Irving trial
criminal case in Austria for Holocaust denial
In 2005, the British author and Holocaust denier David Irving was arrested for Holocaust denial in Austria. In early 2006, he was convicted and given a sentence of three years, of which he served 13 months after a reduction of his prison sentence.
Actions
In 1989, David Irving made two speeches in Austria, one in Vienna and the other in Leoben denying the Holocaust. The speeches included a call for an end to the "gas chambers fairy tale" and claimed that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler had helped Europe's Jews and that the Holocaust was a "myth".
Irving was arrested driving in Southern Austria, contravening a ban on entering the country. Irving had previously been fined in Germany, for denying the existence of Auschwitz gas chambers.
Arrest
On 11 November 2005, the Austrian police in the southern state of Styria, acting under a 1989 warrant, arrested Irving. Four days later, he was charged by state prosecutors with the speech crime of "trivialising the Holocaust". His application for bail was denied on the grounds that he would flee or repeat the offence. He remained in jail awaiting trial.
The public source identifies “Irving trial” as criminal case in Austria for Holocaust denial. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Irving, trial and criminal.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Irving trial”, the useful work is to connect “criminal case in Austria for Holocaust denial” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 19, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q16987536. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2005, 2006 and 1989.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Irving trial”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Irving trial primary sources, Irving trial archive and Irving research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Irving trial”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Irving trial” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.