Holocaust Denial on Trial, Skeleton Argument of the Claimant (long): Electronic Edition, by Adrian Davies

Table of Contents
<< The Schlegelberger Memora...Racism and Anti-Semitism >>

The "Wannsee Conference"

62.As to 5.142, Irving's slim bundle of actually existing documents is set against Evans's sweeping, grandiose and wholly unparticularized reference to a "vastly greater number" of contradictory documents, not one of which does Evans identify.
63.Lipstadt herself thought that the minutes of the so-called "Wannsee conference" crucial to the historiography of the Holocaust, describing at page 214 of Denying the Holocaust.--
".... the 1942 Wannsee Conference, at which Heydrich and a group of prominent Nazis worked out the implementation of the Final Solution..."
64.Gray J evidently agreed with this view. While at 13.36 Gray J said: "I do not regard the arguments advanced by Irving. . . as being without merit: they are worthy of consideration," he nevertheless rejects Irving's interpretation of the Schlegelberger memorandum at 13.35, giving as one of his principal reasons:--
"that the evidence suggests that at the Wannsee conference in January 1942 (where Heydrich claimed to be speaking with the authority of Hitler) a programme for the extermination of Jews had been discussed and in broad terms agreed upon."
65. Lipstadt's and Gray J's observations wholly disregard the contents of the Wannsee protocol. Irving put the relevant quotes to Gray J in his closing speech:--  
"For a long time the confident public perception was that the Wannsee protocol, of the 20 January 1942 meeting, recorded the actual order to exterminate the European Jews. Yehuda Bauer, the director of Yad Vashem, the world's premier Holocaust research institution in Israel, has stated quite clearly: 'The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at.' In his opinion Wannsee was a meeting but 'hardly a conference,' and he even said: 'Little of what was said there was executed in detail.'(Canadian Jewish News, 30 January, 1992) Despite this, Your Lordship has had to listen to the 'silly story' all over again in this Court from the expert witnesses." (Day 32, 15 March, 2000).
66.Moreover, anachronism is a widely recognized fault in historical methodology. An approach based on the interpretation of documents written in 1942 in the light of events which happened in 1943 or 1944 is fundamentally flawed.
67.As to the other documents discussed in Gray J's judgment:--
<< The Schlegelberger Memora...Racism and Anti-Semitism >>

accessed 12 March 2013