The Trials of Ernst Zündel

by S-A. N.

A student essay from Dr. Elliot Neaman's History 210 class (historical methods - spring 1998)

Holocaust scholar Daniel Goldhagen characterizes the mentality of Nazis with regards to Jews as "absolutely fantastical, the sorts of beliefs that ordinarily only madmen have of others" (412). Further, "their incapacity for ‘reality testing’ generally distinguishes them from the perpetrators of other mass slaughters." In this regard, today’s Holocaust deniers are the inheritors of the twisted message of men like Hitler and Himmler. Not only have these pseudo-scholars kept alive the Nazi "incapacity for ‘reality testing,’" but their assaults on truth are almost as ruthless as were the Nazis’ attacks on Jews. The most powerful weapon in their fight against the history of the Holocaust is the publicity generated for their cause by media attention. For this reason, Ernst Zündel, publisher and publicity hound, stands out as one of today’s most influential Holocaust deniers. When he was prosecuted by the Canadian government for publishing denial literature, Zündel’s trials became a nexus of historical argument. As official proceedings, the trials brought together some of the world’s most prominent Holocaust scholars and deniers and their media coverage constituted a great publicity victory for Holocaust denial. A careful examination of the Zündel trials, testimony and coverage not only reveals the deniers’ historical fallacies, but examples of responsible and irresponsible reporting as well.

Holocaust denial is a phenomenon characterized by attempts to disprove aspects of the Holocaust for the purpose of exonerating National Socialism’s reputation (Lipstadt 49). Deniers prefer to be called "revisionists" since they believe they are the intellectual descendants of the influential historians of the First World War known by that name (31). These original revisionists were legitimate historians who challenged the idea of a Germany totally responsible for the First World War. While modern Holocaust deniers have maintained the revisionists’ defense of German wartime conduct (although transposed onto the Second World War), they have all but abandoned proper historical method and procedure. While many deniers do not dispute much of the Jewish persecution during the Second World War, they strongly reject several parts of the Holocaust. First, they maintain that no Jews were ever murdered in homicidal gas chambers. Second, deniers generally refuse to accept figures of more than a million victims. Third, they refuse to believe that there was an official German policy to exterminate European Jewry. Further, they contend that these and other part of the Holocaust story were fabricated by an international conspiracy involving Zionists, freemasons, communists, and others. The conspiracy’s purpose was to win sympathy and financial support (in the form of German reparations) for the newly created state of Israel. Above all, their attitudes and views are colored by a deep and pervasive antisemetism (49).

Unfortunately, this close-knit community of neo-nazis, anti-semites, fringe scholars and racial supremacists have managed to keep up the appearance of disinterested academic scholarship. Many of their published works are written in proper fashion, sporting citations and bibliographies. They have also formed the Institute for Historical Review, an association of "revisionist historians" whose Journal for Historical Review regularly publishes articles from a denial standpoint. These publications are superficially non-partisan, but in reality present many of the antisemetic myths and stereotypes which facilitated the rise of National Socialism in the 1930’s (106). It was as a publisher of such pseudo-historical literature that Ernst Zündel rose to become what the West German government identified as one of Germany’s largest supplier of neo-nazi literature (158).

Ernst Zündel, born in 1939, grew up in Germany during the Second World War. The horrors of warfare are some of his earliest memories. Massive bombing raids and the problems of life in occupied Germany after the war left an indelible mark on his soul (Hoffman 10). Indeed, it has been argued that Zündel’s subsequent activities can be traced to the environment in which he grew up. It was during the most impressionable years of Zündel’s childhood that the full horror of the Holocaust and the complete crimes of Nazism came to light. Perhaps the postwar denouncement of National Socialism, interpreted as a wholesale condemnation of the German people, planted in his mind the seeds of later hatreds (Amiel). By 1958, Zündel had immigrated to Canada to pursue the promising career of a commercial artist (Hoffman 11). In Canada, Zündel met Adrien Arcand, a leading neo-nazi and eventual ideological mentor. This 1961 meeting was a turning point for Zündel, as Arcand converted the young artist to National Socialism. "It was a French-Canadian (Arcand) who turned me into a German," Zündel would later say (12). Henceforth, Zündel’s activities would be characterized by an unswerving belief in fascism and a determination to seize the public’s attention.

Zündel’s pursuit of fascism and publicity soon lead him into politics. Even though he was not a Canadian citizen, (and ineligible to run for office) Zündel attempted to win the Canadian Liberal Party’s candidacy for Prime Minister in 1967 (13-15). Although his platform consisted of racial and antisemitic planks, Zündel managed to secure television coverage for his speeches and, while he was never in a position to win, he succeeded in gaining a public reputation. This campaign set the pattern of Zündel’s later publishing and legal activities. His ultimate goal is to broadcast his message of fascism to as many people as possible.

This single aim can be illustrated by his publishing career. In the 1970’s, Zündel founded his publishing firm, Samisdat (which is the Russian term for an underground press) (17). In six of his twelve published books, Zündel has written that UFOs are really Nazi airships which operate out of secret antarctic bases (Quinn)! While it would be relieving to cite this as proof of the insanity of his views, his belief in UFOs is not as strong as his lust for publicity. In fact, the incredible themes of Zündel’s UFO books were essentially media ploys utilized to gain access to numerous radio talk shows during the 1970’s (Hoffman 18). Again, Zündel’s immediate activities were subservient to his ultimate goal of aiming the media spotlight onto his own professed Nazism.

Through a combination of hundreds of thousands of mass mailings, several public access television shows and a web page known as "Zündelsite", Zündel has come to be known as "the world center of anti-Holocaust literature" (18). Indeed, it was some of this "anti-Holocaust literature" which initiated the trials for which he is best known. In the early 1980’s, Zündel published two small works, Did Six Million Really Die? and The West, War and Islam. The former is a standard work of Holocaust denial which weakly argues that Nazi policy and the Final Solution sought to evict Jews from Germany, not to murder them (Lipstadt 107). The book also goes on to claim that it was statistically impossible for anything near six million Jews to have been murdered during the Second World War. The latter work, a four page pamphlet written by Zündel himself, claims that Communists, bankers, Freemasons and Zionists are all involved in a conspiracy against Muslim countries (Hluchy). While many of Zündel’s previous activities had been largely ignored by mainstream society, one Holocaust survivor finally raised a voice to challenge Zündel. That voice belonged to Sabina Citron.

Sabina Citron’s aggressive response to Zündel’s denial of the Holocaust is characteristic of her attitude towards antisemetic literature. Citron belongs to the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, a group whose aim is to oppose propagandists like Zündel more rigorously than other Jewish organizations (Quinn). Citron was successful in having the Canadian government seize Zündel’s mail in 1981 and subsequently sought to prosecute the propagandist for publishing false news under Section 177 of the Canadian legal code (Quinn).

This 1985 trial lasted for two months, during which time the Crown prosecutor had to prove that the two publications were not expressions of opinion, but, rather, willful distortions of facts. In other words, the jury had to be convinced that Zündel actually believed that he was lying when he published the two books. The difficulty of this task was one of many errors committed by the prosecution during the trial. First, it would have been easier for prosecutors to convict Zündel under Section 281, Canada’s law against publishing hateful material, rather than Section 177. Second, the Crown prosecutor was unsuccessful in having the judge take judicial notice of the Holocaust. Since judicial notice would have accepted the Holocaust as a legal and historical fact, defense attorney Douglas Christie was able to shift the trial’s emphasis away from Zündel’s activities and onto the reality of the Holocaust itself. This tactic would later have important implications for Zündel’s coverage in the media. The 1985 trial’s third major blunder became apparent only after the verdict had been rendered. While the jury found Zündel guilty on the first charge relating to Did Six Million Really Die?, Zündel successfully appealed on the grounds that the judge gave improper instructions to the jury.

In response to the successful appeal, Ontario’s attorney general initiated a second Zündel trial which lasted for four months in 1988. This time around, judicial notice was taken of the Holocaust, denying Zündel’s defense team the chance to question the truth of the Holocaust. Christie felt that this ruling ensured an eventual conviction and urged Zündel to abandon the case (Lenski 42).

Characteristically, Zündel was looking beyond the immediate and aiming at his true goal of winning public attention. He viewed the trial as soapbox and refused to avoid massive legal fees. The trial, Zündel felt, was a way to introduce Holocaust deniers’ claims into the official and permanent record of the Canadian court system (Raven). "The reason why we are carrying on even though judicial notice was taken is that I am doing this trial for history. I want the world to know and students of history to be able to go back to this courtroom and dig out the transcripts of these trials (and) the truth the way we saw it" (Zündel). Christie’s prediction proved correct and, again, Zündel was convicted of spreading false news. Even though Section 177 was declared unconstitutional by the Canadian Supreme Court in 1992, (Lipstadt 170) Zündel’s trials proved successful in so far as they demonstrated the deniers’ historical fallacies. The historical arguments made by Zündel’s attorney were drawn from the writings of Holocaust deniers, and an inspection of the cross examination of prosecution witnesses as well as defense testimony reveals the flaws of Holocaust denial.

Arguably, the most significant prosecution witness at either of the trials was Dr. Raul Hilberg, professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont in Burlington and author of the definitive Holocaust study, The Destruction of the European Jews. Defense attorney Douglas Christie’s cross examination of Dr. Hilberg, which attempted to challenge his decades of research, actually demonstrated the deniers’ disregard for proper historiographical method.

One such methodological error was Christie’s attack on Dr. Hilberg’s use of S.S. officer Kurt Gerstein’s testimony regarding concentration camp gas chambers (Lenski 53). This criticism was based on the fact that much of Gerstein’s postwar testimony consists of wild and exaggerated claims. For example, Gerstein once reported that 800 Jewish prisoners had been herded into a twenty five square meter room (53). Christie asserted that these irrational statements invalidate all of Gerstein’s eyewitness reports. Unfortunately for the deniers, this is not how historians work. As one research textbook says about such evidence, "a witness...while wrong on a number of points may yet be right on others, perhaps including the essential one." Further, "honest and truthful witnesses may contradict themselves...without thereby forfeiting credibility" (Barzun 160). So, even though Gerstein made several farfetched declarations, Dr. Hilberg was within his right as an historian to rely on the rational ones.

Later during the cross examination, Dr. Hilberg’s use of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess’ memoirs was questioned by Christie. The attorney claimed that Dr. Hilberg had only referred to Hoess’ writings when they supported the professor’s theories. Dr. Hilberg disagreed strongly, noting that, as an historian, he had rightly used only those pieces of evidence which were corroborated by other sources (Lenski 57). Finally, Christie attempted to cast doubt on Dr. Hilberg’s research by flatly saying that the professor was relying too much on documentary evidence (54). This accusation appears hypocritical, however, in light of the cross examination of Christopher Browning three years later.

Dr. Browning, a professor of history at Pacific Lutheran University and prominent Holocaust scholar, was an important prosecution witness at Zündel’s 1988 trial. Whereas Dr. Hilberg was criticized for looking at too many documents, Dr. Browning was criticized for not looking at enough. Christie censured the fact that, in his years of study, Dr. Browning had never read the White Book, an infamous piece of Nazi propaganda attempting to justify the 1939 invasion of Poland (105). In this respect, it seems as if Christie’s real problem is that historians focus their attentions more on official records than on blatant propaganda.

Christie’s further questioning of Dr. Browning repeated many of the deniers’ historical shortcomings. Zündel’s attorney attempted to downplay the value of postwar testimony given by eyewitnesses who were never cross examined in a court of law (117-118). Dr. Browning countered by saying that historians have other methods of validating reports, namely supporting evidence (121). When textual evidence challenged the deniers’ beliefs, it was conveniently overlooked. On three occasions, Christie suggested that wartime documents, if they have not been subjected to scientific tests to prove their age, are worthless (91, 95, 121). Later, Christie asked why the poisonous gas Zyklon-B was shipped to concentration camps where there were no homicidal gas chambers (111). Since Zyklon-B was also used to delouse clothing, Christie seemed to be implying that this was the poison’s only use. This was reasoning of the weakest kind, since Zyklon-B’s humane use at one location does not exclude its inhumane use at other places.

Such logical fallacies, conspiracy theories and disrespect for historical procedure characterized the challenge presented by deniers to some of the foremost authorities on the Holocaust. If Zündel and his defense team regretted their inability to disprove the experts, their own witnesses would surely be different. Indeed, the difference with defense witnesses such as Robert Faurisson, Fred Leuchter and David Irving was noticeable. Their testimonies exposed the problems with Holocaust denial even more clearly.

Robert Faurisson is one of the world’s preeminent Holocaust deniers (Lipstadt 160). His former position as a professor of literature at the University of Lyons in France sheets Faurisson with a thin veneer of respectability which quickly washes away as one looks at his various claims. His 1988 testimony provides an excellent glimpse into those very claims. On two separate occasions, Faurisson stated that a famous order issued by Heinrich Himmler to stop the killing of Jews never existed (Lenski 286, 314). One denying the Holocaust would need to eliminate such evidence because an order to stop the genocide implies that a genocide is taking place. Even though such an order does exist, (Goldhagen 356) Faurisson had no qualms about simply closing his eyes to it. Similarly, Faurisson was comfortable dismissing the use of homicidal gas vans during the war due to a lack of technical documents, even though reams of corroborating evidence exists in the form of eyewitness testimony (Lenski 295-296).

Faurisson’s other arguments are equally weak. The denier rejected the existence of an official exterminationist policy in Nazi Germany by saying of its evidence, "it’s always testimony" (300). In fact, the testimony of many eyewitnesses who all agree on one common point is acceptable historical evidence (Barzun 158). Later, when references to "the clearing out of the Jews" and "the extermination of the Jewish race" in Himmler’s Posen speech of October 1943 come up, Faurisson claimed that "extermination" was simply "typical warrior phraseology" for transportation to work in factories (Lenski 346). Out of "billions of pieces of paper" in archives, Faurisson also stated, none mention homicidal gassings (347). In fact, many records, letters and other official papers refer explicitly to such gas chambers (Lipstadt 226-229). The ex-professor also testified that homicidal gas chambers would have been impractical since Zyklon-B adheres to surfaces and is thus difficult to ventilate (Lenski 302). Faurisson, however, failed to recognize that a smooth gas chamber unobstructed by furniture could be easily ventilated (Lipstadt 224).

Finally, Faurisson attempted to deny the extent of the Holocaust by mentioning that Germans kept meticulous death records in the concentration camps (Lenski 309). In fact, they did keep such records, but Faurisson simply will not acknowledge the murder of Jewish inmates. On one occasion, Faurisson reasoned that a register which recorded Jews gassed to death was in error. Concentration camp officials must have mistakenly recorded their liberation as death dozens of times over several weeks (Lipstadt 175)! Whenever Faurisson could not deny the existence of contradictory evidence, there was always an endless supply of excuses.

Zündel’s next major witness at his 1988 trial was Fred Leuchter, an American who had designed and manufactured components for several prisons’ execution systems (Lenski 361). Not a traditional denier, Leuchter was hired by Zündel’s defense team to travel to concentration camps at Auschwitz/Birkenau and Majdanek and perform "forensic" experiments on homicidal gas chambers in order to determine the practicality of their use. The subsequent results published collectively as the Leuchter Report was intended to prove that gassings never occurred. The tactic was simple, since homicidal gassings were one feature of the Holocaust qualitatively different from other genocides in history. If there were no gas chambers, it would be easier for neo-nazis to claim that the Holocaust was not very different from other genocides around the world. Despite the fact that Leuchter lacked proper engineering licenses, credentials and even training, (Lipstadt 164-165) his testimony itself illustrated the problems with his findings and conclusions.

While the Leuchter Report might have seemed plausible on first inspection, it actually demonstrated a blatant disregard of scientific method. For instance, one of Leuchter’s mistakes was to assume that the buildings which he examined to be in pristine war condition (Lenski 364, 370). Upon finding old doors and windows which had long since ceased to be airtight, Leuchter declared the gas chambers to have been impossible to operate. In fact, many of the gas chambers at Auschwitz and Majdanek were not originals, but had been rebuilt after the war (Lipstadt 167). Even when Leuchter knew that a crematorium/gas chamber at Majdanek was a total reconstruction, (Lenski 379) he chose to close his eyes to the fact and analyze it as if it was in the same condition as it had been during the war.

Leuchter’s analysis of hydrogen cyanide, the poisonous gas component of Zyklon-B, was also flawed. Leuchter claimed that the use of Zyklon-B was impossible since escaping vapors would have been blown into surrounding buildings and have poisoned camp personnel, (Lenski 360) but documents show that Zyklon-B was used in greater concentrations in delousing chambers during the war without incident (Lipstadt 168-169). Another assertion was that hydrogen cyanide could not have been used in the gas chambers near crematoria due to the gas’ explosive nature (Lenski 367). Records demonstrate, however, that the concentration of gas used was low enough to eliminate the chance of explosion (Lipstadt 168). Leuchter also testified that insufficient ventilation in the gas chambers made the extermination time impracticably long (Lenski 367). Wartime correspondence reveals, however, that several powerful ventilation fans were installed at the sites he visited, a fact not accounted for by Leuchter (367-368).

Finally, Leuchter’s testing and examination of the physical remains of concentration camps was also questionable. His testing of brick and mortar for residue of hydrogen cyanide was unscientific, since he failed to account for the fact that at least one of the crematorium he had tested at Auschwitz had been rebuilt after an inmate uprising with bricks from other sites (Lipstadt 169). Leuchter also reported that the camps’ delousing chambers had much higher levels of hydrogen cyanide than did the gas chambers (365-366) and, on that point, concluded that they were not gas chambers, but actually morgues. It was natural for delousing chambers to have shown higher levels of poison, however, since the concentration levels needed to eradicate vermin are higher than those needed to kill human beings (Lipstadt 168). Furthermore, why would alleged morgues have had traces of cyanide anyway, since Zyklon-B was not used in mortuaries, (225) unless of course the buildings were indeed homicidal gas chambers. Later, Leuchter noted that an experimental gas chamber at Majdanek had a door with a peephole. If it was a delousing chamber, as the deniers claim, why would it have a peephole (Lenski 381)? Further, this gas chamber had no rooftop hatch from which to pour in poisonous Zyklon-B. For this reason, Leuchter could not conceive of this as being a gas chamber (Lenski 389). Apparently, Leuchter was equally unable to conceive of Zyklon-B being introduced by a guard throwing it in through the front door and then slamming the door shut. Overall, the Leuchter Report suffered from such technical and scientific difficulties as to make it more useful as evidence against the plausibility of Holocaust denial.

As Leuchter’s testimony was characterized by engineering inaccuracies, the testimony of Zündel’s final witness in 1988 was noteworthy for its historical misconceptions. David Irving, a British author, fascist and avid Hitler fan, (Lipstadt 161-162) took the stand in an attempt to reveal the Holocaust as a hoax, but the only illusion he shattered was the one that took him for a competent historian. Irving tried to give the impression of using high historical principles and frequently cited the eminent British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper as an authority (Lenski 401, 415). It is interesting to note, however, that Trevor-Roper himself has described Irving’s own body of evidence as "small" and "dubious" (Lipstadt 161). Indeed, the dubious nature of Irving’s arguments was immediately apparent.

Irving testified that the copy of Himmler’s Posen speech (the one that Faurisson had trouble with) had been tampered with a the very point where Himmler makes a clear reference to genocide (Lenski 431) and, thus, was a forgery. Unfortunately for Irving, he failed to take into consideration the existence of a sound recording of that very speech, a recording which proves the words genuine (84).

The British author also stated that an Auschwitz documents referring to a "Vergasungskeller" (gassing cellar) could never be interpreted as "Gaskammer" (gas chamber) (407). While "Gaskammer" is a more accurate German term, how does Irving explain the existence of a gassing cellar at the Auschwitz crematorium? The deniers’ explanation that it powered the crematorium furnaces neglects the fact that gas was not used as a fuel for the furnaces (Lipstadt 226-227). Further, Irving does not even attempt to explain those wartime documents which explicitly state "Gaskammer" (227).

Irving also frequently bemoaned the lack of documents which refer to large numbers of Jewish dead, arguing that a program as large as the Holocaust would certainly have produced such a paper trail. Then, in practically the same breath, Irving rejected out of hand Einstatzgruppen reports showing hundreds of thousands of exterminated Jews precisely because they were such "isolated" documents (Lenski 419, 427). In this instance, Irving demanded evidence and then rejected that evidence when it was produced.

One particular point stressed by Irving was that Hitler was not aware of the mass extermination of Jews during the Holocaust. Irving reasoned that if Hitler was not responsible for the Final Solution, then, constitutionally speaking, Jewish extermination was not an official policy of the Third Reich (426). As elsewhere, however, Irving’s theories were paper thin.

For instance, Irving tended to lay blame for Jewish deaths on Himmler. German civil servants, said Irving, were notorious for their reluctance to initiate action without orders from a superior (408) and, because there was no written order from Hitler to Himmler to exterminate Europe’s Jews, Irving concluded that Hitler never ordered such (418). The logical loophole here was that it totally ignored the possibility of verbal orders from Hitler to institute a Final Solution.

Next, Irving noted that wartime documents usually carried the postscript "with the Fuehrer’s wishes" appended. Irving claimed that since no material relating to the Holocaust contained such a reference, the extermination was not directed by Hitler’s wishes (420). This reasoning was faulty as well, precisely because there were such documents. A file does exist where Himmler talks about making Jews "disappear...in accordance with the Fuehrer’s wish" (428).

Finally, Irving claimed that "there is no evidence that he (Hitler) did know what was going on (the Holocaust)" (423). Irving had already testified, however, about S.S. judge Dr. Konrad Morgen’s wartime investigation of allegations of genocide which both informed Hitler of the killings, (420) and revealed that the camps were killing Jews "on the Fuehrer’s orders" (435). All in all, Irving’s attempts to clear Hitler’s record of genocide fell miserably short of their goal.

Even though the arguments presented by Zündel’s defense team were weak enough to secure guilty verdicts in both trials, media coverage in 1985 constituted a clear victory for Zündel and his views. As Zündel supporter Jurgen Neumann observed, "The best way to kill an idea is silence. We have needled our antagonists for so long that they finally did what we would have liked them to do all along (referring to the prosecution)" (Quinn). Zündel’s showmanship during the trials was aimed at winning media coverage for himself and his views. The defendant’s skill at manipulating the press, as seen in his political campaign and UFO theories, came fully into play during both trials. Like his UFO books, Zündel was willing to play the fool so as to win his views an undeserved place in the public spotlight.

Each day of the trials, Zündel and his entourage of assistants would go to the courthouse sporting hardhats for "protection," while Zündel himself also wore a bullet-proof vest. While there were a few scuffles between Zündel’s group and anti-nazi protesters, the costumes were mainly for show. Zündel was instantly recognizable, usually wearing a hardhat of a different color from his followers, (hardly advisable for one supposedly trying to protect himself) and newspapers often ran trial articles picturing a helmeted Zündel.

The press was also met with absurd spectacles orchestrated by Zündel at the end of each trial. During the sentencing phase of his 1985 trial, Zündel arrived to the courthouse carrying a twelve foot cross on his shoulders. Affixed to the cross was a sign reading "Freedom of Speech." This one instance was widely televised and appeared on the front pages of seven Canadian newspapers (Nemeth). Zündel’s appearance at the 1988 trial’s sentencing was equally theatrical. The propagandist came carrying a large black coffin on his head inscribed with phrases like "the Holocaust is a hoax" and "free speech is dead." In these ways, Zündel managed to amuse Canada into hearing his message of hate.

In addition to coverage outside the courthouse, Zündel was also able to misuse the media from within the courtroom. Taking advantage of the first trial’s lack of judicial notice about the Holocaust, Zündel’s defense team was able to focus the attentions of the court and the press onto the subject of the Holocaust rather than Zündel’s own activities.

For example, in his cross examination of Holocaust survivors, defense attorney Christie was able to distort their failing memories, alleging that they were lying (Hoffman 46). This courtroom tactic was immediately picked up in the press and articles appeared which gave the deniers’ arguments both an audience and a gloss of legitimacy totally undeserved. In fact, through out the entire first trial, press coverage was characterized by such indiscriminate reporting. Even though the arguments made against the Holocaust are easily refuted by other evidence and testimony, trial articles frequently neglected these sources.

In one article titled "Disease killed Nazis’ prisoners, MD says," for example, the Toronto Star reported the testimony of an allied physician present at the liberation of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. The physician related how many of the inmates suffered and died from disease, and repeated the deniers’ argument that wartime shortages and not mistreatment led to the ailments (Darrocn). This account, however, neglected the miles of survivors’ testimonies confirming that disease resulted from a program of intentional abuse, starvation and torture (Goldhagen 304). Thus, the article made the deniers’ claim seem like an undisputed fact.

Upon receiving his guilty verdict in the first trial, Zündel reflected that "it cost me 40,000 dollars in lost work, but I got one million dollars worth of publicity for my cause. It was well worth it" (Quinn). Such was the extent of Zündel’s media victory that, in the face of a conviction, he could find cause for joy.

This victorious attitude was noticed by several members of the press and editorials soon appeared deploring the media’s rôle in the affair. America editor George Hunt regretted that "Mr. Zündel’s moment in the newspapers and in the courtroom gave him the appearance of respectability." Clayton Ruby, a civil liberties lawyer in Canada, observed that "an utter unknown (Zündel) in now on the front pages every day spewing hate and loving it" (Martin). Donald Coxe’s "Return of the Big Lie" in the May 31, 1985 edition of the National Review captured the primary flaw in the media’s coverage of the first Zündel trial: it was too even handed.

The media faithfully reported, without a scintilla of a sneer, (emphasis added) testimony by one defense witness who claimed to be an expert in cyanide; using sketch diagrams of gas chambers, he tried to prove that cyanide would not have worked in the areas designated. Other witnesses made it to the front page by discussing the smell of roasting human flesh, ridiculing prosecution testimony from death-camp survivors.

This sentiment was strong enough that, by the time of Zündel’s 1988 trial, few reporters were willing to allow their newspapers to become soapboxes for Holocaust denial.

The media coverage of the second Zündel trial was characterized by fewer articles published on a more regional basis. Terrance Davies, producer of the Toronto television show Newshour, said of the media’s about face, "it was such a media circus before, the consensus was that it should not be given daily coverage" (Aikenhead). The value of trial publicity held Zündel and other deniers may be clearly illustrated by their disdain of the media’s improved behavior. Zündel raged that "the Zionist masters of Canada and their government minions think that the issue is so important it must be hidden from the eyes and ears of the public, in whose name this politically-motivated prosecution is being perpetrated" (Hoffmann 94). Here, the common antisemetic illusion of a Jewish-controlled press mingled with the conspiratorial notion of a media blackout. In fact, the reasons for the scaled back coverage were a touch more prosaic. Aside from a desire to cover the trial with more restrain, the judicial notice taken of the Holocaust in 1988 kept the second trial from becoming a macabre spectacle. Ray Timson, editor of the Toronto Star, remarked that "it was a unique trial the first time around...but the judge took the steam out this time right at the beginning by (giving judicial notice that) there was a Holocaust" (Lenski 39-40). Similarly, Geoffrey Stevens, editor of the Toronto Globe and Mail, commented "we’re deliberately playing it down because we don’t think it has much news value" (39). If his first trial had been a publicity victory, Zündel’s second trial was a media rout.

Immediately, Zündel and other deniers complained that, instead of reporting conscientiously, the media was guilty of neglecting their public responsibilities. This case was presented to an extent in the media itself. George Bain’s editorial "The public’s right to know" in the May 23, 1988 copy of Maclean’s bemoans the trial’s lack of media coverage. Not only does Bain call the moderate trial coverage as bad as the irresponsible reporting which preceded it, but he complains that when the trial was reported, Zündel did not receive the front page nor impressive headlines!

The contention that the media acted in poor faith in its trial coverage is as dubious as the arguments presented in Zündel’s defense. Presumably, the rôle of a free press in a democratic society is provide the citizenry with trustworthy information. Even with a diminished press presence, Zündel’s 1988 trial still received daily coverage in the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail (Bain), thus providing the people with access to trial information. Further, one could argue that, by repeating deniers’ arguments unqualified, the press was guilty of negligence in 1985, not 1988.

The elimination of undue publicity was Zündel’s final defeat in a string of disappointments. In addition to ineffective courtroom arguments and two guilty verdicts, the press had ceased to be a vehicle for his propaganda. Despite the later Supreme Court ruling which stuck down the law under which Zündel was prosecuted, the two trials succeeded in damaging Zündel’s cause. Zündel’s original aim had backfired because, even though the publisher succeeded in securing a place in the official public record for his arguments, their numerous weaknesses ultimately supported the truth of the Holocaust more than they harmed it. The improved behavior of the media in 1988 drove the final nail into the coffin Zündel dramatically carried on the day of his sentencing. It’s final occupant, however, was not the Holocaust nor free speech, as Zündel would have claimed. This was the coffin in which Zündel’s hateful propaganda was laid to rest.

Works Cited

Aikenhead, Sherri. "Avoiding the subject." Maclean’s 29 Feb. 1988: n.p.

Amiel, Barbara. "Censoring one, censoring all." Maclean’s 15 Apr. 1985: 11.

Bain, George. "The public’s right to know." Maclean’s 23 May 1988: 45.

Barzun, Jacques and Henry F. Graff. The Modern Researcher. 5th ed. 1957. New York: Harcourt, 1992.

Coxe, Donald. "Return of the Big Lie." National Review 31 May 1985: 36.

Darrocn, Wendy. "Disease killed Nazis’ prisoners, MD says." Toronto Star 8 Feb. 1985: A2.

Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New York: Vintage, 1997.

Hluchy, Patricia. "A courtroom clash over the Holocaust." Maclean’s 28 Jan. 1985: 43.

Hoffman, Michael A. The Great Holocaust Trial. 3rd ed. 1985. Dresden, NY: Wiswell Ruffin, 1995.

Hunt, George W. "Episodes of Recurring Hatred." America 23 Mar. 1985: 225.

Lenski, Robert. The Holocaust on Trial: The Case of Ernst Zündel. Decatur, AL: Reporter Press, 1990.

Lipstadt, Deborah E. Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. New York: Plume, 1994.

Martin, Douglas. "Anti-Semite Is on Trial, but Did Ontario Blunder?" New York Times 15 Feb. 1985: A2.

Nemeth, Mary and Tom Fennell. "Deny, deny, deny: Ernst Zündel in back in action-and on TV." Maclean’s 30 Aug. 1993: 56.

Quinn, Hal. "The Holocaust Trial." Maclean’s 11 Mar. 1985: 42-46.

Raven, Greg. Lecture. Videocassette. Institute for Historical Review. Twelfth International Revisionist Conference. 3-5 September 1994.

Zündel, Ernst. Briefing on the Zündel Trial Part 2. Institute for Historical Review, 27 March 1988.