Irving v. Lipstadt


Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 22: Electronic Edition

Pages 56 - 60 of 207

<< 1-5206-207 >>
    Yes. We do not want to overdo this point.
 1since time immemorial. The witness says he wants to look
 2at the relevant one, which would be the one from the
 31930s, and I think that is a fair request.
 4 MR IRVING:     Can I just show him the typed extract I made last
 6 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     If it relates to the contemporary Cassell's
 7Dictionary, yes.
 8 MR IRVING:     In that case I will just put to the witness this
 91935 dictionary.
10 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Is it Cassell's?
11 MR IRVING:     No. This is now a different one. This is a Butler
12&Tanner. It is a Routledge Dictionary and unfortunately
13it is more abbreviated. It does not give the sense that
14I was looking for in such detail. The point I was trying
15to make, my Lord, is that it refers to "transportation"
16rather than "a transport" in the sense of a train.
17 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I know what the point is.
18 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Here, of course, it does not.
19 MR IRVING:     It just says "transport" which is ambiguous.
20 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     "Transport conveyance", transport or conveyance.
21 Q. [Mr Irving]     Yes.
22 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Those are the primary meanings.
23 Q. [Mr Irving]     I will have to put it to you to in an "if" form, then, and
24on Monday bring the photocopy of the original. Professor
25Evans, if the 1935 or if the contemporary wartime edition
26of the Cassell's Dictionary says that the meaning of

.   P-56

 1"transport" in English is in this order of priority,
 2"transport, transportation, carriage, conveyance,
 3transfer and shipment", is it unreasonable to assume, in
 4the absence of any contextual information, that this is
 5referring to a transportation, rather than to a single
 6train load?
 7 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     It is unreasonable, I think, yes, from the context here.
 8"Judentransport aus Berlin. Keine Liquidierung" quite
 9clearly means "the Jew transport from Berlin, no
10liquidation". I think it is likely that, had it said, had
11they meant there should be no liquidation of any
12transport, train loads of Jews from Berlin, then it would
13have said something, they would have said so in the
14plural, transporte, or he would have put down something
15like people, emigrants, or people who were deported, or
16whatever. Let us try and remember what it is that you
17actually wrote in Hitler's War in 1977.
18 Q. [Mr Irving]     I am trying to narrow this down to a simple matter.
19 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Which is that Himmler was summoned to the Wolf's Lair for
20a secret conference with Hitler, I am quoting from your
21book here, at which the fate of Berlin's Jews was clearly
22raised. "At 1.30 pm Hitler was obliged to telephone from
23Hitler's bunker to Heydrich, the explicit order that Jews
24were not to be liquidated". That is what you said in your
25book. You did not mention Berlin there at all.
26 Q. [Mr Irving]     Can we keep to the language problem, which is to say, that

.   P-57

 1if it was what you said----
 2 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I am sure you would like to, Mr Irving.
 3 Q. [Mr Irving]     -- the Jew transport, would it not be "der Judentransport
 4aus Berlin"?
 5 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No, because his telephone log, as you know perfectly well,
 6is in a very abbreviated form that generally leaves out
 7the definite article.
 8 Q. [Mr Irving]     Leaves out the context, is that right?
 9 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No leaves out the definite article, is what I said. You
10can go two lines up, "Verhaftung Dr Jekelius". It does
11not say "Die Verhaftung Dr Jekelius".
12 Q. [Mr Irving]     What you are saying, this is your expert evidence, is that
13"Judentransport" could under no circumstances be
14translated as "transportation of Jews from Berlin"?
15 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     That is not quite what I am saying.
16 Q. [Mr Irving]     Will you accept that it can?
17 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Just let me answer.
18 Q. [Mr Irving]     Just say yes or no. Will you accept that it can?
19 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No, I am not going to say yes or no, I am going to give
20you a full answer.
21 Q. [Mr Irving]     That is what I am trying to avoid, because we really are
22running out of time.
23 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I know you are trying to avoid it, Mr Irving.
24 Q. [Mr Irving]     We are familiar with your full answers, unfortunately.
25 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I did swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
26but the truth.

.   P-58

 1 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     It will not be very long, this answer, I do
 2not think.
 3 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     It says "Judentransport aus Berlin". That is the
 4context. Jew transport from Berlin. It is clear it means
 5a single train load of Jews, "Keine Liquidierung".
 6 Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     Are you saying it is clear to because you are now familiar
 7from the context of all the other documents we know, as
 8indeed I am also now, that that is the correct
 9translation. But my question to you is, if you are faced
10just with that one line in a document that you read back
11in 1970, knowing none of the surrounding documentation,
12right, that it would be totally improper and perverse to
13translate that as "transportation of Jews from Berlin",
14which was the sense that I gave?
15 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes. That is what I am saying. And particularly perverse
16to say that it is an explicit order which Hitler has told
17Himmler to transmit that Jews were not to be liquidated.
18No mention of Berlin at all there, Mr Irving. That is a
19clear falsification of this document.
20 MR IRVING:     Avoiding your renewed smoke screen which you are
21laying across the question I put ----
22 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I am not going to have you saying that. The
23criticism is that you misrepresented this document in your
25 MR IRVING:     That is a separate criticism, my Lord, with

.   P-59

 1 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     On the contrary, it is the whole point of the
 2criticism. It would not be made unless you had
 3misrepresented, as the Defendants say you did, this
 4document. We not be looking at this document at all.
 5 MR IRVING:     In that case I shall have to ask further questions
 6on the question of the meaning of the word, which
 7I thought I had established superabundantly to the
 8satisfaction of the court and everybody present, that a
 9primary meaning of the word is transportation and, when
10one has no other document to go by, and the court has not
11been shown that at that time I had any other document to
12go by ----
13 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I know what your case is, Mr Irving.
14I really do, and I do not think you need spend any longer
15on the pure linguistics.
16 MR IRVING:     In that case I shall move on.
17 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     In the contemporary dictionary you showed me, Mr Irving,
18the word "transportation" was not there at all. How can
19it be a primary meaning?
20 Q. [Mr Irving]     In both Cassell's and Langenscheidt "transportation" is
21given as the primary meaning after "transport". In the
22Langenscheidt case it is given as the primary meaning.
23 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I have not seen these dictionaries.
24 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I think we have really spent long enough.
25I know what the issue is.
26 MR IRVING:     

.   P-60

<< 1-5206-207 >>