| Accueil général | Homepage English |


The Great London Trial of David Irving vs Deborah Lipstadt


I come from a service family and I find it odious that at the end of the Twentieth century writers and historians going about their own respective businesses, writing books that may indeed have been completely wrong have found themselves suddenly and vicariously threatened with imprisonment or with crippling fines for having expressed opinions on history which are at variance with these new freshly enacted laws, which have been introduced at the insistence of wealthy pressure groups and other enemies of the free speech for which we fought two World Wars in this country. (D. Irving, Opening Statement to the Court, 12 January 2000)

David Irving is a well-known historian, self-educated, working outside of the academic circles and producer of about thirty books, most of them on the Nazi period of Germany. The dominant feature of his books is the extensive and deep use of original documents, many of them unearthed by Irving himself, in adventures that could make good books in themselves.

Deborah Lipstadt is a rather unknown quantity, a scholar without known titles, who writes under the spell of an unhealthy obsession about Antisemitism. She seems to believe that all views which are not within the framework of the historical explanations provided by Yad Vashem authorities stem from a desire to destroy the Jews again and again. This strange delusion led her to publish a crypto-satanic book, Denying the Holocaust, which we perversely redisplayed on this website to appraise ours readers with what intelllectual decadence can provide at its best.

Concerning Lipstadt, it is interesting to note that she never writes on what happened in history -- in Germany. She writes about what other people write about what happened in Germany, of which she has nos special knowledge. She judges from a certain point of view; but this point of view is not the historians' one, but the vantage point of view of US Jewish organizations for which the Holocaust is a a very wealthy business to be tapped as much as possible. And concerning her knowledge of writers she is attacking, we have determined that she is a sleazy and partial observer. She does not even know the languages in which all these stories and events are told, outside of English... Her book is full or errors, omisions, black spots, misperceptions, and so on. Very unacademic indeed.

In her book, D. Lipstad has quite a number of derogatory sentences about David Irving. (See pages 8, 14, 111, 161-3, 170, 179-81, 213, 215, 221, 232-4.) Facing increasing economic pressures on his ability to publish hhs works, since he had recognized some value in the revisionnist arguments, David Irving selected Lipstad as one of the pack hunters that are trying to ruin his career, his works and his life as an independant researcher. This is the origin of the present trial in 1996. He explains it in the Opening Statement (see below).

We have on file on Kevin McDonald, the American professor of Psychology who testified for Mr. Irving on Jan. 31. In the US the chase is opened

We suggest to our readers, if they wish to follow closely, day after day, the develoments of the trial, to connect directly on Irving's website: Those who read French may wish to read our comments.

We shall maintain a collection of documents from the trial and selected articles from the press:

David Irving's Opening Statement, 12 Jan. 2000

Defence Counsel's Opening Statement, 12 Jan.

Danger in Denying Holocaust?, Los Angeles Times, 7 Jan.

Irving ready for court battle over Holocaust, The Guardian, 8 Jan.

Judgment day for the Holocaust historians, Sunday Times, 9 Jan.

'Pariah' Irving sues Holocaust author The Guardianî, 12 Jan.

Historian Irving sues Penguin for libel, The Independent, 11 Jan.

Right-wing author accused in libel battle of casting doubts on Holocaust, The Times, 12 Jan.

Libel action author denies that Holocaust was systematic . The Guardian, 13 Jan.

Irving says Holocaust 'logistically impossible', The Times, 13 Jan.

Irving denies deliberately portraying Hitler as 'merciful', The Guardian, 13 Jan.

Irving fears arrest over speech , The Guardian, 14 Jan.

Germans want Irving to face incitement trial, The Times, 13 Jan.

Neal ASCHERSON, Last Battle of Hitler Historians, The Observer, 16 Jan.

Trains to the camps were 'well provisioned', says Irving, The Guardian, 17 Jan.

David CESARANI, History on Trial, The Guardian, 18 Jan.

Tim JONES, Nazis sent Jews to new life, says Irving, The Times, 18 Jan.

Tim JONES, Irving insists that Hitler did nor order the Holocaust, The Times, 19 Jan.

Irving claims mad or mendacious, court told, The Guardian, 18 Jan.

Irving 'ready to eat humble pie" over gassing Jews, The Daily Telegraph, 20 Jan.

George SZAMUELY, Denial's Denial, The New York Press, 18 Jan.

Walter REICH, The Stakes in the Trial, The New York Times, 19 Jan.

Libel Case Historian 'wanted bunk report to be true', AP, 24 Jun.

D. D. GUTTERPLAN, The Holocaust on Trial, Atlantic Monthly, February.

Author tells of 'massive' proof for gas chambers, The Guardian, 26 Jan.

Gas chamber 'that never were', The Guardian, 27 Jan.

Kevin McDonald, the Jews and the start of pack hunting.

Irving not anti-semitic, claims US professor, The Guardian, 31 Jan.


The first days of the Official Transcripts are available on Rae West website, along with her telling what she saw and heard inside of the court. She knows the background and is much better than most journalists, who have a faint idea of the subject and are in hurry to go back home for tea.

This text has been displayed on the Net, and forwarded to you as a tool for educational purpose, further research, on a non commercial and fair use basis, by the International Secretariat of the Association des Anciens Amateurs de Recits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes (AAARGH). The E-mail of the Secretariat is < Mail can be sent at PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA..
We see the act of displaying a written document on Internet as the equivalent to displaying it on the shelves of a public library. It costs us a modicum of labor and money. The only benefit accrues to the reader who, we surmise, thinks by himself. A reader looks for a document on the Web at his or her own risks. As for the author, there is no reason to suppose that he or she shares any responsibilty for other writings displayed on this Site. Because laws enforcing a specific censorship on some historical question apply in various countries (Germany, France, Israel, Switzerland, Canada, and others) we do not ask their permission from authors living in thoses places: they wouldn't have the freedom to consent.
We believe we are protected by the Human Rights Charter:

ARTICLE 19. <Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.

| Accueil général | Homepage English |

You downloaded this document from <>