Irving v. Lipstadt


Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 8: Electronic Edition

Pages 111 - 115 of 191

<< 1-5191 >>
    Gas proof. It might be rubber, it might be
 1sealant to prevent leakage or absorption of the gas." Do
 2you accept or not, Mr Irving, that he missed, if it is
 3there, the traces, not traces, actually they are quite
 4large patches of cement or plaster that is to be found on
 5the walls?
 6 A. [Mr Irving]     Of the Leichenkeller.
 7 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Yes.
 8 A. [Mr Irving]     Yes. There is plaster on ordinary mortar plaster on the
 9walls, but there is no treatment on top of the plaster.
10It is just bare plaster and this is in fact what is
11recommended for mortuaries, to be just bare plaster with
12some kind of whitewash.
13 Q. [Mr Rampton]     "The adjacent crematoria are a potential danger of
14explosion". That is complete nonsense, is it not?
15 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     It is nonsense on a certain assumption about
16the level of concentration.
17 MR RAMPTON:     Yes.
18 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Is that not a more accurate way of putting
20 MR RAMPTON:     It is a nonsense unless the concentration used was
21something in the order of 60,000 parts per million, is it
23 A. [Mr Irving]     I believe I am right in saying, and I am sure Professor
24Jan van Pelt will correct me if I am wrong, that on many
25of the architectural drawings of crematoria 4 and 5, there
26are provisions for explosionsgelichte, in other words

.    P-111

 1explosion proof light switches to be installed in some of
 2these chambers, or am I referring to the fumigation
 4 Q. [Mr Rampton]     I do not know, Mr Irving. You will have to explain that
 5to Professor van Pelt.
 6 A. [Mr Irving]     Yes.
 7 Q. [Mr Rampton]     But, from the level of concentration used, even for
 8gassing lice, at a concentration of 6,666 parts per
 9million, there was no danger of explosion?
10 A. [Mr Irving]     They certainly installed explosion proof switches in the
11fumigation buildings because they are specified on the
12architects drawings.
13 Q. [Mr Rampton]     And then, writes the good Mr Leuchter, "The exposed porous
14brick and mortar would accumulate the H C N and make these
15facilities dangerous to humans for several years". That
16is nonsense too, is it not? If it is Prussian blue, you
17tell me it is stable?
18 A. [Mr Irving]     It becomes stable, yes.
19 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Well it was not porous, in any event, if it
20was plastered. Is that right?
21 A. [Mr Irving]     A lot of it is brickwork, too, my Lord, you can see some
22of it.
23 MR RAMPTON:     No. That is postwar deterioration, Mr Irving.
24Assume that the inside of the gas chamber is covered or
25whatever it was, at least covered with plaster or cement,
26then the brickwork is not exposed at all, is it?

.    P-112

 1 A. [Mr Irving]     It is not cement, it is a lime plaster.
 2 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Lime plaster would not be porous, would it?
 3It would not be porous brick and mortar anyway.
 4 MR RAMPTON:     Mr Leuchter writes: "The exposed porous brick and
 5mortar" -- he is talking, rather as Mr Roth did in his
 6rather graphic way, about analysing the surface of the
 7wall by looking at the timber behind it?
 8 A. [Mr Irving]     Yes.
 9 Q. [Mr Rampton]     It is logical and it is not even scientific. It is just
10logical rubbish, is it not?
11 A. [Mr Irving]     It does strike me as being unscientific, that particular
12sentence, yes.
13 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Krammer 1 is adjacent to the SS hospital in Auschwitz and
14has floor drains connected to the main sewer of the camp,
15which would allow gas into every building in the
16facility. That is nonsense, too, is it not?
17 A. [Mr Irving]     I think the use of word "gas" is wrong. I would say it
18would allow hydrogen cyanide into the sewer.
19 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Do you know whether Mr Leuchter actually verified the
20existence of a mains sewer at Auschwitz?
21 A. [Mr Irving]     One thing I have asked Professor van Pelt to produce from
22the Auschwitz records is the sewage plans.
23 Q. [Mr Rampton]     And, Mr Irving, the answer is, perhaps, I do not know ----
24 A. [Mr Irving]     I do not know. I do not know what Mr Leuchter had, no.
25 Q. [Mr Rampton]     No. He has just made it up. He has made yet another of
26his wonderful assumptions, has he not?

.    P-113

 1 A. [Mr Irving]     It maybe that it was a logical assumption, I do not know.
 2 Q. [Mr Rampton]     The answer is, I think, that Professor van Pelt, who is
 3perhaps the most knowledgable person in the whole world
 4upon this topic, will say that it is not known whether
 5there was a main sewer.
 6 A. [Mr Irving]     There should be, because the construction office will
 7certainly have had sewer plans, and our suspicion would be
 8that the water outflow from these buildings would have
 9gone eventually to the water treatment plant, which is
10visible on all the air photographs.
11 Q. [Mr Rampton]     "And safely dissolved in low concentrations into a harmless
12solution." Yes?
13 A. [Mr Irving]     Well, I am not going to talk about the percentages because
14I do not know what percentages we are talking about.
15 Q. [Mr Rampton]     OK. "There were no exhaust systems to prevent the gas
16after usage". Complete nonsense, is it not?
17 A. [Mr Irving]     Which building are we talking about, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5?
18 Q. [Mr Rampton]     He has listed them all, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
19 A. [Mr Irving]     There was certainly a ventilation system in the building
20I am interested in, which is crematorium 2, yes.
21 Q. [Mr Rampton]     And numbers 4 and 5 each had seven little windows 30
22centimetres by 40 in the outside, and each of the two
23outer rooms had big doors opening into the open air, did
24they not?
25 A. [Mr Irving]     Numbers 3 and 4?
26 Q. [Mr Rampton]     No, 4 and 5. No, 2 and 3 were sealed. They had but one

.    P-114

 1door and therefore needed a ventilation system. So this
 2is another piece of assertion by Mr Leuchter which is just
 3plain wrong, is it not?
 4 A. [Mr Irving]     Yes.
 5 Q. [Mr Rampton]     I will skip the next one because it is controversial. "The
 6facilities are always damp and not heated". You have seen
 7the letter, have you not, concerning the provision of
 8preheating mechanisms for Leichenkeller 1?
 9 A. [Mr Irving]     Yes.
10 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Wrong again?
11 A. [Mr Irving]     Yes.
12 Q. [Mr Rampton]     "The chambers are too small to physically contain
13the occupants claimed". Wrong again?
14 A. [Mr Irving]     I disagree on that.
15 Q. [Mr Rampton]     He assumed 9 foot per person, did he not?
16 A. [Mr Irving]     Yes, but even on lower figures you still cannot put 2,000
17into those.
18 Q. [Mr Rampton]     As a matter of fact you can, but we will not argue about
19that. He assumed 9 square feet per person, did he not?
20 A. [Mr Irving]     He did, yes. If you say so, that is. I mean, without
21being told where he says it, I do not know.
22 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Well, it is somewhere in here?
23 A. [Mr Irving]     I think the nine -- yes.
24 Q. [Mr Rampton]     That is the figure which is used for judicial
25execution -- I do not like that -- legal execution in
26the United States. "The doors all opened inwards" -- that

.    P-115

<< 1-5191 >>