David John Cadwell Irving (Claimant) Penguin Books Ltd (1st Defendant) Deborah E. Lipstadt (2nd Defendant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Gray |
| Judgment Date | 11 April 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] EWHC J0411-13 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | 1996 -I- 1113 |
| Date | 11 April 2000 |
[2000] EWHC J0411-13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
The Hon. Mr. Justice Gray
1996 -I- 1113
MR. DAVID IRVING (appered in person).
MR. RICHARD RAMPTON QC (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons and Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the first and second Defendants.
MISS HEATHER ROGERS (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons) appeared on behalf of the first Defendant, Penguin Books Limited.
MR ANTHONY JULIUS (instructed by Messrs Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the second Defendant, Deborah Lipstadt.
JUDGMENT TO BE HANDED DOWN
on Tuesday 11th April 2000
at 10.30 a.m. in Court 36, Royal Courts of Justice
CONFIDENTIAL TO COUNSEL AND THEIR INSTRUCTING SOLICITORS,
BUT THE SUBSTANCE MAY BE COMMUNICATED TO CLIENTS NOT MORE THAN ONE HOUR BEFORE THE GIVING OF THE JUDGMENT.
02 January 2002
Index
Paragraph Page
I. INTRODUCTION6
1.1 A summary of the main issues 6
1.4 The parties 7
II. THE WORDS COMPLAINED OF AND THEIR
MEANING 8
2.1 The passages complained of 8
2.6 The issue of identification 15
2.9 The issue of interpretation or meaning 16
III. THE NATURE OF IRVING'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES 21
IV. THE DEFENCE OF JUSTIFICATION: AN OVERVIEW 25
V. JUSTIFICATION: THE DEFENDANTS'
HISTORIOGRAPHICAL CRITICISMS OF IRVING'S
PORTRAYAL OF HITLER IN PARTICULAR IN
REGARD TO HIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE JEWISH
QUESTION31
5.1 Introduction 31
5.2 The general case for the Defendants 31
5.9 Irving's general response 33
5.16 The specific criticisms made by the Defendants of Irving's
historiography: 35
5.17 Hitler's trial in 1924 36
5.29 Crime statistics for Berlin in 1932 39
5.37 The events of Kristallnacht in November 1938 40
5.73 The aftermath of Kristallnacht 53
5.90 Expulsion of Jews from Berlin in 1941 59
5.111 Shooting of the Jews in Riga 66
5.123 Hitler's views on the Jewish question 69
5.151 The timing of the "final solution" to the Jewish problem:
the 'Schlegelberger note' 80
5.170 Goebbels's diary entry for 27 March 1942 85
5.187 Himmler minute of 22 September 1942 92
5.194 Himmler's note for his meeting with Hitler on
10 December 1942 94
5.199 Hitler's meetings with Antonescu and Horthy in April 1943 95
5.215 The deportation and murder of Jews in Rome in October
1943 100
Paragraph Page
5.222 Himmler's speeches on 6 October 1943, 5 and 24 May
1944 102
5.231 Hitler's speech on 26 May 1944 105
5.235 Ribbentrop's testimony and evidence from his cell at
Nuremberg 105
5.240 Marie Vaillant-Couturier 107
5.245 Kurt Aumeier 108
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
EXTERMINATION110
6.1 Preamble 110
6.3 Hitler's anti-semitism 111
6.10 The policy of shooting of Jews 114
6.60 The policy of deporting the Jews 132
6.68 Genesis of gassing programme 134
6.73 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 136
6.106 Irving's response: the scale of the killings by gassing 147
6.114 Irving's response: Hitler's knowledge of the gassing at the
Reinhard Camps 150
6.133 Irving's response: Hitler's knowledge of and complicity in the
gassing programme 156
VII. AUSCHWITZ160
7.1 Description of the camp and overview of the principal issue 160
7.6 The case for the Defendants in summary 162
7.8 Irving's case in summary 162
7.15 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: 164
7.16 Early reports 164
7.18 Evidence gathered by the investigation under the aegis of
the Soviet State Extraordinary Commission 165
7.22 Evidence gathered by the Polish Central Commission
for Investigation of German Crimes in Poland 1945�7 166
7.23 The Olere drawings 166
7.28 Eye-witness evidence from camp officials and employees 167
7.34 Eye-witness evidence from inmates at Auschwitz 170
Paragraph Page
7.47 Evidence from the Nuremberg trial 174
7.50 Evidence from the Eichmann trial 174
7.52 Evidence from other trials (Kremer; Mulka and others;
Dejaco and Ertl) 175
7.58 Documentary evidence relating to the design and
construction of the chambers 176
7.70 Photographic evidence 180
7.73 Material evidence found at Auschwitz 181
7.75 Conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, according to
The Defendants' experts 182
7.77 Irving's reasons for rejecting the evidence relied on by the
Defendants as to the existence at Auschwitz of gas
chambers for killing Jews: 182
7.77 Irving as expert witness at the trial of Zundel 182
7.79 The impact of the Leuchter Report 183
7.90 Replication of Leuchter's findings 186
7.91 The absence of chimneys protruding through of morgue 1
of crematorium 2 186
7.95 The reason for the alterations to crematorium 2: fumigation
or alternatively air-raid shelter 188
7.98 The purpose of the supplies of Zyklon-B 189
7.100 The logistical impossibility of extermination on the scale
contended for by the Defendants 189
7.102 Irving's investigation of the documentary evidence 190
7.109 Irving's response to the eye-witness evidence 192
7.113 The Defendants' arguments in rebuttal: 194
7.113 The Defendants' critique of the Leuchter Report 194
7.118 The Defendants' case as to the absence of signs of
chimneys in the roof of Leichenkeller 1 195
7.121 The redesign of crematorium 2 196
7.123 The quantity of Zyklon-B required 197
7.124 The Defendants' response to Irving's logistical argument 197
7.127 The Defendants' response to Irving's argument in
relation to the documentary evidence 198
VIII. JUSTIFICATION: THE CLAIM THAT IRVING
IS A "HOLOCAUST DENIER" 199
8.1 What is meant by the term "Holocaust denier" 199
8.6 The question whether the statements made by Irving qualify
him as a "Holocaust denier" in the above sense 201
Paragraph Page
8.15 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: 203
8.17 The existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz or elsewhere 204
8.19 The existence of a systematic programme or policy for
killing Jews 215
8.20 The numbers of Jews killed 217
8.29 The assertion that the gas chambers were a propaganda
lie invented by the British 222
IX. JUSTIFICATION: THE ALLEGATION THAT IRVING
IS AN ANTI-SEMITE AND A RACIST 227
9.1 Relevance of the allegation 227
9.4 The material relied on by the Defendants 227
9.8 Irving's denial that he is anti-semitic or a racist: 248
9.9 Anti-semitism 248
9.19 Racism 251
X. JUSTIFICATION: THE CLAIM THAT IRVING
ASSOCIATES WITH RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS252
10.1 Introductory 252
10.4 Case for the Defendants 253
10.26 Irving's response 259
XI. JUSTIFICATION: THE BOMBING OF DRESDEN 261
11.1 Introduction 261
11.5 The Defendants' criticisms of Irving's account of the bombing 262
11.6 Numbers killed � Irving's claims 262
11.9 The Defendants' claim that Irving relied on forged evidence 264
11.29 Irving's case as to use of TB47 269
11.41 The claim that Irving attached credence to unreliable evidence 273
11.45 The allegation that Irving has bent reliable evidence and falsified
statistics 274
11.48 The allegation that Irving suppressed or failed to take account of
reliable evidence 275
11.54 The allegation that Irving has misrepresented evidence 276
Paragraph Page
XII. JUSTIFICATION: IRVING'S CONDUCT IN RELATION
TO THE GOEBBELS DIARIES IN THE MOSCOW ARCHIVE 276
12.1 Introduction 276
12.4 The claim that Irving broke an agreement with the Moscow
Archive and risked damage to the glass plates 278
12.4 The allegation as formulated in the Defendants'
statements of case 278
12.8 The evidence relied on by the Defendants for the allegation of
breach of an agreement 279
12.12 The evidence relied on by the Defendants for the risk of damage
to the plates 280
12.15 Irving's case that there was no breach of agreement 280
12.19 Irving's denial that the plates were put at risk of damage 281
XIII. FINDINGS ON JUSTIFICATION282
13.1 Scheme of this section of the judgment 282
13.7 The allegation that Irving has falsified and misrepresented the
Historical evidence 283
13.7 Irving the historian 283
13.9 The specific historiographical criticisms of Irving 284
13.52 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 297
13.68 Auschwitz 303
13.92 Whether Irving is a "Holocaust denier" 310
13.100 Whether Irving is an anti-semite and a racist 313
13.109 Irving's alleged association with right-wing extremists 315
13.116 Irving's accounts of the bombing of Dresden 317
13.128 Irving's conduct in relation to the Goebbels diaries in
the Moscow archive 321
13.136 Assessment of Irving as an historian 323
13.164 Finding in relation to the defence of justification 332
XIV. VERDICT33
I. INTRODUCTION
A summary of the main issues
1.1 In this action the Claimant, David Irving, maintains that he has been libelled in a book entitled "Denying the Holocaust � The Growing...
To continue reading
Request your trial