International Campaign for Real History

Libel Action between DJC Irving v Penguin Books Ltd and Deborah Lipstadt
Quick navigation

Alphabetical site index (text)link

Index to daily transcripts

 Part 1

Closing Speech by David Irving


Part III


Another most difficult piece of historical paper for my opponents is the Schlegelberger Document. In late March or early April 1942, after seeing Germany's top civil servant, who reported only to Hitler, Franz Schlegelberger dictated this famous memorandum, upon which all Holocaust historians, and the Defendants' expert witnesses in this case have hitherto turned enough blind eyes to have won several battles of Trafalgar. For many years after the war it vanished: but that is another story. Asked about this specific document after a lecture in the German Institute, here in London in November 1998, Dr Longerich, who is now the Defendants' expert witness, had the function's chairman rise to inform the audience that the speaker was not prepared to answer questions from David Irving. It is a genuine document, referring in one breath both to Hitler and the Solution of the Jewish Problem. Confronted with it in the witness box, he and his fellow experts have argued, either that it was totally unimportant; or that it concerned only the Mischlinge, the mixed race Jews, and not the Final Solution in any broader sense. Ingeniously, Dr Longerich even tried to suggest that it originated in 1940 or 1941. The document has them in a breathless panic.

The document's own contents destroy their latter argument: In the first sentence, it says: "Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been adjourned [or postponed] until after the war." That this is the broader Final Solution is plain from the second sentence which shows namely that the Mischling question was something different: "Accordingly," the memorandum continues, "the current deliberations have in the opinion of Mr Lammers purely theoretical value." Those deliberations were, as my opponents themselves have argued, solely concerned with what to do with the Mischlinge and the like. The document is quite plain; and it was dictated by a lawyer, so he presumably knew what he was writing. There is no room for argument. My opponents have pretended for years that this document effectively does not exist.

I have dealt at length in my statements in the witness box, and while cross-examining the witnesses, with the other contentious items, namely the Goebbels Diary entries for March 27 and May 30, 1942, the Himmler minute of September 22, 1942 and his note for his meeting with Hitler on December 10, 1942; meetings with Antonescu and with Horthy in April 1943; the deportation and murder of the Jews in Rome in October 1943, Himmler's speeches on October 4 and 6, 1943, and May 15 and 24 1944, and Hitler's speech on May 26, 1944, and Ribbentrop's testimony and evidence from his cell at Nuremberg. I contend that my use of these items was quite proper.

I must mention the Report (Meldung) No. 51 submitted by Himmler to Hitler through their adjutants, and dated December 29, 1942. The Defendants have made great play with this document, claiming that it is clear proof, that Hitler was apprised by Himmler of the murder of over 300,000 Jews on a transparent pretext in the previous three months. Your Lordship will remember that I established that on the same December 1942 day, which was at the height of the Battle of Stalingrad, and in exactly the same manner, a document of precisely the same general character, namely Meldung No. 49, had to be vorgelegt or submitted to the Führer not once but twice - a clear indication that he was not reading them on the first occasion or perhaps even at all. If I may draw an analogy, with which the Court may well be familiar, sometimes a series of briefs are put to a fashionable and expensive Counsel; he is obliged to read them fully and properly, and draws a fat fee for doing so; but in fact he does not. A number of names are known for this particular dereliction in legal circles, not of course that I am comparing them with the Führer, or even indeed with Mr Rampton. In law, as in history, the fact that a document has been "put to" somebody does not mean that that somebody has read it, unless there is some collateral evidence of feedback, and in this case there clearly was not.

My various references to Marie Vaillant-Couturier seem to have been quite justified, from what we know of her and of her full testimony to the Nuremberg tribunal in 1946. She had married the editor of l'Humanité, she and her father were bosom friends of Willi Münzenberg, author of the propaganda about the Reichstag Fire - a founder member and one of the most accomplished propagandists of the Comintern. It is evident from the way that the hard-pressed defence counsel Marx conducted his cross-examination of her that he was implying to the tribunal that she had not even been in Auschwitz. Your Lordship will remember that she described to the IMT a beating-machine used by the SS to administer corporal punishment. Her testimony is riddled with such absurdities, and when the experienced American Judge Biddle jotted down his sceptical comment on this witness, even as she was still speaking, he meant it - and I certainly took it in that way - to be a reference to all that he had heard (and largely disbelieved) up to that point.

I found the Kurt Aumeier dossier by conducting a systematic, "shirtsleeve" search of the Public Record office files in 1992. Any one of the scholars introduced by the Defendants as witnesses could have found it equally readily. At first I intended to transcribe and publish the document myself, properly annotated, like the 1938 Goebbels Diaries. Instead I drew the attention of several scholars to it, including, to the best of my recollection, both Sir Martin Gilbert and Dr Gerald Fleming; I had often sent them documents I had found which I knew would interest them. When I abandoned the publication idea, I drew the attention of other scholars to it, including Professor Robert Van Pelt, in a very lengthy letter written to him in May 1997; in this I identified to him numerous archival references of interest to his special subject, including the Aumeier dossier. Not receiving a reply, I published that letter to Van Pelt in full in a 1997 newsletter, and I posted it on my website. Numerous correspondents utilised the email link to Pelt on that page, and the Defendants' solicitors eventually asked me to "deactivate" it. My long letter had been mailed to Pelt from Chicago with proper postage, addressed to his correct postal address at the university, and it was never returned to me. Professor Van Pelt claimed here not to have received it, and he suggested in his report that I told people about it only when the Defendants' legal team of researchers found the file in the PRO.24 This is absurd. They found the Aumeier file not least because it was included in my Discovery (both in the general Judenfrage archive box, and as No. 2066). I did not know until two years later that he was to be a witness in this case.

As for the Aumeier dossier's content, his manuscripts suggest, or confirm, the existence of limited-scale gassings at Auschwitz. The figures are unreliable, and many of the other details conflict with those provided by the equally flawed writings of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss. This is in my submission the most likely reason why the Defendants have not relied heavily on either source in their defence.

Nor for that matter have they made any use of the loudly trumpeted Eichmann memoirs prised out of the Israeli Government archives - perhaps because in the entire document, although this former SS-Obersturmbannführer is writing with brutal frankness, and describing the most appalling spectacles that he has seen, he does not refer even once to being shown a gas chamber during his official guided tours as "executioner in chief" of the Auschwitz and Birkenau camps.

I heard what Professor Evans and learned counsel had to state about General Kurt Daluege as a source for the criminal statistics for 1932. The Defendants have been unable to locate the figures that I quoted in the Daluege lecture which I used as one source. Nor did they notice that it was in fact a lecture to the recently formed Interpol. Evans appears not to have looked in the other three sources listed for that one sentence in my book, which included two reputable works of history, so his strictures are meaningless. For the reasons known to the court, since 1993 I no longer have access to the German institute in which those sources are housed. I do not invent statistics, and it is clear by inference that the data which I gave came from one of the other three sources and not from the lecture.



Hitler's knowledge of the solution of the Jewish question:


This became the most controversial issue, both in this courtroom and stretching far back into my writing career; I wish, just because of this, that I had picked upon a different biographical subject.

Because of the inescapable conclusion - that Hitler had probably not ordered, or been aware until relatively late, of the ultimate fate of the European Jews - I forfeited, as my U.S. agent predicted, perhaps half a million dollars or more of lucrative sub-licensing deals with major corporations - the Reader's Digest, paperback houses, reprints, The Sunday Times. After I completed a first draft of the book in about 1969-1970, I realised that there was this inexplicable - and unexpected - gap in the archives. I hired a trusted friend, Dr Elke Fröhlich of the Institute of History, to go through all the then-available German archives again, with the specific task of looking for documents linking Hitler with the Final Solution.25 She did a conscientious and excellent job, working for me in the files of the Nuremberg state archives, the Institut für Zeitgeschichte, the Berlin Document Center, the Bundesarchiv, and the military archives in Freiburg. Her resulting research materials, my correspondence with her, the index cards and photocopies, form a part of my Discovery in this action. It was she who produced for me for example the then-unpublished diary entry of Governor-General Hans Frank - actually a meeting-transcript of December 13, 1941, currently being edited by her colleagues at the institute - to which I duly made reference.

I would incidentally rely on this episode as one further instance of my integrity as an independent historian: Inherently dissatisfied with the results of my own research, I hired and paid out of my own pocket for this second opinion, as an avocatus diaboli, to trawl once more, and with a net of finer mesh, across the same fishing grounds for documents that might in fact destroy my, then still tentative, hypothesis. In a similar step, which I think I took to appease the now worried American publishers, I wrote in December 1975 to four or five of the major international Jewish historical research institutions, appealing for "evidence proving Hitler's guilt in the extermination of the Jews." All of these inquiries by me drew a blank, except for one. As I summarised in a letter to The Sunday Telegraph on June 19, 1977, "... all offered their apologies, except Professor Raul Hilberg, author of the standard history on the subject, who honourably conceded that he too has come to the view that Hitler may not have known." (His letter is in my Discovery).26

The other institutions stated that they had no such evidence, or they did not reply.




The International Endeavour to destroy my Legitimacy as an Historian


Before I proceed to the problems with the accepted version of the history of Auschwitz, I turn first to the submissions that Your Lordship will allow me to make on the thirty-year international endeavour by a group of organisations to destroy my legitimacy as an historian. I submit that I am entitled to draw these documents to Your Lordship's attention, because these bodies, acting with that secret and common purpose, compiled dossiers and reports on me with the intention of destroying me. They did so exercising no proper care for accuracy; and, as is evident from the Second Defendant's Discovery, and from the Introduction to her book in which she explicitly acknowledges the assistance provided by many of these bodies, she drew upon these tainted wellsprings as the source for much of the poison she wrote about me.27 We shall hear that, buried in the files of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Toronto, is a document, now also in ms. Lipstadt's files - they sent it to her - which forms something of a blueprint for the attempt to destroy my name. A researcher for the Centre, commissioned to investigate my life in detail, recommended in that compilation, after referring to my "thorough archival research" and "genuine historical insight" as follows:


"Given this accurate version of reality, it is all the more clear why his activities must be curtailed, and why his [David Irving's] alleged legitimacy must be eradicated."


I have been subjected since at least 1973 and probably before then to what would be called in warfare a campaign of interdiction. I know of no other historian or writer who has been subjected to a campaign of vilification even one tenth as intense. the book Denying the Holocaust was the climax of this campaign. There exist, as I said in my opening speech, various bodies in this country and around the world who have at heart the interests of special groups. I make no protest about that: but many other Englishmen have noticed, or found out, usually by chance, that these bodies keep files on us, which they use to our disadvantage if they believe we are a danger to their interests. Despite the best intentions of the Data Protection Act, it seems that we have no means of checking those files, or revising their content, let alone of cleansing them of libels. To give one particularly gross example: Under the cover provided by the United States First Amendment, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency accused me in 1995 of having supplied the trigger mechanism for the Oklahoma City bomb. That item was picked up by the American, and then faintly echoed by the British press. It was only months later that I found out who had started that lie.

But regrettably this has become a campaign to defame people whom they regard as a danger. A number of special bodies exist solely for this purpose. Some of them are listed on my website index as being "... some traditional enemies of Free Speech". Professor Kevin MacDonald, of the University of Southern California, a sociologist who is the world's leading expert on these things, expressed forceful opinions to this Court in his expert report - on which he offered himself for cross-examination - and I urge Your Lordship not to disregard the substance of what he had to say.

These bodies will not endear themselves, if found out, to the victims of their campaigns.

Mr Rampton made much of Mr Ernest Zündel's gross and ill-considered reference to the Judenpack - as anti-Semitic a word as one might hear.28 Mr Rampton labels this man as an extremist, and anti-Semitic, in consequence. The Court has been told nothing by Mr Rampton of what if any remarks, or incidents, preceded the outburst by Mr Zündel. We do know, and I can so inform this Court, that his home has been torched and burned to the ground. Such violent incidents certainly can not excuse the violent remarks; but they can explain them. Because they don't like what he writes or publishes, these bodies have attempted to destroy his life with criminal prosecution in an attempt to have him deported or jailed. They have failed, and Canada's highest Court has ruled that he is free of any criminal taint. Your Lordship may consider that this finding by a judicial body has some bearing on the label of extremism. Quite probably as the direct result of these bodies' agitation against him, he was subjected to violent assault. He was sent a large parcel bomb which the RCMP police authorities took away and detonated. The instigators were a British Columbia group of "anti-fascists". of course Mr Zündel ought not to have used such an expression. Apart from anything else, his opponents are not Jews in general but self-appointed bodies of would-be censors. The Court will readily accept that I - Mr Zündel is not the claimant here - have not used such language in all the thousands of pages, videos, and recordings which I have readily disclosed.



My own experience at the hands of these self-appointed censors has not been so very different. It began in 1963 when agents of Searchlight raided my home and were caught red-handed in this criminal attempt. Ever since then that publication has tweaked my tail with a stream of defamatory articles: a thirty-seven year onslaught, to which I as a good Christian turned the other cheek. After ten years this campaign had begun to threaten my livelihood. Lord Weidenfeld, one of my favourite publishers - he published no fewer than three of my major works, including my best-selling ROMMEL biography - was the first publisher, first of a long and illustrious line, to come under clandestine pressure to tear up his publishing contract with me because my books offended these special-interest groups. He told me at the Frankfurt Book Fair on October 13, 1973, that "he had cancelled the book [HITLER'S WAR] under extreme outside pressure, he said, from officials of Zionist groups, and representations made by certain embassies."29

It might be said that the real Defendants in this case are not represented in this Court, but their presence has been with us throughout. These are the people who commissioned the work complained of, and provided much of the materials used in it. I understand they have provided considerable funds for the defence - I am talking primarily of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai Brith, a long-established American body.

I know very little about the former body, but I am aware that the latter has a $50 million annual budget, substantially greater than an author commands whose livelihood has been destroyed by their activities. When your lordship comes to such things as costs and damages, I would respectfully submit that you bear these things in mind.

We have them to thank for the spectacle that has been presented in this courtroom since January. Without their financial assistance, it is unlikely that Mr Rampton and his defence team and his instructing solicitors could have mounted this colossal onslaught on my name. One day in 1998 I was shown a letter written that morning by Mr Julius to some of the country's richest men, inviting them to bankroll this action. It had chanced into our hands. That is the other side of a piece of legal coinage that has recently come back into currency - champerty and maintenance. For over three years this well funded team sitting opposite me has drilled down deep into my private papers and burrowed on a broad front into the archives of the world, on a multi-pronged attack - trying to establish that what I have written over the last thirty-five years is distorted or mistranslated in pursuance of an agenda (namely the exoneration of Adolf Hitler); and trying to dig up every little morsel of dirt on me that they can.

My book HITLER'S WAR was published by The Viking Press in New York in April 1977 and by Hodder & Stoughton in this country in June of that year. What can be seen as a co-ordinated attack on the book began. The Viking Press was one of that nation's most reputable publishers (and is now owner of the First Defendant company). Public attacks on the book in the press were concerted with clandestine attempts to have my book squelched and me, as its author, ostracised.

The Anti-Defamation League (or ADL) - a body which turns out to have been closely in league with the Second Defendant in the current action - did what it could to disrupt my USA lecture-circuit and television tour promoting the book. The ADL had its Washington branch put pressure on the Channel 5 television network that was to carry a "Panorama" interview with me: we are rather well informed about how this American lobby of bigots carries out its duties, and I reproduce these extracts of its secret internal report on its efforts. Hearing of the booking for me to attend the programme, the local ADL agent reported to headquarters: "As a consequence, I arranged with the show's producer to place on the same show in a debate posture my associate, Randy Koch, which airing took place on April 18, 1:00 to 1:30 p.m. A cassette of the show is being sent to you under separate cover for your advice and analysis." They added: "The following information is provided to you so that in addition to the cassette you may better appraise Irving's knowledgeability and toughness as an adversary in conjunction with ADL's problems with him."

What were the ADL's "problems" with me, one wonders? I had had no dealings with them whatsoever. If we had been able to cross-examine Professor Lipstadt, we might have asked her, since her own Discovery, limited though it is, shows her to have been in cahoots with them.

With more fervour than accuracy, the ADL report continues with the remarkable disclosure: "David Irving is the nom de plume of John Cawdell, a revisionist historiographer of Adolf Hitler, particularly regarding Hitler's role in and knowledge of the mass extermination of European Jewry. His major premise is that Hitler was largely oblivious to the large-scale killing of Jews in the death camps. He alleges and underscores the lack of historical evidence in documentation form that will show any orders from Hitler to Himmler, Heydrich or others. Irving further maintains that no direct documentation exists of Hitler giving orders to liquidate Jews.."

The agent's report continues that the book is a work of over 900 pages, including 100 pages of footnotes. "It would appear from the quantity of research and time that Irving put into the work that the author appears knowledgeable and expert in subject area." The cause for ADL concern then follows:


"My monitoring of the aforementioned telecast leads me to conclude that Irving comes through as an extremely knowledgeable and tough adversary although he is extremely defensive in debating his latest work. [...] I see no problem in our joining in debate situations with him provided our proponent does sufficient homework." The report adds that they had questioned a local Board member, identified as James Jacobs, an atomic scientist who had allegedly befriended me when I was researching my book THE VIRUS HOUSE, the history of the German atom bomb project. While I have to confess that I have no memory of that man, the 1977 report adds: "Jacobs states that Irving is definitely not anti-Semitic, that he is an excessive German-phile [...]."


This was no doubt an accurate report on my private conversations with the man. "According to Jacobs, Irving is extremely thorough in his research and cites in this connection an inordinate amount of time spent by him in the United States going over the German archives reports and time spent in discussions with eminent authorities in the field covering associate matter concerning Irving's writings. Jacob's appraisal concurs with mine that as a consequence of the foregoing, Irving does make a tough adversary."

The report concludes that Jacobs would "co-operate with you" - the addressee, evidently the ADL's London friends, the Board of Deputies, "in any way he can to further assist you in your appraisal."30

When I then began my lecturing activities around the USA in the early 1980s, speaking at private functions, schools, and universities, the ADL headquarters sent out a secret circular, a "Backgrounder," to all their local agents. 31 The backgrounder, dated July 6, 1983, began with the words: "British author David Irving has been of concern to ADL, as well as to the Jewish community generally, since the 1977 publication of his book Hitler's War," and it indicated that it was the controversy over Hitler and the Jews that was the reason. We have heard of similar such circulars being generated by them on other famous literary names, for example the Daily Telegraph writer Auberon Waugh and Noam Chomsky, who though an eminent Harvard professor also found mysterious problems in getting material published.32 In my case the ADL instructed its "regional offices":


"Should he [Irving] surface in your region, please notify the Fact Finding Department and your Civil Rights Co-ordinator."


It is quite plain that the ADL were not concerned with promoting civil rights, but in abrogating one of the most basic rights of all, the right to freedom of speech.

The circular about me was so defamatory and untrue that after a copy was passed to me I sent a written warning on October 15, 1983 to the then director of the ADL in New York to desist from spreading what I referred to even then as this "libellous garbage".33 I warned that I had prevailed in a number of defamation actions in the German law courts enforced against provincial newspapers, political groups, and trades unions including the giant IG Metall, and that other people who innocently spread such legends, including the Israeli author Ephraim Kishon, had preferred to apologise to me in writing for mistakenly giving currency to such smears. The ADL did not reply, and they continued their illiberal campaign against me.

Correspondence with my literary agent showed by 1984 already that the international smear campaign was inflicting financial damage on me.34 It was at precisely this time, 1984, that the Second Defendant, then teaching in the Near Eastern Languages Center of the University of California at Los Angeles, offered her services to Yehuda Bauer in Jerusalem. She attached "A proposal for research: The Historical and Historiographic Methodology of the Holocaust revisionists."35 I ask Your Lordship to note that on page 38 of this synopsis the Second Defendant mentioned my name in these words (Bundle E, page 38): "They [deniers] also find it expedient to associate themselves with those such as David Irving who do not deny that the Holocaust took place but seek to shift the blame to others." (My added emphasis).

To conclude this, on the matter of her employment: on May 31, 1988 she was awarded an additional $16,000 agreement for research on this topic by the Vidal Sassoon Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.36 This research, it should be added, was what finally bore fruit as the book complained of, Denying the Holocaust. The publisher at that time publisher was to be Robert Maxwell, who was liaising with Professor Yehuda Bauer.37



During this period the international campaign against me achieved some ugly successes. Through their Vienna collaborators, the Austrian Documentation-Archive of the Resistance, a recognised communist-front organisation, they prevailed upon Austria's minister of the interior, Karl Blecha to have me illegally deported in June 1984. In July 1986 after an appeal by myself this was overturned, and Austria was ordered to pay me compensation.38 I have to admit that as a writer I was not prepared for this kind of campaign. I do not expect that any of the expert witnesses we have seen have ever had to experience anything like it. When I toured universities and other speaking venues in Australia and New Zealand in 1986 and again in 1987, I learned that every organiser, every television producer had received an information pack from the ADL; and that every university library had received a letter from the corresponding Australian body pleading with them to take my books off the shelves. This may remind Your Lordship of where Professor Evans said he found my book hidden in the British Library.39 In short, there was and is a hidden network of Orwellian organisations determined to ensure that no version of history of these matters of which they disapproved was given currency, or indeed allowed to survive; the alternative history should be destroyed, its publishers ruined - I am thinking of my good friend Tom Congdon, of Congdon & Lattès - and the writers themselves ausgerottet too.

The Second Defendant's Discovery, which includes such correspondence with, and items from, ADL as she has seen fit to provide, throws some interesting lights on the ADL's methods. When a local newspaper, The Daily Pilot, published in Orange County, south of Los Angeles, reported a function of the Institute of Historical Review (the IHR), the ADL was horrified, as the ADL regional office reported, to find that the reporter, "seems to find an air of legitimacy surrounding the group"; the reporter, Bob Van Eyken, who evidently had not got the message, even described the IHR members as "neatly dressed ... evok[ing] a sense of reasoned dignity." This clearly clashed with the skinhead, jackbooted, extremist stereotype that the ADL, like the expert witnesses in this case, wished to project for the IHR and other "right-wing" groups.40 This material, though clearly discoverable in this action, was withheld from Discovery by the Second Defendant until a summons was issued to produce all her correspondence with the ADL.

We know that the Second Defendant has had extensive dealings with the ADL. Even from her own limited Discovery, about the deficiencies in which I shall have to say more later, we know that she was provided with smear dossiers by them. She thanks them in her Introduction.41 She made no attempt to verify the contents of this material with me (or so far as this Court knows, with others), but recklessly published it raw and unchecked. A 25-cent phone call to me would have saved her endless trouble. Instead she preferred to rely on smear sheets like the "confidential" and defamatory four-page item dated October 23, 1986, headed: "Profile on David Irving," evidently supplied to her by a Canadian body.42 Characteristically, the "profile" was disclosed to me by her solicitors without any covering letter from its author or custodian and shorn of any identifying material; I wrote more than once in vain asking for missing pages to be provided.

It is quite evident that the ADL set itself the task of destroying my career, in concert with other similar organisations around the world, many of whom if not all collaborated with the Second Defendant in writing her book. The pinnacle of their achievement came in 1996, when the Second Defendant, as she herself boasted to The Washington Post, was among those who put pressure on St Martin's Press Inc., who had been one of my US publishers for some fifteen years, to violate their publishing agreement with me and abandon publication of GOEBBELS. MASTERMIND OF THE THIRD REICH.

For a few days, these enemies of free speech stepped up the pressure. They publicised the private home addresses of St Martin's Press (SMP) executives on the Internet. They staged street demonstrations in Manhattan. They organised a walkout by SMP staff. When SMP refused to be intimidated, Lipstadt wheeled out the rhetoric: To Frank Rich, a syndicated columnist of The New York Times, she accused me of being a repeat killer: "What David Irving is doing ... is not the destruction of live people, but the destruction of people who already died. It's killing them a second time. It's killing history."43 This was not far distant from to the outrageous claim on page 213 of her book, to which no justification has been pleaded, that I justified the incarceration of Jews in Nazi concentration camps. Quoted by The Washington Post on April 3, 1996, Deborah Lipstadt stated:


"They say they don't publish reputations, they publish books. But would they publish a book by Jeffrey Dahmer on man-boy relations? Of course the reputation of the author counts. And no legitimate historian takes David Irving's work seriously."44



We have heard quoted in this Court two tasteless remarks I am recorded as having made, about Chappaquiddick and about the Association of Spurious Survivors, and I do not deny that those words were tasteless. But bad taste is not what is in the pleadings, while express malice is: and the odiousness of Professor Lipstadt's comparison, in a mass circulation newspaper of record, of a British author with Jeffrey Dahmer, a madman who had recently murdered and cannibalised a dozen homosexuals in the mid-West of the USA, is surely compounded by the fact that Lipstadt had at that time not read a single book I had written, let alone the manuscript on Dr Goebbels that she had joined in trying to suppress. It is clear that neither she nor the ADL was concerned with the merits, or otherwise, of the Goebbels biography. They wanted it put down, suppressed, ausgerottet: and me with it.

Having, like St. Martin's Press, thoroughly read it, the major US publisher Doubleday Inc. had selected this book as their May 1996 choice for History Book of the Month. But that deal depended on the SMP contract, and thus it too collapsed. The financial losses inflicted on me by this one episode in April 1996 were of the order of half a million dollars (£312,500), which might seem proper reward for the eight years' hard work that I had invested in writing this book, and hauling it through its five draft versions.


From the publication of HITLER'S WAR onwards, the attitude of the print media to me changed. A strategically placed review written in one afternoon, by one man furnished with the appropriate dossier on me, could go a long way to destroy the product of six or eight years' research. That was why these dossiers had been created.

To the right journalists or writers, such as the Second Defendant, these dossiers were on tap. A fax from Professor Lipstadt to the Institute of Jewish Affairs in London, or to the ADL in New York, or to the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Toronto, released to her a cornucopia of filth, which she had no need to double-check or verify, because in the United States such writings are protected by the authority of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the laudable name of the freedom of speech, or by the authority of New York Times vs. Sullivan, which effectively declares to libellers that it is open season on any public figure.

Thus my book on The Hungarian Uprising of 1956, published in 1981 by Hodder & Stoughton, was savaged by certain reviewers: Neal Ascherson, Arthur Koestler and others disliked it. Ion Trewin, then that firm's chief (and now head of Weidenfeld) wrote to me: "I must say I'm rather shocked by the abuse levelled at you from certain quarters - the obvious liberal ones of course."45 And Penguin Books Ltd, now Defendants in this action, wrote to me, "Criticism may have been occasionally necessary, but venom, though to be expected, was not called for."46 (Had that same firm remembered that dictum fifteen years later, we should not be here today).

This unfair attack on my works was a source of great concern to me. Reviews are an author's life blood, but the trend of lying reviews continued. When THE WAR BETWEEN THE GENERALS (the Eisenhower and Montgomery story) was published in New York in 1981, one review in The New York Times on March 8, of that year by John Lukács, to which I referred in Court, sank the book without trace and in fact destroyed the highly reputable American publisher, a close personal friend of mine, too. I will not weary the court with the precise mechanism by which one such review can inflict so much damage, but such is the power of the press.47

Whenever I now appeared in the United States to lecture, there were well-orchestrated tumults. Well meaning bodies were tricked by the vile propaganda into organising against me. At the University of California at Berkeley there was violence on October 14, 1994, encouraged openly by the "Hillel" in conjunction with the Marxist and Spartacist organisations they boasted about this to the campus newspapers which the campus and city police forces were quite unable to control. One building was comprehensively wrecked, with tens of thousands of dollars of damage being done and several elderly members of my audience hospitalised.



This Court will surely not take it amiss of me that I refused to be intimidated by these truly "Nazi" methods, and that I have on a very few occasions used perhaps tasteless language about the perpetrators. The violence spread around the world, and always it was orchestrated by the same organisations.

It would be otiose to list them all here. Some of them can be seen on pages 54 of the Bundle E: On November 5, 1989 the Israelite Community of Vienna, Austria, called for violent action to stop me speaking in that city. I initiated police prosecution of the leader of the community for his public incitement to violence. In 1990 the two Canadian bodies, the League of Human Rights of the B'nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress announced that they were to "monitor" my tour of that country.48 "Monitoring" turns out to be euphemism for a campaign of letters, pressure, and threats of violence and commercial pressure against hotels, halls, and lecture-theatres which had been hired by which ever body, student society, military institute, or group had invited me. Attempts to force the prestigious Ottawa Congress Center to violate its contract failed, resulting in a violent demonstration organised by the same two bodies. One such letter came into my hands, from the League of Human Rights of the B'nai Brith Canada to an Ottawa restaurant owner written in September 1991. Its content, which I shall not quote her - it is in the evidence before Your Lordship - shows clearly the methods used to get hall owners to violate their contracts.49 They did this to us, acting as Jews; if we had done the same to them, as Jews, the uproar would have been intense.

To a visiting lecturer and writer like myself, a guest in their countries, finding myself up against powerful and wealthy political lobbies, the situation was deeply disturbing. My livelihood and personal safety were at stake, but I was determined not to be browbeaten or defeated. Seen from the outside, at first this campaign, this huge international endeavour against me, appeared to be coincidental; but eventually it began to bite. Perhaps publishers are made of less stern stuff than myself. After Andrew Lownie, my new UK literary agent, wrote warning me that four major UK publishers "just do not want to be associated" with me, on November 30, 1990 I wrote expressing astonishment and concern at how rapidly this situation had developed, and stating: "I have begun to suspect a concerted effort [...] to rob me of my publishing basis, not just in the U.K. but worldwide."50