Irving v. Lipstadt


Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 23: Electronic Edition

Pages 196 - 200 of 237

<< 1-5236-237 >>
    Yes, that is right. That is to say ti depends as much on
 1how you do it as on the fact that you do it.
 2 Q. [Mr Irving]     Would you first of all to document number 10 in the little
 4 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Page 10.
 5 Q. [Mr Irving]     Page 10, yes. Is this a book issued or pages from a book
 6issued by the Press and Information Office of the German
 7Federal Republic, evidently in the 1950s?
 8 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes.
 9 Q. [Mr Irving]     And does it have an ----
10 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     The late to mid-50s.
11 Q. [Mr Irving]     --- introduction by the Federal Chancellor Dr Conrad
13 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     It does.
14 Q. [Mr Irving]     And page 11 shows his signature on the introduction?
15 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes.
16 Q. [Mr Irving]     If you now go to page 13, does footnote No. 2 say: The
17attack on the city on Dresden which was filled with
18refugees on 13th February 1945 alone cost about 250,000
20 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No, I cannot find this.
21 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I have not got that.
22 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     That is page 12?
23 MR IRVING:     It is page 12 or the paginated number is 154 and it
24is footnote No. 2.
25 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes.
26 Q. [Mr Irving]     So, prima facie, or on the face of it we have a German

.        P-196

 1government book with authority of the Chancellor himself
 2alleging that the city of Dresden was filled with refugees
 3and that there were 250,000 dead?
 4 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes. This is Dr. Goebbels' figure of course which he put
 5out in propaganda, knowing full well it was not true and
 6was taken over.
 7 Q. [Mr Irving]     There is a distinction between Dr Ardenhau and
 8Dr Goebbels, is there not?
 9 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Well, clearly whoever did this has taken that on trust.
10 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Is that what you relied on, Mr Irving? Is
11that your case? That is where the figure of 250,000 came
13 MR IRVING:     My Lord, your Lordship surely does not accept that
14that is the only source I would have used.
16 MR IRVING:     I am talking about the upper end of the scale.
17 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I am asking what your source for the figure
18you at one time were ----
19 MR IRVING:     There were very many figures for 250,000.
20 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     --- favouring as 250,000. Are you saying
21that this was at least one of the sources or not?
22 MR IRVING:     One of the sources. I will now draw your
23Lordship's attention to a document that the Defendants
24have not been able to find, and it is in the
25interrogations of two doctors Fersage and Heard, page 41.
26 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I think what I am saying about the Ardenhau figure, my

.        P-197

 1Lord, is that this is I think simply taken over from the
 2Nazi propaganda ministry. There does not seem to have
 3been -- it is only in a footnote.
 4 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     How would ----
 5 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     It does not seem to rest on any very elaborate
 7 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     No. How would Mr Irving have known that it
 8was just taken from Goebbels?
 9 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I did not know that he relied on this.
10 Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     No, well, he says he did.
11 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     It is fairly obvious that 250,000 is the figure that
12Dr Goebbels gave.
13 Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     Simply because he gave it?
14 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes. That is where it appears. This is relatively
15shortly afterwards.
16 MR IRVING:     Was not the figure that Dr Goebbels gave 102,040?
17 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No, I do not think it was. Well, he used the figure --
182040 was the figure in Tages Befehl, daily order 47.
19I think Goebbels blew this to up 250,000.
20 Q. [Mr Irving]     Would you now look at the document 41 in my little bundle,
21please. This is the integration of the two doctors,
22Versage and Heard. Dr Versage was formerlly a medical
23officer and Dr Heard was a woman physician.
24 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes.
25 Q. [Mr Irving]     Information on bombing casualties: According to the
26informants the total number of casualties in Germany due

.        P-198

 1to bombing has been estimated between 3 and 4 million.
 2That is an exaggeration, is it not?
 3 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     It looks like it, yes.
 4 Q. [Mr Irving]     Do they continue: The most badly damaged town, in their
 5opinion, is Dresden with an estimated casualty list of
 6250,000? Is that the same figure now?
 7 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     That is another exaggeration, as you would expect from
 8their previous estimate of 3 to 4 million.
 9 Q. [Mr Irving]     But it does not actually say in this report that is an
10exaggeration, does it?
11 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Well, it does not say that 3 to 4 million is an
13 Q. [Mr Irving]     But it does state it as a fact that the estimated casualty
14list in Dresden was 250,000?
15 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No, it does not state as a fact. It says it is in their
16opinion. So it is a matter of opinion.
17 Q. [Mr Irving]     The opinion is that was the most badly damaged town, that
18was the opinion; not that the opinion was the death roll?
19 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes. Again that is mere hearsay. There is no documentary
20evidence they provide there.
21 Q. [Mr Irving]     As a minor matter they also say that the city was filled
22with refugees?
23 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     That is right, yes.
24 Q. [Mr Irving]     So that is two documents that give this upper limit
26 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No, they are not, well, they are not. I mean they are not

.        P-199

 1contemporary documents. Neither of them is a contemporary
 2document. This one is a mere matter of opinion by two
 3physicians. It does not even say where they are from. It
 4does not look to me as if they are actually Dresden
 5doctors at all. There is no evidence here that they were
 6even in Dresden. There is no documentary evidence as to
 7the basis of the rather kind of casual footnote in the
 8Ardenhau documents. So neither of these is really worth
 9very much at all.
10 Q. [Mr Irving]     While we are still looking at the 250,000 figure, you do
11accept of course that I have never, ever said that it was
12250,000? I have said this was the upper limit that was
13given, is that correct?
14 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Has anyone got the Corgi edition of
15destruction of Dresden.
16 MR RAMPTON:     No. I think we only have the most modern version
17which is I forget ----
18 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Professor Evans obviously had it at one time.
19 MR RAMPTON:     Yes, obviously, and so did his researchers, but
20I cannot say where it is at the moment.
21 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     We have probably got the relevant bit. What
22we want is page 225.
23 MR IRVING:     Of the Corgi edition.
24 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Yes.
25 MR RAMPTON:     It is in L1, tab 3.
26 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Plus perhaps the footnote.

.        P-200

<< 1-5236-237 >>