Closing Statement, , IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE -I- QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice Gray B E T W E E N: DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING Claimant -and- PENGUIN BOOKS LIMITED st Defendant DEBORAH E. LIPSTADT nd Defendant MR. DAVID IRVING (appeared 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. Closing Speech by the Claimant MARCH 15, 2000 For a printed copy of this speech send $10.00 (£6.50) or equivalent to David Irving Legal Fighting Fund, P O Box 1707, Key West, FL 33041, USA or 81 Duke Street, London W1K 5PE ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣ This PDF version: © Focal Point Publications 2000 Click!Topic Headings Topic Headings 2 + “Gas Irving Now!” 20 South Africa bans me too; others follow 21 The Hizbollah Allegation 4 Who planted papers on Ottawa’s files? 21 The Hamas Allegation 5 The Whines of this world 22 The “Hitler portrait” 5 The U.S. Immigration computer 22 Argument on Section 5, Defamation Act 6 “Must be Eradicated” 23 The Phrase “Holocaust Denier” 6 The Old School Tie 24 My writings and reputation as an historian 6 The ban Down Under 24 “Hitler’s War” on Hitler and the Holocaust 7 Lipstadt’s racist views on intermarriage 25 The Defendants’ historiographical criticisms 8 Exonerating Hitler 26 Night of Broken Glass, 1938 9 Did Lipstadt swear a perjured affidavit? 26 Shooting of Jews in the East 10 Auschwitz and The Holocaust Industry 27 Hitler’s Table Talk, October 1941 10 The “silly” Wannsee story 28 Goebbels’ diary, November 22, 1941 11 What about a “Hitler order”? 28 Peal Harbor and Hitler’s speech to the Gauleiters 11 The Leuchter Report 29 Hans Frank’s remarks on December 16, 1941 11 The Morgue roof 30 Himmler’s December 1941 agenda 12 The hunt for the “holes” 31 The Schlegelberger Document 12 The “smudges” on the roof 31 Submitted to Hitler – or not? 12 A bold challenge on the “holes” 32 Marie Vaillant-Couturier 12 Wartime documents on “gas chambers”? 32 The Aumeier Dossier 13 Krema II as an air raid shelter 33 The Eichmann memoirs 13 The “moral certainty” of Auschwitz 34 Hitler’s knowledge of the Solution The allegations of racism and anti-Semitism 35 of the Jewish question 13 A joke about Simon Wiesenthal 35 The Global Endeavour to destroy my Obsessions about “Race” 36 Legitimacy as an Historian 14 The speeches and lectures 37 The ADL’s “problems” with me 15 Extremist organisations and people 37 “Irving is definitely not anti-Semitic” 15 The Halle timeline 38 Lipstadt offers a proposal for research 16 The Institute of Historical Review 39 Deported, arrested 16 The National Alliance 40 St Martin’s Press is bludgeoned 17 Ernst Zündel and his views 41 How it is done 17 What remains of the Defence Case? 41 These Nazi methods 18 The Goebbels Diaries from Moscow 41 The Board of Deputies 18 Admissibility of the Müller document 42 In the files of the Australian prime minister 19 Evidentiary Value of the Müller document 42 Macmillan Ltd. rat on their own author 19 Part 36 offer 42 Lipstadt seeks sources for her libels 20 Costs 42 A note by Focal Point Publications regretted. As with any seasoned speaker, moreover, Mr. on our editing policy with this document. This is Irving interpolated extempore remarks – here, praise for the closing statement made by David Irving in the trial, the trial reporting by individual newspapers (The Jewish which he delivered from about midday until .. on Chronicle), there a statement about the importance, when March , . Comparison with the transcript will re- death statistics run into the hundreds of thousands, never veal differences in the version as delivered, but in general to lose sight of the fact that each of these was a human it can be said that this version, being the script from which life. The latter stretches of the speech were interrupted he delivered his speech, is the more complete. By prior by heckling from Defence counsel Mr. Richard Rampton arrangement with the Court and by consent the state- and his team, partcularly when Mr. Irving attacked ment as delivered condensed large areas involving for ex- the authenticity of the “Bischoff document”, and finally ample the “global endeavour” of international Jewish or- halted altogether by a discussion between the Judge and ganisations to abridge Mr. Irving’s freedom of speech, Mr. Rampton on various points of law. and he also decided at the last moment not to include In law, it was this full version of the closing statement the materials revealing the connections of the Defend- that was before the Court, i.e. as published below, plus ants’ expert witness Professor Hajo Funke connections any additional remarks that the transcript of the version with left-wing ideologues in Berlin, an omission which as spoken contains. Typographical embellishments and Mr. Justice Gray welcome, but which Mr. Irving later topic headings are added in the printed version. – fpp This PDF version: © Focal Point Publications 2000␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣ Closing Statement, , Closing Statement by the Claimant or eloquent, or numerous, be allowed by their tactics to skew it in any other way. I may add that the points I have made do not necessarily ,lessen the horror or the burden of guilt. I always have accepted that Adolf Hitler, as head of state and government, was responsible for the Holocaust. I said, in the Introduction to my flagship biography, : If this biography were simply a history of the rise and fall of Hitler’s Reich, it would be legitimate to conclude: “Hitler killed the Jews”.1 But my years of investigation suggested that many others were responsible, that the chain of responsibility was not as clear cut as that. Nothing that I have heard in this Court since January has persuaded me that I was wrong on this account. These latter points lead to another consideration. Your Lord- ship will have heard of the – largely successful – effort to drive me out of business as a historian. This Court has seen the ti- midity with which historians have already been fraught once the Holocaust is questioned: one notable historian, ordered by summons to attend, showed himself reluctant even to confirm what he had written in my favour, repeatedly, over the last twenty years. A judgment rendered against me will make this paralysis in the writing of history definitive; from then on, no-one will dare to discuss who exactly was involved in each stage of the Holocaust, or how extensive it was. From then, on discussion will revolve around “safe” subjects – sacred texts in the Middle Ages, or Marx in the old USSR, or the Koran in a fundamen- talist state today. Every historian will know that his critique needs to stop sharply at boundaries defined by certain authorities. He will have a choice: accept the official version, holus-bolus ; or stop being a historian. At the High Court David Irving arriving with his book A judgment in my favour does not mean that the Holocaust ’ , his personal copy of the Himmler Diary, and never happened; it means only that in England today discus- bundles of copies for the press gallery. sion is still permitted. My opponents would still be able, just as now, to produce other documents if they can; to expound alter- native interpretations. They would be as free as ever to declare , - that they think I am wrong. They would be impeded in one way lishers Penguin Books Ltd. and the Ameri- only: they would not be able to say in a loud and authoritative can scholar Deborah Lipstadt, have sought voice that I am not a historian, and that my books must be “T to cast this trial as being about the reputa- banned. As a result of my work (and of this case) the holocaust tion of the Holocaust. It is not. The world’s press have also has been researched more. Those who (rightly) believe that these reported it in this way. Again, it is not. crimes should never be forgotten should ask whether their case This trial is about my reputation as a human being, as an is batter served by a compulsory – and dead – text imposed by historian of integrity, and – thanks to the remarks made by Mr. law and intimidation, or by a live and on-going discussion. Rampton – as a father. The Defendants are saying, and have so Our Common Law has at its kernel an “adversarial” proce- convinced many people, that I am not entitled to continue to dure whereby, it is believed, truth is best elicited by each side earn a living in the way that I have earned it for nearly forty putting their case as strongly as possible. I agree with English years. A judgement in my favour is no more than a judgment Common Law. that disputed points which I have made about some aspects of the narrative are not so absurd, given the evidence, as to dis- qualify me from the ranks of historians. Under the laws of defa- mation in this country, it could not be any thing else, and nor 1 must the defence team, no matter how powerful, or moneyed, ’ , edition, at page . ␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣␣ This PDF version: © Focal Point Publications 2000 I read in The Independent, in a lengthy and deeply libellous if they did not in fact know already, of the nature and scope of article published only last week, these words: “But if he wins, it the libels it contains.