Irving v. Lipstadt


Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 7: Electronic Edition

Pages 51 - 55 of 199

<< 1-5196-199 >>
    There are areas of perversity and indeed the
 1one is to use that word in historical terms.
 2 Q. [Mr Irving]     I hasten to say that those are not the issues that are
 3before the court, Professor Watt?
 4 A. [Professor Cameron Watt]     I know, but one has to put this kind of argument, it seems
 5to me, in the general context of what historians, I think
 6Professor Evans and I share views on the responsibilities
 7of historians to tell the truth as we see it, and to be
 8extremely careful and professional in our use of evidence,
 9but I cannot say that the evidence that we both confront
10in the writing of history generally altogether lives up to
11those expectations.
12 Q. [Mr Irving]     Professor Watt, from what you know of my writings, do you
13believe that, if a document were now to be presented to me
14tomorrow morning in one of your plain brown envelopes,
15utterly confounding me in the issues that are before the
16court, I would hesitate for one moment to bring them to
17the attention my readers and that I would in some way
18suppress them, or do you believe, on the contrary, that in
19fact I would make them known immediately?
20 A. [Professor Cameron Watt]     I have no knowledge myself of times when you have
21suppressed evidence. But then our paths have not lain
22together very often.
23 Q. [Mr Irving]     We are nearly at the end of this examination-in-chief,
24Professor. You wrote a review, you may remember, some
25years ago of my biography of Herman Goring for the Sunday

.    P-51

 1 A. [Professor Cameron Watt]     Yes.
 2 Q. [Mr Irving]     It was the principal review in the review section that
 3week as indeed most of my books were reviewed very
 4prominently in my hey day. You began the review with the
 5words which I shall never forget, "David Irving is one of
 6Britain's most disliked historians but ..." Do you
 7remember writing those words?
 8 A. [Professor Cameron Watt]     I have not looked at that cutting recently, but I find it
 9quite likely that I wrote it.
10 Q. [Mr Irving]     Quite likely that you wrote it! You did not of course
11stand in Oxford Street with a clip board asking the
12passers-by who their most disliked historian was, so this
13was just a subjective value judgment?
14 A. [Professor Cameron Watt]     I think so. That would be fair comment.
15 Q. [Mr Irving]     It is not, of course, a historian's job to be liked, is
17 A. [Professor Cameron Watt]     I do not regard the public's general view of historical
18facts as something against which one cannot appeal.
19 Q. [Mr Irving]     Professor Watt, would I be wrong in suggesting that the
20reason you used that sentence was because, on balance, you
21proposed to write a very favourable review of the book,
22which in fact it was, but you needed to purchase the right
23to so by saying something wicked?
24 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     We have the review. I think it will speak
25for itself. I do not think that is a helpful question.
26 MR IRVING:     It is in connection with the next point, which is

.    P-52

 1why I have had to issue a witness summons. I see your
 2Lordship wagging your Lordship's head.
 3 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Professor Watt was not anxious to come
 4voluntarily. That must be the reason. There is so much
 5we have to deal with, I just wonder whether those points
 6are worth struggling with.
 7 MR IRVING:     In that case I will end the examination at that
 8point. Professor Watt, thank you very much indeed.
 9 MR RAMPTON:     I have no questions.
10 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Professor Watt, thank you very much indeed
11for coming.
12 <(The witness withdrew)
13 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Do you want to pause to collect your
14thoughts, Mr Irving? If you did, I would understand.
15 MR IRVING:     I think a five-minute pause might be acceptable.
16 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I think the transcriber would welcome that.
17 MR IRVING:     Then how are we going to proceed, my Lord? With
18the argument or continue with the cross-examination?
19I would propose, if I may be so humble as to submit, that
20we should have the argument after lunch.
21 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I am prepared to fit in with whatever you
22would prefer, unless Mr Rampton tells me that is going to
23be very inconvenient.
24 MR RAMPTON:     I have only one more evidence point that I want to
25deal with before I start on Auschwitz. I was going to
26start on Auschwitz today, not unless your Lordship tells

.    P-53

 1me I must, on the technical stuff, but on Mr Irving's own
 2utterances about it.
 3 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     So Holocaust denial rather than Auschwitz.
 4 MR RAMPTON:     Auschwitz denial plus Holocaust denial. That is
 5where I propose to start. Professor van Pelt has only
 6just got here. I do not have the technical stuff in court
 7with me, but I do have one more question in relation to
 8Hitler's knowledge, Hitler's orders, which I could not ask
 9yesterday because I did not have the document, but I have
10it now.
11 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     How long will that take?
12 MR RAMPTON:     Well, unpredictable, but it is about two
13questions. That is not fair.
14 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     About half an hour. Shall we dispose of that
15and then have the argument and, if it is after lunch, it
16is after lunch. If it is slightly before lunch, so be
17it. We will have a five-minute break.
18 (Short Adjournment)
19< MR DAVID IRVING, recalled.
20< Cross-Examined by Mr Rampton QC, continued.
21 MR RAMPTON:     May Mr Irving be supplied with the Dr Longerich
22report, please?
23 A. [Mr Irving]     Yes.
24 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I am sorry, Mr Rampton. For some reason
25which I do not understand, my Longerich has gone
26missing. We were looking at it this morning so it must

.    P-54

 1have got left behind.
 2 MR RAMPTON:     It may be that we can manage without it, but
 3I rather think not.
 4 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     If there is a spare, I would be grateful.
 5Otherwise I will do my best.
 6 MR RAMPTON:     Mr Irving, could you please turn to page 71 of the
 7first part of this report? I will start on page 70. As
 8usual, I always forget the context. I would like to start
 9at 19.6 on page 70, my Lord. Now we are at the end of
101942: "For a report to Hitler on 10 December 1942 Himmler
11set up a handwritten list of the points which he wanted to
12bring up. Under 'II. SD and police affairs' Himmler
13specified as point 4 the following key words" -- I have
14added the S -- "Jews in France, -- 6-700,000, other
16     Then on page 71 Dr Longerich writes this: "Next
17to these key words can be found a tick and in Himmler's
18own handwriting the word 'abolished' (abschaffen): Himmler
19had thus brought up these points with Hitler and received
20permission from him to 'abolish' ie to liquidate (says Dr
21Longerich) the estimated 600,000 to 700,000 Jews in France
22as well as 'other enemies'."
23     I am going to read on, if I may: "After the
24meeting, Himmler sent a note to Muller, head of the
25Gestapo, in which he stated: The Fuhrer gave orders that
26the Jews and other enemies in France should be arrested

.    P-55

<< 1-5196-199 >>