 1942 (paragraphs 5.187-198 above)
Himmler’s note for this meeting with Hitler on 10 December 1942 (paragraphs 5.194-198 above)
Hitler’s meetings with Antonescu and Horthy in April 1943 (paragraphs 5.199-214 above)
The deportation and murder of the Roman Jews in October 1943 (paragraphs 5.215-221 above)
Himmler’s speeches of 6 October 1943 and 5 and 24 May 1944 (paragaphs 5.222-230 above)
Hitler’s speech on 26 May 1944 (paragraph 5.235-239 above)
Ribbentrop’s testimony from his cell at Nuremberg (paragraphs 5.235-239 above)
Marie Vaillant-Couturier (paragraphs 5.240-244 above)
Kurt Aumeier (paragraphs 5.245-249 above)
Findings in relation to the instances of Irving’s historiography cited by the Defendants
Evidence of Hitler’s attitude towards the Jews and the extent, if any, of his knowledge of and responsibility for the evolving policy of extermination
Hitler’s anti-semitism (paragraphs 6.3-9 above)
The scale and systematic nature of the shooting of Jews by the Einsatzgruppen (paragraphs 6.10-59 above)
The deportation of the Jews (paragraphs 6.60-67 above)
The scale on which Jews were gassed to death camps including the Reinhard Camps but excluding Auschwitz (paragraphs 6.73-144 above)
Evidence of Hitler’s knowledge of and/or complicity in the extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at the Reinhard camps (paragraphs 6.81-95and 6.114-144)
Auschwitz
Identifying the issue
The scale of the killing of Jews in the gas chambers
The “convergence” of evidence
The documentary evidence
The eye-witness evidence
The Leuchter report
Holes in the roof of morgue 1 at crematorium 2?
Gas chambers for fumigation purposes or to serve as air raid shelters
“Death books”; decrypts and coke consumption
Conclusion
Whether Irving is a “Holocaust denier”
Irving’s statements about the Holocaust
Whether Irving’s denials are borne out by the evidence
Whether Irving is an anti-semite and a racist
Anti-semitism
Racism
Irving’s alleged association with right-wing extremists
Right-wing political organisations
Right-wing individuals
Irving’s accounts of the bombing of Dresden
Irving’s reliance on the forged Tagesbefehl No. 47
Whether Irving has attached credence to unreliable evidence and/or failed to take account of reliable evidence
Whether Irving has bent of falsified or misrepresented evidence
Irving’s conduct in relation to the Goebbels diaries in the Moscow archive
The alleged breach of agreement
The alleged risk of damage to the plates
Assessment of Irving as an historian
The issue as to Irving’s motivation
The relevant considerations
The convergence of the historiographical misrepresentations
The nature of some of Irving’s errors
Irving’s explanations for his errors
Irving’s readiness to challenge the authenticity of inconvenient documents and the credibility of apparently credible witnesses
Irving’s concessions
Extraneous circumstances: Irving’s denials of the Holocaust, his racism, anti-semitism and association with right-wing extremists
Finding as to Irving’s motivation
Finding in relation to the defence of justification
The test
The anti-Zionist conference, the Moscow archive and section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952
XIV. VERDICT
NOTES
file description
title statement
title: Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Judgment: Electronic Edition
author: Charles Gray
sponsor: Rabbi Donald A. Tams Institute for Jewish Studies
extent:
publication statement : Lewis H. Beck Center for Electronic Collections and Services, Emory University Atlanta, GA 540 Asbury Circle Woodruff Library Atlanta, GA 30322©Emory University. Permission is granted to download, transmit, or otherwise reproduce, distribute or display the contributions to the work claimed by Emory University for non-profit educational purposes, provided this header is included in its entirety. For inquiries about commercial uses, contact either: Institute for Jewish Studies, Emory University, Atlanta GA 30322 or the Lewis H. Beck Center for Electronic Collections and Services, Woodruff Library, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322
2004 http://pid.emory.edu/ark:/25593/13kzv
series statement
title: Holocaust Denial on Trial
Transcribed from the trial documents into HTML by Addison-Wesley, and translated into XML based on the HTML and print editions by the Beck Center staff.
source description
Judgment Charles Gray April 11, 2000
encoding description
project description :Trial transcripts, expert witness documents and other material used in Irving vs. Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt have been encoded in XML using the TEI Guidelines, and made available for scholarly research and educational purposes.
editorial declaration :Obvious errors in spelling or punctuation have not been corrected in any way.
All “smart” quotes have been silently replaced with straight quotes. Block quotes are marked with q or quote elements
The canonical source document is the trial document. In some cases material was added or deleted from the versions of the documents that became the html version, and in other cases, authorial changes were made to the trial documents. These sections are noted with add or addSpan elements for additions or del or delSpan elements for deletions.
Paragraphs including q or quote elements indicate material that is in a block quote. Where the title of a work is italicized, it is marked with a title element, both in the text and in footnotes. Pages are numbered at the bottom of the page. bottom blockquote blockquote italicIn the judgment, the pages are numbered at the bottom of the page. All quotes are replaced with straight quotes.
categorization :
- Collection: Trial Documents
- subset: Judgement
- object: Judgement
revision description :
- 2004. xml encoding
Alice Hickcox encoder, Beck Center staff