Irving v. Lipstadt

Defense Documents

David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, by Richard J. Evans

Table of Contents
<< (c) Systematic nature of ...

(d) Evidence for the Holocaust

1. Holocaust deniers argue that evidence for the Holocaust has all been fabricated. In a number of speeches and writings, Irving has claimed that the 'Holocaust legend' was invented by British wartime propaganda.82 There were, he told the second Zündel trial in 1988,
some very interesting documents in the British archives which show the British intelligence service suggesting a propaganda campaign against Germany on the basis of invented allegations of gas chambers and the subsequent belief that it would be wrong to press this kind of absurd story too far in order not to make the whole of British propaganda implausible.83
2. Nevertheless, apparently the idea was not abandoned, for Irving's foreword to the Leuchter Report contains the claim that the British Political Warfare Executive invented the lie that the   Germans were using gas chambers to kill millions of Jews. In a radio interview in June, 1989, Irving repeated his view that with respect to
the story that the Germans were using gas chambers for the mass extermination of Jews ...in August 1943 the Psychological Warfare Executive warned the Cabinet that this was a lie that we ourselves had invented and they persuaded the British cabinet not to attach the British Government's name to a declaration that they were being asked to purely because it was a lie, they said we can't recommend that His Majesty's Government should put its name behind this declaration because this is a lie that we ourselves have created.
3. Irving went on to claim he had copies in his possession of the documents in the Public Record Office at Kew which proved his argument.84 In 1988, indeed, he admitted that these documents 'showing quite clearly that British intelligence deliberately masterminded the gas chamber lie' were supplied to him by a researcher working for Ernst Zündel.85 Repeated over the BBC, this myth, Irving claimed, was soon common currency amongst the Germans:
There's hardly a German who hasn't been listening clandestinely to the BBC who hasn't heard about the gas chambers. And they begin mentioning it in rumours to each other. From one washerwoman to the next, the rumour goes around Germany, until finally they've actually seen about it and their son's working in a unit and he's heard about it, too. And that's how the legend gains credibility from the German side too.86
Thus to put it in a nutshell, 'the gas chambers are a very clever piece of propaganda that we British very cunningly connived at and contrived during World War II.'87
 
4. So where does Irving believe that the gas-chamber 'story' originated? In extracts from the forthcoming second volume of his Churchill biography Irving writes:
There was no shortage of Intelligence about the continued 'cleaning-up' operations in the east. [...] Despite this, the foreign office was inclined to treat the more lurid public reports with scepticism. They were regarded as part of the international Zionist campaign which was continuing regardless of the war effort. [...] When such a telegram arrived from Geneva on August 10, 1942, composed by Gerhart Riegner, the youthful secretary of the World Jewish Congress, it ran into this wall of institutional disbelief: Riegner claimed that Hitler's headquarters was planning to deport up to four million Jews from Nazi-occupied countries to the east during the coming autumn, where they were to be exterminated 'in order to resolve, once and for all, the Jewish question in Europe.' Killing methods under discussion included, claimed Riegner, the use of hydrogen cyanide. [2. Tel. Norton to FO, No. 2831, 10 August 1942, with the text of a telegram from Riegner to Sydney Silverman MP (PRO file FO. 371/30917). The 30-year-old Riegner claimed to have the report from 'a German industrialist,' whom he has refused to identify. Dr Benjamin Sagalowitz, press officer to the Swiss Jewish community, claimed to have given the name to Leland Harrison, the American ambassador in Berne, to place in a sealed envelope; there is no archival evidence to support this. Walter Laqueur, writing in Encounter, Jul 1980, page 13, expressed doubts that the man was German or an industrialist. Harrison regarded Riegner's story as a 'wild rumour inspired by Jewish fears' (ibid.; NA: RG.226, Berne, folder 2, box 2, entry4).]
There was nothing new in such allegations [...] they had cried wolf too often before. In internal papers, the F.O. remarked that there was no confirmation for Riegner's story from 'other sources' - a hint at ULTRA. [3. Minute by D Allen, Aug 14, 1942; Frank Roberts minuted, 'I do not see how we can hold up this message much longer' but he feared the 'embarrassing repercussions' it would provoke (ibid.) 'The facts are quite bad enough,' wrote Roberts, 'without the addition of such an old story as the use of bodies for the manufacture of soap.' Bernard Wasserstein, Britain and the Jews of Europe 1939 - 1945 (London, 1979)]. There was a marked reluctance to exploit the stories for propaganda, and the files show that there was little public sympathy with the Jews in wartime Britain. A year before, the ministry of information had directed the horror stories were to be used only sparing and they must always deal with the maltreatment of 'indisputably innocent' people - 'not with violent political opponents,' they   amplified. 'And not with Jews' [4. Ministry of Information minute, Jul 25, 1941 (PRO file INF.1/251)].[...] While they [the Foreign Office] felt that they might profitably consult PWE (their own Political Warfare Executive) about Riegner's 'rather wild story,' that was the only further action they would take [6. Minute by D. Allen, Sep 10, 1942 (PRO file FO.371/30917)].88
5. What is the real documentary evidence for this account? Gerhard Riegner was director of the Geneva Office of the World Jewish Congress from 1939 until 1945. On 8 August 1942 Riegner handed an identical telegram to Howard Etling, American Vice-Counsel in Geneva, and to H. B. Livingston, the British Consul. Riegner asked that the telegram be conveyed to the World Jewish Congress leaders in London (Sydney Silverman, M.P.) and New York (Rabbi Steven Wise). The telegram stated:
Received alarming report stating that, in the Führer's Headquarters, a plan has been discussed, and is under consideration, according to which all Jews in countries occupied or controlled by Germany numbering 3 to 4 millions, should, after deportation and concentration in the East, be at one blow exterminated, in order to resolve, once and for all the Jewish question.89
6. Although the message put the plan as 'under consideration' there was an additional detail: 'Ways of execution are still being discussed, including the use of prussic acid.' Riegner himself said 'We transmit this information with all the necessary reservation as exactitude cannot be confirmed by us.' But he added 'Our informant is reported to have close connections with the highest German authorities, and his reports are generally reliable.'90
 
7. It is important to note that contrary to Irving's claim it was the intermediary, and not the source, who was Jewish. Likewise, at no point did the report mention Auschwitz as the proposed scene of this plan. Any impact the report might have had, following eleven weeks after a first report on gassings in Chelmno (the Bund Report), was lost in bureaucratic disbelief. The British and American diplomats passed Riegner's message on to the Sate Department and the Foreign Office.
8. In America the report was tagged with a covering note by the vice-consul, reporting that when he had mentioned to Riegner 'that this report seemed fantastic to me', Riegner had replied that 'it had struck him in the same way', but that when one considered the recent deportations from Western European capitals and countries 'it was always conceivable that such a diabolical plan was actually being considered by Hitler.' He added that Riegner was 'a serious and balanced individual' who would not have approached him had he not had 'confidence in his informant's reliability' and if he had not considered 'that the report might well contain an element of truth.' In Washington however the message was held back. One official wrote on 13 August that it did not seem advisable to pass the message on to Wise because of 'the fantastic nature of the allegations and the impossibility of our being of any assistance if such action were taken'. The United States Minister in Bern, Leland Harrison, was informed that Riegner's message would not be passed on to Wise 'in view of the apparently unsubstantiated nature of the information'.91 This message was repeated to Riegner, by the American Consul in Geneva, Paul C. Squire, but was informed that if he should receive 'corroboratory information' the matter would be considered further.92
 
9. At the Foreign Office in Britain several officials examined the message, to which the British Consul had appended no commentary. Roger Allen, of the Central Department said: 'We have no confirmation of this report from other sources, although we have of course received numerous reports of large scale massacres of Jews, particularly in Poland.'93 Checks were made with the Refugee and Eastern Departments as to who Riegner was, but to no avail. Frank Roberts of the Foreign Office noted on 15 August 'I do not see how we can hold up this message much longer, although I fear it may provoke embarrassing repercussions' and added 'Naturally we have no information bearing on the story.' Silverman was given Riegner's message on 17 August who repeated the text by telegraph to Stephen Wise. Silverman's request to meet Foreign Office officials was granted on 9 September, but they turned down his request to be allowed to telephone Wise as such calls were often intercepted by the Nazis and might betray sources of information. As regards Silverman's request that the report be given publicity, it was agreed in the Foreign Office 'that the most we could say to Mr Silverman was that, if Jewish organisations themselves wished to give publicity to the story, the F.O. could see no objection, although we could take no responsibility for the story.'94
10. In his note of 10 September, David Allen expressed the general scepticism of the Foreign Office:
We have also received plenty of evidence that Jews deported from other parts of Europe have been concentrated in the Government-General and also that Jews once there are being so badly treated that very large numbers have perished: either as a result of lack of food or of evil conditions, i.e. in the Warsaw ghetto, or as a consequence of mass deportations and executions.
Such stories do provide a basis for Mr Riegner's report but they do not of course amount to 'extermination at one blow'.
 
The German policy seems rather to eliminate 'useless mouths' but to use able-bodied Jews as slave labour.
He was reluctant to make use of 'this story' in British propaganda against Germany 'without further confirmation'.95
11. The documents in the Public Record Office to which Irving refers appear to be well-known minutes by Foreign Office officials Roger Allen and Victor Cavendish-Bentinck which provide no support for the claim that it was the British who actually invented the propaganda claim of gas chambers being used. These minutes, on the contrary, refer only to the use of reports of gas chambers in British propaganda. They clearly imply that these stories emanated from Poland, but they do not refer to Auschwitz, and indeed Cavendish-Bentinck was talking about stories about Polish victims rather than about Jews.
12. Irving cites a letter by Cavendish-Bentinck written in 1943 during the formulation of a joint British-American 'Declaration on German Crimes in Poland' released at the request of the Polish government-in-exile. The relevant part of the original draft of 11 August 1943 read:
Reliable information has reached H. M. Government regarding the crimes committed by the German invaders against the population of Poland. Since the autumn of 1942 a belt of territory extending from the province of Bialystok southwards along the line of the River Bug has been systematically emptied of its inhabitants. In July 1943 these measures were extended to practically the whole of the province of Lublin, where hundreds of thousands of persons have been deported from their homes or exterminated.
These measures are being carried out with the utmost brutality. Many of the victims are killed on the spot. The rest are segregated. Men from fourteen to fifty are taken away to work for Germany. Some children are killed on the spot, others are separated from their parents and either sent to Germany to be   brought up as Germans or sold to German settlers or dispatched with the women and old men to concentration camps, where they are now being systematically put to death in gas chambers.96
13. The draft was taken to Quebec where it was proposed to issue the declaration simultaneously in Britain and America.97 In a minute of 27 August Roger Allen (not to be confused with David Allen) of the Foreign Office wrote:
This [Polish] aide-mémoire [on which the declaration was based] is in line with a good deal of information which we have received from time to time. There can, I think, be little doubt that the general picture painted is pretty true to life. On the other hand it is of course extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us to check up on the specific instances or matters of detail. For this reason I feel a little unhappy about the statement to be issued on the authority of His Majesty's Government, that Poles "are now being systematically put to death in gas chambers."
14. Then outlined the only two references to gassings he had been able to find in the appendix to the Polish aide-mémoire: one dated 17 July 1943 from the Commander-in-Chief of armed forces in Lublin of murders in 'gas cells' at Majdanek and a telegram of the same date detailing the murder of two transports of old men, women, and children 'in gas cells.' Roger Allen wrote:
It will be observed that the first of these reports gives no indication of the date of the occurrence, or the number of people concerned; the second is silent as to the place and the source.
It is true that there have been references to the use of gas chambers in other reports; but these references have usually, if not always, been equally vague, and since they have concerned the extermination of Jews, have usually emanated from Jewish sources.
 
Personally, I have never really understood the advantage of the gas chamber over the simpler machine gun, or the equally simple starvation method. These stories may or may not be true, but in any event I submit we are putting out a statement on evidence which is far fro[m] conclusive, and which we have no means of assessing.98
15. There was no suggestion here, therefore, that the stories had somehow been dreamed up out of nothing by the British propaganda machine. Cavendish-Bentinck added:
In my opinion it is incorrect to describe Polish information regarding German atrocities as "trustworthy". The Poles, and to a far greater extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up. They seem to have succeeded.
Mr. Allen and myself have both followed German atrocities quite closely. I do not believe that there is any evidence which would be accepted in a Law Court that Polish children have been killed on the spot by Germans when their parents were being deported to work in Germany, nor that Polish children have been sold to German settlers. As regards putting Poles to death in gas chambers, I do not believe there is any evidence that this has been done. There may have been stories to this effect, and we have played them up in P.W.E. rumours without believing that they had any foundation. At any rate there is far less evidence than exists for the mass murder of Polish officers by the Russians at Katyn. On the other hand we do know that the Germans are out to destroy the Jews of any age unless they are fit for manual labour.
I think that we weaken our case against the Germans by publicly giving credence to atrocity stories for which we have no evidence. These mass executions in gas chambers remind me of the story of employment of human corpses during the last war for the manufacture of fat, which was a grotesque lie and led to true stories of German enormities being brushed aside as being mere propaganda.99
 
16. From a hand-written note appended to Cavendish-Bentinck's minute by David Allen it would seem that it was too late 'to make substantial changes', but a draft was telegraphed to Washington and Moscow. Likewise the Polish 'P.M.' received an amended draft and 'readily accepted the change'.
17. The Foreign Office's doubts were telegraphed to Washington the same day.
On further reflection we are not convinced that evidence regarding the use of gas chambers is substantial enough to justify inclusion in a public declaration of concluding phrase of paragraph 2 of draft and would prefer if United States agree, that sentence in question should end at "concentration camps".100
18. As requested, the original declaration issued on 30 August stood, save that it duly read that some children were 'despatched with the women and old men to concentration camps.'101
19. Thus the sources Irving cites do not support the thesis he is proposing. There is no evidence here that the British Political Warfare Executive invented the story of the gas chambers: only that two officials in the British Foreign Office were giving it as their personal view that reports coming from Poland were not necessarily to be trusted. This material has been known at least since its publication in Martin Gilbert's book Auschwitz and the Allies (London, 1981).
20. Irving has made it clear that he considers that following on this supposed propaganda lie, evidence for the Holocaust was fabricated after the end of the Second World War. On 21 April 1990, for example, he said in a speech in Germany that there were never any gas   chambers at Auschwitz; they were erected after the war.102 This led to his being fined by the Munich magistrate's court on 11 July 1991 in absentia for violating clauses of the Criminal Code of Germany which outlawed the denial of the Nazis' extermination of Jews by gassing at Auschwitz and elsewhere during the Second World War. In his reply to the defence in the present case, Irving repeats his view that the gas chambers at Dachau and Auschwitz were built after the war. He also claims that he is not aware of any authentic wartime archival evidence that camps were set up at Chelmno, Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka for the sole purpose of killing Jews by mass gassing.103
21. What, then, of the thousands of former camp inmates and survivors of the Nazi extermination programme who have testified in writing and in speeches, broadcasts and taped reminiscences to the existence and operation of the mass extermination of Jews and others in gas chambers in Auschwitz and other camps? In his videotaped lecture The Search for Truth in History, Irving, says his supporter Nigel Jackson, speaks of the alleged eyewitnesses to the Auschwitz extermination machine 'with sympathy', suggesting they have fallen prey to distortions of memory and to pressure on the part of their listeners to have the legend justified. He says that 'eyewitness testimony' has to be submitted to psychiatric or psychological examination.104 In an interview with the right-wing magazine CODE in 1990, Irving, answering a question about how he would judge the credibility of Holocaust survivors, responded in similar fashion: 'I say that the psychiatrists should concern themselves with this matter some time. There are many   cases of mass hysteria.'105 'I'm afraid I have to say I wouldn't consider what a survivor of Treblinka could tell me in 1988 to be credible evidence', he told the court at the second Zündel trial; one could not rely on 'the very human and fallible human memories after a tragic wartime experience forty years after the event.'106 (Irving would have been lucky to have found such a survivor. Only fifty-four people are known to have survived of the million or so who entered the camp in 1942 and 1943; most of them escaped during an uprising of Jewish prisoners on 2 August 1943).107
22. Alleged extermination camp survivors would in Irving's view go to considerable lengths to prove their stories, 'even the ones who've got tattoo marks on their arms', he told an audience at Latvian Hall, Toronto, on 8 November 1990:
Because the experts can look at a tattoo and say, "Oh yes, 181,219, that means you entered Auschwitz in March 1943." So if you want to go and have a tattoo put on your arm, as a lot of them do, I'm afraid to say, and claim subsequently that you were in Auschwitz, you've got to make sure (a) that it fits in with the month you said you went to Auschwitz, and (b) that it's not a number which anyone has used before (Laughter from the audience).
108
23.'The eyewitnesses in Auschwitz...who claim to have seen the gas chambers', he said in another lecture in 1991, 'are liars'. They were 'an interesting case for the psychiatrist. People over a period of years begin kidding themselves that they have seen something.' This was because   they had been through a traumatic experience (Irving did not say what this was), and 'being in the centre of a traumatic experience is liable to induce strange thoughts in eyewitnesses.' 109
24. On another occasion he was less sympathetic. People claimed to be eyewitnesses of the gas chambers and extermination camps, he told a Canadian audience in 1990, 'particularly when there's money involved and they can get a good compensation cash payment out of it':
And the only way to overcome this appalling pseudo-religious atmosphere that surrounds the whole of this immense tragedy called World War II is to treat these little legends with the ridicule and bad taste that they deserve. Ridicule isn't enough, you've got to be tasteless about it. You've got to say things like: "More women died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chamber at Auschwitz." (Laughter in audience). You think that's tasteless? What about this: (Laughter in audience) I'm forming an association especially dedicated to all these liars, the ones who try to kid people that they were in these concentration camps. It's called "The Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust, and Other Liars" - "A.S.S.H.O.L.E.S."(Laughter in audience). Can't get more tasteless than that. But you've got to be tasteless because these people deserve all our contempt, and in fact they deserve the contempt of the real Jewish community and the people, whatever their class and colour, who did suffer.
110
25. In 1995, Irving repeated the allegation: confronted with an alleged Holocaust survivor, he said, he would ask her '"How much money have you made from that piece of ink on your arm, which may indeed be real tattooed ink?" And I'll say "Yes. Half-a-million dollars, three-quarters of a million dollars for you alone?"'111 Far from being killed in extermination camps, Irving has argued repeatedly, the millions of Jews missing from Europe after the war had   'turned up in the state of Israel' with new identities, or 'ended up in cities like Dresden' and were bombed in their hundreds of thousands by the Allies, or just 'went all around the world' after the end of the war.112 'There are now hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of survivors. There are now millions of survivors. And I'm glad. But of course every survivor is living proof that there was no Nazi extermination programme.'113 In 1995 he repeated his claim that there were 'millions' of survivors - 'they defy all laws of natural disease and all laws of biology. The number of survivors is growing'.114
26. Irving never uses eyewitness testimony from victims of Nazism in any of his voluminous writings; he hardly ever discusses it or even mentions its existence, and when on occasion he is asked directly about it in circumstances where a direct expression of his views would be embarrassing or difficult, he evades the question by pointing to minor inaccuracies in the details with which he is presented, as in a radio interview in June 1989:
Interviewer: I have to put it to you Mr Irving, I was in Israel not so long ago and I talked to a number of survivors of the camps like Treblinka and Auschwitz and they talked very clearly about people being divided at the railway station into those who were going to live and those who were going to die, they talked about the stench of burning flesh, they talked about smoke rising from those gas chambers.
Irving: I think that what you are saying displays a certain amount of confusion if you don't mind my saying so. Smoke doesn't rise from gas chambers, smoke might possibly rise from crematorium premises...I think this is part of the wool-pulling that has gone on since the end of the Second World   War, people talk about gas ovens and gas furnaces and gas chambers quite indiscriminately. It's time for a lot greater precision and that's what this laboratory finding has done.
115
27. When confronted with actual survivors, he picks on little technical aspects of their testimony which he tries to use to discredit their memories. A discussion with a survivor in a programme broadcast on Australian television in 1997, for example, included the following exchange:
Irving: You said you saw the smoke coming from the crematoria.
Survivor: Absolutely.
Irving: Is that correct?
Survivor: Correct.
Irving: But crematoria don't smoke, Mrs. Altman. Go and visit your local crematorium in Sydney.
116
28. Thus in June, 1989, Irving's technical expertise led him to assert that smoke might rise from crematoria but not from gas chambers; in March 1997 his technical expertise led him to assert that there was no question of crematoria smoking at all. Once again, he varied his story according to the circumstances. He was nearer the truth on the earlier occasion; on the latter, the thought that the crematoria of Auschwitz might have been designed differently, and with less regard to the susceptibilities of onlookers and neighbours, than the crematoria in Sydney, did not, apparently, enter his mind.
29. Irving's discussion on pages 239-44 of Nuremberg: The Last Battle, of the testimony of Marie-Claude Vaillant Couturier, an ex-member of the French National Assembly who had been sent to Auschwitz in January 1943 and claimed to have witnessed gassings, is a rare exception to his   general refusal to discuss the evidence of survivors. Irving says some of her story 'was evidently based on hearsay'. Her testimony was distrusted by Judge Biddle and the implication is that it should be distrusted by everyone else too, for the same reason. However, Irving made sure that he did not cite the transcript of the testimony itself or subject it to a critical examination of his own. Indeed, it is not even clear that he has actually read it. Had he done so, it would have been clear that Biddle's notes did not give a very accurate account of what was said.117 Thus Irving only mentions the eyewitness testimony of victims of Nazism when, as here, he can find some means of implying that it is unreliable; even here he suppresses the evidence itself.
30. Not quite in this category, but a frequent target for the hostility of Holocaust deniers, is the diary kept by Anne Frank, a young Jewish girl, in Holland, before her deportation by the Nazis to Auschwitz, and eventually to Bergen Belsen, where she died. According to Lipstadt, 'Anne Frank's diary has become one of the deniers' most popular targets. For more than thirty years they have tried to prove that it was written after the war.' * The diary has sold more than twenty million copies across the world since its publication not long after the end of the war. Its popularity derives from the very human and moving account it gives of a young girl's everyday life in hiding from the Nazis. Those who have tried to discredit its claims to authenticity include Butz, Harwood and Faurisson. Allegations that it was written after the war were the subject of court proceedings, which found them unproven. An exhaustive scientific investigation by the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation carried out after the death of Anne Frank's father Otto in 1980 proved that it was written by one person and that all the materials used were   in use in the 1940s. It also found a limited number of minor stylistic emendations made later on, in ballpoint pen.118
31. Disregarding these findings entirely, Irving has followed other Holocaust deniers in describing the diary as a 'novel', alleging that the handwriting is not hers, suggesting that whole pages were written with a ballpoint pen, and asserting that a thirteen-year-old girl would not have the maturity to write such a document. All these allegations were made in 1993, long after the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation had completed and published its work. On this occasion, Irving was confronted with the results of the forensic scientific investigation of the diaries summarized in the critical edition in 1989:
Interviewer: Are you aware that the Dutch Centre for War Documentation has made a full report about this?
Irving: Doesn't surprise me.
Interviewer: And they say it's - they have made public all the diaries, and they examined the handwriting, and all there is to know about it.
Irving: Doesn't surprise me. A lot of money is at stake. The Anne Frank Foundation is a very wealthy political organization in Amsterdam.
Interviewer: We're talking about the Dutch State War Documentation Centre here. We're not talking about the Anne Frank Foundation. We're talking about a public institution.
Irving: But I'm talking about the financial interests which are at stake here.
119
 
32. It was noticeable that while he suggested here that the official Dutch Institute for War Documentation somehow had a financial stake in proving the diaries authentic (which was not the case), Irving managed to avoid replying in detail to its comprehensive demolition of all the pseudo-scientific points he had made about the diary's authenticity.
33. Irving's attempts to discredit the Anne Frank diaries are entirely characteristic of his refusal to take seriously any testimony by victims of the Nazis. He places, by contrast, a good deal of faith in the testimony of Nazis themselves, and is quite happy to cite eyewitness evidence from former members of Hitler's staff interviewed long after the war by himself without any prior psychiatric or psychological examination; that is, provided that they are telling him what he wants to hear. Where a Nazi or SS functionary testifies to the existence of gas chambers and mass extermination facilities, Irving does his best to discredit him or to ignore the evidence as far as he is able.
33. The most obvious case in point is the testimony of Rudolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, written in Polish captivity shortly before his execution for war crimes. These are detailed and circumstantial, and contain a great deal of first-hand observation of the mass gassing of Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau, the retrieval and handling of the corpses, the mass burnings of the dead in pits or crematoria, and much else besides. 'I had to watch coldly', Höss wrote, 'while the mothers with laughing or crying children went into the gas-chambers.' He continued:
I had to see everything. I had to watch hour after hour, by day and by night, the removal and burning of the bodies, the extraction of the teeth, the cutting of the hair, the whole grisly, interminable business. I   had to stand for hours on end in the ghastly stench, while the mass graves were being opened and the bodies dragged out and burned. I had to look through the peephole of the gas-chambers and watch the process of death itself, because the doctors wanted me to see it.
120
34. It is vital to Holocaust deniers that this book and the cofessions which preceed it be discredited. Irving fully shares this purpose. He alleges in his book on Nuremberg that Höss was 'manhandled' by those who arrested him and kept without sleep until he confessed. Irving terms this 'torture' and says that Höss's confessions contained many deliberate errors to make it clear they were untrue.121 His memory was patchy about days and places, and about the events of four or five years earlier'. There were many inconsistencies in his account. He signed a confession in English although he had no reading knowledge of English. He frequently changed his testimony about numbers. Höss wrote his memoirs in Polish captivity 'as a means of postponing his fate'. His statements, Irving charges, contained 'egregious anachronisms, inconsistencies and other generally implausible passages'.122
35. In Irving's view, therefore, the Höss memoirs are worthless - a view he shares with leading Holocaust deniers such as Robert Faurisson. In a speech delivered in Los Angeles about papers of Adolf Eichmann that had come into his possession, Irving said Eichmann had ridiculed Höss's claim that he had killed 2.5 million Jews in Auschwitz. 'In question time after Irving's address Professor Robert Faurisson reminded the audience of the proof that Höss was tortured into making his absurd "confessions" about Auschwitz, proof supplied by Moritz von   Schirmeister.'123 In fact, Höss was not tortured; he made his confessions freely, and noted in his memoirs only that he had been treated roughly and deprived of sleep early on in his interrogation. Moreover, the first confession which he signed, after this maltreatment, was not used in court. Höss knew he was going to die and that he would be unable to postpone his fate. The imminent prospect of death is likely to have made him honest. His memoirs reveal that he did in fact know English, having learned it in Palestine and improved it during his imprisonment under the Weimar Republic.124 There is no evidence that the memoirs or his signed confessions were either spurious or full of deliberate mistakes; here as so often Irving uses small errors to try and discredit more important testimony. Höss repeatedly and voluntarily confirmed the accuracy of what he told the International Military Tribunal. Finally, what Höss actually said about the numbers killed in Auschwitz was not that they totalled 2.5 million, but that Eichmann himself had supplied the figure, which he, Höss, had used in his first interrogations; on reflection, however, Höss agreed that this total was 'far too high', and gave his own estimate of 1,130,000, arrived at by adding up the figures supplied to him by Eichmann or his deputies for the numbers killed at Auschwitz from the main European countries under German control.125
 
36. The reliability or otherwise of the memoirs and confessions of Rudolf Höss is discussed more fully in the expert witness report by Professor Robert Jan Van Pelt; here the point to stress is that Irving joins with Faurisson and other Holocaust deniers in the attempt to discredit them as a source. Indeed, Irving casts doubt on almost all testimony at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials or during the prior interrogations if it does not fit his arguments, alleging it was obtained by torture and threats; by contrast, where he finds it useful, he admits it as evidence without comment. In his testimony to the second Zündel trial in Canada in 1988, he strongly suggested that the surviving copies of the notorious 1943 Posen speech by Heinrich Himmler, outlining in graphic detail the policies of systematically murdering Jewish men, women and children before an audience of high-ranking Nazi officials, were forgeries, although, as so often, when he wants to use a document for other purposes, he does not question the authenticityof the speech.126 A casual conversation with 'one of Himmler's staff', for example, who said that he knew nothing about the concentration camps or the extermination of the Jews, is presented by Irving as a most reliable and authentic piece of evidence because it suits his purpose; there is no evidence of a critical approach towards this particular source on Irving's part, still less any tendency to dismiss it because it is not 'authentic wartime archival evidence'.127
37. In the conflict between Irving's pride in discovering previously unknown documents and his commitment to the principles of Holocaust denial, the latter have generally proved stronger. On 3 June 1992, for example, he confided to his diary: 'At PRO all day; finished reading file of interrogations and MS by one SS officer, Hans Aumeier, a high Auschwitz official....His   reports grow more lurid as the months progress. I wonder why? Beaten like Höss, or was he finally telling the truth? A disturbing two hours, anyway.' Reporting his find in the recently released files of the Political Warfare Executive, he wrote on 4 June to Karl Philipp suggesting that Aumeier's confession was extracted from him.128 'Brutal force by interrogators, perhaps', was his explanation of Aumeier's admissions in a letter he wrote the same day to Tom Marcellus and Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review, the world's leading Holocaust denial organization, and an institution with which Irving has particularly close connections.129 Referring to the document in the German edition of his book on Nuremberg, Irving described Aumeier as a 'parallel case to Höss', who expressed himself 'confusedly' but with 'increasing certainty and exactitude' in confessions which were 'written in a style characteristic for the British army' and beaten out of him by his interrogators, who he had earlier supposed were led by the brutal Colonel Scotland at the 'London Cage'.130
38. What was in this embarrassing document and why did Irving try so hard to discredit it? As deputy commandant of Auschwitz during a relatively early period of the camp's functioning as a mass extermination centre, in 1942-43, Hans Aumeier witnessed and assisted in the gassing of Jews on a number of occasions and described the procedures employed in considerable detail. There is no evidence that he was tortured or badly treated; this is simply supposition, or wishful thinking, on Irving's part. The file shows that Aumeier's responses   became more detailed as he was confronted with the testimony of other camp guards who rendered futile his attempt to cover up what had been going on at Auschwitz. The most detailed account of the operation of the gas chambers in Aumeier's report was written while he was in captivity in Norway, not in London. The file likewise shows that Aumeier was only told how to present his account, and what topics he should cover in it, not what he should actually write; the style, including the writing of personal names in capital letters, was British army interrogation style, not general British army style, and was used to make it easier for officers to note down the names of other suspects for search lists and the compiling of evidence about such people. Irving hints that it is suspicious that Aumeier was not called as a witness in Nuremberg, but the prosecution did not call Höss either (he appeared for the defence in the case of Ernst Kaltenbrunner); Auschwitz itself was not a subject of the court's proceedings, and it was unlikely that a relatively insignificant cog in the Nazi machine such as Aumeier would have been called in the trials of major policy-makers such as Göring or Ribbentrop.
39. Irving may have been right to claim (in private) that he was the first to read this important piece of testimony - one of a very small number of immediate postwar accounts from a camp officer of the functioning of the mass murder of Jews and others carried out by gassing at Auschwitz - after its release for scrutiny by researchers in the Public Record Office in 1992. But it does not fit into his preconceived opinion that there were no gassings carried out at Auschwitz. Therefore he suppressed its details and suggested that what little he did report in his subsequent published work had been invented by Aumeier's interrogators.131 For reasons   that are unclear, Irving has recently started posting extracts from the Aumeier interrogations on his website, accompanied by a brief comment from 'Samuel Crowell' suggesting that its details of gassing procedures were plagiarized from previous sources. This suggests that Irving is now confident that he has found a means of discrediting Aumeier's confessions, and that therefore he can trumpet them as yet another discovery of a significant document of the 'gas-chamber myth'.
40. This whole episode is characteristic of Irving's suppression and manipulation of the historical record in the service of the principles of Holocaust denial. Like the Höss memoirs, the Aumeier confession has to be explained away by claiming, without any evidence to prove it, that the details which it provides of gassings at Auschwitz were put into its author's mouth by inventive interrogators who had already agreed on the essential details of the gas chamber 'myth' which Irving has made it his mission to discredit.
41. Why, then, does Irving think all this evidence has been concocted? Who could possibly have gone to all the immense trouble necessary to fabricate such a vast quantity of documentary material? Describing various versions of Holocaust denial in 1986, Gill Seidel remarked:
They all purport to show that Jews are liars and tricksters holding the world to ransom and continuing to extract war reparations. This is a continuation and an extension of the anti-Jewish prejudices and practices. The implication is that after all this time Jews are still liars, parasites, extraordinar(il)y powerful, and fundamentally dishonest - and that maybe Hitler was right.
132
42. Irving's recent writings and speeches have brought him increasingly into line with these views. Fundamentally, he seems to believe - against all the evidence of the massive amount of   scholarly research carried out by non-Jewish historians in many countries - that the history of the Nazi extermination of the Jews has been written by Jewish historians. Thus he can refer, as he did in 1993, to 'we independent historians, shall we say, the non-Jewish historians, the ones with an entirely open mind', as if all non-Jewish historians agreed with him.133 Such agreement exists only in Irving's fantasy.
43. In his preface to the English edition of Fred Leuchter's Auschwitz: The End of the Line: The Leuchter Report - The First Forensic Examination of Auschwitz, published by his Focal Point publishing house, Irving wrote:
Nobody likes to be swindled, still less where considerable sums of money are involved (Since 1949 the State of Israel has received over 90 billion Deutschmarks in voluntary reparations from West Germany, essentially in atonement for the "gas chambers of Auschwitz"). And this myth will not die easily: Too many hundreds of millions of honest, intelligent people have been duped by the well-financed and brilliantly successful post-war publicity campaign which followed on from the original ingenious plan of the British Psychological Warfare Executive (PWE) in 1942 to spread to the world the propaganda story that the Germans were using "gas chambers" to kill millions of Jews and other "undesirables". As late as August 1943 the head of the PWE minuted the Cabinet secretly that despite the stories they were putting out, there was not the slightest evidence that such contraptions existed, and he continued with a warning that stories from Jewish sources in this connection were particularly suspect.
44. This is the typical Holocaust denier's argument that the 'myth' of the Holocaust has been kept going by a 'well-financed' campaign in order to legitimise the paying of German reparations to the state of Israel.
 
45. 'People', Irving remarked in a radio interview in June, 1989, '...have made a lot of money out of the Holocaust story until now.'134 This evidently meant in particular Israel. 'The "big lie", he declared in 1991, referring to the Holocaust, 'allows Jewish fraudsters to escape unpunished and Israel to torture Arabs and ignore UN resolutions.' And who were these Jewish fraudsters? 'The big lie is designed to justify both in arrears and in advance the bigger crimes in the financial world elsewhere that are being committed by the survivors of the Holocaust.'135 On 7 July 1992 The Guardian printed an interview with Irving in which, consistently with views he expressed elsewhere, Irving predicted that;
one year from now the Holocaust will have been discredited. That prediction is lethal because of the vested interests involved in the Holocaust industry. As I said to the Jewish Chronicle, if a year from now the gas chamber legend collapses, what will that mean for Israel? Israel is drawing millions of dollars each year from the German taxpayer, provided by the German government as reparation for the gas chambers. It is also drawing millions from American taxpayers, who put up with it because of the way the Israelis or the Jews suffered. No one's going to like it when they find out that for 50 years they have been believing a legend based on baloney.
136
46. The allegation that the Jews have used the Holocaust story to win reparations from the Germans can be found, for example, in the classic Holocaust denial texts of Paul Rassinier.137 The well-known Holocaust denier Austin J. App similarly argued that the Jews had 'used the six million swindle to blackmail West Germany into "atoning" with the twenty   billion dollars of indemnities to Israel.'138 In fact, the true figure was 735 million dollars; and the money was paid for resettlement of survivors, not as compensation for the dead; had the state of Israel actually wanted to maximise the amount of reparations, then, as Lipstadt pointed out, the state of Israel would have tried to argue that - as Irving tried to argue - millions of Jews were not killed by the Nazis, but fled to Israel instead.139
47. Irving of course denies being 'anti-Jewish' or 'anti-Israel', just as he denies being a Holocaust denier. In a speech delivered to the Institute for Historical Review in 1983, Irving said: 'I'm always running into problems with my critics of a certain persuasion. It's not a battle of my choosing. I am not anti-Jewish, I am not antisemitic. I have employed Jewish staff: my lawyer, my attorney in London for the last 26 years has been the firm of Michael Rubinstein; they've lost every case they've fought for me but I've still stood loyal to them.'140 Speaking in Canada in November 1992, he told his audience:
I am not an antisemite, despite thirty years of harassment. It's a miracle, but I am not! In fact, when people say to me, what is your attitude towards Jews, I am rather inclined to compare them with the Americans: We English find the Americans very pleasant, agreeable individuals to be with, bright, brainy, beautiful people. So it is with the Jewish people that we know, and I am sure it is probably the same with most people in this hall. We all know individual Jews, who are perfectly ordinary and easy to get on with. But when they come together - those Americans - they form agencies, and government, and they become involved in international crime. Crimes on an extraordinary scale, like the Gulf War!   (Applause). And so it is with people of probably every race or nationality. When they look around, and they find that they are not alone, and they form into clubs and cliques and gangs, they feel somehow that ordinary laws don't apply to them.
141
48. Leaving aside Irving's description of the Gulf War - in which the Americans and their allies attacked the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein because it had illegally annexed Kuwait and was threatening to attack Israel - as a crime, this denial of antisemitism was carefully tailored to the circumstances, in which Irving was under threat of deportation from Canada, and needed to be cautious.
49. On other occasions, he was a good deal less restrained. He himself realises that his ideas open him up to the obvious accusation that he is an antisemite:
Interviewer: When one reads your speeches, one had the impression that Churchill was paid by the Jews, that the Jews dragged Britain into the war, that many of the Communist regimes have been dominated by Jews subsequently, and that a great deal of control over the world is exercised by Jews.
Irving: Right, these are four separate facts, to each of which I would be willing to put my signature. They are four separate and unrelated facts. When you string them together like that, you might be entitled then to say: "Question five, David Irving, are you therefore an antisemite?" This may well have been -
Interviewer: No, this wasn't my question.
Irving: But the answer is this, these are in fact four separate facts which happen to be true, in my considered opinion as a historian. And I think we can find the historical evidence for it.
142
 
50. Since the end of the 1980s, Irving has taken to referring to Jews as 'our traditional enemies'.143 Who these precisely were, he made clear in a speech given in 1992: 'our old traditional enemies...(are) the great international merchant banks are controlled by people who are no friends of yours and mine', who were 'annoyed' by sixty-foot posters advertising the Sunday Times serialization of the Goebbels Diaries 'in all the Jewish ghettos of Great Britain'.
51. Later on in the speech he attacked the 'odd and ugly and perverse and greasy and slimy community of "anti-Fascists" that run the very real risk of making the word fascist respectable by their own appearance!'144 His particular venom seems to be reserved for the Board of Deputies of British Jews, to whom he referred in 1991 as 'cockroaches'.145 'I never used to believe in the existence of an international Jewish conspiracy', he said: 'I'm not even sure now if there's an international Jewish conspiracy. All I know is that people are conspiring internationally against me, and they do mostly turn out to be...(drowned out by laughter and applause).'146 In April 1998 he spoke of American Jews 'moving into the same positions of predominance and influence (media, banking, business, entertainment, and the more lucrative professions like law, medical and dentistry) that they held in Weimar Germany, which gave rise to the hatreds and the resulting pogroms; and that this being so, twenty or thirty more years might see in the USA the same dire consequences as happened in Nazi Germany.'147
 
52. This is the classic language of antisemitism: 'ghettos', 'greasy and slimy', 'lucrative professions', 'cockroaches', 'international Jewish conspiracy'. The use of the term 'ghettos' for example suggested in standard racist manner that there were districts in Great Britain where Jews were in a majority and, by implication, not integrated into the wider society in which they lived. In fact, such ghettos exist nowhere in the United Kingdom. Irving's language expressed the classic ideology of antisemitism too, with its attempt to whip up jealousies and hatreds of Jews by portraying them - without a shred of evidence - as exerting 'predominance' over key professions and institutions (though why this should be a cause for 'pogroms', or indeed objections from anybody, Irving does not say). It is this alleged 'predominance' which in the view of Holocaust deniers is behind the continuing widespread public acceptance of what they call the 'Holocaust myth'.148
53. Indeed, some of Irving's own speeches contain a veiled threat of violence against Jews in the future as a result of his own 'exposure' of the Holocaust 'myth':
And gradually the word is getting around in Germany (Irving said in 1991). Two years there from now too the German historians will accept that we're right. They will accept that for fifty years they have believed a lie. And then there will come about a result not only in Germany, but around the world, which I deeply regret and abhor. There will be an immense tidal wave of anti-Semitism. It's an inevitable result. And when people point an accusing finger at me and say, "David Irving, you are creating anti-Semitism", I have to say, "It is not the man who speaks the truth who creates the anti-Semitism, it's the man who invented the lie of the legend in the first place." (Applause).
149   Irving's expression of regret should not be taken too seriously.
54. For in 1996, recounting the view of the head of the publisher who eventually refused to publish the American edition of his book on Goebbels, Irving said:
Maybe...the chairman of St. Martin's Press was right when he said: "This book suggests they (the Jews) had it coming to them." But is [sic] he's right, let me say in advance in my self-defence, it isn't David Irving who says that, it's David Irving reporting Dr. Goebbels who says that. Maybe I didn't make it plain enough, or maybe I didn't put enough distance between myself and Dr. Goebbels, or maybe I didn't put in all the counter-arguments I should have done to be politically correct.
150 Fundamentally, however, as Irving conceded, he was in basic agreement with Goebbels in his belief that 'they had it coming to them'.
55. For, Irving told an audience in Tampa, Florida, on 6 October 1995:
What these people don't understand...is that they are generating antisemitism by their behaviour, and they can't understand it. They wonder where the antisemitism comed [sic] from and it comes from themselves, from their behaviour...I said to this man from Colindale, this leader of the Jewish community in Freeport, Louisiana, I said..."You are disliked, you people. You have been disliked for three thousand years. You have been disliked so much that you have been hounded from country to country, from pogrom to purge, from purge back to pogrom, and yet you never asked yourselves why your disliked. That's the difference between you and me. It never occurs to you to look in the mirror and say, why am I disliked? what is it that the rest of humanity doesn't like about the Jewish people, to such an extent that they repeatedly put us through the grinder?". And he went beserk. He said: "Are you trying to say that we are responsible for Auschwitz? Ourselves?" And I said, "Well the short answer is yes. The short answer I have to say is yes...If you had behaved differently over the intervening three thousand years, the   Germans would have gone about their business and not have found it necessary to go arounddoing whatever they did to you.
151 Thus the Holocaust as Irving defines it was not exactly 'innocenticide': the Jews were guilty for it themselves.
56. After all, he said in 1991, 'they (meaning the Jews) dragged us into two world wars and now, for equally mysterious reasons, they're trying to drag us into the Balkans.'152 Irving was confronted with his statements to this effect in 1996:
Interviewer: At times in your speech to these groups you speak at, you ask if the Jews have ever looked at themselves to find a reason for the pogroms and the persecutions and the extermination. In other words, you're asking, "did they bring it on themselves?".
Irving: Yes.
Interviewer: Thereby excusing the Germans, the Nazis.
Irving: let us ask that simple question: why does it always happen to the Jews?...
Interviewer: But isn't that an ugly, racist sentiment?
Irving: It is an ugly, of course it's an ugly, racist sentiment. Of course it is. You're absolutely right. But you can't just say, therefore let's not discuss it, therefore let's not open that can of worms in case we find something inside there that we don't like looking at.
Thus Irving followed other Holocaust deniers in implying, and on occasion, directly claiming that the Jews were responsible for provoking the Holocaust.
 
57. After all this, it is not surprising that he considered that 'the Madagascar solution would probably have been the most peaceful for the present world', because the Jews 'would have had no neighbours, nobody who they could feel intimidated by, and of course, nobody whom they in turn could intimidate', though it is clear that the Nazi regime, in drawing up its never realized plans to deport the Jews there, would have made no provision to supply them with food and clothing and the basic necessities of life, and that the climate and economy of the island were entirely unsuited to sustaining millions of European settlers.153
58. It is clear that Irving shares the common position of Holocaust deniers that evidence for the Holocaust has been fabricated, beginning with the propaganda operations of the British during the Second World War, and continuing since then through a mixture of intimidation of Nazi witnesses, mass hysteria on the part of Jewish survivors, and deliberate fabrications on the part of people such as the Polish authorities in whose territory Auschwitz lay after the war.
59. He has augmented these arguments with a wider range of assertions about the Jews' alleged influence in the postwar world, their supposed responsibility for provoking attacks on themselves, which in style and content can fairly be called antisemitic. All these views, detailed above, are characteristic of Holocaust denial as conventionally understood and as described by many writers and commentators on the phenomenon. They can be found in the writings and speeches of well known Holocaust deniers. 'The Holocaust story', Irving said in 1995, 'is an ill-fitting legend which has been under researched and there's no evidence for the Holocaust historians to bear them out'.154

Notes

82. lrving, The Search for Truth in History, as summarized by Jackson, The Case for David Irving, p. 79; Irving's discovery list, document 1,211: 'Auschwitz - the end of the line'; Irving, 'Deutsche Historiker - Lugner und Feiglinge', vor der deutschen Presse in Berlin am 3. Oktober 1989', Historische Tatsachen, 42 (1990), PP. 37-40; Irving, 'Battleship Auschwitz', The Journal of Historical Review, Vol. 10, no. 4; Irving's discovery list, document 1,697: Irving to Slater, 15 November 1993.
83. David Irving's 1988 Testimony at the Trial of Ernst Zündel, p. 111.
84. Interview with David Irving on Radio Ulster, 23 June 1989.
85. Audiocassette 99: Irving in Toronto, August 1988, 465-660.
86. Videotape 200: Irving, 'The Search for Truth in History', 1993, at 1 hr. 14 mins. 55 secs..
87. Videotape 213: This Week, 28 November 1991, 50 mins. 55 secs..
88. David Irving, 'Auschwitz, and the Typhus Plague in Poland. More preview pages from David Irving's new biography, Churchill's War, vol. ii. A sneak preview' posted on Irving's Internet Site, checked 12 February 1999.
89. FO 371/30917, C 7853, telegram no. 2831, Berne to Foreign Office, quoted in Martin Gilbert, Auschwitz and the Allies p. 57.
90. Ibid, p. 58.
91. United States National Archives, 862-4016, Race Problems, Germany, 2234. Quoted in ibid, p. 58.
92. Archives of the World Jewish Congress, General Secretariat, letter dated 24 August 1942. Quoted in ibid, p. 59.
93. PRO FO 371/30917, D. Allen, minute, 14 August, 1942. See also Gilbert, p.59.
94. Gilbert, pp. 59-60.
95. PRO FO 371/30917, D. Allen, minute, 10 September 1942, quoted in Gilbert, p. 60.
96. 223 PRO, FO 371/3455, draft declaration and covering letter, 11 August 1943.
97. PRO, FO 371/3455, Foreign Office to Moscow, 26 August 1943.
98. PRO, FO 371/3455,Roger Allen, minute, 27 August 1943.
99. PRO, FO 371/3455, Cavendish-Bentinck, minute, 27 August 1943. On the same day Cavendish-Bentinck wrote to Strang: '...I feel certain that we are making a mistake in publicly giving credence to this gas chambers story.' (Ibid.).
100. PRO, FO 371/3455, Telegram, Foreign Office to Washington, 27 August 1943.
101. PRO, FO 371/3455, Department of Sate Confidential Release, 28 August 1943.
102. lrving, in Michael Schmidt, Wahrheit macht frei, broadcast on Swedish television, 18 September 1991, videotape.
103. Reply to Defence of Second Defendant, pp. 5,6 and 7.
104. Jackson, The Case for David Irving, pp. 83, 86.
105. CODE, No. 5 1990, p. 55. CODE is an abbreviation for Conföderation organisch denkender Europäer, the 'Confederation of organically-thinking Europeans'.
106. David Irving's 1988 Testimony at the Trial of Ernst Zündel, pp. 136-7.
107. Noakes and Pridham, Nazism, Vol. 3, pp. 1,155-6, give a maximum figure of 70.
108. Videotape 190: Irving at Latvian Hall, Toronto, 8 November 1990, from 45 mins. 30 secs.To 48 mins. 35 secs..
109. Videotape 189: Irving in Calgary, 29 September 1991.
110. Videotape 190: Irving at Bayerischer Hof, Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991, 2 hrs. 19 mins. 19 secs.To 2 hrs. 20 mins. 40 secs..
111. Videotape 220: Irving in Tampa, Florida, 6 Oct, 1995.
112. Videotape 200: The Search for Truth in History - Banned! (1993), from 1 hour 21 minutes 15 sees. -Videotape 184: Leuchtcr Report Press Conference, 23 June 1989, from 19 mins. 40 sees. And 58 mins. 55 secs..
113. 'Hunderte von Zeugen, tausende, hundert tausende von Überlebenden gibt es jetzt. Millionen von Überlebenden gibt es jetzt. Und ich freue mich. Aber selbstverständlich jeder Überlebende ist ein lebendiger Beweis dafür, daß es ein Vernichtungsprogramm der Nazis nicht gegeben hat': Videotape 186: Irving in Moers, 5 March 1990, 49 mins 10 secs. to 49 mins. 40 secs..
114. Videotape 220: Irving in Tampa, 6 Oct 1995.
115. lnterview with David Irving on Radio Ulster, 23 June 1989.
116. Videotape 225: Sunday, 4 March 1997, reporter: Helen Dalley.
117. Trial of the Major War Criminals (International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg), Vol. 6, contains the full transcript of Vaillat-Couturier's evidence.
*. Lipstadt p. 229
118. Diary of Anne Frank: The Critical Edition (NewYork, 1989); Harwood, Did Six Million Really Die?, pp. 109-11 1; Butz, Hoax, p. 37; Faurisson, 'Le journal d'Anne Frank est-il authentique?', in S.Thion (ed.), Vérité historique ou vérité politique? (Paris, 1980).
119. Videotape 207: NDR 3 documentary 'Juden wurden nicht vergast...', 9 May 1993 (German version of a Danish programme by Jens Olaf Jersild), 7 mins. 50 secs. to 13 mins. 0 secs.; also Tape 213, 1 hr 15 mins. 20 secs. to 1 hr. 20 m ins. 25 secs.. In 1986, Irving claimed that a West German police investigation had discredited the diaries; in fact, it established that the materials used, apart from the later ballpoint emendations, were authentic. See Audiocassette 90, Irving in Christchurch, New Zealand, 26 March 1986, 249-279, and Diary of Anne Frank, pp. 97-98, citing Landgericht Hamburg, Bundeskriminalamt report of 28 May 1980.
120. Rudolf Höss, Commandant of Auschwitz. The Autobiography of Rudolf Höss (translated by Constantine Fitzgibbon, paperback edition, London, 1961), pp. 172-3.
121. Irving. Nuremberg, p.241.
122. lrving, Nuremberg, pp. 240-6, 354 n. 36
123. Jackson, The Case for David Irving, pp, 26-7; the allegation that all court testimony of leading Nazis must be discounted because they were trying to save their lives by confessing, or acting under duress, derives from Paul Rassinier, Debunking the Genocide Myth, p. 216.
124. Höss, Commandant, p. 59.
125. See International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals, Vol. 33, ND 3868-PS, Affidavit of Rudolf Franz Ferdinand Hoess; Höss's confirmation to the court of the voluntary nature and accuracy of his confession, in ibid., Vol. 11, p. 414; and Höss, Commandant, pp. 218-19. For Irving's manipulation of Eichmann's testimony, see the expert witness report by Robert Jan Van Pelt; under interrogation before his trial in Israel, Eichmann gave a total of five million Jews killed by the 'Third Reich' (Jochen von Lang (ed.), Eichmann Interrogated: Transcripts from the Archives of the Israeli Police (NewYork, 1983), p. 112.
126. 4David Irving's 1988 Testimony at the Trial of Ernst Zündel, pp. 20-1 (doubting the authenticity of records of the Posen speech) and 92 (quoting it without comment).
127. Audiocassette 90: Irving in Christchurch, New Zealand, 26 March 1986, recording a conversation with SS Colonel Johannes Göhler which Irving claimed to have had 'right at the end of the war' (when he would still have been a child).
128. Discovery document 1485: Fax from Irving to Karl Philipp, 4 June 1992.
129. Discovery document 1486: Fax from Irving to Tom Marcellus, 4 June 1992. For the Institute for Historical Review, see Section 11(e) of this Report.
130. lrving, Nürnberg - die letzte Schlacht: Hinter den Kulissen der Siegerjustiz (Tubingen, 1996), 321-22; much abbreviated version in Nuremberg - the Last Battle, 353-4; see also discovery documents 1485 and 1486.
131. PR0 W0 208/4661; further accounts of Aumejer's activities at Auschwitz in Hermann Langbein, Menschen in Auschwitzz ( ed., Vienna, 1970), p. 170-368; Josef Kret, 'Ein Tag in der Strafkompanie: Erinnerungen', Hefte von Auschwitz, 1(1959), pp. 87-124, esp. pp. 94-5; further accounts by former prisoners in ibid., 9 (1966), pp. 57-74 (esp. p. 67), 16 (1978), pp. 159-88 (esp. p. 180), and 17 (p. 198), pp. 157-203 (esp. p. 182); also Danuta Czech, Auschwitz Chronicle 1939-1945 (London, 1990), p. 171. See also the mentions of Aumeier by Filip Müller, Sonderbehandlung (Munich, 1979), pp. 62-3, and Höss, Commandant, p. 166.
132. Seidel, The Holocaust Denial, p. 39.
133. 'Videotape 200: Irving - 'The Search for Truth in History - Banned!' (1993), at 20 mins..
134. lnterview with David Irving on Radio Ulster, 23 June 1989.
135. Videotape 190: Irving at the Bayerischer Hof, Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991, from 2 hrs. 28 mins. 30 secs..
136. 'History's cache and carry', The Guardian, 7 July, 1992.
137. Paul Rassinier, Debunking the Genocide Myth (Torrance, California, 1978), P. 309.
138. Austin J. App, The Six Million Swindle: Blackmailing the German People for Hard Marks with Fabricated Corpses (Tacoma Park, Maryland, 1973), p. 2.
139. Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust, p. 57; Y. Gutman et al. (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, pp. 1,255-59.
140. David Irving, 'On Contemporary History and Historiography. Remarks Delivered at the 1983 International Revisionist Conference', The Journal of Historical Review, Vol . 5, Nos. 2, 3,4 ('Winter, 1984), pp. 251-88, here P. 263. Churchill's official biographer Sir Martin Gilbert is also described as 'of a certain persuasion' in ibid., P., 261
141. Speech by David Irving to a packed hall in the Primrose Hotel, Toronto, November 1, 1992. Transcript on Irving's 'Focal Point' website. Irving has never applied this insight to the Germans' behaviour during the Second World War.
142. Videotape 226: unedited material from This Week, 28 November 1991, 1 hr. 30 mins. 15 secs. - 1 hr. 31 mins. 15 secs..
143. Jackson, The Case for David Irving, p. 85.
144. Transcript of first half of David Irving's Talk to the Clarendon Club in London, September 19, 1992 (Focal Point Website). See also audiocassette 159, (same speech), 'selfappointed, ugly, greasy, nasty, perverted representatives of that community ie. Jews) in Britain'.
145. Videotape 190: Irving at the Bayerischer Hof, Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991, at 2 hrs. 44 mins..
146. Videotape 197: Irving, Clarendon Club speech, Bow Town Hall, Bromley, 29 May 1992, at 43 mins. 20 secs..
147. Extract from Irving's personal diary, April 13-14,1998, on Irving's 'Focal Point' website.
148. See for example Austin J. App, A Straight Look at the 'Third Reich': Hitler and National Socialism. How Right? How Wrong? (Tacoma Park, Maryland, 1974), p. 18, for alleged Jewish control of the media; Butz, Hoax, p. 87, for an alleged Jewish world conspiracy to persuade the world of the reality of the Holocaust; more generally, for antisemitic language and concepts as used by Hitler, see the expert witness report by Dr. Peter Longerich.
149. Videotape 190: Irving at the Bayerischer Hof, Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991, from 2 hrs. 10 mins. 30 sees..
150. Audiotape 127: Irving in Oakland, California (Berkeley Free Speech Coalition), 10 September 1996, 403-408.
151. Videotape 220: David Irving in Tampa, Florida, 6 October 1995. Repeated, slightly toned down, and located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in Audiocassette 127: Irving in Oakland, California, 10 September 1996.
152. Videotape 190: Irving at the Baycrischer Hof, Milton, Ontario, 5 October 1991, at 19 mins. 19 secs..
153. Audiocassette 90: Irving in Christchurch, New Zealand, 26 March 1986; Brechtken, "Madagascar für die Juden": Antisemitische Idee und politische Praxis (Munich, 1997); Peter Longerich, Politik der Vernichtung. Eine Gesamtdarstellung der nationalsozialistischen Judenverfolgung (Munich, 1998), pp. 273-89.
154. Videotape 220: Irving in Tampa, 6 October 1995, 11 mins.
Popups by overLIB
<< (c) Systematic nature of ...