Letters to David Irving on this Website

Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate.

Quick navigation




After the Trial

"Dear Scumbag" and other letters

These are edited selections from the thousands of messages received by David Irving during and since the trial of Deborah Lipstadt for libel. Readers are requested not to express comments to these correspondents in intemperate language. [More letters]

Hilary Perry-Keene writes from Australia:  My son has informed me of the true facts regarding the "Holocaust", for many years, although I was in England during the 2nd World War and was taught all the usual things. I have heard many of your tapes and read a lot of your literature, and I believe that what you say is true. I am appalled at the way you have been treated, and I think you are a very brave man to try to stand up to so many ignorant and vindictive people who are out to destroy you and suppress what you say, by any means. So I thought I would like to let you know that I, among many others, am just one more who is listening with rapt attention to all you are saying, which I feel is completely convincing, and the recent Lipstadt Court Case results have no effect on my views.

PDFFree downloads of David Irving's books:-->
bookmark this page to find new downloads

Gaza writes from the San Francisco Bay area: I can believe Christ may have said "Forgive these ignorant slobs"; but, "Ouch!"? -- You are a truly impressive man, and an inspiration to countless others. I hope you will return to the SF Bay Area before I am in Australia.

N. Surendran writes:  I completely disagree with your views on the Holocaust and Hitler. However , I am disgusted by the violent smear campaign being conducted by all sorts of pompous self-righteous liberals against you. I admire the fact that you have stood against all the world in defence of what you belief is the truth. In particular, I am sickened that the Telegraph recently ran a poll on whether you should be allowed to publish your 'brand of history'. By debating whether your works should be banned, they have shown us who the real Fascists are.

Susan Toft writes: You invited us to write to the Beeb for giving you a platform. I wrote and told them of my horror at them doing it. I have learnt a lot about you since my school project.

We reply: Well done Ruth, I take it you are a supporter of free speech; did they teach you anything about the enemies of free speech at school?

William McTernan writes:   History is important to me. I was a grammar-school kid during the World War II, so I was acutely aware of what was going on. One of my old friends is David Kahn ("Hitler'sSpies') who I'm sure you're not surprised is not one of your biggest fans. He makes a good point. the Fuehrerprinzip was so pervasive in the Reich, it's a bit difficult to believe that Hitler was unaware of what was going on in the East. Granted, there may not have been as many Jews killed as the Holocaustics would have us believe. But there were a lot of them. And a lot of Russians ... many many more ... and a lot of Gypsies ... and a lot of homosexuals ... and a lot of Evangelical Christians.

Eugene J. Siedlecki provides a less educated view:   After having read both your version of the holocaust and many many others I have come to the logical conclusion that you are at best ignorant, and at worst a bigot. In either case you really should stop embarrassing yourself and your family in such a public manner. There is empirical evidence both from eyewitness survivors and the Nazi's own documents(remember the were meticulous record keepers) That the holocaust did indeed occur and was organized by the highest echelons within the Nazi regime. To deny this shows your limited intelligence and questionable credentials and may I add, you lack of social conscience. To put it bluntly Sir you are an embarrassment to the whole human race and if you had ANY moral fiber you would seek professional help immediately.

[...] I am well aware that there are other fools such as yourself who share your Neanderthal view.

P.S. In your will you should specify an anonymous burial, as I for one will come piss on your grave.

John Moore writes:   You are a great historian, Mr. Irving, and I wish to let you know you are appreciated and understood far and wide, in places that might surprize you. I am a humble bus driver in Seattle, but I have read some of your excellent books, and if you ever find yourself in Seattle, you may consider yourself my honored guest. Take heart, be courageous; you love the truth and speak for many more of us than even you yourself may realize.

Lipstadt-fan Dennis Kite's command of English appears limited:  Dear Scumbag: I would bet that you will be celebrating Der Fuehrer's birthday on Thursday. Why don't you take a short trip to Munich and visit a beer hall .... maybe you could have a putsch with your Neo-Nazi friends and supporters. Thank goodness the forces of fascism were routed 55 years ago.

Stuart Weibel writes:   I am the son of a Sudeten German. Having heard the experiences of my relatives, I learned years ago that the history books available to us do not accurately reflect events as they truly occurred. I have valued your books over the years because not only are your writings developed from source documents but you also established relationships with and queried personalities from that period in time. Those of us not touched by the despicable nature of the smear campaigns you have had to endure, are deeply moved by your show of strength and character in defending your reputation and livelihood.My comparison of the court transcripts and the media's articles regarding your trial has done much to show me how poorly served we are by our news media. You are a man to be admired.

Miguel Gonzalez-Hermosillo writes from Mexico City:   Since my early days as a post graduate student at the London School of Economics and Political Science back in 1976 I have observed with interest your constant trek in searching for your truth and in writing about the subjects that still are affecting us in our today's world. Those that cannot understand what happened in World War II cannot explain themselves many of the social and political upheavals still shocking the post war scene. In this task of understanding the facts concerning the forces behind World War II and its aftermath is where your works have played a significant role, influencing many, like me, to see through the veils that the triumphant countries made after the conclusion of such an event.

James Buchan gives a glimpse of the workings of mass media:   The New York Times magazine no longer intends to run my article on your libel case. It is, alas, a matter beyond my control. Thank you for your trouble in answering my questions during the trial.

J Lemel is a strategic studies graduate (Aberystwyth 1985):   A course we read was Foreign Policy of National Socialist Germany 1933 -1939. One of your books -- I can't remember which one was on our reading list. Our lecturer warned us then not to take you too seriously but I remember at the time being put off by your style which struck me at the time as being for people with a low reading age. Anyhow, now you are exposed for what you are, a marginal crank, I am happy that what little of your 'work' I read, none of it stayed with me. I always did prefer genuine historians like Alan Bullock and Trevor-Roper who know how to weigh up historical records objectively.

We answered: how fortunate that you had lecturers who prevented you from thinking. What was his name, our readers would like to be warned against him? [No reply was provided].

Adrian Toerien, a 18 year old White living in Southern Africa, writes:   I have been a great fan of yours for years and have been greatly influenced by your sheer determination to keep on fighting. Your books are remarkably set out, you are one of the few historians who would actually take the trouble to look up the facts to bring accurate history and for that you have my greatest respect. I was greatly shocked by your loss in court but hope all goes well for your appeal. You have the respect of a great many people here who are praying for you.

Peter Chapman of Exeter University comments:   Bad luck on being stung by our illegitimate alien inspired establishment. I am studying for an MA in 'the history of european fascism' at the university of Exeter with Prof.Jeremy Noakes as my tutor.He is a woolly minded old liberal but really isn't such a bad old stick, although he said something about appearing in your next case but refused to elaborate. One day I hope to be able to write innovative history in the manner expounded by yourself and would like to thank you for being an inspiration to my humble studies.

Ronnie Tait writes:   I have read several of your books and always thought them to be well balanced and fair.


D Wentz comments from "sunny California": Big money, big lawyers are hard to beat. Look no further than five years ago and a famous football player vs. the L.A.P.D.

Irving serial on RommelI have read Hitler's War four times, Goebbels once, your masterpiece on Rommel, as well as many articles and interviews about you. When I was 12 years old I remember watching a documentary on the Desert Fox by H.B.O. You were their main source for information and besides Manfred Rommel, the only person to be interviewed for the program. I still have a copy of that documentary. You are a fair, unbiased, objective historian. I enjoy your work and I hope you will not let this court case stop your future endeavors. I am not a Nazi, nor a racist but a truth seeker and of all authors of World War II that I've read you are at the top. My wife is ready to strangle me because my library is outgrowing our home! Now you must get up off the canvas, dust yourself off and get ready for another of Historical Boxing.

I hope you will keep up the fight, not against a race of people as many accuse you of, but a fight for the right to free speech and to looking at all sides of an issue even if it is an uncomfortable one for some.

"Kenneth Hall" offers congratulations from Sweden: ... After all these years it has been fully established and you have conquered a unique championship. In fact you can compare yourself to Elvis Prelsey. He was the King of Rock'n'Roll and will always be remembered. You will soon be forgotten. But as long as you live the world will know that you are nothing but a simple liar and falsifier. Your are the King of Lies! Whenever you say Good Day to anybody people will look at the sky wondering if he is lying once again. Deborah Lipstadt and Judge Gray are the heroes of the day!

We answered: Please show the passage in the Hon. Mr Justice Gray's judgment where he even uses the word liar, let alone describes Mr Irving as one? Are you not therefore the liar? [Hall did not reply]

Lymon Trusanc wrote:   Dear Mr. Irving, I will be brief, let me state with conviction, that the same thing is being done to you that was done to the Jews during World War II, it is unconscionable -- by the Jews. It is sad that we never seem to learn from history, and are doomed to repeat it over and over again, and guilty of using the same tactics which were employed to destroy (during World War II) a people, in a court of law against you. One other issue -- did you expect the judge to impartially side with you? If he sided with you he would have faced the same destructive machine. The judge laughed publicly after rendering the verdict against you.

"Bruce Taylor" writes:   There have been many perverse and wrong judgments in judicial history worldwide and particularly in England. Having read your transcripts and the judgment, this judgment has been one of them. The scenes of aussault upon your person, with police standing by and doing nothing, were disgusting. In TV footage a woman with brown hair can clearly be made out to throw an egg at you and yet police did nothing. Your restraint, dignity and pursuit of truth have truly been an inspiration to this solicitor. Your courage is remarkable and I assure you not in vain. In the end your research, your facts will be passed on to my children, my relatives and friends, and hopefully one day this battle will serve as springboard to finally allow truth to emerge. You are still the most outstanding WW2 historian.

Dan McGuire adds: Sir John Keegan, it would appear, is one of the few academic historians decent enough to come to your defense and to resist the repugnant bandwagonning that's been going on among the Ivory Tower types since the verdict came down. Bully for him. Too bad you did not ask him what he thought of Lipstadt when you had him in the witness box. It's telling how you argued that if you lost your case free speech would be in jeopardy. Before and during the trial, Julius et al. said, "Oh no, Irving's misleading you; this case is not about free speech." Now that the case is over, however, I see that Julius is pushing for a new law to restrict free speech about certain aspects of the World War II.

Andrew Gray of Washington DC: Your health and well-being are crucial to the whole effort. Meanwhile your worldwide constituency has been vastly expanded. The Dreyfus trial is no analogy. ... There is an apposite Wagner anecdote. His Tannhäuser, as you know, was hissed of the stage by the Jockey Club members in paris in March 1861. When this was reported to Gounoud, he is alleged to have said, Que Dieu me donne und telle chute. ["I wish God would give me a fiasco like that!"]

B Heilbrunn is a man of few words, mostly illiterate (and with an obsession with washing?): Your through; washed up; finished.

Pat Hammer seems obsessed on the other hand with bums: Serves you right that you lost you bum. People evil like you should not have the forum to influence others with your lies and misconstrued information. May the $3 million legal fees put you in the poorhouse and out of the public view for the rest of your life.

Joseph Garrick writes from Vancouver, Canada: It was sad to see that an English judge can descend to utilizing the hallowed halls of a respected English institute of justice to launch a venomous personal attack on a plaintiff appearing in a case before him and pleading for the benefit of his wisdom in matters of jurisprudence to equitably resolve the issue. I would like to enquire as to what, if indeed any, his Lordship's qualifications are in matters historical? Does he have a sufficient grounding and understanding of the study of the subject of history? Does he have any knowledge of the research methodology that can be employed in the course of historical research??

Kornel Szarmes states: Thank God for the Internet that cannot be controlled by the "victims". They wanted to silence you, but instead they opened the eyes of the world to their lies and distortions. They consider you a very dangerous man, which is understandble. Who would have dared to contradict them and dig up documents and the truth about their false historic claim which, over the decades remains very profitable both financially and politically. Money can buy politicians, lawyers and servile "historians", who now are gloating for the time being! But, the final judgment has not been written! Have the strength to carry on and see your convictions win the last battle. I wish you success in your future struggle.

Robert G. Lembke comments: The events of the last few days have been depressing. However, I wish you the best and am sure that you will bounce back from this reverse.

Your performance, physically and intellectually, during the trial was simply breathtaking. You clearly have the strength to weather the moment's adversity. Muddle through and regroup; you have many friends and admirers.

From Chile we receive this message from Ambassador Miguel Serrano: Lift up your heart! You also won losing. From now on, the heroes of the World are with you until the end. The Archetype is taking you by the hand.

[Mr Serrano is a Chilean writer and diplomat, who served as an Ambassador mainly in India, Yugoslavia and Austria, and is the author of the books "Hesse and Jung: A Record of Two Friendships", "Book of the Resurrection" and "El Cordon Dorado -- Hitlerismo Esoterico", among others.]

Professor Omar Bagasra suggests: The main reason that you were the prime target of the Zionist Attack was, I believe, because what you said made sense and TRUTH always makes sense. So, keep on telling the TRUTH. We are listening to you.

Mace Maclean expresses condolences: I do not pretend to have any special knowledge of the events surrounding the Holocaust, other than what I learned at school, and subsequently in the media. However, having studied both English an European Law, and having a keen interest in the freedom of speech and historical accuracy, I welcome the stance you have taken in this issue. I saw your interview on Sky News this evening (April 14, 2000), and was very impressed.

It is important that people like yourself stand up and make your views heard in the interests of historical accuracy. The public at large should be left to make their own minds up on all the available evidence, not just that presented by those conforming to the 'politically correct' view. Moreover, those that challenge the 'politically correct' view should not be presented in the kind of way that you have, but should be welcomed into open debate as valid contributors to history.

Andy Lehrer of Canada asked how we define the Holocaust. We replied:

In Court very early on in this trial I defined the Holocaust as "The tragedy inflicted on the millions of European Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators during the Third Reich." That is a pretty broad definition, and I don't deny it.

Lehrer's comment: In my critical thinking class a few years ago that sort of argument was called fallacy by definition. That is, the practice of redefining a term so broadly (or so narrowly, as the case may be) in order to serve your particular argument and as a way of evading the conventionally accepted meaning of the term. It's little more than a semantic trick, an attempt at sophistry, you are redefining the term Holocaust in such vague terms in order to evade the charge of denial, that's all and you pretty much admit that in your final sentence above.

In particular I have repeatedly read out to even the most right-wing audiences the vivid eye witness descriptions of the shootings of thousands of Jews by units at Riga in November 1941. -- Horrifying descriptions. And I told those listeners that this was proof that these things did happen. But I demand the right to analyze aspects of the Holocaust, like whether certain buildings at Auschwitz and Birkenau were indeed "factories of death" in which half a million Jews were gassed and cremated. Those facts I disbelieve, and the judge also found a hard time extracting evidence on them from the (highly paid: £109,000 for one!!) experts hired by the defence lawyers.

You've also equated Jewish casualties with German casualties arguing that the former were simply ordinary war victims and that there was nothing particularly remarkable or systematic about the murder of Jews during World War II, after all, bad things happen in war. Worst of all you've suggested on numerous occasions that the Jews are responsible for their own fate, in today's parlance that sort of argument is called "blaming the victim."

Kashif Noon writes: I am from an ethnic minority in England and I have views which are independent from the media's on your court case. I for one do not think that you are racist in the accepted sense of the word; in fact no more racist than all of us if we are honest about ourselves.

Caroline Getaz and Donald Ellis write: We admire your brilliant archival research and support your right to free speech and publication.

corpses at BuchenwaldTim Diehl, of Biglerville, Pennsylvania, has this comment: How does it feel to be shown to be a bogus historian in front of the whole world? I have been to Buchenwald (right) and Dachau. Would you tell me that the gas chambers there were put in after World War II? What about the testomony of Gens. Eisenhower, Bradley and Patton? As your trial has shown you have distorted history to serve your own racist and bigoted beliefs. (And if you want to try to deny that you are a anti-semite maybe you should consider changing the content of your webpage) The struggle for truth goes on daily and it is my sincere hope that you and others who hold your apoligist views of Hitler and the Nazis are continually subjected the the fate you suffered during your trial. Unfortunately it is as nothing compared to the suffering of millions inflicted by Hitler and his psychopathic cronies.

P.S. My great-great uncle was Alfred Kesselring and I am as German as an American possibly can be and yet I am still ashamed of what the German people allowed to happen during World War II. My father fought against Nazi tyranny and I am very proud of that fact. I do not want his legacy to be tarnished by people such as you who would say that what he and others like him fought for and DIED for and won was not the noble and worthy cause which it was.

WORTH POINTING OUT: None of the US generals mentioned referred to Auschwitz, "gas chambers," or the Holocaust in their biographies.


Ralph Hope, of 25 Albany Ave, New Canaan, NY 07102 wants us to know:
Dear Steel worker (you have no other profession), Wow, you lost big time. You always were a liar but now it's official. After you lose your flat where will you live? Perhaps the government will give you a council flat next door to some PROFESSIONAL immigrants. By the way, the British troops on the beaches of Normandy were not trying to prevent coloured immigration, they were trying to prevent German immigration. Those same British troops would have inflicted the same justice on you as they did on your forerunner Lord Haw Haw. So what's next in your wasted life? What kind of work can an unreliable psuedo-historian get? Is Irving a Jewish name? You look Jewish. Bye bye Irv the purv. I won't bother writing to you again.

Ralph Hope however then inquires: Do you think that your obsession with Hitler is in anyway a homo-erotic obsession? Perhaps you are looking for a strong father figure? Was your father absent a lot during your childhood? Were you sexually abused as a child? How did you daughter die? Was it suicide? Hope that you have nice weekend. You must be feeling pretty low after your total humiliation by the British legal system this week. Please publish this e-mail in your readers section too. Yours chuckling, Ralph Hope

A. Grynspan (totally unrelated in any way to the Herschel G. who assassinated Legationsrat vom Rath or the Governor of the Federal Reserve), forbids us thusly:

I deny David Irving, any request or right to publish, in whole or in part, duplicate in any form or manner, electronically post, distribute any of my personal information for any purpose whatsoever being contemplated . . . Any past, current and future personal correspondence between Mr Irving and the undersigned is private and has been and will continue to be submitted in complete confidentiality between the subject named parties.

Gary S. Redish a lawyer of Hackensack, New Jersey, writes: I read Hitler's War 20 years ago and thought it was a very well written and researched book-it leads me to wonder what took place since then with you. ... While I disagree with everything you say and stand for, you certainly have the right to say it and you are certainly an intelligent and interesting albeit misguided person. I was in London in mid Jan and sat in at the trial for half a day -- it was interesting -- perhaps you missed your calling and should have read for the Bar.

Robin Crompton suggests: I am sure you will take it like a man, having seen you on Newsnight last night. Paxman was much more aggressive towards you than Ms Lipstadt. I am glad you will appeal. But in a British court,I doubt whether you will get justice. Remember the Aldington/Tolstoy case, ten years back? You have every right, under the Western intellectual tradition, to challenge orthodoxy. But it is a painful and thankless business. I have just ordered a further book from your website. Your Nuremberg book was an eye-opener.

Charles E Lincoln writes: I can't imagine how anybody could think that you were not injured by Lipstadt's book. Furthermore, I do not see why anyone has ever called you a Holocaust denier. Denying the gas chambers is not the same as denying the Holocaust. I've never understood why it's heresy to say that the total dead would be 1.8 or 3.5 or 5.9 million instead of the sacred figure of 6.0 million.

Anonymous writes: Let's face it, your reputation as a historian has been shredded, there isn't a publisher of any standing who will even return your calls, and you may have bankrupted yourself. And in the end this wasn't done by any Jewish conspiracy, it was done by you.You did it to yourself by your failers (sic) as a historian having more effect than your abilities.

K. S. comes in from Los Angeles: I am a college student who have studied history for several years. I have hitherto believed that Holocaust was a truth, not a myth. However, I have been shocked by your firm denial on the gas chambers at concentration camps. I have no doubt that you have certain evidences in order to stand your theory. If not, you would not deny so firmly though you have been under fire for years. Moreover, I have heard that you have only used primary sources when you research. That is why I have felt that I should re-take a look the way you have studied.At any rate, you have shown me how historians should view the history of mankind.

Robert dubé writes from Canada: I have read very carefully your opening statement and many other articles on your web site. I have come to the conclusion that you are indeed a Neo-Nazi who is denying the Holocaust. And I believe you have the right to express your opinion but you have to accept the consequences of your actions.You are the one who started the whole story by your libel action. Denying or downsizing ( by suppression or omission ) the Holocaust is outrageoust. That's my point of view.

A S writes from England: I have much respect for you because of the way you generally defend 'your' people. You have got a lot of guts to do what you did in court and you are very honest in your thoughts. Most of the people that interviewed you on TV are probably more racist than you, except you are not a coward like them. I would like to know what Mr Paxman would be thinking in his mind if he got mugged and racially abused by a group of ethnics. I'm sure he would not feel like kissing their asses then! I think your superior intellect would be better directed towards the growing realisation that the real British will soon be a minority in their own land.

Hans Broch Nielsen points out: We´ve read the coverage Aftenposten has given you, and they haven't been totally negative either. Just to let you appear and to hear your arguments is important. It's so incredible that a British court have ruled against you. It's really a justice murder of the worst kind. I do believe that most people see through that. And that you have been alone in the court against twelve lawyers. That has also given you sympathy. I´ve read Hitlers War, downloaded from the internet. The book changed my view completely on the warlord side of Hitler. I myself have belonged to the left side of the politics, but it dosen´t take much intelligence and knowledge to see the lies about Hitler and the national socialist.


Dan McGuire of Toronto wrote this to journalist Magnus Linklater:

As one who has followed this trial, I think you need to reconsider the facts referenced in your article. Consider this: David Irving has written over 30 books; Miss Lipstadt's team of lawyers spent three years poring over his books, checking and cross-checking every single footnote and deconstructing and attacking every single thesis; all that these lawyers found were 19 mistakes, of which only a dozen or fewer could be considered serious. What historian could withstand such careful scrutiny and emerge without error or passion? Certainly not Gibbon, certainly not Tacitus. Do you really think that this makes David Irving a "falsifier of history"? Consider too that this same "dream team" combed through Irving's thirty-million word diary, looking for racist rhetoric and could find only one harmless little ditty -- something Gilbert & Sullivan might have written. And so he made a few off-color remarks to right-wing audiences as the immense pressure from Jewish smear groups mounted against him, scaring off his publishers, endangering his family, narrowing his prospects, and even denying him entry to countries where archives necessary to his research are located. Does this make him racist, or just a little ticked off? I think you give away your bias when you claim that the Holocaust is the most sensitive area of twentieth-century history. What, or rather who, makes you write that?

S Scott, a contributor to the fund, writes: I am appalled at the verdict reached. In a world of mediocre little men willing to stiffle all in the cause of political correctness, you have the courage to speak your mind.

Neils, a lawyer, writes in less generous vein: Mr. Irving, In a British court of justice, the truth won. You are a pitiful, dishonest, pathetic old man, and in the last chance you had to accomplish even a small victory in your life, you failed. Like Hitler when he pulled the trigger thus confessing to the world, "I have failed!", you are and will eventually die... a failure. Good riddance, when the time comes.

John Parkinson of Cirencester writes: I greatly admired how you stood up to the television presenters the other night. Your honesty and dignity did you as much credit as if you had won your case. But I think from the judgment and subsequent media comment, it is very apparent that you were never going to win. I think something good may come out of this. There are signs that some sensible rational people are beginning to sit up and think, rather than accept what they had always been told or was too risky to question. At least the media informed me of your website. Do not worry, I am not a skinhead nutter, but like you I am honest enough to admit in public, my views and fears -- the same as all my friends and business associates who are happy to joke about and discuss privately amongst friends. My late parents and their friends were far more open and honest about it, but then they did not have to be politically correct. My parents were the middle class backbone of society.

Robert Gordon however comments: I was outraged to hear what you had to say Mr Irving. If I was (sic) you, I would hang my head in shame. It is a disgrace. If there were no gas chambers, would you mind explaining to me how six million Jews died? You are ignorant, and the fact that you would raise your daughter in such an environment, proves what a nasty man you are. You deserve no respect. You are a liar. Two million pounds was simply not enough. Not only should they have fined you, but you should have gone to prison. When saying the word 'ape' in that poem, are you trying to say that you were not referring to a specific race? You have blood on your hands and you will never be able to wipe it off.

Reinhard D. Jäger of London wrote to the editor of Daily Telegraph

 Sir -- While one should be not be at all surprised at the verdict against historian David Irving it was upsetting to see such a respected publication as the Telegraph engage in accusations and insinuations that would otherwise be confined to the columns of the tabloid rags.

The Holocaust is such a sacred cow that any discussion of it where the standard orthodox version of events is not maintained is seen as in some way or another defamatory. The evidence against Mr Irving -- the scenes at the outdoor meeting in Halle instantly come to mind -- was for the most part selected, edited, cut, pasted and then re-edited to make him appear in a more sinister light. Mr Irving at no stage has ever denied the Holocaust; he has simply stated that many of its key elements are fundamentally flawed.

This does not constitute wholesale denial. Neither, however crass it may have been, does his comparison of the Auschwitz I 'gas chamber' to something one could find in Disneyland -- it is a fact, acknowledged by curator Franciszek Piper, that the installation is a dummy constructed by the Poles after the war's end.

As a student of the period, I have always found it difficult to understand why we should be prevented from opening a civilised debate on the Holocaust issue, and why we haven't been allowed to get to grips with really happened during those dark years.

Justice Gray has not only attempted to silence David Irving, but all of those who dare to upset the applecart driven by the historical orthodoxy.

Dave Whyte is very, very angry: As an avid reader of historical material, I have found your material to be very well researched, balanced and easy to digest. I cannot believe that the world has gone so insanely politically correct. I watched the report of the trial on Channel 4 News (normally very balanced), and couldn't believe my ears. Your responses were reasoned, sensible and from what I know most of the people would consider to be normal British opinion. I am neither rascist or anti anything -- except STUPIDITY and LIES.

[More letters]

© Focal Point 2000 David Irving