International Campaign for Real History

In the High Court of Justice

DJC Irving

- v -

Penguin Books Ltd and Deborah Lipstadt

Quick navigation

In 1993 American scholar Deborah Lipstadt published Denying the Holocaust, product of a research contract funded by an Israeli agency.

British writer David Irving claims that it libels him.

On Thursday March 2, 2000 Judge Gray put these suggested issues to the parties in the action, as matters to adress in their closing speeches. The Defendants, and David Irving as plaintiff or claimant, have been spelt out in full. This document is posted for the purposes of the litigation. It was mentioned in open court on March 2, 2000.


[Judge Gray]: List of issues in dispute between the parties


1. The issues of identification and meaning

2. The writings of [David Irving] and his reputation as an historian

3. [David Irving's] claim for damages; his concern about the concerted attempt to suppress his books; his reasons for bringing the action and supporting evidence

4. The defence of justification (including in relation to each of issues listed below introductory or "topic" section, then case for the [The Defendants] followed by the response of [David Irving])

(i) [The Defendants'] historiographical criticisms of [David Irving] in regard to:

a. Hitler trial 1924
b. Kristallnacht November 1938
c. aftermath of Kristallnacht
d. shooting of Jews in the East
e. Hitler's views on the Jewish question
f. expulsion of the Jews from Berlin in 1941
g. the 'Schlegelberger note'
h. Goebbels' diary entry for 27 March 1942
i. Himmler minute of 22 September 1942
j. Himmler's note for his meeting with Hitler on 10 December 1942
k. Hitler's meeting with Antonescu and Horthy in April 1943
l. deportation and murder of the Jews in Rome in October 1943
m. Himmler's speeches on 6th October 1943, 5 and 24 May 1944
n. Hitler's speech on 26 May 1944
o. Ribbentrop's testimony and evidence from his cell at Nuremberg
p. Mme Vaillant-Couturier
q. Kurt Aumeier


(ii) [The Defendants'] allegation that [David Irving] is "a Hitler partisan" and the extent of Hitler's knowledge of the solution of the Jewish question

a. Hitler's anti-Semitism
b. execution of Jews by shooting (inc. scale of killings; whether systematic policy and Hitler's knowledge)
c. period when deportation was the policy
d. genesis of gassing programme (inc. Hitler's knowledge)
e. extermination (inc. Operation Reinhard; camps at Chelmno, Semlin, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka; scale of extermination and Hitler's knowledge)


(iii) Auschwitz

a. [The Defendants'] case that mass extermination by gassing

  • early reports
  • evidence gathered by Soviet State Commission
  • evidence gathered by Polish Central Commission
  • Olere drawings
  • eye-witness evidence from camp officials and employees
  • eye-witness evidence from inmates
  • 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


b. [David Irving's] response

  • [David Irving's] role at Zündel trial
  • findings of Leuchter report replication of Leuchter findings
  • evidence as to roof of morgue [Leichenkeller] 1 of crematorium 2 [Krema II]
  • camp books
  • [David Irving's] reasons for rejecting evidence relied on by the [The Defendants] (see above)


c. [The Defendants'] reasons for dismissing Leuchter report and reply to [David Irving]'s case


(iv) whether [David Irving] is a Holocaust denier

a. [David Irving's] statements as to existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and elsewhere (inc. statements about Leuchter report)
b [David Irving's] statements as to existence of systematic policy of extermination
c. [David Irving's] statements as to numbers of Jews killed
d. [David Irving's] statements that gas chambers are a propaganda lie invented by British intelligence
e. whether [David Irving's] statements are consistent with the evidence


(v) whether [David Irving] is anti-semitic/racist/right-wing extremist

a. statements made by [David Irving] which [The Defendants] allege are anti-semitic
b. statement made by [David Irving] which [The Defendants] allege are racist
c. [David Irving's] reasons for denying charges of anti-Semites and racism


(vi) whether [David Irving] associates with right-wing extremists

a. organisations/individuals with which [David Irving] has associated
b. political orientation of those organisations/individuals


(vii) Dresden

a. claims made by [David Irving] as to number killed
b. whether [David Irving] relied on forged evidence
c. whether [David Irving] attached credence to unreliable evidence
d. whether [David Irving] bent reliable evidence/falsified statistics!
e. whether [David Irving] suppressed/failed to take account of reliable material
f. whether [David Irving] misrepresented evidence

(viii) Goebbels' Moscow Diaries

a. whether [David Irving] broke an agreement with Moscow Archive
b. whether [David Irving's] conduct gave rise to significant risk of damage to plates


(ix) [David Irving]'s honesty as an historian


David Irving invites your e-mailed comments ...

... but please base them on the transcripts, identifying relevant page number