• Search

    Day 2 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

    Part I: Intial Proceedings (104.1 to 128.17)

    Section 104.1 to 115.3

    1996 I. No. 113
      2  Royal Courts of Justice
      3  Strand, London
      4  Wednesday, 12th January 2000
      6  Before:
    10  Claimant -and-
    13  Defendants
    14  The Claimant appeared in person
    15  MR RICHARD RAMPTON Q.C. (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons and Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the First and
    16  Second Defendants
    17  MISS HEATHER ROGERS (instructed by Davenport Lyons) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant Penguin Books Limited
    18  MR ANTHONY JULIUS (of Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of
    19  the Second Defendant Deborah Lipstadt
    21  (Transcribed from the stenographic notes of Harry Counsell & Company,
    Clifford’s Inn, Fetter Lane, London EC4
    22  Telephone: 020-7242-9346)

    .           P-104

      1DAY 2 Wednesday, 12th January 2000
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, Mr Irving
      3  MR IRVING:  May it please your Lordship. This morning I wish
      4  to kick off by playing to the court excerpts from two, or
      5  possibly three, video tapes which are of relevance. I
      6  will explain what the video tapes are, if I may, my Lord.
      7  The first one is one minute 20 seconds long. It is a
      8  postwar German newsreel, January 1948, and the very first
      9  section on it, fortunately, is the reporting of the end of
    10  the Auschwitz trial where a number of Defendants, rather
    11  as at Nuremberg, had been prosecuted on this occasion by
    12  the Polish Government. Auschwitz is in Poland. They had
    13  been prosecuted for crimes against humanity, and sentence
    14  was passed a week or two before this trial, before this
    15  newsreel was shown.
    16  So it is a newsreel showing the judge handing
    17  down sentence. The relevance is purely the newsreel
    18  statement from the judge’s findings of how many people
    19  died in Auschwitz which is a matter of contention. We are
    20  told by the expert witnesses in this case that anybody who
    21  says the figure is less than is now commonly assumed is a
    22  “Holocaust denier”. I purely wish to show that there is
    23  a broad band of opinion over the years as to what the
    24  figures were
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The judge is expressing whatever view he does
    26  express on the basis of, what, the evidence he had heard

    .           P-105

      1  during the course of the trial or what?
      2  MR IRVING:  A very lengthy trial, which ended with the
      3  execution of a number of people. We see on this short
      4  film the hearing of evidence, the hearing of witness
      5  statements, the taking of depositions, the forensic
      6  examination of the site which makes the statement that he
      7  utters all the more important. My Lord, do you have the
      8  short transcript of the passage? I have it in German
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If I have, I do not think I know where it
    10  is. I have not seen it
    11  MR IRVING:  I can provide one, my Lord
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Or has it been handed in? Is it somewhere in
    13  the files because there are a few loose documents
    14  MR IRVING:  There is one. If I can kick off by showing that
    15  excerpt
    16  MR IRVING:  It is a tracking error, I think, my Lord
    17  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You are having a quite a task if you are
    18  trying to cope with that as well as everything else. I do
    19  not know if there is anyone else around who is more
    20  conversant with it than you are? We are getting a sound
    21  now. Shall we come back to that one? It may be we do not
    22  get the same problem with your next one
    23  MR IRVING:  Let me just read out what the translation is, if
    24  I may
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, please do
    26  MR IRVING:  This is a translation of the German text:

    .           P-106

      1  “In Cracow the trial of the principal culprits
      2  for the Auschwitz concentration camp came to an end before
      3  a Polish court. The Defendants were German camp guards or
      4  members of the German camp administration staff.
      5  Unheard-of atrocities against the camp inmates,
      6  particularly against female prisoners, were proved against
      7  them. Altogether nearly 300,000 people” — this is the
      8  part I am relying upon, my Lord — “from the most
      9  different nations died in the Auschwitz concentration
    10  camp. The court sentenced 23 of the accused to death, six
    11  to life sentences and 10 to lengthy jail terms; one was
    12  acquitted”.
    13  It then continues with the same statement: “The
    14  Auschwitz concentration camp remains as it stands today,
    15  as a monument of shame to the lasting memory of its
    16  300,000 victims”. Of course, nowadays, my Lord, we are
    17  told a very different picture of Auschwitz, but that was
    18  within the immediacy of the event
    19  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I appreciate that no one is being too fussed,
    20  I understand why not, about the admissibility of the
    21  evidence, but this reads to me not like the judge or the
    22  court talking but some sort of newsreel
    23  MR IRVING:  It is a German official newsreel produced in early
    24  1948 at the time that Germany was under allied occupation
    25  and all the media outlets in Germany were licensed by the
    26  allied authorities

    .           P-107

      1  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, but, I mean, in terms of evidence, I am
      2  not sure this has terribly much weight, does it
      3  MR IRVING:  Except, my Lord, for two arguments here: firstly,
      4  if the allegation is that anybody who states figure less
      5  than one million or 4 million, whichever figure we look
      6  at, for Auschwitz is a Holocaust denier, then, denial,
      7  apparently started very early; and, secondly, if this was
      8  one of the documents before me at the time I wrote my
      9  book, my Lord, then I could hardly be accused of
    10  manipulation or distortion if I choose to rely on this
    11  document rather than on the evidence of someone like
    12  Rudolf Hess
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Where am I going to put it because I think we
    14  must have a system of finding a home for every document
    15  that is handed in, if you are going to rely on it
    16  MR IRVING:  My Lord, that should be in the bundles of
    17  transcripts, in my submission
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Perhaps the Defendants can help because let
    19  us be sensible about putting them were they belong
    20   MR RAMPTON:  Yes. I suspect what is going to happen during the
    21  course of this trial is that we are going to create new
    22  files as we go along. The resources of Her Majesty’s
    23  courts probably do not run to that. So I think what we
    24  had better do is, as these documents build up, is put them
    25  in files — this is a document I have never seen before
    26  either — and try to provide an identical file for each

    .           P-108

      1  person in the court who will need to look at it
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. I do not want to spend undue time on
      3  it, but in some ways it is better to try to find them a
      4  spot in the existing bundles where they logically belong
      5  rather than having a, sort of, rather random new file
      6  created with whatever happens to turn up
      7   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, that is probably right. The only place I can
      8  think of to put this at the moment is with Mr Irving’s
      9  statement
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I think that may be right
    11  MR IRVING:  In my statement
    12   MR RAMPTON:  It has no other natural home that I can think of
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I think that may be right
    14  MR IRVING:  Now, I add to your Lordship’s misery by giving you
    15  the transcript of the video which we will now show
    16  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. For the time being, at any rate, we
    17  shall put this in C4, shall we? Is that what you mean,
    18  Mr Rampton
    19   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I think it is C4. Unfortunately, mine do not
    20  any longer correspond to the numbers — nor does
    21  Miss Rogers’
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The other thing is we need a hole puncher
    23   MR RAMPTON:  Tab 1, C4, my Lord
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, that is what I thought, at the back
    25   MR RAMPTON:  This next one, what is the number of the
    26  transcript file? The next one goes in D(ii). I do not

    .           P-109

      1  know which of the D(ii)s it will be; I have a feeling it
      2  is already there actually
      3  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is worth spending just a little bit of
      4  time on this sort of thing at the moment because then we
      5  can get the system right for the future
      6   MR RAMPTON:  D(ii), tab — my Lord, the best place for it is at
      7  the back of the second volume of D(ii) where it will have
      8  a new tab No. 23
      9  MR IRVING:  I believe I am right in saying that this transcript
    10  was not already provided by the Defendants; this is a new
    11  transcript
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, I think that is right. I think that is
    13  accepted. Shall we play it now
    14  MR IRVING:  My Lord, can I just explain what it is
    15  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes
    16  MR IRVING:  This is a transcript of a tape of a news programme
    17  broadcasted in Australia on July 20th 1994 on ABC
    18  Television in Australia. It is a typical kind of news
    19  commentary programme, rather like News Night, which starts
    20  off with the news bulletin and then follows with a
    21  feature. The feature on this occasion was a feature
    22  called “The Big Lie”. I do not propose to run the whole
    23  tape, but to start about three minutes in where I have
    24  positioned it as at the present which is page 2 near the
    25  top, my Lord. Mr Anthony Lerman of —-
    26  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes

    .           P-110

      1  MR IRVING:  — the Institute of Jewish affairs is about to
      2  start speaking. The reason I am playing it is because
      3  your Lordship will see that this interview provides the
      4  Second Defendant, Professor Lipstadt, with a chance to
      5  express her opinions unopposed
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes
      7  MR IRVING:  I feel it is appropriate to allow her some minutes
      8  of the court’s time in this rather oblique manner to
      9  express her opinions
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes
    11  MR IRVING:  I understand that she will not be testifying in
    12  person in this case
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes
      14     (Excerpt of video was played)
    15  MR IRVING:  My Lord, I pause very briefly there and invite your
    16  attention to one scene in the newsreel that is being
    17  displaced, black and white newsreel, where we are no
    18  longer outside the railroad trucks filming the people
    19  climbing into the railroad trucks, but the camera has
    20  suddenly positioned itself inside the railroad trucks.
    21  I am not going to draw any inferences from that
    22  at this moment, my Lord, but we are suddenly inside a
    23  darkened railway truck, taking a shot from the inside to
    24  the outside as people climb in towards us
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes
    26  MR IRVING:  That is the only point I make, my Lord. My Lord,

    .           P-111

      1  this is Professor van Pelt who will be testifying in this
      2  case. This is the actual building which we will be
      3  talking quite a lot about over the coming weeks,
      4  crematorium No. 2
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  At Auschwitz
      6  MR IRVING:  At Auschwitz — correction, at Birkenhau, my Lord,
      7  which is five miles from Auschwitz
      8  MR IRVING:  My Lord
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Is that all you want from that, Mr Irving
    10  MR IRVING:  Yes. Your Lordship will see from the transcript
    11  the rest concerns Rwanda —-
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I have read on and I did not think there
    13  was anything in the rest of it
    14  MR IRVING:  Unless the Defendants object, I would not propose
    15  to play the rest of the tape
    16  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sure they will not
    17   MR RAMPTON:  No
    18  MR IRVING:  My Lord, I do not know if you consider that was a
    19  useful exercise? I would welcome your Lordship’s guidance
    20  on —-
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, to be frank, I think not very. In the
    22  end we have to get down to the specific criticisms of your
    23  historical approach
    24  MR IRVING:  Yes
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  How we are quite going to deal with it, I do
    26  not know, but I think that is what has to be grappled with

    .           P-112

      1  and, from my point of view, the sooner the better
      2  MR IRVING:  We are also concerned with the Second Defendant
      3  here. My Lord, I understand she will not be having a
      4  chance to speak and I will not be having a chance to
      5  cross-examine her. I think it was a useful exercise
      6  because it gave us a chance to see her in action. I think
      7  she could have handled herself under cross-examination,
      8  had she proposed to do so
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You are entitled to make the point that she
    10  is, apparently, not going to give evidence. I have that
    11  point and I have now had the opportunity of seeing her on
    12  the interview
    13  MR IRVING:  The other point I wish to draw attention to in the
    14  video is that the other witness who will be called,
    15  Professor van Pelt, draws great attention to the building
    16  he was standing on which was crematorium No. 2 in
    17  Birkenhau. He points to the holes, he points to the
    18  room. He says, “This is where it happened”. In another
    19  video which I will show on another occasion, my Lord, he
    20  goes into much greater detail more emotionally saying,
    21   “This is where it happened, this was the geographical
    22  centre of the Holocaust”, and so on
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You say that is a post war reconstruction
    24  MR IRVING:  No, my Lord. We say something different about
    25  that. This is crematorium building in Birkenhau. What we
    26  say about that is that it was not what the Defence make

    .           P-113

      1  out that it was. With your Lordship’s permission and
      2  consent, I do not want to reveal precisely the arguments
      3  we will lead on this occasion. We will give the Defence
      4  great time to prepare counter arguments and we have spent
      5  a great deal of time and money with architectural
      6  consultants and so on providing this evidence. I would
      7  prefer to leave that evidence —-
      8   MR RAMPTON:  Can I intervene to say something about that? I do
      9  not find myself left very happy about what Mr Irving has
    10  just said. The days are long gone where a Claimant who
    11  responds to a plea of justification is entitled to keep
    12  his rabbits in his back pocket and pull them out when it
    13  suits him so as to deprive the other side of due notice so
    14  that they can deal with it. If he is sitting on expert
    15  reports, expert evidence, as indeed he flagged up
    16  yesterday in his opening that he was, then we must have
    17  them
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think that is right. Can we just take
    19  stock at the moment, Mr Irving, and see where we are
    20  going? You did, I think, say you were intending to show
    21  three videos. Are you really wanting to show a third
    22  one
    23  MR IRVING:  I sense a certain impatience of your Lordship
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I hope I am not displaying impatience. I am
    25  just telling you how I see the priorities. I am not
    26  impatient

    .           P-114

      1  MR IRVING:  Possibly when we come to the Auschwitz phase, it
      2  will be useful to show the next one which does concentrate
      3  much more closely on the fabric of the sites of Auschwitz

    Section 115.4 to 128.17

      4  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  May I ask you, following up what you told me
      5  yesterday about the misunderstanding, whether it is or it
      6  is not agreed that Auschwitz should be taken separately
      7  and first
      8  MR IRVING:  We have agreed that, my Lord, and we have reached a
      9  very satisfactory arrangement on the presentation of our
    10  principal witnesses from overseas
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is very good to know. Your opening is
    12  really concluded now, as I understand it
    13  MR IRVING:  That is so, my Lord
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So I think probably, unless you tell me that
    15  there is something else you want to deal with first, the
    16  time has come for you to start giving evidence
    17  MR IRVING:  What I had proposed to do this morning, my Lord,
    18  the bundle which I submitted this morning and replicates
    19  bundle D(ii), I think, which we have already had, which is
    20  a very large number of photocopies of all the books which
    21  I have ever written, apparently, which have been very ably
    22  put together by the Defendants. I had put together a
    23  selection of pages from those books on which I was going
    24  to draw your attention, passages which would refute
    25  statements that had been made by the Defendants and also
    26  by counsel yesterday

    .           P-115

      1  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  In relation to Auschwitz
      2  MR IRVING:  No, my Lord. Do I am apprehend that your Lordship
      3  wishes to deal immediately with Auschwitz or other
      4  different phases
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, if we are going to divide up the trial,
      6  and I can see the sense of it, into Auschwitz and the
      7  rest, it seems to me at the moment, and Mr Rampton may
      8  take a different view, I do not know, that it is sensible
      9  really to plunge into the issues that arise out of
    10  Auschwitz rather than going to anything else, because the
    11  time for doing that may be when we get to the second, as
    12  it were, half of the trial
    13  MR IRVING:  My Lord, the Auschwitz matter is an immensely
    14  complicated matter involving the assembly of a great deal
    15  of expert material, drawings. The Defendants deluged me
    16  on Friday evening after close of business with a further
    17  5,000 pages of documents from van Pelt’s report. To start
    18  straightaway today with that would put me at a
    19  gross disadvantage. I am sorry that there may be a
    20  misunderstanding. The agreement we reached was on the
    21  dates of presentation of our witnesses from beyond the
    22  seas, van Pelt in the case of the Defence and Professor
    23  McDonald in my case, and I was still hoping and
    24  anticipating we could deal with the reputation aspect
    25  first which is well prepared, and push Auschwitz along
    26  away from us for a while

    .           P-116

      1  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, you say “for a while”, I mean how long
      2  is the while
      3  MR IRVING:  As long as is necessary for me to deal with the
      4  reputation aspects of the case
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, I do see the sense of your
      6  establishing, I think by evidence, your reputation. I do
      7  not myself think that will take very long because, bear in
      8  mind, I have read a lot of the material. That is not to
      9  say I do not want to hear you say it from the witness box
    10  in summary
    11  MR IRVING:  My Lord, you have read it, but the Press have not
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, but the exercise is not really entirely
    13  for the members of the Press. I do not think we want to
    14  take a lot of time in dealing with matters which are not
    15  uncontentious, but which, perhaps, are not at the heart of
    16  what is the true issue between the parties. I am very
    17  anxious we get on if we can as soon as possible.
    18  Can I just see what Mr Rampton would suggest as
    19  the appropriate course? I think my own view is that
    20  Mr Irving ought to go into the witness box from now on
    21  because I think the case has really been opened. I see
    22  the sense of hearing some evidence about his reputation by
    23  way of preliminary
    24   MR RAMPTON:  I have read his witness statement. Apart from
    25  what he said in his opening yesterday, I really have no
    26  clue, no real clue, about what his case is on the detailed

    .           P-117

      1  factual issues. I am in the same position as your
      2  Lordship found yourself yesterday or said you did
      3  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes
      4   MR RAMPTON:  I would like to know what his case is and I do
      5  not
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, well, I understand that
      7   MR RAMPTON:  I do not mind what order he takes to do that. If
      8  he wants to saturate with his historiographical issues,
      9  his techniques and the inaccuracies of the criticisms
    10  which we have made, that is no problem to me at all.
    11  Whether he does it from the witness box or whether he does
    12  it as part of his opening, again I really do not mind
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, I do not think it is terribly important,
    14  but I think it probably is properly done by evidence
    15  rather than by further opening statements
    16   MR RAMPTON:  I agree. If he says he is not yet prepared to
    17  deal with the Auschwitz issues because they are, indeed,
    18  detailed and complicated, that is perfectly all right with
    19  us, but I do want to know what his case is and at the
    20  moment I do not
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, his case is to be found not only in his
    22  witness statement plainly but in the pleadings
    23   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I have some of his case from the reply
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. That is quite comprehensive, it
    25  appeared to me, on the extent to which Hitler is
    26  responsible for the Final Solution, relatively speaking

    .           P-118

      1   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, relatively
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is not, if I may say so, Mr Irving, very
      3  detailed in relation to Auschwitz. I have the broad
      4  thrust of your case, but I think there is a lack of
      5  detail
      6  MR IRVING:  My Lord, I am ignorant of the rules of procedure in
      7  this matter. Would it be possible for me to be examined
      8  in the witness box on two occasions?
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. Let us get clear what is being
    10  proposed. It is being proposed that there should be a
    11  division of this trial really into two separate
    12  compartments, one is Auschwitz which is to an extent a
    13  free standing issue, it seems to me, a discrete issue.
    14  The other is all the other issues, such as the bombing of
    15  Dresden, Hitler’s responsibility for the Final Solution,
    16  and so on. Obviously, they are not wholly separate, but
    17  I think they can be taken separately for the purposes of
    18  the trial
    19  MR IRVING:  My Lord, I think a perfectly satisfactory solution
    20  which the court will, no doubt, find favour with is that
    21  I will go into the witness box today and submit myself to
    22  cross-examination on my pleadings, on the statements that
    23  I have made, on the correspondence that I have submitted
    24  to the other parties, on my opening statement and whatever
    25  other matters they choose to put to me. I will answer
    26  from the baggage that I carry around in my memory. No

    .           P-119

      1  doubt, I will have the opportunity at a later date,
      2  possibly when I can go back to my diaries or other papers,
      3  to produce materials that I could not produce from
      4  memory. I am sure this would be an adequate solution to
      5  the problem
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  May I make a suggestion and then you can
      7  both, if you would like to, comment because I am very
      8  conscious you are in person and this is, for obvious
      9  reasons, not an easy case for you to conduct in person,
    10  but what I would suggest is that you now go into the
    11  witness box, that you deal with your reputation and your
    12  published works and so on, and you can take it that I have
    13  read your witness statement, that you then state, at any
    14  rate in broad outline, what your case is on Auschwitz —
    15  I am perfectly happy, as it were, to help you along by
    16  asking you questions and then you can elaborate in your
    17  answers — and then for Mr Rampton to cross-examine you in
    18  relation to Auschwitz,
    19  MR IRVING:  At a later date
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, straight off, why not? We are dealing
    21  with that issue first
    22  MR IRVING:  Very well
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Then we will have, I do not know whether this
    24  will work in terms of timing, the expert evidence in
    25  relation to Auschwitz, hopefully, from your expert and
    26  from Professor van Pelt. Then you will have the

    .           P-120

      1  opportunity to make submissions about it either at the
      2  very end of the case or, perhaps, at an earlier stage.
      3  Does that sound a sensible way of proceeding to you
      4  MR IRVING:  I am not too happy about being cross-examined on
      5  Auschwitz because our work on that is not complete. Your
      6  Lordship may consider this is irrelevant, whether our work
      7  on that is completed or not, because I am being asked
      8  about my own work and my own writings, and things that
      9  I may find out in the future are neither here nor there
    10  which is the phrase that I used yesterday, but I am sure
    11  your Lordship will have my interests at heart
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. I am very anxious that you should say
    13  whatever it is you want to say. Your case should be fully
    14  deployed. But the case has been brewing a very long
    15  time. I am a bit alarmed to hear that you are not, as it
    16  were, fully up to speed on the Auschwitz issue
    17  MR IRVING:  We have been fully up to speed repeatedly, my Lord,
    18  with all the indications of that phrase. Every time we
    19  thought we were up to speed, we then received a fresh
    20  avalanche of binders with further documents
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, plus the 5,000 pages on Friday
    22  MR IRVING:  Indeed, and more during the weekend
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Would you be content to proceed along the
    24  lines I have indicated and if you reach a point where, for
    25  example, Mr Rampton is putting to you a document which you
    26  have not had a chance to look at before, then you make

    .           P-121

      1  that point and —-
      2  MR IRVING:  Precisely.
      3  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  — we ask him, perhaps, to go on to some
      4  other point?
      5  MR IRVING:  I believe that the present atmosphere and climate
      6  of opinion in court is, as Mr Rampton rather indicated, it
      7  is not fair to sand bag your opponents with surprise
      8  materials.
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is very much the way in which litigation
    10  is now conducted.
    11  MR IRVING:  And we certainly have not done so. I found it
    12  mildly offensive that the Defendant should imply that we
    13  had. I have subjected the Defendants to a stream of
    14  questions over the last few weeks on their reports which,
    15  clearly, indicates which way we are thinking.
    16  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, may I now ask Mr Rampton whether he is
    17  happy to proceed in the way I have just outlined?
    18   MR RAMPTON:  I will proceed in any way your Lordship wants; the
    19  problem I have starting straightaway with Auschwitz is
    20  simply a practical one. I do not have my Auschwitz papers
    21  here. I have to go and get them.
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
    23   MR RAMPTON:  We will not get to Auschwitz today? In that case,
    24  there is no problem, I can start tomorrow. If I do not
    25  have to cross-examine today, then I do not have any
    26  problem at all. I will start wherever it pleases your

    .           P-122

      1  Lordship tomorrow.
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But, in principle, the idea of dealing with
      3  Auschwitz separately is one that I believe you are in
      4  favour of?
      5   MR RAMPTON:  Yes. We were given an indication that Mr Irving’s
      6  opening in evidence-in-chief would take us up to about the
      7  end of the week after next, that is to say, until Monday,
      8  24th January, which is why Professor van Pelt is not here
      9  at the moment. So, in that sense I have a slight
    10  reluctance to start on Auschwitz until he gets here. It
    11  is not an overwhelming reluctance by any means at all.
    12  I can quite easily, on the other hand, start with
    13  something completely different. I can start with issues
    14  arising from Professor Evans’ report without any problem
    15  at all.
    16  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  He covers really the whole gamut.
    17   MR RAMPTON:  I know. From your Lordship’s point of view, that
    18  is perhaps a little inconvenient. The alternative — it
    19  is one I do not advance with any great warmth — is to
    20  adjourn this case until the beginning of next week by
    21  which time Mr Irving should be up to speed on Auschwitz.
    22   I say that for this reason. Although it is
    23  perfectly true that the source documents were served on
    24  him last week, Van Pelt’s report, the fact is that a very
    25  large number of those reports, documents, plans are
    26  illustrated in van Pelt’s report; that they have been

    .           P-123

      1  available in the archives in Auschwitz and in Moscow for a
      2  very long time. The main report was served at the end of
      3  July last year. I do not have all of that much sympathy
      4  with Mr Irving — I have some, of course, because he is in
      5  person.
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. I think the point you make is actually
      7  a fair one, that Professor van Pelt makes his point in his
      8  report without actually exhibiting the source material,
      9  but it is pretty obvious what he is saying.
    10  MR IRVING:  My Lord, it is not. Architectural consultants who
    11  have asked us for detailed drawings of many levels of the
    12  construction work that went on over a period. They need
    13  to know where the light switches were, that kind of
    14  thing. You cannot see that kind of information from the
    15  rather smudgey photocopies that were exhibited to the
    16  report.
    17  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
    18   MR RAMPTON:  You do not do any better if you look at the nice
    19  coloured photographs which Professor van Pelt has now
    20  produced in that regard. They are just better copies of
    21  what he has already reproduced.
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am very reluctant to adjourn the case.
    23  I really think we have to get on for obvious reasons.
    24  MR IRVING:  My Lord, can we not start the cross-examination on
    25  non-Auschwitz matters which will certainly take us up to
    26  the weekend? I am sure Mr Rampton has a any number of

    .           P-124

      1  questions he is curious about.
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am perfectly easy. I think you had between
      3  you reached agreement. It appears, perhaps, that is not
      4  really right. I do not mind in which order we take
      5  things. I think there is something to be said for taking
      6  Auschwitz first, but if you prefer that it was dealt with
      7  the other way round, that is fine.
      8   MR RAMPTON:  I can deal with a whole range of different topics,
      9  not necessarily in an orderly fashion. That is the
    10  trouble. What I am anxious to avoid is when I do get to
    11  Auschwitz in cross-examination, perhaps it might be
    12  tomorrow, for example, Mr Irving says, “Well, I am sorry,
    13  I cannot answer that, I have not had time to think about
    14  it or to instruct myself”. That is absolutely hopeless.
    15  He then comes back, having heard my questions, and we have
    16  to start all over again.
    17  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I see that.
    18   MR RAMPTON:  I am not really interested in attributing blame
    19  for these things. He is obviously not up to speed on
    20  Auschwitz and I do not really want to cross-examine him on
    21  it until he is because it is an unfair contest, apart from
    22  anything else.
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Let us do it the other way round then. Let
    24  us take the other issues. That is really a course that
    25  you prefer, is it not?
    26  MR IRVING:  That was my original proposal, my Lord.

    .           P-125

      1   MR RAMPTON:  When Professor van Pelt gets here (which is the
      2  week after next, I think) then I will start on Auschwitz
      3  because that, I would think, would have given Mr Irving
      4  enough time
      5  MR IRVING:  We are looking forward to it, in fact
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We will proceed on the opposite basis of
      7  taking all the other issues
      8  MR IRVING:  I am indebted, my Lord
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is up to you in which order you deal with
    10  them, but you will start with your reputation and history
    11  which I think you can take quite —-
    12  MR IRVING:  In cross-examination
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, this is in chief
    14  MR IRVING:  Right
    15  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Then it is really entirely up to you,
    16  I think, how much you want to say in chief, and it is not
    17  very easy for you to do because in a sense you will be
    18  making a speech from the witness box, or whether you want
    19  to simply submit yourself to cross-examination on these
    20  various other issues, Dresden, Hitler’s role, and the
    21  like
    22  MR IRVING:  The court would simply certainly prefer for reasons
    23  of integrity that the evidence should be under oath
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I would, I think that is the right way of
    25  doing it
    26  MR IRVING:  Then the sooner I go into the witness box,

    .           P-126

      1  therefore, the better. That may well speed things up
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. So you are happy to proceed in that
      3  way
      4  MR IRVING:  I am happy to proceed in that way, provided the
      5  Auschwitz stage is left until later on
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is going to be. Mr Rampton, you are
      7  content with that as well
      8   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I agree to that. I will find something else
      9  to start with
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sure you will. Mr Irving, the next
    11  problem, and you can really choose whichever you prefer,
    12  that is the witness box. If you find it more convenient
    13  to stay where you, I am perfectly happy if Mr Rampton is
    14  happy at this stage anyway, for the evidence to be given
    15  from there. When it comes to cross-examination, the
    16  position may be different because I do not see that you
    17  can really cross-examine along a row. But it may be
    18  easier for Mr Irving to stay where he is for the time
    19  being
    20   MR RAMPTON:  That is what Miss Rogers suggested. It is a good
    21  idea. He has all his papers there. When he gets to be
    22  cross-examined, we may have to have a break while he gets
    23  all the stuff up there because I cannot cross-examine side
    24  by side
    25  MR IRVING:  I would prefer, my Lord, the first part of the
    26  cross-examination should be done from box, but when we

    .           P-127

    Part II: David Irving’s Evidence in Chief (128.18 to 216.6)

      1  come to the Auschwitz stage where we will have papers,
      2  I might revert to your Lordship’s original proposal, that
      3  it should be continued with me standing here
      4  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We will see about that when the time comes.
      5  But would you prefer to give your evidence-in-chief —-
      6  MR IRVING:  I would prefer to give it from the traditional
      7  place
      8  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Unless you want to deal with anything else,
      9  I think you ought to go and be sworn
    10  MR IRVING:  Very well, my Lord. At some stage, of course, my
    11  Lord, your Lordship is aware wish to deal with the
    12  Hizbollah allegations and the Farrakhan allegations, but
    13  this can done at any time
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think even that is best done from the
    15  witness box because this is a libel trial, it is a rather
    16  unusual one, but you will want to give what one might call
    17  some of the standard defamation evidence

    Section 128.18 to 135.13

    18  MR DAVID IRVING, sworn
    19  Examined by the Court
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, I think the best thing is if
    21  I give you a little bit if a steer, if I can put it that
    22  way. Would you rather sit down
    23  <spanclass=”speaker”>A. [Mr Irving] I am not sure that I need scaring
    24  <spanclass=”speaker”>Q. [Mr Justice Gray] No, the word I used was “steer” not “scare”, simply so
    25  that your evidence has a shape that might make it more
    26  comprehensible. Shall we start by your full name address

    .           P-128

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: My full name is David John Cawdell — I will spell that,
      2  C-A-W-D-E-L-L Irving, I-R-V-I-N-G
      3  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: And address
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: My address is No. 81 Duke Street, London W1
      5  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes. You have made a witness statement for the purposes
      6  of this action and it is dated 22nd January last year.
      7  Would you formally confirm that that is so
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: That is so. I have made a witness statement and the
      9  statements in it are true
    10  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, thank you. Now, you can take it that I have read it,
    11  but, as you pointed out a little while ago, the Press is
    12  reporting this case and I think it would be right to give
    13  you the opportunity to restate in summary form anything
    14  that you wish to from that statement
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: I do not have a copy of the statement with me
    16  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I think you probably should. Do you have anyone to help
    17  you fetch and carry documents
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: My entire staff was called to the Bar just before
    19  Christmas, unfortunately
    20  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Perhaps if you can provide? Thank you
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: The statement is 18 pages, my Lord. If I were to read the
    22  statement out, it would take us until lunch time or would
    23  that be too long
    24  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I am very much against you doing that because the main
    25  object of the exercise is, perhaps, to get your evidence
    26  across to me. I have read it, but I am giving you the

    .           P-129

      1  opportunity to be selective and make in a summary way any
      2  of the points that you want to make again in your oral
      3  evidence
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: I think I have made the principal statements from this.
      5  I repeated them in my opening statement yesterday. My
      6  books have received high praise from established academic,
      7  official and government historians in every country where
      8  they have been published. I just mention the names of
      9  Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, AJP Taylor, Professor MRD
    10  Foot, Captan Stephen Roskill, Professor Norman Stone,
    11  Professor Donald Cameron Watt. The reason I
    12  have mentioned those names, as your Lordship will see in
    13  your files copies of the reviews and praise that these
    14  people have given to my works.
    15   I have not only written about World War II, of
    16  course; I have also written about other matters like the
    17  Hungarian Uprising and the German Uranian Research
    18  Programme during World War II.
    19   John Keegan, the Defence Correspondent for The
    20  Daily Telegraph (and your Lordship will be aware why I
    21  have stated this) has written: “Two books in English
    22  stand out from the vast literature of the Second World
    23  War: Chester Wilmott’s ‘The Struggle for Europe’
    24  published in 1952 and David Irving ‘Hitler’s War'” which
    25  appeared three years ago. That kind of quotation rather
    26  gives the lie to the statement by the Second Defendant

    .           P-130

      1  which we saw on video that nobody takes me seriously.
      2   It says here in about 1975 Adolf Hitler’s
      3  Private Secretary, the late Christa Schroeder, gave me a
      4  small pencil sketch, a self-portrait of Adolf Hitler,
      5  which he had retrieved from his desk in the last days of
      6  the war. She gave it to me as a gift and I keep it. I do
      7  not, of course, have any kind of portrait of Adolf Hitler
      8  on my office hanging on the wall in the way that has been
      9  described.
    10   Am I proceeding in the correct manner
    11  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, I think this is exactly what I think is the right way
    12  of proceeding
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: I consider myself to be an expert on the careers of the
    14  principal Nazi leaders, including specifically Adolf
    15  Hitler, Goring and Dr Josef Goebbels. I am an expert on
    16  the archives about these people. I am expert on the
    17  current state of research into German and other wartime
    18  persecution and liquidation of the European Jewish
    19  communities
    20  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You said yesterday — I am sorry to interrupt you– that
    21  you did not regard yourself as being an historian of the
    22  Holocaust, can you just in your evidence —-
    23  A. [Mr Irving]: This is true
    24  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — explain what you mean
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: There is a subtle difference. I am an expert in the state
    26  of research but not on their findings, so to speak. I am

    .           P-131

      1  an expert on the way they go about their research, but not
      2  so much on the actual details of the Holocaust, and so on
      3  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: When you say “they”, who do you mean by “they”, the
      4  Defendants
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: No, my Lord. I am sorry, I should have made myself
      6  clear. I mean the Holocaust historians, the historians
      7  who specialize in that topic
      8  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: Over the years I have collected a very large archive of
    10  original documents and copies of original documents, like
    11  private diaries and papers like that, from the top Nazi
    12  leaders using various techniques and methods, all entirely
    13  legal and, as part of my technique, I would then donate
    14  these papers immediately to the suitable archives so they
    15  are immediately available to other historians.
    16   My views upon politics are on page 1047
    17  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: The Defendants have chosen to refer to my politics and
    19  they wrongly categorise them. They say that I am extreme
    20  right-wing or something like that. I have never belonged
    21  to a political party, left or right, except I think
    22  I joined the Young Conservatives at University.
    23   My father stood as a Labour candidate in the
    24  1945 General Election. I voted for Sir James Goldsmith,
    25  my Lord, if I can make that point in the last election, in
    26  other words, neither one nor the other. I regard myself

    .           P-132

      1  as a laissez faire Liberal. In other words, I do not
      2  really care much about politics so long as they spend the
      3  money on hospitals rather than Millennium Domes. I have a
      4  family reason for saying that.
      5   I do not look down on any section of humanity,
      6  either coloured immigrants, I have regularly employed
      7  them, or females. Your Lordship will appreciate the
      8  reasons why I make these points. I have five daughters,
      9  in fact — I am sorry, I had five daughters.
    10   I do not look down on the mentally or physically
    11  disabled. I admit to having little patience with smokers
    12  and none at all with drug abusers. This is not to say
    13  that I have applauded — I have to state this because
    14  I will probably be asked about it — I cannot say that I
    15  have applauded the uncontrolled tide of commonwealth
    16  immigration into this country.
    17   Like most fellow countrymen of my background and
    18  vintage, I regret the passing of the Old England.
    19  I sometimes think, my Lord, that if the soldiers and
    20  sailors who stormed the beaches of Normandy in 1944 could
    21  see what England would be like at the end of this century,
    22  they would not have got 50 yards up the beach. I think
    23  they would have given up in disgust
    24  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You said you are getting towards paragraph 23 of your
    25  witness statement, 1048
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: My reputation as an historian

    .           P-133

      1  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You said you wanted to develop that and I think now is
      2  probably the appropriate time to do that, if you want to
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: I have, of course, a very large collection of ring binders
      4  of Press clippings which have been made available to the
      5  Defendants and in which they have not shown the slightest
      6  interest. Reviews in all the leading newspapers of the
      7  world of the books that I have written. I believe I have
      8  written about 30. I could have produced all those reviews
      9  to the court, but if I just summarize and say that they
    10  are largely very favourable reviews, the kinds of reviews
    11  that made publishers line up to publish my books until the
    12  turning of tide.
    13   Obviously, there were some reviews that you
    14  could describe as the curate’s egg, but, by and large, the
    15  reviews were exceptionally favourable. It may be said
    16  that the reviewers were not as clever, perhaps, as the
    17  expert witnesses whom the Defendants have summoned for
    18  this case. That may be one argument; maybe they had not
    19  seen though me, perhaps. Arguments like that will be
    20  advanced, but I submit this is not the case. These were
    21  book reviews written by experts in their own field, like
    22  Captain Steven Roskill who was an eminent naval historian,
    23  Professor MRD Foot, who is another official historian,
    24  Professor Sir Frank Hinsley. If I just summarize it as
    25  briefly as that, my Lord
    26  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, I think that is sufficient

    .           P-134

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: If you wish to question that, of course, I will be quite
      2  happy to put in all the evidence to support the
      3  contention, but Defendants have not shown any interest in
      4  these statements
      5  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Can you help me because I have not alighted on them. Are
      6  they in one of the files
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: They were within my discovery. They were disclosed to the
      8  Defendants in proper form. Admittedly, I did not do an
      9  index of the entire set, but they were shown 16 ring
    10  binders full of chronologically organized, properly pasted
    11  up reviews and Press clippings in which, who knows, they
    12  might have found some goodies they could have used against
    13  me, I do not know, but they did not bother with them

    Section 135.14 to 152.17

    14  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Take your own course, Mr Irving, but do you now want to
    15  deal with the publication of “Denying the Holocaust”
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: The publication of the book. I paid no attention to that
    17  book, my Lord, until 1996. It did not come into my ken
    18  until 1996. I believe it was published in 1994, but in
    19  April 1996 we published in this country my book the
    20  Goebbels’ biography, “Goebbels. Mastermind of the Third
    21  Reich”. Your Lordship will be aware this is the only book
    22  that I requested that your Lordship study in some detail
    23  because it is a book that I am particularly proud of.
    24   When we began marketing that book in the United
    25  Kingdom, which meant literally that I and my publisher
    26  imprint rented a van and visited approximately 980

    .           P-135

      1  bookstores up and down the length and breadth of the
      2  country, which is a very enjoyable exercise. I do not do
      3  it out of tedium; it is very interesting to visit the
      4  bookstores and their managers. We marketed the book
      5  directly to them and we sold many thousands of copies in
      6  this manner, but we came across the phenomenon that in a
      7  number of bookstores, particularly in the Waterstones
      8  chain, the head of the history department took an aversion
      9  to me.
    10   After visiting a number of the bookstores, it
    11  became quite plain that the reason for the aversion to me
    12  was the fact that they were selling the book “Denying the
    13  Holocaust”, published by the first Defendant and written
    14  by the Second Defendant. This book was being believed by
    15  Waterstones or by their employes and by, no doubt, other
    16  bookstores too. It was causing me considerable concern
    17  because these bookstores were thereupon refusing to stock
    18  my books.
    19   So I thereupon during that tour began to
    20  purchase copies of “Denying the Holocaust” as evidence
    21  that the book was on sale within the jurisdiction. I put
    22  the publishers on notice. I put the author on notice.
    23  I put certain of the book sellers themselves on notice
    24  because under the Defamation Act anybody in the
    25  distribution chain can be held liable for the peddling of
    26  libels. I subsequently, of course, separated those —

    .           P-136

      1  I discontinued the action against the book sellers for
      2  reasons that need not occupy the court.
      3   At the beginning of September 1996, which is
      4  that same year, which had been a very harrowing year for
      5  me, as I had seen my American publishers, St Martin’s
      6  Press, in conjunction with my big American publisher,
      7  Doubledays, simultaneously deciding, we now learn, upon
      8  representations made by the Second Defendant not to go
      9  ahead with publication of my Goebbels’ biography,
    10  I decided that I had no recourse but to take libel action
    11  against this book which was, obviously, part of the cause
    12  of my problem.
    13   So I issued the writ, after taking usual
    14  procedural steps, the letter before action and so on,
    15  I think it was dated September 6th 1996
    16  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes. Now, you have selected for complaint a number of
    17  particular passages from the book and I think it would be
    18  appropriate if you were to deal with them, and where you
    19  best find them, I do not know, but certainly they are to
    20  be found in your Statement of Claim, but it may be you
    21  would rather deal with it in some other way
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: May I return my papers and collect the Statement of
    23  Claim
    24  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, of if you point out where they are, perhaps somebody
    25  can do it for you rather than having you go backwards and
    26  forwards

    .           P-137

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: They are in the ring binder
      2  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Thank you very much
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I was defamed and libelled on a number of pages
      4  in the book. I do not propose to read out, unless your
      5  Lordship wishes otherwise, the specific passages
      6  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: No. You are entitled to take your own course about that
      7  but I think what you ought to do is just give an
      8  indication of —-
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: I will read out —-
    10  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — why you object to the passages that you have selected
    11  for complaint
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: If I go to paragraph 9 of the Statement of Claim which is
    13   “The natural or ordinary meaning of the words complained
    14  of”
    15  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: I contend that the passages meant, and were intended to
    17  mean and understood to mean, firstly, “that the
    18  Plaintiff”, meaning myself, “is a dangerous spokesperson
    19  for Holocaust denial … for denial forces who
    20  deliberately and knowingly consorts and consorted with
    21  anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and Holocaust denial forces and
    22  who contracted to attend a world anti-Zionist conference
    23  in Sweden in November 1992, thereby agreeing to appear in
    24  public in support of and alongside violent and extremist
    25  speakers, including representatives of the violent and
    26  extremist anti-Semitic Russian group, Pamyat, and of the

    .           P-138

      1  Iranian-backed Hezbollah and of the fundamentalist Islamic
      2  organization Hamas and including the black Muslim leader
      3  Louis Farrakhan, born Louis Eugene Walcott, who is known
      4  as a Jew-baiting black agitator, as a leader of the US
      5  Nation of Islam, as an admirer of Hitler and who is in the
      6  pay of Colonel Gaddafi”.
      7   My Lord, the wording that I use in this is, of
      8  course, very closely related to the wording used in the
      9  work complained of. I have not chosen those words
    10  myself. I have merely distilled them out of the
    11  Defendant’s text and adhered as closely as possible to the
    12  original wording
    13  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes. You are just paraphrasing really
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: I am not even paraphrasing, my Lord. I am gluing the
    15  words together into a complaint form using the words
    16  actually used by the Defendants in the work complained of
    17  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: That is what I meant by “paraphrase”
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: So I have added no colour, I have turned up no volume.
    19  These are the extraordinary words used to describe me by
    20  the Defendants. They say, “that the Plaintiff”, myself,
    21   “is an historian who has inexplicably misled”, in other
    22  words, the word “inexplicably” is in the original book,
    23   “misled academic historians like Ernst Nolte into quoting
    24  historically invalid points contained in his writings”, my
    25  writings, “and who applauds the internment of Jews in Nazi
    26  concentration camps”. I am accused of having applauded

    .           P-139

      1  the internment of Jews in Nazi concentration camps which
      2  is a particularly perverse allegation in my view.
      3   No. (iii) “that the Plaintiff”, David Irving,
      4   “routinely perversely and by way of his profession, but
      5  essentially in order to serve his own reprehensible
      6  purposes ideological leanings and/or political agenda”,
      7  and here are the allegations, “distort accurate historical
      8  evidence and information; misstate; misconstrue; misquote;
      9  falsify statistics; falsely attribute conclusions to
    10  reliable sources; manipulate documents; wrongfully quote
    11  from books that directly contradict my arguments in such a
    12  manner as completely to distort their author’s objectives
    13  and while counting on the ignorance or indolence of the
    14  majority of readers not to realize this”
    15  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: May I interrupt and ask you this? Am I right in thinking
    16  (and I may be quite wrong) that really that is the
    17  imputation against you which causes you the most concern
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: Professionally, clearly so, my Lord
    19  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: I mean, the name calling is neither here nor there and
    21  your Lordship may make of it what your Lordship wants,
    22  I submit. Clearly, some of the name calling will stick,
    23  but it would be a real waste of this court’s time if
    24  I take each of the names I have been called in turn and
    25  try to prove that is not so. This is what has cost me my
    26  career, unless the court disposes otherwise at the end of

    .           P-140

      1  this trial, my Lord.
      2   I complained that the work complained of
      3  describes me as an Adolf Hitler partisan who wears
      4  blinkers and skews documents and misrepresents data in
      5  order to reach historically untenable conclusions
      6  specifically those that exonerate Hitler.
      7   I am accused of being an ardent admirer of the
      8  Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler, an ardent admirer of the Nazi
      9  leader, Adolf Hitler; that I conceive myself as carrying
    10  on Hitler’s criminal legacy and that I placed a
    11  self-portrait of Hitler over my desk; that I
    12  have described a visit to Hitler’s mountain top retreat as
    13  a spirit experience; that I have described myself as a
    14  moderate fascist. These are the allegations contained in
    15  the book.
    16   Further, that before the Zundel trial began in
    17  1988 in Toronto, I, the Plaintiff, compromising my
    18  integrity as an historian, and in an attempt to pervert
    19  the course of justice and one Faurisson, Robert Faurisson
    20  whom we saw in the video, that I wrongfully and/or
    21  fraudulently conspired together to invite an American
    22  prison warden and thereafter one Fred Leuchter, an
    23  engineer who is depicted by the Defendants as a charlatan,
    24  to testify as a tactic for proving that the gas chambers
    25  were a myth”.
    26   The loaded words in that sentence, my Lord, are

    .           P-141

      1  words that are actually contained in the book.
      2   “That the Plaintiff after attending Mr Zundel’s
      3  trial in 1988 in Toronto, having previously hovered on the
      4  brink now denies the murder by the Nazis of the Jews”. So
      5  I deny the murder by the Nazis of the Jews, this is one of
      6  the allegations. That I described the memorial to the
      7  dead at Auschwitz as a tourist attraction; that I was
      8  branded by the British House of Commons as “Hitler’s
      9  Heir”, and that I was denounced by the same British House
    10  of Commons as a Nazi propagandist and long-time Hitler
    11  apologist and accused by them of publishing a fascist
    12  publication, and that this marked the end of my reputation
    13  in England.
    14   My Lord, it may possibly not be familiar to the
    15  Defendants that there is a distinction between an early
    16  day motion being put in the House of Commons by a group of
    17  disgruntled members of Parliament and the House of Commons
    18  actually voting and reaching a decision. It is nothing
    19  more than a propaganda move by people who wish to draw
    20  attention to something within the privileged atmosphere.
    21  It is rather like the privileged atmosphere that exists in
    22  this court, my Lord; people can say what they want about
    23  me and the newspapers are free to print it
    24  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, well, I certainly do know about early day motions,
    25  so…
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: That some other person had discovered in a Russian archive

    .           P-142

      1   — this is the allegation in the book — that some other
      2  person had discovered in the Russian archive in 1992 the
      3  Goebbels’ diaries, that it was assumed that these would
      4  shed light on the conduct of the Final Solution, but that
      5  I was hired and paid a significant sum by the London
      6  Sunday Times to transcribe and translate, although I was a
      7  discredited and ignominious figure and, although by hiring
      8  the Plaintiff, the newspaper threw its task as a
      9  gatekeeper of the truth and of journalistic ethics to the
    10  winds and, although there was thereby increased the danger
    11  that the Plaintiff would in order to serve his own
    12  reprehensible purposes misstate, misconstrue, misquote,
    13  falsify, distort and/or manipulate these sets of documents
    14  which others had not seen, namely, the Goebbels’ diaries;
    15  I would do all that in order to propagate my reprehensible
    16  views and that I, the Plaintiff, was unfit to perform such
    17  a function for this newspaper.
    18   Finally, the book contained the allegation that
    19  I violated an agreement with the Russian archives, and
    20  that I took and copied many plates without permission
    21  causing significant damage to them and rendering them of
    22  limited use to subsequent researchers
    23  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Mr Irving, the first of those imputations that you say
    24  that Professor Lipstadt makes against you in her book is
    25  one that links you with Hamas and Hezbollah, and again
    26  I think you indicated earlier on that you wanted to say

    .           P-143

      1  something about those organizations
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I put to your Lordship a small bundle of
      3  documents —-
      4  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: — on those organisations
      6  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I have read it.
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: It is probably not necessary for me to go in detail
      8  through them. I will indicate to your Lordship that
      9  reliable sources, like the BBC or other news media
    10  organizations, have consistently described the Hezbollah
    11  and Hamas, which are two Muslim fundamentalist terrorist
    12  organizations, as being criminal organizations whose
    13  members are not allowed into other countries and are
    14  actively pursued by the forces of law and order and,
    15  indeed, actively pursued with less law and order by the
    16  forces of the Mossad, who sometimes dispose of them by
    17  jabbing the aforementioned hypodermic needle laden with
    18  nerve gas into their neck which is one of the documents
    19  which I put before your Lordship
    20  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, I have read them
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: So anybody who is described in this reckless way as being
    22  a member of the Hamas or the Hezbollah or some other
    23  similar terrorist organization is at risk of being
    24  declared fair game with the forces of law and order or, at
    25  the very least, for the immigration authorities and
    26  countries who already look askance upon people for various

    .           P-144

      1  reasons and, at worst, they are having their life put at
      2  risk or they are going to be ruffed up in the street by
      3  people who disagree with the Hezbollah or the Hamas.
      4   I do not share your Lordship’s earlier opinion
      5  at the pretrial review that is a matter which falls under
      6  section 5 of the Act, my Lord
      7  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I did not express any concluded view, obviously
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: I am sorry, my Lord. This was totally misquoted
      9  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Can you help me on something else? You will have the
    10  opportunity to make submissions about that later on. You
    11  supplied documents relating to the bombing in Oklahoma
    12  City. Does that feature in Professor Lipstadt’s book
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: It does not feature in the book, my Lord, but I thought
    14  this was the appropriate bundle to put them, in February
    15  1996 the media in the United States, where such
    16  allegations can be made with impunity, raised the
    17  allegation that I had supplied the trigger mechanism for
    18  the Oklahoma City bomb.
    19   Now, the Oklahoma City bombing features in some
    20  of the documents quoted, I believe, by Professor Evans or
    21  by Professor Brian Levin, because they quote from my diary
    22  on that particular day; and to be accused of having
    23  anything to do with that crime was something I found
    24  particularly repugnant and I regard it as being part of
    25  the general campaign to vilify me and blacken my name
    26  which originated from the same sources which have funded

    .           P-145

      1  the Defendants with the material they have used to smear
      2  me. It is no more directly associated with them than
      3  that
      4  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Thank you very much
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: But it is like trying to put a hook into a custard pie.
      6  You cannot really pin anything down until you stand back
      7  and you see the whole continuum of the onslaught to which
      8  I have been subjected
      9  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: The next thing you might want to deal with, Mr Irving, is
    10  the effect that that the publication of the book of which
    11  you complain has had on you. I have seen what you say in
    12  your witness statement about that, but if you want to
    13  expatiate on that, then please do
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, people have said to me, “Why have you picked on
    15  that book and those particular Defendants?” and the simple
    16  answer is because it is an open and shut case. I have
    17  been accused of doing things which they cannot justify.
    18  If we admittedly find it more difficult to disprove the
    19  subjective claims, ad hominem statements that are made,
    20  there are certain specific claims that are made, like the
    21  Adolf Hitler portrait or like the misquoting of documents
    22  or deliberate and reprehensible mistranslation or
    23  distortion, which are easy to disprove and they are the
    24  ones which reflect on my professional integrity and on my
    25  career and on my livelihood, which is precisely what the
    26  Defamation act, as I understand it, is about

    .           P-146

      1   This is one reason why I decided that the time
      2  had come after 30 years to take some kind of action which
      3  I did with the utmost reluctance because Penguin Books,
      4  the First Defendants, have published books of my own in
      5  the past and you are not eager to go and sue people who
      6  have published your own books.
      7   The book, undoubtedly, had caused me serious
      8  damage. When I consider, admittedly, this was not damage
      9  within the jurisdiction, and it is possible the Defence
    10  counsel objected and it is, therefore, relevant, but in
    11  view of the fact that the publication of this book and the
    12  author of the book were widely quoted in justification by
    13  the American publishers for cancelling my Dr Goebbels’
    14  biography, which was for me a particularly wounding and
    15  injurious event, when I wrote the biography of
    16  Dr Goebbels, it was a task of nine years, my Lord.
    17   We have just spent three years preparing this
    18  case, writing that one book which your Lordship has seen
    19  took me nine years. It went through, I think, six
    20  different drafts; the first draft entirely in handwriting,
    21  the drafts of the manuscript which the Defendants have
    22  seen fills some ten cubic feet of boxes, as it was refined
    23  and refined and then finally totally rewritten when I came
    24  into possession of the diaries. The book was set to
    25  restore my reputation completely until the United States,
    26  because your Lordship may well agree that the book cannot

    .           P-147

      1  be described as “anti-Semitic”, the book, in my
      2  submission, cannot be described as justifying the
      3  Holocaust or admiring Hitler or exonerating Hitler in any
      4  kind of way, the book was, I consider, one of the most
      5  well-founded and well-researched and watertight accounts
      6  of the higher leadership of the Third Reich that I have
      7  ever written. It was the crowning point of my career. We
      8  waited with the utmost eagerness for publication day in
      9  the United States, shortly before which the publishers
    10  contacted me and said, Mr Irving, we are beginning to come
    11  under attack from all quarters. One of the quarters was
    12  from the second Defendant
    13  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Your evidence is, is it, that the — I think you said “the
    14  author” did you mean..
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: The Second Defendant
    16  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: The American publishers of the Goebbels book told you that
    17  Professor Lipstadt and —
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: No, my Lord, media accounts have linked Professor Lipstadt
    19  with this particular event
    20  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — media accounts, rather than the American publishers
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: This is true, my Lord, and it is very unsatisfactory that
    22  we are not going to be able, as I understand it, to
    23  question Professor Lipstadt about what contact she may
    24  have had
    25   If I may state at this point also, one would
    26  have liked to have seen in her discovery, had her

    .           P-148

      1  discovery been complete, and I am going to submit her
      2  discovery was incomplete, any correspondence that she
      3  might have had or any communications she might or might
      4  not have had with the publishers’ concerns, St Martins
      5  Press, or with the people who were putting pressure on the
      6  publishers, because the Second Defendant was certainly
      7  instantly quoted as an authority on the reasons why the
      8  book should be suppressed
      9  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, but you are entitled to make applications for
    10  discovery, but let us focus on your evidence. If you want
    11  to make that application we can deal with that at the
    12  beginning or the end of the day
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: It is not an application, my Lord, it is an allegation.
    14  I was informed by the second Defendants’ lawyers when your
    15  Lordship will have seen that I succeeded in obtaining an
    16  order that the Second Defendant should be required to
    17  swear a list on affidavit. When that occurs, as your
    18  Lordship is aware, I am not allowed to go behind the
    19  affidavit until the trial of the action. I was repeatedly
    20  reminded of this by the defendants’ solicitors, who said
    21  you will be able to cross-examine Professor Lipstadt when
    22  the time comes, on her affidavit, and, of course, now we
    23  will not
    24  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: That is not the last time I shall refer to that, my Lord.
    26  I find it an unfortunate state of affairs

    .           P-149

      1   So the book anyway in the United States did not
      2  appear. The just proceeds of that book not appearing were
      3  denied to me. But not only the just proceeds of that book
      4  but as it seems now all future books, because all the
      5  publishers with whom I previously dealt in the United
      6  States have pointed to that episode in grief and terror
      7  and said we cannot afford that to happen to us. The
      8  chairman of the St Martin’s Press was obliged to resign
      9  six weeks later over the scandal and nobody wanted to go
    10  through that again
    11  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes. So that is your evidence about the effect of what
    12  has been published by these Defendants. Now —
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: Specific details, yes, my Lord, of course, there is a
    14  long-term effect in this country as well
    15  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — describe that
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: The book, which has been published by the First and Second
    17  Defendants has been not just sold through the normal
    18  outlets, it has been placed on the Internet on two
    19  different website locations. I have no way of knowing
    20  whether they are active participants in that or not
    21  because we cannot cross-examine them on that. I, the
    22  Defendant, but the book has been made available in other
    23  words to 200 million Internet users. They can download it
    24  free, the entire book, and review probably regardless of
    25  whatever injunction your Lordship sees fit to make at the
    26  end of this trial that book will continue in perpetuity in

    .           P-150

      1  cyber space. The book has been donated to very large
      2  numbers of university libraries around the world. One of
      3  my correspondents at the University of Durham has found no
      4  fewer than three copies in Durham University library with
      5  library plate gummed into the front saying “donated by
      6  Friends of Durham University History Society”. There is
      7  no such Society. So it has been actively propagated by
      8  who knows whom. The book is relied on as a source. It is
      9  an authoritative source by people who wish to attack me
    10  further. So it has an ongoing rolling effect far beyond
    11  the effect it has just on the one customer who picks it up
    12  at his local Barns & Noble or Waterstones bookshop, my
    13  Lord.
    14   Of course, the book is a very much more serious
    15  libel — vehicle for a libel then a newspaper. When
    16  newspapers have libeled me or defamed me in the past and
    17  people have come to me wringing their hands in grief as
    18  you will see from one of the speeches I made. I said, fear
    19  not because today is already Monday and what appeared
    20  yesterday is already wrapping fish and chips or being
    21  flushed down the drains in some paper processing plant.
    22  Whereas books go into libraries.
    23   But simultaneously, as your Lordship will have
    24  seen from the witness statement of Professor Evans, when
    25  he went to the British Library and asked to obtain a copy
    26  of my book he was told that it had mysteriously been put

    .           P-151

      1  in the pornographic book section and was not freely
      2  available. The book which I have on the desk in front, my
      3  book “Hitler’s War”.
      4   It is quite ingenious campaign, my Lord, I would
      5  aver that on the one side my book is being suppressed and
      6  squirreled away, hidden out of sight so people cannot see
      7  what I actually wrote. Pressure is put on publishers so
      8  they do not publish my books and simultaneously a campaign
      9  is launched by very well qualified writers and very gifted
    10  writers, armed with ammunition from all around the world
    11  in an attempt to defame me which I then cannot answer.
    12   Has your Lordship further questions on —-
    13  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Not on that aspect, and I do not want to impose any kind
    14  of rigid pattern to your evidence if you do not want it to
    15  emerge in that way
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I find it is very useful that you ask me these
    17  questions because it is like an examination in chief

    Section 152.18 to 172.19

    18  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I hoped you might. Yes, that is what it is really intended
    19  to be. What I was going to suggest you deal with now, is
    20  the plea of justification because that is obviously the
    21  main issue. If it is not inconvenient to you it would be
    22  most helpful to me if you were to deal perhaps quite
    23  briefly with the various allegations that are put against
    24  you in the Defendant’s summary of case, because I think
    25  everybody agrees that superseded the original defence, we
    26  discussed that at pretrial review

    .           P-152

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      2  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I think it is a convenient summary of the allegations that
      3  are made against you and can you deal with it briefly or
      4  at greater length. It is a matter for you. I have no
      5  doubt you will be cross-examined about it anyway, but
      6  would it be appropriate to go through —
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: If I can find it in this bundle
      8  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — the topics. I have it in a separate file. I do not
      9  know whether if you have it in the same form I have, the
    10  Defendant’s summary of case
    11  MR RAMPTON:  We have it. Does your Lordship have it in a
    12  separate file
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. That may be something I did and have
    14  forgotten about.
    15  MR RAMPTON:  It is in the pale green thing
    16   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Have you got it
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: I have the summary of the Defendants case, yes
    18  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Well, as you recall it is divided into sections, and the
    19  first section, which is quite a short one, is the
    20  allegation that is made against you by the Defendants that
    21  you are what is called a “Holocaust denier”
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I think I led, or at any rate I gave my reply to
    23  that allegation in my opening statement yesterday at some
    24  length, and I am not sure there is very much more I can
    25  add to that in chief, so to speak. Perhaps the —-
    26  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Can I just put a little bit of flesh on the bones of that

    .           P-153

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      2  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: The way the Defendants put their case is to quote quite a
      3  large number of, mostly speeches, that you have made
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      5  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Usually in North America, and to say that you have denied
      6  that there were any Jews killed in gas chambers at
      7  Auschwitz and so on, and refer to Auschwitz in dismissive
      8  terms. The first question, I suppose, is to what extent
      9  you accept that you are accurately quoted. I am not
    10  asking you to go into the detail of it, but do you accept
    11  that you have said that sort of thing, in general, whether
    12  the quotation is accurate
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: In general, those quotations are accurate, my Lord. Of
    14  course, I am quite unhappy about the use of word
    15  “holocaust” without having had it very closely defined.
    16  It is a very elastic expression
    17  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You state what you understand it to mean
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: The Holocaust was the tragedy that befell the Jewish
    19  people during World War II. I would set it as broadly as
    20  that. One could even set if more broadly and say the
    21  Holocaust was whole of World War II and that the people
    22  who died and suffered in that Holocaust were not
    23  necessarily confined to the Jewish religion, but any
    24  number of innocents, whether gypsies, homosexuals, the
    25  people in Coventry, the people in Hiroshima. I think it
    26  is otiose to try and define the Holocaust just the way you

    .           P-154

      1  wish to define it in order to snare somebody, which
      2  appears to be what happens in a case like this. They set
      3  it as wide as they want when it is a concern, for example,
      4  of taking money from the Swiss banks. I will justify that
      5  statement in a moment, and they set it very narrowly when
      6  they then try to snare a writer who is dangerous to them,
      7  as they put it.
      8   The reference to the Swiss Bank is justified as
      9  follows. I have in my files and I can produce it to your
    10  Lordship if you wish probably five or ten whole page
    11  advertisements inserted in the newspapers around the
    12  world, and your Lordship may well have seen them, inviting
    13  people in entitled to compensation for their suffering in
    14  the Holocaust to come forward, and for the purposes of
    15  that advertisement those people are defined as any person
    16  who was persecuted in Germany during the periods of the
    17  Third Reich, or in Nazi occupied territories, by virtue of
    18  his religion or by virtue of being a minority. He did not
    19  have to be in a concentration camp. He did not have do
    20  work in a slave labour factory. The mere fact of being
    21  within the frontiers of those countries justified that man
    22  to Holocaust compensation. That, of course, is, in my
    23  submission, an offensively wide description of the word
    24  and I think that the two line description I gave, the
    25  Holocaust is — I would prefer to see it defined for the
    26  purposes of this court, this trial, the Holocaust is the

    .           P-155

      1  tragedy that befell — that undoubtedly befell the Jewish
      2  people during the Third Reich, not even just during World
      3  War II
      4  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Well, do not let us be too bothered about labels, but can
      5  I just ask you this; I understand what are you saying
      6  about the Holocaust being a term you could apply to the
      7  World War II generally, but if you take it as meaning, for
      8  the purposes of this question anyway, a systematic
      9  programme of exterminating Jews, conducted by the Nazi
    10  regime —
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I think the difference —
    12  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — can I just ask you this, do you accept that there was
    13  any such programme first; leave aside the issue of gas
    14  chambers
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: — no, I do not. I think this is the defect, with
    16  respect, in your Lordship’s definition. The systematic
    17  programme to exterminate the Jews is the cause, whereas
    18  the Holocaust, the word “Holocaust” as I would see it is
    19  the effect, the result, the tragedy that results. When we
    20  are looking at the Holocaust we are looking at the
    21  victims. We are looking at the mass graves. We are
    22  looking at the people being machine gunned into pits. The
    23  Holocaust in my submission is not the machinery which
    24  produced the result, it is the suffering and not the
    25  murderer, shall we say
    26  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: So I want to be clear on this, because it is obviously

    .           P-156

      1  important
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: It is very important indeed, my Lord
      3  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You are saying that, yes, there were multiple shootings by
      4  Einsatzgruppen and so on during the invasion of Soviet
      5  Russia —
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: There was mass murders of Jews committed by Nazis in their
      7  satraps —
      8  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — but it was not pursuant to any systematic programme, is
      9  that your case
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: — again, I would have to — I am not caviling, but these
    11  are important definitions, my Lord. If the
    12  definition — if by using the word “systematic” you are
    13  implying that the system, the Third Reich as such
    14  originated these massacres, then I would have to quibble
    15  with that. I would say that certainly at a lower level a
    16  system emerged and that it was systemized somewhere in the
    17  hierarchy; does your Lordship appreciate —
    18  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, I follow what you are saying
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: — yes. I submit that the Defendants will find it very
    20  difficult to suggest that it was a Third Reich decision.
    21  In other words an Adolf Hitler decision, which is of
    22  course the open water between us at present.
    23  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Can I ask a similar question; do you accept or deny
    24  totally that there was any systematic gassing of Jews in
    25  gas chambers, whether at Auschwitz or at elsewhere?
    26  I know we are not dealing with Auschwitz but I think that

    .           P-157

      1  that ought to be part of —
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, I think if we can leave out the word “systematic”
      3  which is contentious, I do not deny that there was some
      4  kind of gassing at gas chambers in Birkenhau, it is highly
      5  likely that there was
      6  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — on a solely experimental basis or —
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: That is the word I have used to give an indication of
      8  scale and to give an indication of the authority on which
      9  it was conducted, and, well, I leave it at that. But now
    10  you appreciate the reason why I am reluctant to insert the
    11  word systematized into that, because that implies that it
    12  was conducted on authority from above and that there were
    13  guidelines, and in some of the killings they were very
    14  definitely guidelines, my Lord, and I will lead some
    15  evidence on that later. Because Heinrich Himmler in fact
    16  refers to guidelines in a message he send to one of the
    17  commanders which has not been revealed previously
    18  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — do you want to add anything more in advance of
    19  cross-examination about the allegation that you are a
    20  Holocaust denier using the term “Holocaust” in the narrow
    21  definition
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: I do, my Lord, I wish to say that if you are not allowed
    23  to examine components of the Holocaust as I described it,
    24  the tragedy that was inflicted on the Jewish people in the
    25  Third Reich, if you are not allowed to examine individual
    26  components of that and say, yes, this definitely

    .           P-158

      1  happened. This is slightly exaggerated, that bit I find
      2  little evidence for. In other words not to carry out
      3  normal kind of analysis that you would do as a writer or
      4  as an historian without being accused and defamed as being
      5  a Holocaust denier instantly by the assembled mass media,
      6  then I would think would be a very sorry state of affairs.
      7  To that extent I find it offensive to be called a
      8  Holocaust denier because there are aspects of the
      9  Holocaust as currently portrayed that I find questionable,
    10  debateable and they need to be debated. But that is not
    11  Holocaust denial in my view, my Lord.
    12   The defence contention that somebody who
    13  challenges the figure is a Holocaust denier ipso facto, I
    14  have read Professor Evans’ report in great deal here where
    15  I think he gives four criteria of what a Holocaust denier
    16  is. Somebody who says that Adolf Hitler did not give the
    17  order, somebody who challenges a figure. Somebody who
    18  says there were no gas chambers. I forget the fourth
    19  one. It is almost as though those four criteria have been
    20  tailor made in the way that you would have a suit tailor
    21  made for this very action, my Lord. I do not think that
    22  your Lordship will set much store by those four criteria.
    23  I hope you will not. Because if it is not possible to
    24  question the 6 million figure, for example, that I have
    25  been I accused of being a Holocaust denier, you run into
    26  immediate difficulties, because the Auschwitz authorities

    .           P-159

      1  themselves removed the memorial stone for 4 million dead
      2  and replaced it with a memorial stone for one million
      3  dead; are they Holocaust deniers under Professor Evans’
      4  definition? It is an absurdity
      5  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Again, take your own course, but I was being to move on
      6  and I was going to skip for the purposes of my so-called
      7  examination-in-chief of you, skip altogether the section
      8  dealing with Auschwitz and indeed the one..
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: If you had not, my Lord, I would have reminded you of what
    10  we agreed this morning
    11  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, quite. I am also going to skip Treblinka, Sobibor
    12  and Belsic, because it seems to me they really belong in
    13  the same compartment of the case as Auschwitz.
    14   There is a section though in a subsection in
    15  section 2, you may be able to find the page 28, which is
    16  headed: “Mass Murder of Jews by Shootings”, I am not sure
    17  that really belongs in that particular section, but I can
    18  see why it has landed up there; do you want to say
    19  anything at this stage about that in fairly general
    20  terms? I think the criticism is made of you that whilst
    21  you recognize that many, to use a neutral word, many Jews
    22  were shot and killed in horrific circumstances, you have
    23  downplayed it, you have underestimated the number of
    24  deaths which occurred in this fashion
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: I do not like playing numbers games, my Lord, and a lot of
    26  these numbers are very suspect. Your Lordship may not be

    .           P-160

      1  familiar with this, but there was the case against Field
      2  Marshall Manstein, conducted by British War Crimes Court
      3  in Germany, where Manstein was represented by very eminent
      4  and able QC, I think it was Paget, who subsequently wrote
      5  a book called “Manstein and His Trials” and he led very
      6  good evidence indeed on these figures, proving how totally
      7  impossible many of the figures were relating to the
      8  Einsatzgruppen, but I say this with the utmost diffidence
      9  as I am not a expert and I have no intention of becoming a
    10  expert on that. What I am an expert on is the role played
    11  by Adolf Hitler in these killings and if I can just spend
    12  two minutes of the court’s time describing the sequel to
    13  what happened yesterday, the November 30th 1941 episode,
    14  documents we have here in the British archives. They are
    15  of the utmost importance because they go a long way to
    16  refuting what Mr Rampton said yesterday about my
    17  interpretation of that Himmler document.
    18   If you remember, my Lord, on November 30th 1941,
    19  an event to which both the defence and I in our opening
    20  statements have referred occurred. A train load of 1,035
    21  Jews from Berlin arrived after a two or three day journey
    22  at Riga. They were unloaded from the train that morning
    23  in ice cold conditions and had the misfortune to arrive in
    24  the middle of a mass extermination, a mass shooting of
    25  Jews being conducted by the local SS commander. They were
    26  shot immediately in the pits, and, my Lord, I am sure you

    .           P-161

      1  will vividly remember the description of that very
      2  shooting that was given to us by General Bruns in the
      3  Bruns Report, to which I have repeatedly referred
      4  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: So that one episode, when great good fortune, having a lot
      6  of documentation, the defence as I understand it are going
      7  to seize on the fact that in the Bruns Report the local SS
      8  junior says it is the Fuhrer’s orders. I think there are
      9  very grave reasons for doubting that because Heinrich
    10  Himmler, as we heard yesterday, at 1.30 p.m. on that same
    11  Sunday, November 30th 1941, was called into Hitler’s
    12  bunker and at or about that time, and I am going to be
    13  quite careful how I say this, he had reason to make a
    14  telephone call to SS Obergruppen Fuhrer Reinhardt
    15  Heinrich, who was his henchman, his closest lieutenant.
    16  He was the head of the killers, shall we say, he was above
    17  the Gestapo, Reinhardt Heinreich, and in that telephone
    18  conversation he said certain things as a result of which
    19  he jotted down two lines in his note pad. I have the
    20  actual handwritten notes on the table next to my stand
    21  there. The first line says: ( German spoken) Jew
    22  transport from Berlin. I appreciate quite readily that in
    23  the first chapter of my “Hitler’s War” book I wrongly put
    24  that in the plural. The second line continued with the
    25  words ( German spoken) “no liquidation”.
    26   Now, many things can be said about that

    .           P-162

      1  document, my Lord, the first is, how is it that it was not
      2  until 1974 when David Irving took the trouble to
      3  transcribe Heinrich Himmler’s note, 30 years after the war
      4  was over that this extraordinary note came to the
      5  attention of the historical community. Well, I do not
      6  know why they do not want to read Heinreich Himmler’s
      7  handwriting. It is a very difficult handwriting and
      8  I have to plead that as being my partial excuse for having
      9  misread ( German spoken) and also on the following day for
    10  having misread word “juden” as “haben” (?) or vice versa
    11  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I think the point they make is not so much about
    12  legibility, but that this on its face looks as if it is
    13  talking about a single train transportation to —
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, this true, my Lord
    15  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — to Riga from Berlin
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: I should have put in the word “the”. I left out the word
    17  “the” in my text based on it. I should not have said
    18  “transportation of Jews” I should have said “the
    19  transport of Jews”. But I corrected this as soon as this
    20  was pointed out to me, my Lord.
    21   But I can continue because the inference that
    22  I drew from this, if this telephone call is made ( German
    23  spoken), from the bunker, from Hitler’s bunker at the
    24  Wolf’s lair in Rustenberg, East Prussia, Himmler has been
    25  required to telephone Reinhardt Heydrich and tell somebody
    26  these Jews from Berlin were not to be liquidated, you have

    .           P-163

      1  to very interesting conclusion, namely the liquidation was
      2  in the air and people have pointed this out to me and I do
      3  not dispute that for one moment. But what interested me
      4  is Adolf Hitler’s biographer is that here is a case of
      5  Hitler intervening in a negative way. But it gets more
      6  interesting, my Lord, because we now have 20 years further
      7  down the road at the end of the 1990s in the Public Record
      8  Office the intercepts of the radio messages sent by
      9  Himmler the very next day to the man who had carried out
    10  the killings, SS Obergruppenfuhrer Joachim. Now this may
    11  be new to your Lordship. It is certainly new to everybody
    12  in this court; December 1st 1941, the day after the
    13  killings, Joachim gets a message from Heinrich Himmler in
    14  top secret SS code which we broke reading, and I have this
    15  there memory, I have the actual document on my desk over
    16  there but the sense is, the words are: These shootings
    17  that have been carried out in Riga, concerning the
    18  shootings in Riga, any excess, any further excesses,
    19  arbitrary excesses and actions against instructions given
    20  to you — no. You have been given clear guidelines
    21   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think we ought to look at this document
    22  I am not familiar with it
    23  MR RAMPTON:  Nor are we
    24   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Then I think we should look at it
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, it has been supplied to the Defence several weeks
    26  ago

    .           P-164

      1   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am not doubting that for a moment. Can you
      2  indicate where it is so we can get it for you
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: It is large yellow sheets headed “Most Secret” in my case,
      4  at the bottom of the inside of my case. Then I do not
      5  have them with me, because I was intending to lead this
      6  material tomorrow
      7  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: So I understand what you are saying, you are saying there
      8  is a message from Himmler to Joachim
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: From Himmler to the Chief of the SS saying: There were
    10  very clear guidelines for the outsettlement, the
    11  outplacing of the Jews from Berlin
    12  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: So it is about the Jews from Berlin
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: It is talking about Jews from Berlin, clearly referring to
    14  this train load. He then continues: Any further arbitrary
    15  actions and actions against instructions will be severely
    16  punished, and he ordered Joachim to report immediately to
    17  Hitler’s headquarters. On December 4th, my Lord, and this
    18  I do have there in the big blue volume — can you give it
    19  to me, the Himmler Diary, have had that volume now for 20
    20  years — on December 4th 1941 Joachim then turns up at
    21  Hitler’s headquarters and he is raked over the coals,
    22  there is no question, because the killings of German Jews
    23  stopped for the next few months. On December 1st I would
    24  say —-
    25  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Is there a copy of this document? If there is not there
    26  should be one

    .           P-165

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, there are copies made. I had all this bundle
      2  ready to be produced tomorrow
      3  MR RAMPTON:  Can I help
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: Because of the importance —-
      5   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think Mr Rampton knows where it is
      6  MR RAMPTON:  I do not know if it is he same document. From its
      7  wording I very much suspect it is, but on page 353 of
      8  Professor Evans’ report at paragraph 6 —-
      9   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Professor who
    10  MR RAMPTON:  Professor Evans page 353, paragraph 6, he has a
    11  quotation from a document: “The Jews have been resettled
    12  out of the territory of the “Ouslander” (?) only to be
    13  dealt with in accordance with guidelines issued by me or
    14  the Reich Security Head Office on my authority. I will
    15  punish individual initiatives and contraventions.
    16  Signed H. Himmler”, and it is annotated as being Himmler
    17  to Joachim, 1st December 1941 at 7.30 p.m. in the Public
    18  Record Office HW16/32
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct
    20  MR RAMPTON:  It is the same document
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: Does he also have the following message, let me ask
    22  Mr Rampton, where he instructs Joachim to report to
    23  headquarters immediately
    24  MR RAMPTON:  I do not have that document
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: Clearly the significance of that is even more important
    26  than this rap on the knuckles about the arbitrary

    .           P-166

      1  reactions and acting against authority and disobeying the
      2  guidelines. On December 1st, the day after the killings,
      3  the same day as these telegrams, here is in Himmler’s own
      4  handwriting a telephone call at 1315 to SS General
      5  Heinrich about the executions in Riga which everybody
      6  agrees is referring to this appalling atrocity where the
      7  Jews had been shot into the pits. The significant feature
      8  is, as all the historians on both sides now agree, that
      9  from that time on the killing of German Jews stopped for
    10  many months. The fact that this instruction had come in
    11  the first instance from Hitler’s bunker and on the
    12  following day from Heinrich Himmler who had been to see to
    13  Hitler who sends him a message that I would describe as
    14  “panic stricken” to General Joachim saying “any further
    15  actions of this nature, any arbitrary actions against the
    16  guidelines, will be severely punished and you are ordered
    17  to report to Hitler’s headquarters”, is a matter which
    18  I think is so serious that this is the reason why I was
    19  preparing a very detailed bundle on it, my Lord, with
    20  complete facsimiles and translations for your Lordship’s
    21  attention, because it goes very closely to the central
    22  issues in this case: How far was Hitler personally
    23  involved and what were his intentions
    24  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: In relation to the shooting
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: Of European Jews as opposed to Russian Jews
    26  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, but in relation to death by shooting

    .           P-167

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: And also in relation to my contention, as your Lordship
      2  will be aware, that there is a chain of documents of
      3  varying magnitudes of integrity and weight which indicate
      4  that Hitler was a negative force in this matter, whereas
      5  there are no comparable documents indicating the
      6  opposite. I know it is barely credible, but if one comes
      7  to this with a open mind and then 20 years later one comes
      8  across yet another document like this extraordinary
      9  British intercept, this decode of the SS message from
    10  Himmler to the man on the spot who had done the killings,
    11  saying any further such actions will be subject to
    12  punishment and ordering him to report to Hitler’s
    13  headquarters. It is an extraordinary episode and I find it
    14  also highly significant that the German historians have so
    15  far not been prepared to refer to this episode with a
    16  single line as far as its significance is concerned,
    17  because they are mortally terrified under the consequence
    18  of the new laws passed in Germany. It has been the
    19  foreign historians, like myself, who have drawn attention
    20  to this exchange of documents
    21   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Your case really, as I understand it, that
    22  that particular example of the transport from Berlin
    23  demonstrates what you say was Hitler’s role in relation to
    24  it
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, it is one indication. It is not the only
    26  evidence that I rely upon, my Lord

    .           P-168

      1  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: No, that is what I meant by “demonstrate”, “illustrates”
      2  is a better word
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: I am careful there, because when I introduced in my
      4  previous book, the November 30 handwritten annotation by
      5  Himmler, my opponent said, “this is his only evidence,
      6  this is what he relies on”, and it was not, I had more.
      7  My Lord, we shall be hearing at a later stage in these
      8  proceedings Dr John Fox, who is an expert, among other
      9  things, on these police decodes, and I shall be asking
    10  him, with your Lordship’s permission, the condition of
    11  these decodes and are they wall to wall? Is everything
    12  there, or are there gaps? If one finds an item like this,
    13  of course, it is a nugget, one is not entitled to expect
    14  to find it, but one find it and here it is, suddenly in
    15  our faces, you cannot ignore it. There are several
    16  documents like that, my Lord
    17  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Well, I was going to invite you to perhaps pass on now
    18  from the shootings of the Jews and to skip section 3,
    19  which is the Leuchter Report
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: While I am in full flood can I move on to another Hitler
    21  document just three months later
    22  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, of course
    23  A. [Mr Irving]: After the Danzig Conference, which was an interministerial
    24  conflict on the executive measures for the Final Solution,
    25  whatever it was, there was a lot of paperwork in 199 —
    26  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: In 1942

    .           P-169

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: In 1942, the Danzig Conference was held on January 20th
      2  1942, my Lord. After the Danzig Conference the ministries
      3  engaged in a lot of paperwork, and at one stage the
      4  necessity was ventilated of bringing up this matter with
      5  Adolf Hitler, whatever the Final Solution was, the
      6  Ministry of Justice began to get uneasy about it, because
      7  they could see it had ugly connotations; there were
      8  illegalities being adumbrated, and the head of the German
      9  Civil Service, Dr Hans Lammers, who was a minister, a
    10  Reich minister, telephoned the head of the German Ministry
    11  of Justice, whose name was Schlegelberger, we shall be
    12  hearing quite a bit about the Schlegelberger document and
    13  in this telephone conversation which Schlegelberger wrote
    14  a minute on, or what a lawyer would probably call an
    15  “attendance note”, Lammers said “the Fuhrer”, Adolf
    16  Hitler, “the Fuhrer”, Adolf Hitler, “has repeatedly said
    17  he wants the solution of the Jewish problem postponed
    18  after until the war is over”. This is a document that is
    19  caused my opponents immense difficulties. The
    20  difficulties they solved initially by pretending it did
    21  not exist, by which I mean they did not quote it. They
    22  did not adduce it in their history books, and when that
    23  thorn in the flesh, David Irving, kept on reminding them
    24  of existence of this document, which tripped them up
    25  whatever their hypotheses were, that is when the real
    26  battle began, the skirmishing began. But I think your

    .           P-170

      1  Lordship will appreciate that I am entitled to point to
      2  that document as being another document in that chain of
      3  evidence, unless of course I have deliberately
      4  mistranslated it, or misconstrued it
      5  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: No, I do not think that is suggested
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but it is clearly a very important document. A
      7  wartime document written by a lawyer on a phone call from
      8  the head of the German Civil Service, who is the next one
      9  up to Adolf Hitler, saying the Fuhrer has repeatedly said
    10  he wants the solution of the Jewish problem postponed
    11  until after the war was over, which was typical Adolf
    12  Hitler, anything like that he wanted put on the back
    13  burner he had fought this ghastly war through. There were
    14  several problems like that, the church problem was another
    15  one
    16  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: What was Schlegelberger’s position
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: He was at that time, as I understand it, Secretary of
    18  State, which is the equivalent of a permanent Under
    19  Secretary in a British ministry. In the Ministry of
    20  Justice, his Minister was Dr Franz Goertner, who I believe
    21  had died recently at that time, so he was effectively in
    22  charge of the Ministry, Schlegelberger, and the minute he
    23  wrote was directed to a few notorious names including
    24  Rowland Friessler. It is quite an interesting document
    25  and interesting about the document, my Lord, is at the
    26  time of the Nuremberg trials it vanished. It remained in

    .           P-171

      1  original in the Ministry files, but the photocopies
      2  provided to the lawyers at Nuremberg, this extraordinary
      3  document, vanished. It was not there, and it gave me a
      4  lot of trouble locating the original eventually
      5  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes. Would you like to pass on now, do you accept that
      6  the Leuchter report is plainly part and parcel of the
      7  Auschwitz issue
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      9  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I think that must be right. Then the next section in the
    10  Defendant’s summary of case, which is –
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: The Leuchter Report, of course, exists in two
    12  incarnations, my Lord. The original Leuchter Report was an
    13  affidavit drawn up as an expert report for the Canadian
    14  courts and what we published was a glossy version
    15  truncated and streamlined
    16  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — but it was basically the same
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: Made the same allegations and on the same contentions
    18  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: We will leave that on one side, shall we
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes

    Section 172.20 to 195.7

    20  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I can see it comes in in some other context. Then there
    21  is a heading called “Historiography”, this is really the
    22  section where there are a whole series of detailed
    23  criticisms made of you, it being alleged that you have
    24  skewed documents and generally behaved in a –
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: Reprehensible –
    26  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — disreputable way as a historian in your treatment of

    .           P-172

      1  the evidence. Now it is up to you how you deal with it,
      2  you can either deal with it generally, or you can make
      3  some specific points on the instances that are cited
      4  against you
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: — well, the general statement I would say is Mandy
      6  Rice-Davies, they have to say this, my Lord, they would
      7  say, would they not? My opponents, who I could also
      8  categorise as my rivals, dislike the fact that I get to
      9  the documents before them. For 30 years I have been the
    10  one to dig out the diaries.
    11   By way of a general remark I would say I that
    12  I would visit the widows and obtain the papers, not
    13  because I was more industrious than them, but purely
    14  because I took the trouble. I visited the widow of State
    15  Secretary Anstrom Wiedsecher, who had been Ribbentrop’s
    16  State Secretary. She was Baroness Marianne von Wiedsecher,
    17  who was subsequently the mother of the State President of
    18  Germany, President von Wiedsecher and it turned out that
    19  she had all her husband’s diaries and letters, which she
    20  made available to me, and was rather puzzled that she had
    21  not made them available to the German historians and her
    22  reply was, “Mr Irving, they never asked”. It was the same
    23  with very many other historians — many other historical
    24  sources. Purely by virtue of visiting the widows or next
    25  of kin or digging around I have obtained these diaries and
    26  private papers

    .           P-173

      1  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: But leaving aside digging out the evidence
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, this generated the envy and jealousy which is
      3  unfortunately what has fuelled lot of the criticism
      4  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I hear you say that, but what about the criticism of the
      5  use that you make the evidence once you have got it
      6  because what is said against you is that you pick and
      7  choose
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, this is almost certainly something which can only
      9  be dealt with on piecemeal basis, they will put individual
    10  documents to me in cross-examination and to their delight
    11  I may occasionally concede that, yes, I got something
    12  wrong. I will concede that I misread the word “harbun” in
    13  Himmler’s appalling handwriting, and if you were to have a
    14  look at his handwriting you will see how very similar it
    15  is. I will provide the documents to your Lordship
    16  tomorrow to the alternative word. This kind of thing
    17  happens
    18  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Well, if I may say so, I think you are right that this
    19  particular topic has to be dealt with on a ..
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: Piecemeal basis
    21  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Well, case by case basis, I think that is it probably
    22  right, but if you want to say anything more generally at
    23  the moment about your —
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: I will say generally, of course, and it is important for
    25  the case to know, and I am saying this on oath, I have
    26  never knowingly or wilfully misrepresented a document or

    .           P-174

      1  misquoted it, or suppressed parts of the document which
      2  would run counter to my case, I think it is important to
      3  state that. Any of the other allegations in that line,
      4  misquoting, misconstruing, mistranslating, distorting or
      5  manipulating a document I have not done. I shall be very
      6  surprised indeed if the defence manage to make out a
      7  watertight case on even one document in that line.
      8  I think I would hang up my hat if that could be
      9  established against me. It would be a despicable thing
    10  for a historian to do, but it would be also very
    11  difficult, because in my case I have always
    12  instantaneously made my documents available to my
    13  opponents. Sometimes in advance of publication of my own
    14  book I would turn over documents like the Bruns Report to
    15  Professor Fleming. When I found the article Aumeier
    16  Report in the British archives I actually contacted
    17  Professor Richard van Pelt, whose book on Auschwitz
    18  I greatly admired and I said you will certainly find this
    19  document of great interest and I told him exactly where
    20  the file was to be found. I have always been like that.
    21  It would be very difficult simultaneously do that, my
    22  Lord, and at the same time distort the document because
    23  you are going to get found out and shot. So I did not do
    24  it. But that is the only general remark I would make and
    25  possibly of importance because it is a statement on oath
    26  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I think that is right. The next topic that is addressed

    .           P-175

      1  by the Defendants is the bombing of Dresden in 1945
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: Again, I will make a general statement on it, my Lord.
      3  This was the — it was not actually the first book
      4  I wrote. The first book I wrote was a history of the
      5  bombing war, but it was only published in German — in
      6  Switzerland. It was written at the same time as I wrote
      7  the book “The Destruction of Dresden”, which was a three
      8  year task, between 1961 and 1963.
      9   I emphasise the years, because in 1961 and 1963,
    10  of course, we were not in the happy position that we are
    11  in now where we can go to the public archives and see the
    12  documents. I understand that I can go down the road to
    13  the public archives and actually see correspondence that
    14  I had with Harold Wilson, this kind of thing.
    15  I personally frown on it. I liked the old 50 year rule
    16  because there were ways round it. But in those years there
    17  was a 50 year rule in operation. In you wanted to write a
    18  history of something that happened in World War II you
    19  could not get the original documents if you were not an
    20  official historian
    21  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: That is from the British –
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: From the British point of view
    23  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — what about the German records, were they available
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: The German records were in a more difficult position
    25  because Dresden lay in the Soviet zone of Germany, the
    26  German Democratic Republic as it had by that time become

    .           P-176

      1  and although I had established cordial relations with City
      2  Archives Director in Dresden, Dr Walter Lange, they were
      3  under no kind of obligation or compulsion to make their
      4  records available to me and they did so on a very
      5  piecemeal basis, what the Germans would call in salami
      6  slices, piece by piece they would give me a document,
      7  according to how they thought they could fit it into the
      8  Cold War propaganda. I had to weigh it from that point of
      9  view.
    10   I emphasise this because three years later after
    11  the book was published those same officials in East
    12  Germany decided they had now just found a report on the
    13  statistics on the air raid on Dresden which produced
    14  figures which were different from mine
    15  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You are making this point really to explain why your
    16  estimate of the number of deaths, which is really what the
    17  Dresden issue is about
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
    19  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Has fallen fairly dramatically from a quarter of a
    20  million –
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: I would not say “fallen”, that implies only way, I would
    22  say “fluctuate”
    23  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — in a downwards direction, would you accept that
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: If you were a scientist you would not say “the figure is
    25  this”, you would say it is probably that, with a upper
    26  margin of this and a lower margin of that. You would give

    .           P-177

      1  a range of probabilities, and the range of probabilities
      2  I have given has remained roughly the same, but I have
      3  brought down the target figure. The original figure
      4  I gave, I hasten to add, was not my figure, it was the
      5  figure given to me by a man who met the Trevor Roper
      6  criteria. If you remember, my Lord, somebody who is in a
      7  position to know.
      8   This was a man who was school teacher in Hanover
      9  who had nothing to gain from it, who had asked no money
    10  for it, but after the air raid on Dresden, which took
    11  place on February 13th 1945, this school teacher had the
    12  unfortunate task of running the missing persons bureau in
    13  Dresden, the Dead Person Section, he had been given the
    14  job of setting a card index in this appalling task of
    15  trying to identify the dead. They did it, for example,
    16  they collected buckets of wedding rings from the corpses.
    17  I am sure the defence will appreciate when I talk about
    18  buckets of wedding rings, gold wedding rings, were
    19  collected from the corpses of the air raid victims because
    20  inside a German wedding ring there is the initials and the
    21  date of the wedding, so they could identify the corpse
    22  from that. Or they could have an index card just saying
    23  “KD” and a date on the inside of wedding ring. They built
    24  up this card index.
    25   Of course, this was incomplete because they had
    26  not got all the corpses and not all the corpses were

    .           P-178

      1  adults, not all the adults were married. But he was able
      2  to extrapolate and he kept a diary, which he also made
      3  available to me. When I asked him the 60,000 dollar
      4  question, I said, Dr Voigt or Mr Voigt, how many people in
      5  your estimate died in that air raid on Dresden? He gave
      6  me an upper estimate and a lower estimate, and he then
      7  said that in his own belief the figure was probably
      8  135,000. Which was the figure I then used, and I quoted
      9  the source as being this man. In other words it was not a
    10  figure on my authority, it was a figure on the authority
    11  of the source. I see no reason really to depart from that
    12  figure because, it may sound self-defeating, I say that
    13  there is not much difference between 135,000 dead and
    14  35,000 dead. Both of them are a monstrous tragedy or
    15  crime, depending on which end of scale you are viewing it
    16  from. If you are one of those dead it hurts just as much
    17  if you are one of the 35,000 or one of 135,000. So
    18  I confess that I did not dedicate as much work to try to
    19  pin down the actual death roll as no doubt the defence
    20  would have liked me to have done, the Defendants in this
    21  case, my Lord.
    22   But I would also submit this cannot be
    23  categorized as being wilful misrepresentation, or
    24  distortion. My Lord, you will remember that I said that
    25  the German police chief’s document giving a different
    26  death figure had been found three years after I wrote the

    .           P-179

      1  book. It was supplied to me by the East German
      2  authorities, very kindly, voluntarily, and by an
      3  extraordinary coincidence in exactly the same post
      4  I received from the West German Government a summary of
      5  the German Finance Ministry files for that week which
      6  contained precisely the same figures that that East German
      7  document contained, because otherwise one which might have
      8  suspected this was an East German cold war propaganda
      9  trick. So it was a very authentic kind of document. But
    10  even then you had to say the document was dated,
    11  I believe, March 10th 1945, less than four weeks after the
    12  air raid on Dresden.
    13   My Lord, I do not know if you have seen the
    14  photographs of Dresden after the air raid. There was not
    15  very much left standing. The building — the city was
    16  pancaked. Nobody had excavated the city centre. The
    17  people who were living in the old town were still buried
    18  in the basements where they had been suffocated or crushed
    19  alive. So the figure that the Police Chief gave in his
    20  report of March 4th 1945 could still only be regarded as
    21  provisional
    22  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: What is the figure in the current edition of “Destruction
    23  of Dresden”
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: Can I just complete what I was about to say, I was just
    25  pausing for dramatic effect. The step which I then took,
    26  having received this document, was as follows:

    .           P-180

      1  I discussed it with my publisher, and I said that it was
      2  an important enough document that I had to draw it to the
      3  attention of the reading public immediately, and he —
      4  Mr Kimber — and Mr Kimber, God rest his soul, he said:
      5  David do not do that. If you do, it will come down on
      6  your head. It will reflect on you in a bad way, and I said
      7  this is an important document, and I have a duty to bring
      8  it to the attention of reading public, and I sent it as a
      9  letter to The Times, which is in the discovery, and The
    10  Times newspaper published it, I believe, on July 6th 1966,
    11  within a very true days of my actually receiving the
    12  document from the East Germans, the new figures, the fact
    13  that there was a considerably lower death roll estimated
    14  by the local Police Chief. I added my reservations, the
    15  fact that the city was still largely unexcavated, even
    16  then, in 1966 and the fact that local Police Chief was in
    17  charge of air raid civil defence measures. So he had no
    18  reason to give a bigger figure. He would prefer to give a
    19  lower figure
    20  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: This is Mr Grosse
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: I cannot remember exactly which name it was, the man who
    22  wrote the final report. Grosse wrote the incorrect
    23  report, the propaganda report, my Lord. I emphasise the
    24  fact that I made this immediately known to the reading
    25  public and not only that but at my own expense I had a
    26  reprint made of that letter by The Times newspaper. I had

    .           P-181

      1  500 copies printed and for the next few years I enclosed
      2  that letter with all my correspondence to other
      3  historians.
      4   Now I do not know any other historian who would
      5  have taken action like that, my Lord. He would hoped
      6  nobody found out, possibly. He certainly would not have
      7  gone out of the way to draw the attention of other people
      8  to an error or possible error that he had made in one of
      9  his own books. To find myself now, 30 years later,
    10  defending myself against the allegation of manipulation
    11  and distortion beggers description, it is repugnant, my
    12  Lord
    13  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: What is the figure in the current edition of “Destruction
    14  of Dresden” for the number of deaths
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: I have reduced my best estimate to the region of 60,000.
    16  This is the edition which is called “Apocalypse 1945” the
    17  destruction of Dresden because it was not until three
    18  years ago that I sat down and analysed that Police Chief’s
    19  report and compared it with the Grosse Report and saw the
    20  obvious similarities and the obvious discrepancies and
    21  decided that the Grosse Report had been deliberately
    22  issued by the Propaganda Ministry for propaganda
    23  purposes. But 60,000, my Lord, 35,000, 135,000, you may
    24  disagree with me, but I see no difference between these
    25  figures, any more than somebody whose says it was not 6
    26  million who died in the Holocaust, it was only one million

    .           P-182

      1  which is the kind of sentence I would never utter because
      2  each one of those people being killed is a crime and
      3  I consider people being killed in saturation bombing air
      4  raids, although I am British, I think it is wrong
      5  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Do you sometimes in your books make comparisons between
      6  the number of deaths caused by Allied bombing raids with
      7  the number of deaths caused by Nazi bombing raids
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: I think the word “comparison” would be wrong, my Lord, but
      9  I have done it in a way that possibly a journalist would,
    10  I have mentioned the facts in successive sentences.
    11   In my very first book “The Destruction of
    12  Dresden”, if your Lordship were to turn to the very last
    13  page of that book, which I have with me, and it is in the
    14  bundles I distributed this morning, of “The Destruction of
    15  Dresden”, the very last page says: “That this was
    16  undoubtedly a terrible crime. It was a crime committed
    17  against a city in Germany, a country which had carried out
    18  the most appalling massacres against helpless citizens.”
    19  I forget the actual wording I used, but it is in that
    20  book. There was that kind of comparison. I do not
    21  consider it to be offensive to say too colloquially “you
    22  did it too” and when airmen say, as I asked them at the
    23  time, I would ask the Bomber Command airmen who pressed
    24  the button and dropped the bombs, I would say to them what
    25  were your feelings? They said they had no feeling because
    26  they could not see their victims. I consider this is not

    .           P-183

      1  an adequate justification but I do not think this goes to
      2  the issues in this case
      3  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes. The next section is the allegation that is made by
      4  the Defendants that you consort and associate with some
      5  pretty unsavoury characters in North America and
      6  elsewhere; that is to say very right-wing extremists
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, can I deal with this in summary in general
      8  terms
      9  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: At this stage, undoubtedly if they want to go through it
    11  piece by piece and name by name and phrase by phrase
    12  MR RAMPTON:  My Lord, I am sorry to intervene, particularly to
    13  correct a judge, but your Lordship might have missed a
    14  couple of sections, I think
    15   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Have I
    16  MR RAMPTON:  After Dresden comes — it may be because the way
    17  the file is arranged
    18   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  There is Hitler’s Adjutants
    19  MR RAMPTON:  Yes, Hitler’s Adjutants
    20   MR JUSTICE GRAY:   That does not belong in Dresden
    21  MR RAMPTON:   No
    22   MR JUSTICE GRAY:   That is rather why I skipped it
    23  MR RAMPTON:  Another route to the exoneration. But your
    24  Lordship went straight from Dresden to right wing
    25  extremism
    26   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes

    .           P-184

      1  MR RAMPTON:   Along the way jumping over Hitler’s Adjutants
      2   MR JUSTICE GRAY:   And Nazi anti-Semitism
      3  MR RAMPTON:   Yes
      4   MR JUSTICE GRAY:   You are quite right
      5  MR RAMPTON:  Hitler Adjutants is quite an important section,
      6  certainly
      7   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you for that, Mr Rampton. Can
      8  I therefore invite you to comment on the — you will find
      9  this as page 7
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: Page 7
    11  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: The allegation that you really ignored the evidence when
    12  you claim –
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: Shall we go through 1 to 6 in detail, my Lord, now
    14  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — yes, if you would like to because Mr Rampton is quite
    15  right –
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: The allegation is that I ignored the most basic cautions
    17  in interviewing members of Hitler’s staff. Well, jealousy
    18  place a part in this. Adolf Hitler’s personal staff at
    19  the end of World War II, so far as they survived, were
    20  very bruised people. He had four female secretaries, they
    21  were all locked up for periods of several years by the
    22  Allies. I remember my friend, Ralph Hoffmann, who
    23  I invited to lunch just to see what it would be like to
    24  having a liberal playwright lunching with Hitler’s
    25  secretary. When he heard that the Americans had locked
    26  her up for two years he said but why did they put you in

    .           P-185

      1  prison? She said I typed for the Fuhrer. I typed for the
      2  Fuhrer. He said, but millions carried guns for the
      3  Fuhrer. They were very bruised people. They did not want
      4  to speak to their own historians and they certainly did
      5  not want to speak to the former enemy. It took me many
      6  years to win their confidence by methods that might be
      7  found odious. I would become very friendly. In the case
      8  Christa Schroeder particularly, I would just invite her
      9  out to lunch and say Frau Schroeder we will not talk about
    10  the War, knowing very well that she would want eventually
    11  to mention something that happened. But at the moment
    12  I took out a pen she would clam up. She would not say
    13  anything, so I had to write a note afterwards. It was this
    14  kind of situation. Very delicate, drawing them out and
    15  then eventually after five or ten years Christa Schroeder
    16  revealed that she had written private letters to a woman
    17  friend throughout her time with Hitler and she got all
    18  those letters back. She produced the letters and gave them
    19  to me.
    20   The allegation is — I think allegation No. 2
    21  that I would use documents like that in injudiciously.
    22  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — just one more question on the first criticism; you say
    23  that you accept that you did not approach the matter in
    24  what you regard as the ideal way, but you say there was no
    25  all alternative because that was the only way of getting
    26  these people to talk

    .           P-186

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: A historian is accustomed to going to archives or my
      2  reproof to the historians, particularly of the Defendants’
      3  historians, is that they sit if their book lined caves
      4  taking books out of shelves, taking a sentence and working
      5  it into their own fabric and at the end of the day not
      6  cricking anything to the sum total of human knowledge.
      7  I did the exact opposite. I ignored the book lined
      8  caves. I did not reads their books, which they regarded
      9  as a personal slight. I went to the very fountainhead of
    10  the information, the people who had worked at Hitler’s
    11  side for twelve years. By then I aver and I submit and
    12  I strongly resent in this court on oath at no time was
    13  I not aware of the fact that I had to treat what they said
    14  to me with the utmost caution, and it was only when I was
    15  satisfied they were being completely frank with me, that
    16  I added weight to the evidence they gave me and I will
    17  give two examples of that, my Lord. One of them was
    18  Walter Frentz. He was the personal film camera man
    19  attached to Hitler’s staff and he took the colour
    20  photographs of Hitler’s staff which figure in a lot of my
    21  books. One day Heinrich Himmler said to Walter Frentz in
    22  August 1941, which he told me and this is the reason I am
    23  saying this, because I persuaded him to tell me something
    24  against himself. He said that Heinrich Himmler had said
    25  to him in August 1941, Herr Frentz it gets very boring
    26  here at the wolf’s lair, doesn’t it? We are going out to

    .           P-187

      1  the Eastern Front for a few days, do you want do come with
      2  us? Two or three days later Himmler said to Walter Frentz
      3  and Frentz related to me this one evening over a body of
      4  wine (he is still alive) at Lake Constance. Himmler said
      5  to Frentz, tomorrow we are going to be doing a mass
      6  shooting, do you want to come along and have a look? The
      7  next morning in the misty hours of dawn Frentz and Himmler
      8  and Carl Wolf, and a number of other SS gentlemen, Frentz
      9  himself is in the airforce, found themselves standing at
    10  one end of a field outside Minsk, at the other end of
    11  which, as Frentz described it to me, large pits had been
    12  dug out by “backhose” or bulldozers and truck loads of
    13  civilians who were being driven up and stood of this pit
    14  and being machine gunned in the pit. He described this to
    15  me in great deal. I do not have to go into all the detail
    16  he gave here, my Lord. His wife was very astonished to
    17  hear this. Halfway through this description his wife,
    18  Mrs Frentz, said, Walter, I have never heard this before.
    19  And Walter went slightly pink because I suppose he was in
    20  his cups and he had not realized he had told me so much.
    21  Mrs Frentz niggled slightly in the way that wives do and
    22  said, Walter, you say these were civilians being shot,
    23  were there women and children being shot too? Walter
    24  Frentz said, “I cannot remember”, but you could tell from
    25  the way he said “I cannot remember” that he could.
    26   My Lord, I aver that if I get that kind of

    .           P-188

      1  information out for the first time from a man who has not
      2  even told it to his own wife, then I have succeeded in
      3  extracting information, even from Hitler’s Adjutants.
      4   There is another episode of exactly the same
      5  character. I persuaded a man to talk to me who had been
      6  the Adjutant, not of Hitler, but the Adjutant of Hitler’s
      7  Adjutant, his SS Adjutant. Hitler’s SS Adjutant was an SS
      8  general named Hermann Fegolein. He subsequently married
      9  the sister of Eva Braun. Hermann Fegolein’s Adjutant was
    10  Johannes Gohler, who lived in Stuttgart
    11  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: May I interrupt you, it is going to be helpful to the
    12  transcriber, who is having a fairly massive task with all
    13  these names if you when you mention a fresh name just
    14  spell it out
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: I have given her a list of 5,000 names. His Adjutant was a
    16  man I am going to speak of SS Colonel Gohler. I will not
    17  bother with the accents. Johannes Gohler told me that in
    18  the last days of the War, in April 1945, he was present
    19  when Heinrich Himmler, the chief of the SS came to see
    20  Hitler and reported that there was a concentration camp in
    21  Turinier (?), probably the Buchenwald Concentration Camp,
    22  about to be captured by the American forces, and what they
    23  should they do with the inmates, because they could not
    24  evacuate them all in time, Gohler said to me, Mr Irving,
    25  Hitler said, Herr Heiss Fuhrer, stay over until the end of
    26  the conference. After the conference Gohler said, after

    .           P-189

      1  the conference Hitler sat on the edge of the conference
      2  table with his legs dangling and said, “Herr Himmler,
      3  those convicts are to be liquidated if they cannot be
      4  evacuated in time”. I asked Mr Gohler about that episode
      5  on three separate occasions, spread over several years
      6  just to see if there were discrepancies in the different
      7  versions, rather like a stereoscopic picture of the
      8  episode. The narrative remained the same. You will find
      9  that particular episode in my books on Adolf Hitler. That
    10  is an episode recounted to me by an SS officer against the
    11  reputation and honour of the SS and against the honour and
    12  reputation of Adolf Hitler, yet I extracted it from
    13  Hitler’s Adjutants, or the person who I would certainly
    14  put in this category. This is what entitles me to aver
    15  once again that I have not failed in my duty as an
    16  historian in so far as the Adjutants are concerned
    17  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: That conversation, which I am bound to say I do not
    18  remember, is in “Hitler’s War”
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: Certainly in “Hitler’s War”
    20  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Cited in a way that accepts it did happen
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: Unquestionably, my Lord, yes
    22  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I am afraid I have not got that in my mind. Yes. I think
    23  you were on the..
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: That was number 2
    25  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes. That is illustrative, is it really, about what you
    26  are saying about that criticism

    .           P-190

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, the plaintiff, that is myself, is tendentious in his
      2  choice and interpretation of documents, rejecting out of
      3  hand the greater wealth of statements. My Lord, you will
      4  have noticed the subtle difference between statements and
      5  documents, I am sure. Directly implicating Hitler in the
      6  Final Solution and adopting as persuasive the few
      7  statements exculpating Hitler without any proper
      8  explanation for so doing.
      9   My Lord, in your former incarnation as a
    10  barrister I am sure you have also had to weigh statements
    11  and documents and decide which you attach more importance
    12  to. Documents in this connection are anything from a
    13  wartime document, a microfilm, a tape recording, an aerial
    14  photograph, a deciphered intercept, or even a building as
    15  document in this connection; where a statement made by
    16  somebody for whatever purpose, usually to exculpate
    17  himself and pass the blame on to somebody else, as
    18  frequently happened in the war crimes trials, is to be
    19  viewed with the utmost suspicion.
    20   Statements in my submission are usually relied
    21  upon by people who have not got enough documents, they
    22  have not got enough documents because they have not gone
    23  out and done the fieldwork. They like using the
    24  statements because they fit in with their preconceived
    25  notions, whereas the documents like the ones I have
    26  I mentioned, the Schlegelberger document and the Himmler

    .           P-191

      1  telephone notes are inconvenient. They find no
      2  explanation for them. So they prefer their statements to
      3  my documents, my Lord. This may seem a trite answer, but
      4  it is the answer which I shall give until they come at me
      5  with chapter and verse in cross-examination
      6  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, I think this is another example of an allegation that
      7  is really only capable of being dealt with by looking at
      8  the individual cases relied on
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: I think the choice of words between their statements and
    10  my documents is not by happen chance, I think they have
    11  chosen the word “statement” deliberately because they
    12  intended to put to me self-serving statements made by
    13  people in various war crimes trials under whatever
    14  conditions against the documents which I have obtained
    15  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes. Now the next criticism really relates, I think, to
    16  mainly to the way in which you dismiss some sources which
    17  do not say what you want them to say
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: I am sure your Lordship is also a bit baffled as to what
    19  they are getting at here, I am sure Mr Rampton will assist
    20  us when he comes to the cross-examination. If they are
    21  saying I do not put in adequate apparatuses in my book
    22  saying what sources and archives I have used there are
    23  several reasons for that
    24  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I think the key phrase in that criticism is “double
    25  standards”; I think what is said against you is that you
    26  are inclined to adopt uncritically some source material

    .           P-192

      1  because it suits your agenda, as they put it, whereas you
      2  dismiss –
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: I accept –
      4  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — more reliable evidence because it does not fit in with
      5  your agenda
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: — I accept that that is a valid criticism, my Lord. AGP
      7  Taylor said the same to me once. He said, when you are
      8  looking at the Final Solution you are asking for a
      9  document, when you looking at what happened to General
    10  Sikorski you are quite happy to make allegations without a
    11  document. There are answers you can give. It is a valid
    12  criticism, but I am not going to say it is a “correct
    13  criticism”
    14  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Can you explain what you mean by that
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: They are entitled to make that criticism on their
    16  perception of the way history is written. If I take that
    17  specific example, that there is no document — I point out
    18  there is no document showing that Hitler even knew about
    19  Auschwitz, whereas when I wrote about the death of General
    20  Sikorski in a book published in 1967 I am accused of
    21  having said it was probably sabotage even though there is
    22  no documentary evidence to suggest it was. This is
    23  I think an acceptable distinction because we are after all
    24  the victor nation; all our records are intact. We lost
    25  none of our records through World War II. We were not
    26  invaded by the Red Army; our archives were not bombed and

    .           P-193

      1  blasted and burnt to pieces. Our archives are intact. We
      2  now no longer have a 50 year rule, and so we would be
      3  entitled to expect to find as a result of our having had
      4  unconditional surrender from the Germans and total insight
      5  into their archives we would expect to find the record
      6  relating to Hitler, then we would not expect to find in
      7  the British Secret Service archives, which, of course, are
      8  only the archives which are still closed in this country.
      9  That became a bit convoluted, if I had a second chance
    10  I would say it again slightly differently
    11  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I think I understand what you are saying. You are really
    12  saying that because the German archive is incomplete –
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, we have total insight into the German archives such
    14  as they have survived by virtue of unconditional surrender
    15  which we did not have at the end of World War I, but we
    16  certainly had at the end of World War II. There are no
    17  German archives that were withheld from the invading
    18  forces.
    19   So after over 50 years we would be entitled by
    20  now to have found the document that proves me wrong,
    21  whereas we are not entitled to expect to find records
    22  about General Sikorski, even now, because it would have
    23  been a Secret Service matter and Secret Service files are
    24  closed for at least the next 100 years.
    25   So it looks like a double standard to start with
    26  until you realise you are looking at two different

    .           P-194

      1  theatres of operation. But, again, if they want to put
      2  specific examples to me, some I will concede, and most
      3  I will not, probably
      4  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — well, I think before we move on to the next point we
      5  will adjourn and resume, if you will, please, at
      6  2 o’clock
      7   (Luncheon adjournment)

    Section 195.8 to 219.6

      8   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, can I before we resume with your
      9  evidence just ask Mr Rampton something, if you will
    10  forgive me? It is a logistical question, Mr Rampton.
    11  Assuming you are going to be starting to cross-examine
    12  this afternoon —
    13  MR RAMPTON:  Yes
    14   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  — I am wondering whether I have all the
    15  files that I ought to have here because what I do not want
    16  to find happening is that you ask a question in relation
    17  to a document that I do not have a copy of. Are you able
    18  to help
    19  MR RAMPTON:  Can I just say, I do not know how long I will get,
    20  but assuming it were an hour or so, your Lordship would
    21  need the copy of Mr Irving’s opening which you should have
    22  already
    23   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I have
    24  MR RAMPTON:  And files D2(i), (ii) and (iii)
    25   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I have all of those too
    26  MR RAMPTON:  The only other thing that your Lordship would need

    .           P-195

      1  would be Professor Evans’ report if we got as far as that.
      2   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I have that. Thank you very much. I thought
      3  I had better check
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, before you resume your examination or your
      5  questioning, can I raise just two points
      6  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Of course, yes
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: I drew your Lordship’s attention to a newspaper, a leading
      8  article which appeared in The Independent this morning
      9  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Which I have read. I cannot lay my hands on it at the
    10  moment
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: I have it here, my Lord. I personally found it pushing
    12  the envelope of what is permissible, but maybe, in view of
    13  the fact that either I am a litigant in person or we are
    14  sitting without a jury, this kind of comment is permitted
    15   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think the position really is this,
    16  Mr Irving. I understand what you say, but I can really
    17  only intervene if I were to take the view that in some
    18  shape or form it amounts to a contempt. I do not. I am
    19  fairly clearly of that view. But if it helps at all,
    20  I totally disregard it
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: Thank you very much, my Lord
    22  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I think I will not say any more about it
    23  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, you asked in one of your questions whether I had
    24  compared or weighed casualties against casualties,
    25  atrocity against atrocity. I have referred to the final
    26  paragraph of my “Destruction of Dresden” book, and, my

    .           P-196

      1  Lord, the bundle which I handed you this morning which
      2  I believe is on the desk in front of you at this end, the
      3  thin bundle, is that it, bundle B on page 5
      4  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, this is the new bundle
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: That is the new one I gave you this morning. It is
      6  selections from the books. You already have the entire
      7  books
      8  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, you mentioned that
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: If you look at page 5, my Lord, big figure 5, at the foot
    10  of the page, there is this paragraph: “On 13th February
    11  1946, the former Commander in Chief of RAF Bomber Command
    12  sailed from Southampton on the first stage of his
    13  journey. That night throughout eastern and central Europe
    14  at 10.10 p.m. the church bells began to peal. For 20
    15  minutes the bells ran out across the territories now
    16  occupied by a force as ruthless as any that the bomber
    17  offensive had been launched to destroy. It was the first
    18  anniversary of the biggest single massacre in European
    19  history, a massacre carried out in the cause of bringing
    20  to their knees a people who corrupted by Naziism had
    21  committed the greatest crimes against humanity in recorded
    22  time”.
    23   That is about as close as I have ever got to
    24  weighing atrocity against atrocity, my Lord, and that was
    25  in my first book
    26  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I am just puzzled by the date

    .           P-197

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, it is the first anniversary of the Dresden raid, my
      2  Lord
      3  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I see
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: This is why the bells are ringing
      5  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I see. It was the Commander in Chief of Bomber Command
      6  setting out that misled me
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: The second page I would draw your Lordship’s attention to
      8  concerns the adjutants. You asked whether I had made use
      9  of that information I obtained from the adjutants about
    10  Buchenwald inmates to be liquidated. Page 99, my Lord, by
    11  chance, is one of the pages that I included in the
    12  selection
    13  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Tab 4, the last page
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: It is big figures 99 at the bottom of the page. The third
    15  paragraph, my Lord, is: “As American troops advanced
    16  across … Hitler was confronted with the problem of the
    17  concentration camps. Goring advised him to turn them over
    18  intact and under guard to the Western allies who would
    19  sort out the criminals from the foreign labourers and
    20  Russian prisoners thus preventing hoards of embittered
    21  ex-convicts from roaming the countryside and inflicting
    22  additional horrors on the law-abiding. Hitler did not
    23  share Goring’s trust in the enemy. Sitting casually on
    24  the edge of the map table after one conference, he
    25  instructed Himmler’s representative to ensure that all
    26  inmates were liquidated or evacuated before the camps were

    .           P-198

      1  overrun.”
      2   The footnote at the back of the book which I
      3  could show you if my Lordship is interested, because I
      4  have the book here, says the source of that information is
      5  the SS Major, who was Himmler’s Adjutant’s Adjutant, who
      6  has, however, requested that his identity be withheld.
      7  Some of these people at the time I wrote that book were
      8  still nervous about being identified, but he was the
      9  source
    10  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: But he is no longer nervous
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: I am sure he has no nervousness now, my Lord, because the
    12  years has passed, but he was the source and that was the
    13  episode which I recounted to you. You asked if I used it.
    14   In my submission, I have used it exactly as it should
    15  have been used and at the proper length
    16  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Is this the 1991 edition or the 1977
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: That is the very first edition, my Lord, 1997. If your
    18  Lordship is interested, I can certainly produce almost
    19  identical pages from the subsequent editions
    20  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: No, do not bother. Thank you very much. Yes, now
    21  anything else or shall we resume? We are still on the
    22  topic of Hitler’s Adjutants. I think you have dealt with
    23  criticisms (i), (ii) and (iii)
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: Double standards
    25  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: And the next one is, at any rate, self-explanatory
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: I distort, suppress, manipulate evidence, but until they

    .           P-199

      1  give chapter and verse, I cannot say.
      2   “The Plaintiff claims falsely that all of
      3  Hitler’s surviving adjutants, secretaries and staff had
      4  uniformly testified that the extermination of the Russian
      5  or European Jews was never mentioned at Hitler’s
      6  headquarters. That claim is contradicted by the evidence,
      7  my Lord. I shall be interested to see what the evidence
      8  is to which they are referring
      9  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Just pause a moment. Do you accept that you have made the
    10  claim that all the Hitler surviving adjutants and so on
    11  have uniformly testified that the extermination of the
    12  Russian or European Jews was never mentioned at
    13  Hitler’s —
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: I think the full extent of the statement was that they
    15  have been frequently questioned ever since the war both by
    16  American and British interrogators and by others in
    17  between and certainly by myself on each occasion, and each
    18  of them has said that this systematic extermination of the
    19  Jews, or whatever — what is it — the extermination of
    20  the Russian or European Jews was never mentioned at
    21  Hitler’s headquarters, that it was never mentioned in
    22  their presence. Obviously, they can only testify to what
    23  they personally witnessed and that was all I was
    24  interested in
    25  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, but the point I was on really was this, you have made
    26  that claim

    .           P-200

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: I have made that claim
      2  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You say it is a true claim
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: I have maintained that it is true claim. If, however, the
      4  Defendants produce new evidence that it is false, I will
      5  accept that evidence, but that does not amount to my
      6  having distorted and manipulated. They would have to show
      7  that evidence was on my desk within my four walls, so to
      8  speak
      9  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes. The last one
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: “In full knowledge of the historical detail, the Plaintiff
    11  subjectively filtered, bent and manipulated his sources to
    12  his own political and ideological desire to exculpate
    13  Mr Hitler.” Well, that is a bit of a polemical question,
    14  I suppose, in which the sting is in the question rather
    15  than in the answer
    16  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Not really. Anyway, answer it
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, the answer is under oath, no. My Lord, I have never
    18  consciously done any of those things in order to exculpate
    19  Hitler. In fact, I have bent over backwards to include
    20  what I knew from reliable sources which met my criteria,
    21  and in the very introduction to my book “Hitler’s War”
    22  which is included in the bundle which I provided this
    23  morning, my Lord, I gave a short list, a check list, of
    24  the crimes he did commit: “He issued the commisart order
    25  for the liquidation of the Soviet commisarts and signed
    26  it. He issued the euthanasia order for the killing of the

    .           P-201

      1  mentally disabled and signed it, back-dated it to
      2  September 1st 1939. He ordered the killing of British
      3  commandos who fell into German captivity. He ordered the
      4  liquidation of the male population of Stalingrad and
      5  Leningrad…” and so on. There is a long list of these
      6  crimes which I gave as a kind of check list form in the
      7  introduction of the book specifically to avoid the kind of
      8  accusation that I apprehended would one day be made
      9  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I suppose, to be balanced, you would accept that you would
    10  not only need that short list, but also a list of what one
    11  might call the opposite points where you say —
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: Said nice things about him
    13  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — said commendatory things about him which, I think it
    14  is right to say, you do from time to time in “Hitler’s
    15  War”
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: I have obviously said commendatory things about him.
    17  There was a time when he was on the right course and then
    18  he went off the rails. That is roughly what I have said.
    19  But, of course, he was not on the right rails in every
    20  respect. You cannot praise his racial programmes. You
    21  cannot praise his penal methods. But, on the other hand,
    22  he did pick his nation up from out of the mire after World
    23  War II and reunify it and gave it a sense of direction and
    24  a sense of pride again which, from the German point of
    25  view, though not from the English point of view, was
    26  something commendable. I say those things which need to

    .           P-202

      1  be said and it would be wrong to suppress them
      2  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: May I just ask you one thing that struck me when I was
      3  reading “Hitler’s War” which is that I think you say in
      4  the Forward that you are writing it, as it were, from his
      5  perspective
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, my Lord —
      7  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Is that a usual way to approach an historical biography
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: No. It is my trademark way of writing, the books which
      9  I have written. If you collect enough original primary
    10  sources, first of all, you are confronted with many
    11  problems. First of all, a super abundance of material and
    12  you have to decide which way you slice that particular
    13  cake. The easy way that I decided to slice the cake was
    14  to say let us imagine we are sitting in his swivel chair
    15  and that confronting us, as writer, are only the documents
    16  that passed across his desk. It is, in theory, a nice
    17  idea; in practice, it is more difficult to put into
    18  effect. But this is the first criterion you apply, and
    19  you then tell the story as seen from his viewpoint and in
    20  the sequence in which it came to him.
    21   I give one example: The July 20th 1944 bomb
    22  blot. Every other writer would describe the planning of
    23  the bomb plot and the conspiratorial meetings and the
    24  arrangement and the provision of the explosives and the
    25  comings together and the various failed attempts. In my
    26  book, your Lordship will have noticed the first we know

    .           P-203

      1  about the bomb plot is when the bomb goes off under your
      2  table. Then, retrospectively, you see the Gestapo reports
      3  and the enquiries and the investigations, and you find out
      4  this was not the first time they tried do it and so on.
      5  You may say it is a literary trick as a literary advice,
      6  which is why my books are probably more readable than
      7  their books, but I do not think it is something
      8  necessarily derogatory
      9  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Now, I think, unless you want to add anything on the topic
    10  of Hitler’s adjutants, the next section or the next part
    11  of this section is the question of Nazi anti-Semitism.
    12  What is said against you is that you tried to blame what
    13  was done during the Third Reich against Jews upon the Jews
    14  themselves
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: That is a gross oversimplification. I do not level that
    16  accusation at your Lordship, of course, but I think it
    17  would be a gross oversimplification to put my conclusions
    18  in that way. I have said on a number of occasions, for
    19  example, most recently to Daniel Goldhagen who wrote a
    20  book on Hitler and his executioners. If I was a Jew,
    21  I would be far more concerned, not by the question of who
    22  pulled the trigger, but why; and I do not think that has
    23  ever been properly investigated. Anti-Semitism is a
    24  recurring malaise in society. It recurs not just in
    25  Germany, not just in Europe, but it keeps on coming back.
    26  If I had enough spare time, one day I would like to sit

    .           P-204

      1  down and investigate just that, the root causes of it, but
      2  I do not have the qualifications and the training for it,
      3  my Lord, and I suppose nobody in this room probably does.
      4  One would have it have a great degree of independence,
      5  independence of mind and independence of means, but there
      6  must be some reason why anti-Semitism keeps on breaking
      7  out like some kind of epidemic.
      8   That is at the root of several of the books that
      9  I have recently written, probably most recently in
    10  Dr Goebbels’ biography where we had the phenomenon of
    11  Dr Goebbels who, on the evidence of his own private
    12  letters in his earliest youth was the opposite of
    13  anti-Semitic. He actually ticked off his girlfriend for
    14  writing an anti-Semitic letter to him, saying that this
    15  kind of sentiment is very cheap and needless, and yet he
    16  later on becomes the worst and most criminal anti-Semite
    17  of all times. One can say facetiously, is it something in
    18  the water? But something must have caused him to change.
    19  I do not think it is irresponsible to ask that question,
    20  even if one cannot provide a full answer
    21  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Can I just be clear what you are meaning when you say
    22   “something must have caused that change” — something
    23  done by the Jews themselves
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: Something which I have not been able to establish and
    25  something which I am frightened of even investigating, and
    26  I do not really have to investigate because it would not

    .           P-205

      1  come within the purview of a biographer to start getting
      2  involved in sociological problems, I do not think
      3  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Is it not an historical problem as well
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: It is an historical problem but for somebody else to
      5  investigate because I am in trouble as it is, my Lord, and
      6  I do not think that one would earn any great kudos for
      7  investigating that because, frankly, I do not have the
      8  qualifications to investigate it. I am not a
      9  sociologist. My findings would not be heeded anyway. So
    10  I would prefer to spend the time somewhere else that was
    11  put to better use. But I did what I could in the case of
    12  Dr Goebbels, as you will see, trying to develop why he
    13  became an anti-Semite.
    14   I think what is most offensive in my works is
    15  the apportionment of blame between Hitler and Goebbels
    16  which a lot people find offensive. They find it
    17  incredible, but I think that it is well-founded in my
    18  works
    19  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, well, I think perhaps we can move on, if you are
    20  ready to, to the —
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: Extremism
    22  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — penultimate topic, I think, which is your alleged
    23  association with Neo Nazis and other right-wing
    24  extremists
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I would make a general comment here, and I think
    26  it was in this very building only a few weeks ago that

    .           P-206

      1  Moreland J said that there is no such crime in Britain as
      2  guilt by association and there never has been, and it
      3  would be very difficult to define and very difficult to
      4  pursue in any way.
      5   I suppose it can easily be said (and I am making
      6  no great concession here) if I say that probably everybody
      7  in this courtroom has acquaintances who they shudder when
      8  they ring the door bell. When you hold a cocktail party,
      9  you say you hope that Smith does not come or whoever it is
    10  but, on the other hand, he is an agreeable person to have
    11  around. This does not mean to say that you share all of
    12  Smith’s opinions.
    13   Sometimes when the allegation is made, as it is
    14  made, I am rather shocked to say, in some of the expert
    15  statement, the expert reports, that it is not Smith that
    16  I am being accused of being associated with, but somebody
    17  who is associated with Smith, then it is beginning to
    18  become rather like that musical song about “I danced with
    19  a man who danced with a girl who danced with the Prince of
    20  Wales”. How far down the line does this buck stop? Does
    21  it mean that everybody who is in this room is in some way
    22  polluted by being in the same room as I am? It is
    23  ridiculous. Which way does this particular flow of odium
    24  run?
    25   I think it is a very loose kind of argument when
    26  people say, “Look who he is in the same room with” or

    .           P-207

      1   “Look who comes to hear him speak” which is what a lot of
      2  the allegations appear to be. It is name calling. It is
      3  a waste of the court’s time, and I shall answer the
      4  questions, my Lord, but it is very difficult to come to
      5  grips with it.
      6   These people are extremists by definition of
      7  these expert witnesses. I do not think there is any
      8  satisfactory definition of “extremist”. In my book, an
      9  extremist is somebody who plants bombs under motor cars,
    10  somebody who plots the overthrow of governments, somebody
    11  who goes around with a gun in his pocket, somebody who
    12  holds views which are extreme, this is a very subjective
    13  concept. It depends on which viewpoint you view those
    14  views from.
    15   Am I making sense, my Lord
    16  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, I understand what you are saying and, indeed, it may
    17  well be that this does not turn out to be one of the most
    18  important issues in the case
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I have not chosen this. This is —
    20  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: No, I appreciate that. No, that is not said in a way
    21  critical of you at all. But, having said that, one needs
    22  to break it down a little bit. I mean, do you accept that
    23  you have found yourself on the same platform or at the
    24  same meeting as a number of people who could be
    25  legitimately categorized as extreme right-wing fanatics
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: It is the subsidiary clause there who could be legitimate

    .           P-208

      1  categorized, and you have even put it into the passive
      2  voice which puts one further removed — we do not know who
      3  is doing the categorising
      4  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: So you are saying that the people who you found yourself
      5  alongside are not, in truth, right-wing extremists or
      6  fanatics
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: I do not regard them as extremists, by my definition of
      8  the word “extremist”. I am prepared to believe there are
      9  people at the other extreme who would regard them as
    10  extreme from their viewpoint because they hold views that
    11  are extremely or diametrically opposed to their own. But
    12  this is a free society. They are not extremist in the
    13  degree that they do not go around espousing violence or
    14  practising violence or advocating overthrow of
    15  governments. They are people who just hold views with
    16  which I am not necessarily associated. As your Lordship
    17  will have seen from the correspondence, I frequently had
    18  very marked altercations with these people, saying, in
    19  effect, “You may be a frightfully nice person privately
    20  and you have got a good tennis serve but, on the other
    21  hand, your views on the Holocaust are wrong”
    22  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: So would you say that there is not anyone who you feel, in
    23  hindsight, you should not have associated with
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: Oh, in retrospect, good Lord, yes! In retrospect, you
    25  could look out of the back of the truck as it goes
    26  trundling down the highway of history and you say, “I wish

    .           P-209

      1  I never get to know him”, but we have all met people like
      2  that, my Lord. This should not be held against me.
      3  People change.
      4   There is one particular gentleman called
      5  Mr Althans, Ewald Althans, who figures in this
      6  correspondence. He was a German character who I got to
      7  know when he was a student. I first met him, I think, in
      8  1989 and my first impressions of him which I have recorded
      9  in my diary was that he was a very forceful, energetic,
    10  forthright and fearless young man.
    11   It subsequently turned out he held opinions that
    12  could be really categorised as extreme, that he was, in
    13  fact, an agent of the German government and an agent
    14  provocateur because he testified to that effect when he
    15  finally got his comeuppance. I bitterly regret ever
    16  having made his acquaintance, and certainly if he came
    17  anywhere near me I would say, “Go away”. If he came to my
    18  front door, I would pretend I was not in. Well, if that
    19  can be held against me, my Lord, then I think this is an
    20  unjust society. These things happen. People change as
    21  you get to know them. They become different from the way
    22  they were when you first knew them
    23  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: So you are saying really, are you, that you want to be
    24  judged by what you said rather than by what people you may
    25  have been at the same meeting with
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I am very satisfied to be judged on what I

    .           P-210

      1  have said verbally which is recorded in great abundance in
      2  the transcripts. I am very satisfied to be judged on the
      3  basis of what I have written to any of these gentlemen,
      4  but I do not think I should be judged on the basis of what
      5  they may have said either to me or to others. That is
      6  their own affair. Frequently, I have had cause to
      7  reprimand them privately and say, “Do not do it”.
      8   For example, I remember one trip I made to South
      9  Africa. The South Africans are a different people from
    10  us. They have different attitudes to us. I visited South
    11  Africa on a speaking tour and I went to Johannesburg
    12  Airport to pick up my assistant who was to accompany me
    13  and I warned her; I said, “You will find the people here
    14  in Johannesburg treat coloured people in a manner which is
    15  totally repugnant to us, but I must request you not to say
    16  anything about it because we are their guests”, but that
    17  is as far as you can go
    18  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: The last topic, is there anything you want to add
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: No, my Lord — unless you wanted to ask me about any
    20  specific names that they have mentioned? You do not
    21  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Well, I was not proposing to, but if you want to say
    22  anything about, for example, Mr Zundel who is, perhaps,
    23  more important than most of the others
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: Mr Zundel, I can speak about very briefly. I first met
    25  Mr Zundel, Z-U-N-D-E-L, who is a German of Canadian
    26  extraction who has been in constant hot water for the last

    .           P-211

      1  10 or 15 years, but is sill in the eyes of the law
      2  blameless, in other words, he has not been convicted on
      3  anything he has been accused of which is a matter not to
      4  be taken lightly, of course. A lot of accusations have
      5  been made against him, but he has so far not been found
      6  guilty of anything.
      7   I first heard about him before 1986 in the most
      8  disparaging terms. In 1986, I conducted around the world
      9  lecture tour, and coming up from Australia and Fiji to
    10  Vancouver, I was met at Vancouver Airport in Colombia, in
    11  Canada, by a man who introduced himself in the car to me
    12  as Mr Douglas Christie. I said, “But you are the
    13  barrister for Mr Zundel, are you not, in the hearings in
    14  Toronto?” He said, “Yes, I am. I am chairing the meeting
    15  tonight”. I was so shocked by this that I telephoned my
    16  tour organizer in Australia immediately and said, “I am
    17  afraid I cannot allow Mr Christie to act as chairman of
    18  tonight’s meeting”. My hostility to Mr Zundel at that
    19  time was so pronounced I would not even allow his
    20  barrister to come near me, in other words.
    21   I then flew across to Toronto where I was to
    22  speak and I was picked up at Toronto Airport by two
    23  gentlemen who drove me down town, and half way down the
    24  Queen Elizabeth Highway into Toronto, one of the gentlemen
    25  turned to the other and said, “Ernst, I think we will put
    26  Mr Irving off at his hotel first”. I said, “Do you mind

    .           P-212

      1  if I ask who you are?” and he said, “Yes, I am Ernst
      2  Zundel”. I am afraid I was terribly shocked to be found
      3  sitting in the same car with him because the blackening of
      4  his name at that time had gone to such an extent that not
      5  only did I not want to be associated with his barrister,
      6  but not with him either.
      7   Now I say that, having got to know him over the
      8  next two or three years, you realize that the reputation
      9  he had and the man he was were two different things. He
    10  was an enbattled person, coming under, I will not even say
    11  the same kind of attack as I have, he came under the most
    12  vicious kind of attack which included the burning down of
    13  his house and a constant onslaught and violent and
    14  physical assault, and he was bearing himself up with more
    15  fortitude than taste; and you had to realize that he was a
    16  man with a certain intellect, a certain sense of humour
    17  and execrable private opinions. That is the only way that
    18  I can characterize him
    19  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: I repeatedly said this, my Lord. I have sent him messages
    21  and letters and I have said that, frankly, your opinions
    22  are off the wall — in fact, they are off the map. The
    23  correspondence has been in the discovery for the
    24  Defendants and they could have seen it and, no doubt, it
    25  has alarmed them because it does not confirm the picture
    26  that they would have wished to portray

    .           P-213

      1  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: But you agreed to give evidence at his trial
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: I thought it was my duty as an historian, as a public
      3  citizen, to give evidence. I did not realize at the time
      4  the odium that would accrue. In fact, the element of
      5  odium, I think, would have been impossible in this
      6  country. I think it would have been almost a contempt for
      7  witnesses to be subjected to the kind of onslaught that
      8  I was after I gave evidence in that trial, but it
      9  happened. I wrote letters to the newspapers about it.
    10  I said, “This will be completely impossible in England”.
    11  The letters were published, but there it is.
    12   If people ask me now, as they have, “Would you
    13  do it again?” I say, “No, I would not”, not because I did
    14  not consider my duty to give the evidence I gave as
    15  an historian, and I understand the Judge afterwards said
    16  that he had never had such a convincing witness, but it
    17  was a mistake, because of the fact that that has been used
    18  as a reason to destroy me subsequently. Frankly, I do not
    19  seek personal destruction. If I was given the chance to
    20  do it again, if the people who have destroyed me since
    21  came to me now and said, “Mr Irving, we are prepared to
    22  put you back where you were”, I would say, “Show me what
    23  I have to sign and I will do it”. It is as simple as
    24  that
    25  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Then, finally, I think this is the last topic that you
    26  need to deal with, the allegation that you broke an

    .           P-214

      1  agreement in relation to the microfiche containing the
      2  Goebbels’ diaries by removing them from Moscow, or from
      3  the archive in Moscow, and risking damage to them
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Well —
      5  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You dealt with this quite thoroughly in your opening
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, I have to be a bit careful because you have actually
      7  compounded two elements in that statement. You said by
      8  removing the glass plates and by something else. I do not
      9  know what the agreement was supposed to have been. I have
    10  dealt with this quite thoroughly in my opening statement,
    11  and I am happy to aver here on oath that what I said in my
    12  opening statement in this respect, as in other respect, is
    13  true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
    14   Ten years nearly, or eight years, have passed
    15  since that time when I was in Moscow and I obtained the
    16  diaries. You will be hearing the evidence of Mr Peter
    17  Miller who was with me at the time; and there is no
    18  written agreement either in my discovery or in the
    19  discovery produced by the Defendants who have had close
    20  collaboration with the Russian archival officials, will be
    21  able to cross-examine the Russian witnesses, and on this
    22  occasion they will be giving evidence, I understand, and I
    23  think, perhaps, we had better reserve judgment until after
    24  we have had the opportunity of hearing all that.
    25   But, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
    26  there was no agreement, and I have made the admission

    .           P-215

      1  (which I had to) which was quite proper about having
      2  illicitly or illegally or even improperly removed the
      3  glass plates on the archives and returned them the next
      4  day and whatever which, to my mind, not such a big deal
      5  because they allowed me to two days later anyway
      6  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Well, so far as I am concerned, that is all I was going to
      7  invite you to give evidence about, leaving aside
      8  Auschwitz, but do feel free to add anything that you think
      9  has not been sufficiently covered before you are
    10  cross-examined
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: I only wanted to say that you asked me earlier about the
    12  consequences of the book. I mentioned the pecuniary
    13  consequences and I mentioned the consequences for my
    14  career, but there has also been a more intangible
    15  consequence, that I have found myself subjected to a
    16  burden of hatred which you cannot quantify, but which is
    17  quite definitely there, the blank telephone calls, the
    18  obscene messages and so on. I would give only one
    19  example, my Lord, of the kind hatred — well, two
    20  examples: one when I was assaulted in the Book Exhibition
    21  in Chicago — in Los Angeles which I attended with my
    22  publishing imprint a few weeks ago when a member of the
    23  Jewish community — a very notorious member of the Jewish
    24  community; one of the most extreme members in the United
    25  States with a long criminal record — came up to the stand
    26  and screamed that he was going to come back and kill me,

    .           P-216

      1   “You’re a Holocaust denier” he screamed as he was led
      2  away by the police, using the phrase coined by the Second
      3  Defendant.
      4   The second one would make more sense to your
      5  Lordship if you are aware of who Philip Bullard is.
      6  Philip Bullard was the head of the Nazi Extermination
      7  Programme for the mentally and physically disabled, the
      8  Euthanasia Programme
      9  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, I know
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I had the great misfortune in September to lose
    11  my eldest daughter. After we buried her, I received a
    12  phone call from the undertakers that another wreath had
    13  come. When the wreath was delivered late that afternoon,
    14  it was a very expensive and elaborate wreath of white
    15  roses and lilies — far more expensive than we could have
    16  afforded — with a card attached to it saying, “Truly a
    17  merciful death”, “It was truly a merciful death”, signed
    18  “Philip Bullard and friends”. I should mention that my
    19  daughter was disabled in all those respects. She was
    20  legless and she had been brain damaged for 18 years.
    21   I submit that this is the kind of hatred that
    22  this book has subjected me to — something intolerable,
    23  something unspeakable, and which I would wish no other
    24  person to be subjected to
    25  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: Thank you

    .           P-217

      1  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Is there anything you wish to add
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: Not to that, my Lord, no, and in any other respect I think
      3  that you have drawn the essentials out of my admirably, as
      4  was only to be expected
      5  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Well, you will have the opportunity, obviously, to amplify
      6  your case after cross-examination, if you wish to. Now,
      7  I do not know whether we need to clear the decks before
      8  you cross-examine so that Mr Irving has the documents that
      9  you mentioned earlier on, Mr Rampton
    10  MR RAMPTON:  I do not know how best to do it. I have to say
    11  (and I will say it again; I sort of hinted at it
    12  yesterday) this is the most ghastly inconvenient and
    13  uncomfortable court I have ever been in. That is nobody’s
    14  fault. I can hardly stand up. I cannot get at my
    15  documents
    16   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I wish I thought I could do something about
    17  it
    18  MR RAMPTON:  I say that as a preliminary. The witness is miles
    19  away from the files that he needs. I can hardly see him
    20  because of this pillar and my learned junior cannot see
    21  him
    22   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Otherwise you are pretty happy!
    23  MR RAMPTON:  Except for the feeling that I am being boiled
    24  alive
    25   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That I have tried to do something about. The
    26  air conditioning was supposed to be on. I do not know

    .           P-218

    Part III: Richard Rampton’s Cross Examination of Irving (219.7 to 292.26)

      1  whether it actually was over the midday adjournment — it
      2  was. I just do not see that we can solve any of these
      3  problems
      4  MR RAMPTON:  Perhaps the authorities at least might pretend
      5  that it was mid summer instead of Siberia, we might be a
      6  little bit more comfortable

    Section 219.7 to 239.13

      7   Cross-examined by MR RAMPTON, QC
      8  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Mr Irving, to be serious (and I am sorry to be a little
      9  bit facetious) Mr Irving will need some files
    10   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I think it is best to do that first
    11  before you start
    12  MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I agree. D2(i) and (ii), a copy of his
    13  opening —
    14   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Would you prefer to have your own copies
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: No, my Lord, they are not marked up
    16  MR RAMPTON:  Those are the first two transcript files.
    17  Eventually, but perhaps not now, and Mr Irving’s own
    18  writing, his books. Those are the two, just (i) and (ii)
    19  are the only ones that are needed and a copy of the
    20  opening to start with.
    21   (To the witness): Mr Irving, there is an
    22  elegiac story that you told us just now — I do not mean
    23  that sarcastically at all; it is perfectly true it is —
    24  you blame that appalling note on the wreath on Deborah
    25  Lipstadt’s book, is that right
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: I think I was quite careful to say that it is difficult to

    .           P-219

      1  quantify and difficult to be precise, but one thing leads
      2  to another which thereupon leads to another and in that
      3  respect the book has created and generated a climate of
      4  hatred
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: If what the book said about you is true, then it would
      6  not, perhaps you would agree, be the book’s fault but
      7  yours, would it not
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: I do not think any man can ever be expected to receive a
      9  wreath from hateful people like that and have it said it
    10  is his own fault
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let us take a step back in time (and I promise you, as
    12  I have before, both publicly and privately, that I am
    13  going on to Auschwitz this week, to give you time to get
    14  your head round it). In 1977, when the first edition of
    15  Hitler’s War was published, you accepted the Holocaust in
    16  all its essential details in its ordinary sense, did you
    17  not, its generally understood sense
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: Would you tell the court what you mean by the —
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, I will. The systematic mass murder of millions of
    20  Jews by the Nazi regime during the Second World War
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: I do not accept the word “systematic”, but for the rest of
    22  it, then that is an accurate precis
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Including the continuous, if not systematic, though it is
    24  difficult to distinguish the two, perhaps, use of
    25  homicidal gas chambers in institutions like Auschwitz
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: Continuous

    .           P-220

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, over a period of time
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: It is not a word that I used
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, not daily on a continuous basis, but for a long period
      4  of time, something like, I think, 22 months you accepted
      5  that Auschwitz used homicidal gas chambers to kill very
      6  large numbers of Jews, did you not
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: I certainly did not say 22 months
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, let us try to get to the point. In your 1977 edition,
      9  Auschwitz was characterized, I am not quoting, I am
    10  paraphrasing, as one of the extermination camps, was it
    11  not
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: In the 1991 edition, it had become, am I not right, merely
    14  a slave labour camp?
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct — well, I did not say “merely”. I said a
    16  slave labour camp
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: “Merely” is my word
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: You appreciate one has to be precise what I agree to
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: Otherwise it will be used against me later on. You said,
    21   “It was merely a slave labour camp”
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You can be certain that I do not conduct litigation in
    23  that way and that if I did his Lordship would sit on me
    24  quite hard. So have no fear of silly little Perry Mason
    25  traps like that
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: I am very glad to hear it

    .           P-221

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Until 1988 you accepted the Holocaust, however it be
      2  precisely defined (and I am not quibbling about minutia)
      3  in its generally understood sense, that is to say, a mass
      4  killing of Jews by the Nazis during World War II, did you
      5  not
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: I did not use the word “Holocaust” but I did quite
      7  definitely accept that the Nazis engaged in mass killing
      8  of Jews during World War II
      9  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you accept that most people in the western world now
    10  and perhaps all over the world, I know not, when the word
    11  “Holocaust” is used mean the systematic mass murder of
    12  millions of Jews by the Nazi regime
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: I do not think that they ponder one moment to define what
    14  they are thinking about. They associate pictures with
    15  words. When the word “Holocaust” is used, they are
    16  thinking of people behind barbed ward, they are thinking
    17  of pits will bulldozers pushing bodies into them. It is
    18  visual images that are conjured up. They are not using
    19  legal definitions which can later on be bandied in a libel
    20  action. I think it is pictures that are conjured up by
    21  the word
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, we are not looking for legal definitions, Mr Irving.
    23  We are looking for — I give you the card straightaway so
    24  that you can think about it while I ask you more questions
    25   — what people would have understood you to mean when
    26  later you denied the Holocaust, do you understand? Do you

    .           P-222

      1  remember my original question was it might be thought
      2  eventually that the catastrophe or the misfortune you
      3  described at the end of your evidence-in-chief had been
      4  brought on you by what you have said yourself. Do you
      5  understand that? Do you understand, perhaps put it this
      6  way, that if you use a word —
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: This is very similar to saying that the catastrophe that
      8  befell the Jewish people was brought on them by
      9  themselves, and you can say to each of those sentences,
    10  each of those points, the answer is yes
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I do not think —
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: But between each of those alphas and omegas there are very
    13  many intervening stages which you are leaving out
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: That may be so. I do not think you are perhaps quite
    15  answering my question
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: I thought that was a very comprehensive one, sir
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let us go back to your opening yesterday. You made noisy
    18  complaint, if I may call it that, about being branded a
    19  “Holocaust denier”, did you not
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: Oh, yes, yes
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You finished up by calling it a verbal Yellow Star
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: Among my remarks I called it a verbal Yellow Star. I did
    23  not finish up by calling it that
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No. “A poison to which there is virtually no antedote,
    25  less lethal than a hypodermic with nerve gas jabbed in the
    26  neck but deadly all the same. For the chosen victim, it

    .           P-223

      1  is like being called a wife beater or a paedophile. It is
      2  enough for the label to be attached for the attachee to
      3  find himself designated as a pariah, an outcast from
      4  normal society. It is a verbal Yellow Star”. What did
      5  you mean by “it”
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: The phrase “Holocaust denier”
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Exactly. Now, then I would like you to look at some of
      8  the things that you have said publicly or, at any rate,
      9  semi-publicly. You have those two files there, the ones
    10  with the pink spines on them. Can we start, please, with
    11  the one which is, if I can find it, it is D2(i). Can you
    12  please turn to tab 9 which is the transcript of a speech
    13  you made at the Travelodge at the Airport Inn in Calgary,
    14  Alberta, on 29th September 1991. I myself quoted some
    15  part of this, I think, yesterday in opening for the
    16  Defendants. Can you please turn to page 4? If you think
    17  I am reading anything out of context, you must say so
    18  because then I will go back and start again
    19   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So take your time if you need it, Mr Irving
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I read the whole of this speech in the small
    21  hours of this morning in view of the fact that —
    22  MR RAMPTON:  Then can I start, please, halfway down the page,
    23  five lines above the paragraph break
    24   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Sorry, I missed the page
    25  MR RAMPTON:  Page 4, my Lord. There is a sentence which begins
    26  with the last word on the line “For”, after the words “in

    .           P-224

      1  one or two dramatic points”. Do you have it
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: I have that
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: “For example, until 1988, I believed that there had been,
      4  until 1988, I believed that three had been something like
      5  a Holocaust. I believed that millions of people had been
      6  killed in factories of death. I believed in the gas
      7  chamber. I believed in all the paraphernalia of the
      8  modern Holocaust”. Now, what was “all the paraphernalia
      9  of the modern Holocaust” that you believed in up to 1988
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: The words that I had set out in the previous four lines,
    11  the factories of death
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: The gas chambers
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: Like everybody else in this room, I believed in them up to
    16  that point
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Then comes this: “But 1988, when I came to Canada and
    18  gave evidence in the trial of Ernst Zundel as an
    19  historian, I met there people who knew differently and
    20  could prove to me that the story was just a legend”
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: “That that story was just a legend”
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Quite right, thank you, “that that story”, that is to say
    23  the Holocaust story in which you previously believed, “was
    24  just a legend. I changed my mind I’ve now revised the
    25  Hitler book so that all references to Auschwitz and the
    26  gas chamber and all the factories of death”, so that would

    .           P-225

      1  include Sobibor, Treblinka —
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: Mr Rampton, you have inserted some words there. After,
      3  where you read out “to prove that that story was just a
      4  legend”, you then verbally inserted the words “in other
      5  words, the story of the Holocaust”
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: Or something like that, and that is not in there
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Fair enough
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: That story was referring to the paraphernalia
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You corrected my reading quite rightly, I said “the
    11  story”, you said “that story”. What does that mean in
    12  that context
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: The paraphernalia, the equipment, the factories of death
    14  and the gas chambers
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, and the killing of millions of people
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: No
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Really
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: We have repeatedly made quite plain that the Nazis killed
    19  large numbers of people
    20  Q. [Mr Rampton]: “I believed millions of people had been killed in
    21  factories of death”
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: You see, this is why you said “the story” instead of “that
    23  story”. You were trying to sweep up the whole of that
    24  sentence, including the millions of people, when it is
    25  quite plain that I am talking about the latter part of the
    26  sentence which is the paraphernalia

    .           P-226

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, we will get nowhere if we argue about trivia of
      2  that kind. What you had believed in —
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: It is not trivia, Mr Rampton, with respect, because a few
      4  days down the line you will read back to me the transcript
      5  and say, “But you agreed on January 12th that this was
      6  what you were referring to”, and that is why I am going to
      7  be sticking on each one of these points, Mr Rampton
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let us get it straight. The story that you had believed
      9  in until 1988 was, amongst other things, that millions of
    10  people had been killed in factories of death by the use of
    11  gas chambers. I am paraphrasing the penultimate and the
    12  propenultimate lines of the previous —
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: I am sorry, but that is not an accurate paraphrase. You
    14  just said, “I believed that millions of people had been
    15  killed in the gas chambers” and that is exactly what that
    16  sentence does not say. It says: “I believed that
    17  millions of people had been killed in factories of death.
    18  I believed in the gas chamber”. Can you not see the
    19  difference between those two sentences
    20  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, I am afraid I cannot. You tell me the difference
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: I believed that millions of people have been killed
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: In factories of death
    23  A. [Mr Irving]: In factories of death. I believed in the gas chambers
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. Right, now, will you please, just so that we can
    25  clear up this, I will not use the word, just this little
    26  dispute, please keep your finger where you are and turn to

    .           P-227

      1  tab 11 which is something you said apparently on the
      2  unedited transcripts of an interview on 15th and 28th
      3  November for the “This Week” programme and I think Irving
      4  and Leuchter at the Chelsea Town Hall was a press
      5  conference you gave announcing your publication of the
      6  Leuchter Report, am I right
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: It was a lecture that we organized at the Chelsea Town
      8  Hall, yes
      9  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can you turn to page 2, please, of this transcript
    10   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sorry, Mr Rampton. This contains two
    11  separate things, this tab, does it? One, the press
    12  conference and the other a television interview
    13  MR RAMPTON:  It does
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: What I am I supposed to be looking at
    15  MR RAMPTON:  Page 2 of the transcript which is at tab 11,
    16  please
    17   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  This is the press conference
    18  MR RAMPTON:  This is the press conference and there is a
    19  passage time at 0014.25
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: I only have tape 191 in this book
    21   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is what you are meant to be looking at
    22  MR RAMPTON:  Page 191
    23  A. [Mr Irving]: Tape 191
    24  MR RAMPTON:  Tape 191. Please turn to the second page of the
    25  transcript and look at the last paragraph on the second
    26  page

    .           P-228

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: 1425 right? The time
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, 1425. You told his Lordship this morning that, so
      3  far as you could tell, these were accurate transcripts of
      4  what you had said. I will read the sentence and you tell
      5  me whether you want to —
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: Excuse me, you just said that I told his Lordship that
      7  these were accurate transcripts of what I have said
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So far as you could tell, I think, yes. He asked you that
      9  question
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: I said with reservation, with the reservation that some of
    11  them have been subjected to editing
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, just let us have a look at this one sentence and
    13  then you can tell his Lordship whether you think it has
    14  been edited and in some way crafted to misrepresent what
    15  you said
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: The one sentence, yes
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: The one sentence: “The biggest lie of the lot, the blood
    18  libel on the German people, as I call it”, that is you,
    19   “is the lie that the Germans had factories of death with
    20  gas chambers in which they liquidated millions of their
    21  opponents”
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: That is an accurate transcription of what I said
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You did say that
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    25  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And did you regard that proposition, that the Germans had
    26  factories of death with gas chambers, plural, in

    .           P-229

      1  which they liquidated millions, plural, of their
      2  opponents, at this date in November 1991 as a lie
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: A big lie, yes
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: A big lie
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is that proposition, is it not, Mr Irving, which most
      7  people regard as representing not in any accurate or
      8  meticulous, historical sense, but generally understood as
      9  the Holocaust
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: I disagree with that. I have made quite plain that in my
    11  mind most people when they think of the Holocaust think of
    12  everything they are shown on television. Mostly nowadays
    13  it is people being made to walk to the edge of a pit and
    14  being bumped off by soldiers holding rifles. That is the
    15  visual image that people now have
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Right. So that does not represent the Holocaust, millions
    17  of people being killed in gas chambers in factories of
    18  death
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: It represents a part of the Holocaust story
    20  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So will you please go up the page two paragraphs to the
    21  words “timed at 1213”, and explain what you meant by what
    22  you here said? “If you look at my great Adolf Hitler
    23  biography here, this bumper Adolf Hitler biography that we
    24  have only just published, in fact, it literally arrived
    25  off the printing process today, you will not find the
    26  Holocaust mentioned in one line, not even a footnote. Why

    .           P-230

      1  should we? If something didn’t happen, then you don’t
      2  even dignify it with a footnote”
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct. The word “The Holocaust” you will not
      4  find in that book
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: What was the Holocaust that did not happen that you meant
      6  to signify by those words
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: The way I then I specify it two paragraphs later which is
      8  the millions being killed in the gas chambers. This makes
      9  it quite plain it is all part of the same story
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So what it comes to is that the Holocaust, your own
    11  words —
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: — has been denied by you, does it not
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: No. The Holocaust as defined here by me later on, the
    15  description of people being killed in factories of death.
    16  This is the description here which I say you will not find
    17  in the book and you will not find the word “Holocaust” in
    18  the book which you will not, because I think it is very
    19  confusing to use words like that. I mean, this is where
    20  the confusion has come from, that instead of you asking me
    21  a question about the shootings and a question about the
    22  gassings, you are asking a question about a vague concept
    23  called “the Holocaust” knowing that you will get me one
    24  way or you will get the other, rather like Mortimer’s
    25  Fork. I think it would be more forensic if you were to
    26  ask specifically about what you mean rather than ask about

    .           P-231

      1  vague concepts
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Thank you for your advice about how to conduct my case in
      3  court, Mr Irving. I am grateful for that. What do you
      4  think was the Holocaust about which Professor Lipstadt
      5  wrote in her book
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: Which Holocaust are we talking about
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am —
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: The broad definition
      9  Q. [Mr Rampton]: — asking you to answer my question, what is it in her
    10  book that you object to in the words “Holocaust denier”
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: The word “denier” that is attached to it. That is what I
    12  object to it
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You did not deny the Holocaust in that passage —
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: I denied the gas chambers. I denied that the Germans
    15  killed millions in gas chambers and we are going to have a
    16  great deal of interest when we get to that phase of this
    17  trial
    18  Q. [Mr Rampton]: How many people do you think — I mean innocent people,
    19  I am not talking about bombing raids, Mr Irving, I mean
    20  innocent Jewish people do you think the Germans killed
    21  deliberately
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: You mean like Anne Frank
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I do not mind whether they are like Anne Frank or not.
    24  How many innocent Jewish people —
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, I mean, she is a typical example and a very useful
    26  example to take because everybody has heard of Anne

    .           P-232

      1  Frank. She was innocent. I have daughters of my own and
      2  if what happened to her happened to one of my daughters, I
      3  would be extremely angry
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Oh, I see, so Mr or Mrs Frank might not have been
      5  innocent, is that what you are trying to say
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: But I asked you about Anne Frank; I did not ask about her
      7  parents
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, I am sorry, Mr Irving. The procedure in this court is
      9  that you do not ask questions, I do. I asked you how
    10  many —
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: I did not ask a question. I just said, I mean, shall we
    12  talk about Anne Frank
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, I do not want to talk about Anne Frank
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: You want to talk about nameless, unspecified Jews so that
    15  later on we can say, “Well, I was not meaning those ones,
    16  I meant those ones”? The reason you do not want to talk
    17  about Anne Frank, of course, is because she is a Jew who
    18  died in the Holocaust and yet she was not murdered, unless
    19  you take the broadest possible definition of murder
    20  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, this is becoming somewhat comical. We will get
    21  to Anne Frank along down the road, I assure you. She is
    22  part of Professor Evans’ report, apart from anything else,
    23  for a completely different purpose.
    24   I said “deliberately killed”. How many innocent
    25  Jewish people do you say that the Nazis deliberately
    26  killed during the course of World War II. That was my

    .           P-233

      1  question
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: Now, you heard me say in my opening statement, Mr Rampton,
      3  that I am not an expert on the Holocaust. What I would
      4  now say would be a figure without any value whatsoever.
      5  It would be just an assessment off the top of my head.
      6  I can say what did not happen because you can apply
      7  certain logistical principles, but I cannot say what did
      8  happen. It would be a waste of this court’s time for me
      9  to make an assessment
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let us break down your Holocaust denial then, so far as
    11  you will accept that you have made it. You dispute the
    12  word “millions”
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: I dispute the word “millions”
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: No. I do not think I have disputed the word “millions”
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So “millions” is only wrong so far as the gas chambers are
    17  concerned, is that right
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So there are no gas chambers, I think we know that, do we
    20  not
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: Mr Rampton, if I may, I will not venture a question, but
    22  I will make a statement. A million people weigh 100,000
    23  tonnes. We are talking of a major logistical problem
    24  here
    25  Q. [Mr Rampton]: We are not — I think, Mr Irving, we are at
    26  cross-purposes. I am trying to understand what it is that

    .           P-234

      1  you deny, not your reasons for denying it. That will come
      2  much later on
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: I am denying that any kind of multiples of millions of
      4  people were killed in the gas chambers at Birkenhau
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Articles then of — no, that is not what you have said
      6  here
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: I am very being very specific which makes it much easier
      8  to nail me down
      9  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, “factories of death” is plural
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, there were several factories of death, allegedly, at
    11  Birkenhau, the crematoria
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: What you do you say about Sobibor, Treblinka, Belsac and
    13  Chelmo
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: Nothing at all. I am not an expert
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you deny that they were killed in gas chambers in those
    16  places
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: You did not hear what I said, Mr Rampton. I am not an
    18  expert
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You have no opinion about that at all
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: Except what I have read from other people. If other
    21  people come and tell me that, for example, there is no
    22  trace of any mass graves at Treblinka even now, then
    23  I begin to get suspicious about the story
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let me understand it, Mr Irving. By “factories of death”
    25  in this sentence on page 2 of tab 11, you had no intention
    26  of including in that phrase “factories of death” the

    .           P-235

      1  installations, whatever they were, at Belsac, Treblinka,
      2  Sobibor or Chelma, is that right
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: Mr Rampton, you are asking me a question about a verbal
      4  statement I made nine years ago and, if you wish, I will
      5  look to see what the rest of the statement is and I will
      6  tell you which parts of the universe I was talking about.
      7  But —
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Your answer just now — it may have been too quick an
      9  answer; it was not, perhaps, your best answer — was, “Oh,
    10  when I said ‘factories of death’ here, there were
    11  factories of death at Birkenhau”
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, I presumed that as we are still talking about the
    13  Auschwitz phase of the cross-examination, you are talking
    14  about Auschwitz and Birkenhau
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, I am talking about what I call your Holocaust denier
    16  here you write a sentence or you speak a sentence,
    17  presumably written out before: “The biggest lie of the lot
    18  is the lie that the Germans had factories”, plural, and
    19  I said that when I read it to you first time, “of death
    20  with gas chambers in which they liquidated millions of
    21  their opponents”
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let us get back to the present. Which of those elements
    24  in that statement “factories”, plural, “of death with gas
    25  chambers”, plural, “in which they liquidated millions”,
    26  plural, “of their opponents”, which of those elements do

    .           P-236

      1  you still deny
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: The millions in gas chambers
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: Because, among other reasons, which we will come to later
      5  on in this trial, the logistical problems for a start
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: But you do deny it
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: I deny — I use that word, it might be more proper to use
      8  the word “contest” or “question”, but certainly for your
      9  purposes I will use the word “deny”, that it was possible
    10  to liquidate millions of people in the gas chambers that
    11  had been presented us by historians so far
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I follow that. Are you retreating from your earlier
    13  answer that your use of the words “factories”, plural, “of
    14  death” was confined to Birkenhau
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: What, in this particular speech
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: Do you wish me to read the speech so that I can answer
    18  that question
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, no. I would rather you gave me an answer now; if you
    20  want to change it tomorrow, by all means do so. That is
    21  perfectly legitimate
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: No, unless the Judge so orders, I think it would be
    23  improper for me to answer from memory about the content of
    24  a speech I made nine years ago
    25   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think that is probably a fair point. It
    26  does mean that time is going to have to be taken up with

    .           P-237

      1  it, and I am concerned we do not spend too long on it, but
      2  glance through. I do not think it will take that long
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: I am anxious to be responsive, my Lord, but I do not want
      4  to —
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, I think that is fair, as I already said. Just glance
      6  through and see whether you can get any help one way or
      7  the other from the rest of it
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: Whereabouts was it
      9  MR RAMPTON:  It is on page 2, tab 11
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, with respect, I do not see why I should be
    11  required to amplify a statement that I made nine years ago
    12  in any respect whatsoever or I should be required to add
    13  geographical locations on which I did not specify at the
    14  time
    15   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You were not, with respect, being asked
    16  that. When you use that phrase “factories of death” —
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, I can certainly be helpful here and say that I think
    18  I am prepared to deny the possibility that the Nazis
    19  liquidated millions of people in gas chambers at any of
    20  their locations during the Third Reich.
    21  MR RAMPTON:  That is very helpful
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: But do not then start just taking elements of that
    23  sentence saying, “Oh, but you said this, the gas chambers”
    24  or “You said the millions” or “You said anywhere”. The
    25  whole sentence in its totality is correct, and that is
    26  what I am testifying to

    .           P-238

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you accept that the Nazis killed, by one means or
      2  another, and I am not talking about hard labour or
      3  exposing people to typhus, shot, murdered, gassed, kicked
      4  to death millions of Jews during World War II or not
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You do
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, whether it was of the order of millions or not,
      8  I would hesitate to specify, but I would say it was
      9  certainly more than one million, certainly less than four
    10  million. But that is not a very useful answer to you, the
    11  limitation I put on that. I do not want you to say, “You
    12  said millions, therefore, it is more than two million”,
    13  for example. I do not want you to ..

    Section 239.14 to 257.5

    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So tell me what it was then that was the Holocaust that
    15  you removed from the 1991 edition and announced to the
    16  world that you had done so
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: The word “Holocaust” has gone
    18  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, but why
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: Because I find the word “Holocaust” misleading, offensive
    20  and unhelpful
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Why
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: For precisely the reasons that I said 10 minutes ago, that
    23  it is too vague, it is imprecise, it is unscientific and
    24  it should be avoided like the plague, because the word
    25  “Holocaust” could be understood to mean one thing when
    26  somebody is referring to it meaning something else. I try

    .           P-239

      1  to avoid words like that.
      2   I shall be calling — I shall be asking one of
      3  my experts on precisely this matter who is an expert on
      4  the use of the word “Holocaust”. He also takes the
      5  strongest exception to it
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So you removed it because you found it imprecise for one
      7  reason
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, as a part of the general tidying up process — when
      9  you take a book after 10 years and you revise it and you
    10  work over it with a red pencil, you do a lot of tidying up
    11  and tightening up, and we did that with the new edition.
    12  We cut a lot of material out anyway because the book was
    13  the one-third too long and we wanted to bring a new
    14  material that we had obtained, the diaries of Hitler’s
    15  doctor and Goring, and so on. So there was a lot of
    16  editorial work that went on
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I want to take it slowly because it may be important in
    18  the end. You removed it because it was imprecise, but you
    19  accept, you now tell me, that the Germans deliberately
    20  murdered perhaps something between one and two million
    21  Jews during the course of the War
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: A criminally large number of Jews, yes
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Where, in your opinion, did this happen, broadly speaking
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, we could take it sector by sector, but I am not sure
    25  if it is a meaningful exercise. If I am a Jew and I take
    26  it from Amsterdam and I am living a peaceful life and I

    .           P-240

      1  find myself thrown into a stinking concentration camp
      2  where I die of disease, I considered myself to have been
      3  murdered
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I excluded them, as you know perfectly well. I talked
      5  about shooting, gassing, hanging, kicking, what you like,
      6  but I excluded the people who died of disease or overwork
      7  or starvation
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: Very well. On the Eastern front, particularly in the
      9  Baltic States, particularly in the Ukraine, I would
    10  estimate that up to one million Jews were murdered, using
    11  that word in a way that is completely incontrovertible.
    12  They were stood on the edge of pits and shot into the
    13  pits, clubbed to death
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Just so that we get it straight: in the second edition of
    15  “Hitler’s War” — start at the beginning. In the first
    16  edition you accepted that Auschwitz was an extermination
    17  centre, did you not
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, a lazy acceptance which I now regret
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is as may be. By the time of the second edition you
    20  had recanted that acceptance, had you not
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: That Auschwitz was an extermination centre, a dedicated
    22  extermination centre
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    25  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You said, for example, I am paraphrasing, perhaps you will
    26  accept it, that the Hungarian Jews were sent to Auschwitz

    .           P-241

      1  for slave labour
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Instead of purposefully to be killed
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: Definitely
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: What do you say went on — perhaps I will ask you this
      6  first. Do you accept that there were camps, and we will
      7  take them one by one, Chelmo
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      9  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Belzec
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: Belzec I am not certain of
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Treblinka
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: Treblinka I am becoming uncertain about
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Sobibor
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: Sobibor I know nothing of
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Chelmo you accept
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: The other two, second two you are uncertain about
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: What happened at Chelmo
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: In 1940 they established a killing centre. It was in a
    21  handy part of Europe. Hitler had ordered liquidation in
    22  the Polish campaign and afterwards the liquidation of all
    23  the Polish intellectuals and clergy and intelligentsia and
    24  the Jews who were liable to occupy leading positions, and
    25  a lot of them found themselves shipped off to Chelmo where
    26  they were dispatched

    .           P-242

      1   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But not by gas
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: Not to the best of my knowledge, my Lord, no, but I say
      3  this, and I hesitate to say this, as a non-expert on the
      4  Holocaust, this book was not written as a history of the
      5  Holocaust. This was book was written as a biography of
      6  Hitler and it would have been neither here nor there how
      7  his victims were disposed of
      8  MR RAMPTON:  Let us take the other three camps together. You
      9  would not accept that they were purpose built
    10  extermination centres either
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: Not on the basis of the evidence I have seen so far
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It follows, does it not, that you do not accept that
    13  people who were killed there were killed by the use of
    14  purpose designed gas chambers
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: At which camps are you talking about, Treblinka
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: To the three East Polish ones
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: There is a lot of debate each way which, in my mind, is
    18  unresolved and I have no particular interest in resolving
    19  it because, I repeat for the nth time, I am not a
    20  Holocaust scholar, and taking the Treblinka Miediner camp
    21  you have the problem there that they cannot make up their
    22  mind what kind of gas was used to kill the victims, was it
    23  Zyklone, was it diesel engine exhaust fumes, was it petrol
    24  engine exhaust fumes, when that kind of uncertainty occurs
    25  in the testimony, frankly I tend to turn my back on the
    26  entire story and write something that is safe rather than

    .           P-243

      1  something that is liable to dispute
      2   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Rampton, can I ask this question.
      3  I thought, Mr Irving, when you were giving your
      4  evidence-in-chief, I think it was in response to a
      5  question from, you said you accepted that gassing had
      6  occurred
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: But to the limited sent that it had been carried out on an
      9  experimental basis
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: By experimental —
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let me finish the question. I had understood that to be a
    12  reference to the gas vans being brought after the
    13  termination of euthanasia programme. Am I wrong? Is it
    14  wider than that
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: By “experimental” I do not mean that men stood around in
    16  white coats with clip boards and stopwatches. It as just
    17  local SS commanders who had been given the job of
    18  disposing of these people and were looking for other ways
    19  of doing it. Certainly the gas vans were used, because in
    20  Adolf Eichmann’s papers which I obtained in Argentina he
    21  describes having witnessed one such killing, and there are
    22  documents which satisfy me, which may be of great
    23  disinterest to the Defendants but they satisfy me that
    24  they are authentic that such killing trucks did exist,
    25  unless there are enormous coincidences in the use of
    26  language and words. The gas chambers story is

    .           P-244

      1  sufficiently difficult to analyse, because on the one hand
      2  you have apparently consistent testimony of people who
      3  should have known, like the commandants and their
      4  deputies, testifying to the fact that these killings were
      5  carried out in gas chambers, and on the other hand you
      6  have the logistical and agricultural impossibilities which
      7  cannot be overlooked. I am sure that we will hear a lot
      8  more about them later on in the trial
      9  MR RAMPTON:  Yes, perhaps. Then let us return finally to page
    10  2 of tab 11 of this file. I hope you still have it open,
    11  have you
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: Page 2, tab 11, yes
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. In the second paragraph timed at 12.13 the last
    14  sentence reads:
    15   “If something didn’t happen then you don’t even
    16  dignify it with a footnote”.
    17   The “it” you are referring to there is the
    18  Holocaust whatever that may mean. Is that right
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, it is the gas chamber Holocaust
    20  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. I am not trying to be unfair, but according to the
    21  internal syntax of that statement the “it” is the
    22  Holocaust, is it not
    23  A. [Mr Irving]: It is the gas chamber Holocaust and I am sure his Lordship
    24  is well aware of the fact this is a speech delivered under
    25  very strained circumstances without a script. So one does
    26  not put every word on the gold balance, as the Germans

    .           P-245

      1  say. The mere fact it means the gas chamber Holocaust is
      2  evident from the fact that if you look at the book I am
      3  talking about, Hitler’s War, there is any amount of
      4  reference to the rest of the Holocaust story, namely the
      5  shootings on the Eastern Front which are accepted in full
      6  degree
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I said I was not trying to be unfair. I wanted to take it
      8  in stages
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: You are being very fair and you are being very patient
    10  with me, but I have to be very careful with my responses
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: In the four walls of that little paragraph the “it” that
    12  did not happen is the Holocaust, grammatically speaking,
    13  is it not
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: We keep coming back to the same question
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No. Just say yes or no. It is very easy. I am not
    16  trying to trick you. It is, is it not? It is not a
    17  difficult question
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: Which “it” are we talking about
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: In the last line: “If something didn’t happen you don’t
    20  even dignify it with a footnote”. That follows, does it
    21  not, from the earlier part —
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: The something that did not happen is it
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: The something that did not happen is the Holocaust if you
    24  look at the previous line
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: No, the clause, “if something didn’t happen”, that is the
    26  “it”

    .           P-246

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: All right, we will read the whole thing. If you read —
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: It is still going to say the same no matter how often you
      3  read it
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: “You won’t find the Holocaust mentioned in one line, not
      5  even a footnote. Why should we? If something didn’t
      6  happen then you don’t even dignify it with a footnote.”
      7  The something that did not happen is the Holocaust in this
      8  sentence, is it not
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: It is the clause if something did not happen. Let me
    10  explain to you, by this time I had encountered a very fine
    11  American editor Tom Condon, who was my American editor,
    12  American publishers have people who have editors who teach
    13  you how to write, and this particular editor said:
    14  “Mr Irving, don’t waste time and ink telling your readers
    15  what has not happened.” He said: “Don’t say he didn’t
    16  like dogs but he did like cats. You just write ‘he did
    17  like cats'”. This is what I am getting at there. You do
    18  not waste ink
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I follow that entirely, but let us look at the substance
    20  of the thing. The something that did not happen is the
    21  Holocaust, is it not, in this sentence
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: The gas chamber Holocaust, yes
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, no, in the English, the something that did not happen
    24  is the Holocaust
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: The whole of this speech is about the gas chamber, the
    26  whole of this part of the speech. You will notice the

    .           P-247

      1  tape has previously jumped so we have no idea what has
      2  been cut out or what has been accidently omitted
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I said I am said trying to be fair
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: I must insist on fairness here, because I have stipulated
      5  that I will accept these transcripts and allow you to make
      6  great horseplay with them, except where they have been
      7  edited, and that is a paragraph or a sentence has that has
      8  been edited. It says specifically “tape jumps” which
      9  means it has been switched on and switched off. You are
    10  getting the second half of a sentence
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I wish you would not be so nervous of me, Mr Irving.
    12  I said I am trying to be fair. Now look down at the other
    13  paragraph we looked at earlier. I am now going to put
    14  some words into your mouth. You have said in the earlier
    15  paragraph that the Holocaust did not happen. That is as
    16  plain as a pikestaff to anybody who can read English. Now
    17  we see, do we not, as you have been trying to tell us,
    18  what you mean by the Holocaust:
    19   “The biggest lie of the lot is the lie that
    20  Germans had factories of death with gas chambers in which
    21  they liquidated millions of their opponents.”
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: My I intern that differently? I am sorry it is a
    23  question. I will intern that differently. The biggest
    24  lie of the lot is that the Germans had factories of death
    25  with gas chambers in which they killed millions of people
    26  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Liquidated, yes

    .           P-248

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Do you notice the difference there
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You can read it either, can you not
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: You read it your way, Mr Rampton
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No. What you are saying —
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: And we at this end of the wicket will read it our way
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: What you say is the biggest lie is the assertion that
      7  there were gas chambers. That is what you say you meant
      8  by that
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, in which millions were killed. This is what I asked
    10  you not to do, not just to take individual phrases out of
    11  a sentence and say, look at this bit and look at that.
    12  You have to judge the whole
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I do not think that is very fair. I read the whole
    14  sentence
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: No, you did not. You said there were gas chambers, the
    16  biggest lie is that they were gas chambers, and I am
    17  saying that, no, what I say is the biggest lie is that
    18  there were gas chambers in which millions were killed
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I thought, Mr Irving, these were elements in the lie,
    20  factories of death, gas chambers and millions
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: Only when taken together
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Right
    23  A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, am I labouring these points too much
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, you are not at all. You deny that there were
    25  factories of death with gas chambers in which were
    26  liquidated millions of Jews. I have rephrased it so that

    .           P-249

      1  it is absolutely crystal clear
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: I thought I did not recognize it
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So that it is absolutely crystal clear, it has not an
      4  ambiguity of what you wrote. I want to get your evidence
      5  clear
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: Let me explain what underlies this sentence. Because it
      7  is logistically impossible to kill millions of people in
      8  the buildings that have been portrayed to us as factories
      9  of death, therefore they cannot have been, and that is the
    10  big lie, if you try to cut that particular sentence up any
    11  particular way then it becomes (A) something I did not say
    12  and (B) worthless for the purposes of this court
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, you sorely tempt me to proceed to Auschwitz
    14  straightaway, but I will resist it
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: I am looking forward to Auschwitz
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Would you accept that one version of the Holocaust which
    17  is generally understood, accepted and perceived —
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: Will you avoid using the passive voice so we know
    19  precisely who is generally accepting, understanding and
    20  perceiving
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Call it the public at large, the audiences to whom you
    22  speak
    23  A. [Mr Irving]: Have you stood in Oxford Street with a clip board asking
    24  them, the public at large
    25  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You will not commit yourself to a generally understood
    26  sense of the Holocaust then

    .           P-250

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: I do not know what the generally sense of the Holocaust
      2  is. I have given my version of it. You are giving the
      3  court your version of it
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Will you accept, Mr Irving, and if you will not say no, it
      5  matters not, will you accept that one element in the
      6  public perception of the Holocaust is the killing of
      7  millions of Jews in gas chambers constructed by the Nazis
      8  in various parts of Europe
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: That I accept
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You will
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Right. And that you deny
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: Why did you not ask that question right at the beginning
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I wanted to know what you meant
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: It is one element
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, please
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: It is one element, as you say
    18  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Would you not accept that it was the major element in the
    19  public perception of what the Holocaust was about
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: Now you are saying something different
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am asking you a further question
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: You have changed from one element to a major element
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, please, I have asked you about one element.
    24  You have accepted that is an element. I now ask you
    25  whether you do not also accept that it is the major
    26  element

    .           P-251

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: In what
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: In the public perception of the words “the Holocaust”
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: I do not know
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Right. You do not know
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: I have not take any statistical evaluations of what people
      6  think in Oxford Street
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You deny, I think we are clear on this now, that the
      8  Germans killed millions of Jews in gas chambers in
      9  purpose-built establishments
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: Will you repeat that sentence? You deny that Germans
    11  killed
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You deny that the Nazis, do not let us talk about Germans,
    13  let us talk about Nazis, that the Nazis killed millions of
    14  Jews in gas chambers in purpose-built establishments
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: I am sorry to take so long to answer, but I have to see
    18  exactly what it is you are asking. Purpose-built
    19  establishments, millions of Nazis in gas chambers, yes
    20   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Is the reason really why you deny that
    21  because you do not accept there were any such
    22  purpose-built factories
    23  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, the word “purpose-built” made my answer much easier,
    24  my Lord. You will understand why I say that when we turn
    25  to the architectural drawings and we bring in the evidence
    26  that I have

    .           P-252

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And Liechter
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: Liechter I think is something that I am not going to rely
      3  on at all. As I said in my introduction on the Liechter
      4  report, the Liechter report is flawed. We now have very
      5  much better expertise
      6  MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, you do tempt me very sorely. When
      7  Liechter first swam into your view, you had no expertise
      8  about Auschwitz or about gassing or extermination or
      9  anything like that, did you
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: I did not need it. That was not what his report was based
    11  on
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No. Mr Irving, when Liechter swam into view you had not
    13  studied this question at all, had you
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: No
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I think you said as much
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: No
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yet I am right, am I not, that you announced Mr Liechter
    18  as having been, as it were, the corner stone of your
    19  conversion, if I may mix my metaphors
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: Not Mr Liechter, but the laboratory analyses attached to
    21  his report. I am not sure whether I announced it in that
    22  way, but certainly that was the corner stone
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I will just read from the same — there are many other
    24  references but we need not look them all up. Page 6 of
    25  the same transcript. We will start, if we may, at the
    26  large paragraph in the middle of the page, timed at 30.28

    .           P-253

      1  because again I do not want to be accused of taking
      2  anything out of context.
      3   “Thank you Professor Faurisson for that
      4  wonderful erudite discursion on the argument on the
      5  controversy in which we are so emotionally and deeply
      6  embroiled. It is fascinating to see how an academic, a
      7  Professor, can enlarge upon what after all is just a tiny
      8  detail of history, as it now turns out. He can hold it
      9  under a microscope and see details, he can see details on
    10  those details and further details on those details. If
    11  I can just dot the i’s and cross the t’s to some of those
    12  details of details of details, he mentioned that after
    13  Fred Liechter did his truly epoch making investigation of
    14  the gas chambers at our Auschwitz, the forensic laboratory
    15  tests which yielded the extraordinary result which
    16  converted me” —
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: There you have it
    18  Q. [Mr Rampton]: ” … made me into a hardcore disbeliever.”
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    20  Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is right, is it not
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So it was the Liechter report and that aspect of the
    23  Liechter report which summarised or discussed the
    24  laboratory findings that converted you into a hardcore
    25  disbeliever
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: I specifically say there the laboratory forensic tests

    .           P-254

      1  Can we analyse what I am disbelieving there
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No. It is much better we do not go down that road
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: I thought so
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Because we might find ourselves discussing Auschwitz now
      5  which might not suit your book. Do you agree
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: Mr Rampton, you said it did not suit your book in the
      7  interval. You were very willing to start with Auschwitz
      8   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Anyway, we are not dealing with Auschwitz
      9  now. We are dealing really, are we not, with Holocaust
    10  denier
    11  MR RAMPTON:  Yes
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: We have touched upon Mr Liechter. We are going to grapple
    14  with him much more extensively next week. We have touched
    15  upon Mr Liechter and it has led you to this conclusion
    16  that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, is it not?
    17  I use the historic present. It was Mr Liechter’s report
    18  and the bit about the laboratory tests which converted you
    19  into disbelief that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz,
    20  is that right
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Is that is correct. As a consequence of that, you have
    23  come to believe, perhaps it was a matter of protest,
    24  perhaps not, I do not know, that the Nazis did not use gas
    25  chambers for the extermination of Jews let alone millions
    26  of Jews

    .           P-255

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, I have become very sceptical of that element of the
      2  story
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And you have publicly expressed your disbelief
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: Scepticism, yes
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So if and in so far as that forms a part of people’s
      6  belief about the Holocaust, you are a Holocaust denier
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: No
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Are you not
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: No. You do not have to believe in the whole to be a
    10  believer. How many of us are Christians who do not
    11  believe in every aspect of the Christian ethos
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: All right. I do not think we ought to argue metaphysics,
    13  Mr Irving
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: It is a metaphysics problem you are putting there. You are
    15  saying: Believe the whole thing or you are a denier and
    16  you are ruined. You will not eat lunch in this town
    17  again.
    18  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I did not. I said in so far as that forms a part of
    19  people’s belief about the Holocaust, you deny that part,
    20  put it like that
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: Mr Rampton, are you leading evidence on people —
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am asking you —
    23  A. [Mr Irving]: — people’s belief
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am asking you a question. If it should be thought that
    25  it forms a part of common belief about the nature of the
    26  Holocaust that large numbers of Jews were systematically

    .           P-256

      1  gassed in purpose-built gas chambers, you are a Holocaust
      2  denier, are you not
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: I do not know this does form a large part of people’s
      4  beliefs and I do not think you are allowed to lead
      5  evidence on people’s beliefs in an effort to back it up

    Section 257.6 to 279.16

      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, only one last little bit about that. Whatever
      7  methods were used, and you deny the use of gas chambers,
      8  whatever methods were used to kill large numbers of Jews,
      9  whether they are 1, 2 or 3 or 6 million, you say it was
    10  not systematic, is that right
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: Would you elucidate precisely what you mean by
    12  “systematic”? Something organised and ordered from the
    13  highest level of the Third Reich or something ordered from
    14  halfway up the system, or something that was just a system
    15  within the camp? I think the word “systematic” is a bit
    16  of a man trap
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You know quite a lot about the shootings in the East after
    18  Barbarossa in June 1941, do you not
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: As I said this morning, they appeared to be chaotic,
    20  disorganized and arbitrary
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You know that —
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: As that one signal proves that I read out
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You know, do you not, that regularly, indeed frequently,
    24  reports were sent back in writing from the East, from the
    25  units in the East, from the Einsatzgruppen and other units
    26  in the East, enumerating and totalling the numbers of

    .           P-257

      1  people shot
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: Who were these reports from and to
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: They are from the Einsatzgruppen to Heydrich’s office in
      4  Berlin
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, this is true
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Where they are, am I not right, distilled into, as it
      7  were, summary reports, meldung
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: Sometimes they were, yes
      9  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And there are a large number of these documents, are there
    10  not
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. From whom to whom did these reports go
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: From the East to Berlin
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, and the meldung you are talking about made in Berlin,
    14  were did they go to
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is a matter of speculation. Assume they went to
    16  Heydrich or his office. We are then, are we not, in the
    17  top echelons of the Nazi party at this time
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do we need to go any further
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: We do not and I can make your life easier, Mr Rampton, by
    21  saying that Adolf Hitler was quite satisfied, I think,
    22  with the Einsatzgruppen operations on the Eastern Front in
    23  so far as they had the character of security operations
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I see
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: Subsequently of course the security operations were then
    26  umbrellaed out to include the liquidation of Jews who were

    .           P-258

      1  considered to be fair game
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: We will come to report No. 51 on 29th December, 26th its
      3  original date but 29th September 1942 further down the
      4  line
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: That is just one of a kind of course
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, it is 51. It is No. 51. So presumably there were
      7  another 50 before it
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but the others were about things like the progress
      9  and development of the rubber plant and things likes that
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It may be so. It gives a figure, does it not
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: 316,000
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: 363,000 plus as a separate category of Jews executed in
    13  three areas
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: I think you ought to look at the whole document rather
    15  than just take one line out and consider the document a
    16  bit and the initials that are marked on it
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes
    18   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But the figure is right, is it not? That is
    19  the figure
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: This figure is typed on that document, my Lord, that is
    21  true, yes, and the document is typed in the special large
    22  faced typewriter which Himmler and Hitler used
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Himmler used that as well
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, on occasion he would use it to write speeches in,
    25  yes
    26  MR RAMPTON:  And that document is signed by Himmler, is it not

    .           P-259

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: One copy of it is that I have seen
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And it is marked for the Fuhrer, is it not
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: It is a report to the Fuhrer, yes
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. Suppose —
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: It would be far more useful if we could have the document
      6  before the court
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Unfortunately I do not have it here. So we will have to
      8  come back to it. We will come back to it in detail I am
      9  afraid. There is no way round it
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: I am very familiar with the document of course. I think
    11  his Lordship should see it
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: This is why I can ask you about it, so am I, without your
    13  having it in front of you. Just suppose for the sake of
    14  argument that that document was shown Adolf Hitler
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Why would it have been shown to Adolf Hitler
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: I would ask the question the other way round
    18  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, please
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: I would say why is that figure buried on page 6 of that
    20  document
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is not. It is on the first page
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: That is why we wrote it so I do not blunder into silly
    23  mistakes like that. I think I am right. You think you are
    24  right
    25  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am not trying to catch you. Under the heading Meldung
    26  and Fuhrer or whatever it is

    .           P-260

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, OK, why it is buried on that first page
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Have you got it there
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: We have got it. Ah!
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, I have not got my copy. We have only got one copy.
      5  We do not play tricks like that in this court, Mr Irving.
      6  If we do the judges get very cross with us. There is no
      7  point to it
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: What I shall ask you is, does it have the notation at the
      9  top: Fuhrer Fordalig
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I did not hear that
    11   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Does it have “shown to the Fuhrer” written on
    12  the top
    13  MR RAMPTON:  Yes, it does. Well, it has a word which I believe
    14  means something like “presented” in handwriting. It is
    15  written by a man called Fife I think
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: I know Fife and I know Gruchmann, the two initials on it.
    17  It has the letters ERL which means taken care of which may
    18  or may not have been shown to Hitler
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Please, I do not want to come on to the question of fact
    20  whether the Fuhrer ever saw it. I would just like you to
    21  have a look at it
    22   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can I be told where it is
    23  MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I am sorry. It is in H3 (i) at tab 3. It
    24  has a handwritten “6” on the bottom which is a modern
    25  numeral. Tab 3 page 6. It has a whole load of other
    26  numbers on it as well

    .           P-261

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Written on the top it says “forgaleg” which means put
      2  before. But it does not say whom to. But it does say
      3  “put before”
      4   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is cut off on my copy
      5  MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I know. I have had it read by a Germanist
      6  and it does say that
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: The initial at the top is Fife and the initial below it is
      8  Gruchmann, GR
      9   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So the manuscript is “forgaleg”, is it
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you accept that means since it is addressed to the
    12  Fuhrer that it was shown to him
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: On a high probability, yes, my Lord. I would have
    14  accepted that as being evidence that it had probably been
    15  shown to Hitler, but I would also draw attention to two or
    16  three details, if I may, since we are looking at the
    17  document now
    18  MR RAMPTON:  I would rather we left it but you can if you want
    19   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I personally think I would leave it
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: I do not want to upset Mr Rampton by drawing attention to
    21  inconsistencies
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You will have an opportunity later
    23  A. [Mr Irving]: I am not questioning the authenticity, my Lord, just
    24  aspects of it. Right
    25  MR RAMPTON:  I do not mind at all, Mr Irving, if that is what
    26  you would like to

    .           P-262

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: No, you have your own way
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I look at it, I see it describes itself, its subject
      3  matter —
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: Now you are looking at details and I am not allowed to!
      5   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think we will leave it to Mr Rampton.
      6  I think he can ask you more questions if he wants to
      7  MR RAMPTON:  If you have answers to my questions rather than
      8  speeches to make by all means give them, but I really do
      9  prefer to proceed my own way, if I am allowed. It
    10  concerns reports to the Fuhrer about the campaign against
    11  the partisans. Is that a roughly right translation
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: This is what I was about to point out, that the subject
    13  line is combatting partisan, partisan warfare
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is report No. 51 and it concerns Souther Russia, the
    15  Ukraine and Bialystok area, does it not
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is about the outcome of that campaign from 1st
    18  September until 1st December 1942
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct, yes
    20  Q. [Mr Rampton]: The first group, the first category are called van
    21  Diecknann which are —
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: It is their word for “partisans”
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, not always, sometimes it is partisanan, is it not
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: They have various different words for the same thing. But
    25  Nazi jargon was to call partisan bandits
    26  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. There are some people killed under in fact four

    .           P-263

      1  headings, August, September, October and November. So it
      2  does not actually begin on 1st September; it begins
      3  earlier. The second category are partisan helpers and
      4  what are “vanda verdicta”
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: Partisan suspects
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Suspects, yes. In 2C it says: First of all, arrested,
      7  that is subcategory (a). Then it says subcategory (b),
      8  numbers executed, a total of 14,257. In subcategory (c)
      9  it says explicitly, does it not, “Jews executed”
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And the total there is 363,211
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: What would the Fuhrer think when he saw that. You tell
    14  us? You are the Hitler historian
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: I do not think that my imagined response on behalf of the
    16  Fuhrer is evidence in this case
    17   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No. I think that is wrong, if I may say so.
    18  I thought you might say that, but you are an historian.
    19  It is your job to make sense of a document, if you can.
    20  I therefore think it is not only a proper question, it is
    21  quite a significant question
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: Well —
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: To be asked what you think this would have conveyed to
    24  Hitler, which is I think what Mr Rampton was asking
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: Firstly, I accept the document was in all probability
    26  shown to Hitler. Secondly, I think in all probability he

    .           P-264

      1  paid no attention to it. The reason being the date. This
      2  is the height of the Stalingrad crisis. Every waking
      3  moment he is waiting for news that the fourth army that he
      4  sent to rescue the sixth army, to relieve the sixth army,
      5  had broken through the ring, the battleship Sharn Horse is
      6  out on the high seas in the Arctic Circle just about to be
      7  sunk that same day as it is shown to him. He has an awful
      8  lot of things on his plate. You asked me to imagine, my
      9  Lord, the situation and I can imagine the situation that
    10  the Fuhrer, Heydrich Himmler has thought that this is an
    11  opportune moment to slip a document into the heap to be
    12  shown to the Fuhrer which he can use one way or the other
    13  as time may come later on, either to say, “look how well
    14  I did, mein Fuhrer”, or on the other hand to say, “But
    15  I told you at the time we had done that.” There is a
    16  reason why I say this because we have another document
    17  later on called Korherr report with which I am sure the
    18  Defendants are familiar, where Himmler goes to some
    19  lengths to camouflage the documents so Hitler cannot see
    20  what is going on, and references to special treatment and
    21  so on are actually excised from the document before it is
    22  shown to Hitler. So taking this in conjunction with other
    23  documents, but I would attach no evidentiary value to what
    24  I just said whatsoever, because it is literally
    25  speculating on the basis of very thin evidence, on the
    26  basis of the date, on the basis of my knowledge from other

    .           P-265

      1  source of what else was going on at that time in Hitler’s
      2  War. It is a mistake to contemplate documents like in
      3  vacuo
      4  MR RAMPTON:  Oh yes
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: At the same time as documents like this are happening, if
      6  I can put it like that, all sorts of other things are
      7  happening
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Sure, but one, only one, and you see, Mr Irving, we are
      9  not on this side of the court setting out to prove what
    10  did happen, we are only interested in the evidence which a
    11  reputable historian would put into the scales and weigh
    12  before arrival at a conclusion, one obvious explanation of
    13  this document, which in fact is generated by the document
    14  before it in the bundle if you look at it, is it not? The
    15  original report is dated 26th December 1942 and comes from
    16  the higher SS and police leader in South Russia, etc.,
    17  does it not
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So somebody has taken the trouble back at Berlin to have
    20  this typed up in the large Fuhrer type
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Somebody has taken the trouble to put it in front of
    23  Himmler who has signed it as we see on its fourth page, my
    24  Lord, that is page 9, and somebody has taken the trouble
    25  to put it in front of Hitler
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes

    .           P-266

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Why should they do that
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: Somebody has sent it to be put in front of Hitler, yes
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And you agree that the probability is that he saw it
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Or that it was put in front of him
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Why should they do that if they did not think he would
      8  want to see it
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: Because Hitler has personally given orders for the
    10  security operations on the Eastern Front. Hitler at a
    11  very early date after the operation Barbarossa began, the
    12  attack on Russia, issued instructions to Heydrich that he
    13  wanted to be kept regularly informed on the operations of
    14  the Einsatzgruppen
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And on 1st August 1941 Mullar, the head of the Gestapo
    16  told Einsatzgruppen that, did he not, or reminded
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, that is correct. That is the document I am referring
    18  to
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is the beginning of the system, if I may call it
    20  that, and this is one of the end results, is it not? That
    21  is how the system matures
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: We are trying to justify the word “systematic”
    23   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do not worry too much about what Mr Rampton
    24  may or may not be trying to do
    25  MR RAMPTON:  It is not a joint exercise with you, Mr Irving
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: I was in the dark as to what was contentious about this

    .           P-267

      1  document, because I have actually used in document in my
      2  book Hitler’s War, my Lord. I have given the data. I
      3  have given the figures. I have reported it in detail.
      4  There is no mystery about it. I have not tried to conceal
      5  it the way that my opponents have concealed the documents
      6  they do not like
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, I am not here representing your opponents
      8  except in so far as you have sued some people for libel.
      9  Beyond that I have no role
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: You are representing my opponents
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: In this case
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: What, you mean Professor Lipstadt has suppressed
    14  documents, is that what you are trying to say
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: You said I am not representing your opponent
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, I am not. You said “in the way that my opponents have
    17  suppressed documents”. I said I do not answer for those
    18  opponents
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: Those opponent you are not representing
    20  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, I do not represent them. Here is a document which
    21  appears to represent a part of a systematic reporting to
    22  Adolf Hitler about the numbers of people killed by the
    23  Einsatzgruppen in the East
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: I strongly disagree. This document is an orphan. Can you
    25  produce to me one other document shown to Hitler with
    26  figures of that magnitude reporting crimes on that scale

    .           P-268

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Earlier they would have been less. We do not have the
      2  other 50 or do we
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: I am saying that these reports —
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Have you got —
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: No. What I am saying is that the other reports in the
      6  Meldung series are not necessarily statistics. They may
      7  be as I gave one example, a typical thing would be a
      8  report on a two-man midget torpedo operation against the
      9  Tirpitz where Himmler’s men had caught the British seamen
    10  involved and had them executed and that would go to Hitler
    11  as a meldung to the Fuhrer at exactly this time. So what
    12  I am saying is that this kind of meldung with these kinds
    13  of statistics to Hitler on an Einsatzgruppen operation is
    14  an orphan. You cannot produce to me one similar document
    15  in that series
    16   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Have we got any of numbers 1 to 50
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: I have at home, my Lord, yes
    18  MR RAMPTON:  Do they look like this? I am not saying the
    19  wording is similar, but do they look like this
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: No. This is just something that Himmler sent in because
    21  he thought it is just as interesting to Hitler midget
    22  torpedo operations or the rubber plant that he is working
    23  on
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: We are know at the end of 1942 with this document
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but you are trying to justify the system, the fact
    26  that they were systematically put in on the basis of

    .           P-269

      1  reports like this and I am saying this is the only such
      2  report
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is the only one which has survived
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: No. There is a complete series
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: How many are there in this form with a large Fuhrer type
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: I have only seen one such report reporting statistics of
      7  this kind. All the others are in the large Fuhrer type
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: They are
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, the ones about the two-man torpedoes and things like
    10  that. They make fascinating reading. They are obviously
    11  of great interest
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Would you suggest that that report to Hitler of 363,000
    13  plus Jews executed in those eastern territories by the end
    14  of 1942 bore no relation to the order that the
    15  Einsatzgruppen should report to Hitler on the activities,
    16  on their activities, on their work, in the East
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, it may have born, and we know from the decoding
    18  operations of the Einsatzgruppen regularly reported their
    19  killing operations and there are enormous figures involved
    20  in them
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Then, Mr Irving, can we face reality? There is an order
    22  in August 1941 that these people shall report to the
    23  Fuhrer on their activities
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: The Fuhrer wishes to be kept constantly informed on the
    25  Einsatzgruppen operations.
    26  Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is right, he wishes to have continuous report

    .           P-270

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: That is right
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: In the result, as I have put it, in the result in December
      3  1942 he gets just such a report
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: Oh, I do not think you can say that because somebody gives
      5  an order in August 1941 and a document turns up, what, 16
      6  months later this is the result of that
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Why not
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: It may have been but it may not
      9  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Why not
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: If it had turned up two weeks later then I would say yes
    11  there is probably a very clear link between one and the
    12  other
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: If in August 1941 at the time that the Einsatzgruppen were
    14  just starting their work there is an order in place that
    15  the Fuhrer is to be supplied with regular reports of their
    16  work, it is not at all surprising that by December 1942
    17  that system is still in place and these reports are still
    18  coming in, is it
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: I disagree. Suppose in August 1941 you ask for a plumber
    20  to come and fix a sink, and finally in December 1942 a
    21  firm of plumbers contacts you and says, “here is an
    22  estimate for fixing your sink”, it does not necessarily
    23  mean there is any connection between them
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is not a very good analogy, Mr Irving. I do not ask
    25  the plumber for continuous plumbing over a period of time
    26  all over a large part of Eastern Europe. Better keep off

    .           P-271

      1  those sorts of analogies
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: But then where are the other continuous reports,
      3  Mr Rampton? I have not seen them
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, I do not know where they are, Mr Irving
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: This is one report
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: But this is a report of some of the work of the
      7  Einsatzgruppen in the East to be placed before the
      8  Fuhrer
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: But this was not the only task of Einsatzgruppen. The
    10  Einsatzgruppen had a whole bunch of tasks they carried
    11  out
    12   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, I really do think that you ought
    13  to consider the position. Hitler gives an order that he
    14  wants to be kept regularly informed about the shootings by
    15  the Einsatzgruppen
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: No, he wants to be kept informed of the operations of the
    17  Einsatzgruppen
    18  MR RAMPTON:  The work
    19   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The work, whatever you like, kept informed.
    20  That suggests he wants to be told on a repeated basis what
    21  is going on
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Are you suggesting that for some reason he countermanded
    24  that order or that it was not obeyed or what
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: No, I am not, but I am not saying that it is established
    26  to my satisfaction at any rate that this document

    .           P-272

      1  is — I am sure what the relevance is — that this
      2  document is the direct product of that order
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, forget about whether it is the direct product.
      4  Would you not think it a reasonable inference that there
      5  would have been reports in one shape or form or another to
      6  him reaching Hitler’s desk of the number of people being
      7  shot by the Einsatzgruppen
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: One would have expected it, but this is the only one we
      9  have and this is what surprises us
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So you agree that one would expect that there would have
    11  been other similar reports
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, my Lord
    13  MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, let us look at it in a slightly
    14  different way. If, as you have proposed on occasion, the
    15  killings by the Einsatzgruppen in the East and some of the
    16  police battalions and some of the local malitia were
    17  merely, I say “merely” I do not mean to diminish what
    18  happened, but in the sense of structure, merely criminal
    19  acts by local maverick SS commanders and others, nobody
    20  would have dreamed of putting this document before
    21  Hitler,, would they
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: You are regarding it in vacuo again. The episode which
    23  I recounted was at the end of 1941. The clock has now
    24  moved on one year, many things have happened. Germany has
    25  started to lose. People are getting frantic. The tide has
    26  turned as Churchill himself said, it was no longer the

    .           P-273

      1  beginning of the end, but it was the end of the beginning
      2  I think Churchill said. This was Stalingrad, it was
      3  encircled, El Allgemeine, the battle had been won. The
      4  Germans were now seeing the writing on the wall and it may
      5  well be that Himmler thought this was a good time to show
      6  this kind of thing to Hitler
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And for why
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: Can I just remind you once again, this document is in my
      9  books
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. We are going to look at your books in some detail
    11  further on down the road, not today, Mr Irving, except for
    12  one remaining purpose
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: That is what worries me about why we are spending the
    14  court’s valuable time on looking at this document when
    15  I have gone into in great detail in my book
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Because, Mr Irving, I think your position is that mass
    17  killings —
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: — not by gas but by other means were not systematic
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: I have said all along mass killings occurred on the
    21  Eastern Front. This is the Eastern Front
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And then we started this little digression, if you
    23  remember, by your asking me what I meant by “systematic”
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    25  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I said and you agreed there are all those meldungs that go
    26  back to Heydrich’s office

    .           P-274

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Halfway up the hierarchy
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Or whatever, but quite a long way up, halfway up the RHSA,
      3  he is head of the RHSA in Berlin
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: He is quite close to Himmler
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Who is quite close to Mr Hitler
      8  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      9  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Then this was another example designed only to illustrate
    10  this, that a reputable historian might well conclude that
    11  this document would not have surprised Adolf Hitler one
    12  bit
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: Might not have
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: No. Well, surely, use your imagination, Mr Irving, if
    15  I am Adolf Hitler I am king of the German world, as it
    16  were, and this is put in front of me and it represents
    17  something that I do not approve of, I am going to go
    18  through the roof, am I not
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: I do not say he did disapprove of the killings of the Jews
    20  on the Eastern Front
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: He did not
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: He did in December 1941 in the case of the German Jews
    23  being killed. He was quite plain. I mean Himmler sent
    24  the message which the British decoded ordering the man
    25  responsible to come immediately to headquarters, but the
    26  killings on the Eastern Front of the Russian Jews and the

    .           P-275

      1  others, Hitler did not care about them
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: This is South Russia, the Ukraine and Bialystok which is
      3  on the border then of Poland and Russia
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: Still the Eastern Front according to my map
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Though by 1942 quite a long way behind the Eastern Front
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: It is the rear Eastern Front area. It is the area in which
      7  the SS still operated
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is miles away. It is right over, well, as you say,
      9  Stalingrad. This is the height of he battle for
    10  Stalingrad
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: But it is the area in the rear of the Eastern Front where
    12  the Einsatzgruppen had h task of pacifying and cleansing
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Before I move on to something else, do you distinguish in
    14  your own mind a sensitivity in Hitler towards the murder
    15  of central or western Jews, German Jews, and the murder of
    16  363,000 Eastern Jews
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: I am not sure what that question means, but if I say that
    18  one of his staff, Walter Havel, whose diary I had, said
    19  that if you want to understand Hitler’s attitude to
    20  humanity was the way that a man might look on an ant heap,
    21  and that is how he regarded the Eastern peoples whether
    22  they were Jewish or not, but he very definitely intervened
    23  to stop the killing of German Jews at the time that
    24  I specified. So there was clearly a distinction in his
    25  own mind at that time
    26  Q. [Mr Rampton]: We are talking about two events a year apart

    .           P-276

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, you are talking about two events a year apart. Also
      2  you are talking about the giving of the order and the
      3  receiving of meldung
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, surely, but that is in a completely different
      5  context, Mr Irving, as you very well know. You use what
      6  you say as Hitler’s opposition to the Riga killings as
      7  having some kind of relevance to this document. Tell me
      8  what the relevance is
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: Hitler clearly intervened, if we can assume that the fact
    10  that the telephone call in the first place was made from
    11  Hitler’s bunker, and if we know that the next day Himmler
    12  was ordered to send or Himmler was required to send a
    13  radio message to the man who had carried out the killings
    14  telling him that he had overstepped the mark, that he had
    15  to follow the guidelines in the future with outsettled
    16  Jews, the ones sent from Germany, in other words, and this
    17  is clearly an indication that German Jews were kept in a
    18  different category because the killings then stopped as
    19  the historians agree for several months as far as the
    20  German Jews were concerned, but the killing operations of
    21  non-German Jews behind the Eastern Front continued and
    22  obviously, according to this document, on a huge scale.
    23  I can only repeat why are we wasting our time looking at
    24  this document which I have printed in my books, which
    25  I agree is authentic, I am not going to challenge the
    26  authenticity of it

    .           P-277

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Or the likely conclusion to be drawn from it that Hitler
      2  will have seen it
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: We have agreed that it is probable that given that is says
      4  “forgaleg” it is probable that it was shown to Hitler
      5  because that is the phrase they would have used
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You deny, however, that there is any evidence that the
      7  shootings in East were systematic in the sense that they
      8  got up and were approved, got up to and were approved by
      9  the highest level
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: To justify the word “systematic” I would want to not just
    11  one out message and one in message which is all we have
    12  separated by 18 months, I would want to see a flow of out
    13  and in and out and in, in the way that we are accustomed
    14  to seeing them in the archives
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You have read what I call in shorthand the EMs coming in
    16  from the East to Heydrich’s office, have you not
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: They go up to Heydrich’s office and hey are detailing
    18  purely these security operations
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Security operations. I mean they list killings of
    20  hundreds of thousands of Jews, as Jews, as Jews, not as
    21  partisans
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, let us have a look at all the other ones and see how
    23  they are categorized
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: We will do
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: I agree that the Jews are being brought in under that
    26  umbrella. They are being killed under that camouflage

    .           P-278

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You are familiar with the Jager report, are you not
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but I very much hope we are going to have a look at
      3  the original
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: We are going to have a look at the original. We certainly
      5  are
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: It comes from the Russian archives
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I want to be sure, because I do not want to do you any
      8  disservice at the end of this case. I want to make sure
      9  I have your position clear. You do not accept that that
    10  document, let alone its forerunner, you say it is not a
    11  forerunner, back in August 1941 is any evidence that the
    12  killings in the East by shooting, not by gassing, but the
    13  killings in the East by shooting is any evidence at all
    14  that this was a systematic process approved of at the
    15  highest level of the Third Reich
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: That is my position

    Section 279.17 to 292.26

    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I see. Thank you very much. Now I want to pass to
    18  something different. What you will need now are copies of
    19  your two books, 1991 Hitler’s War and Goebbels Master Mind
    20  of the Third Reich. You will also need in case we need to
    21  refer to it, a copy of your opening yesterday. You will
    22  need D2 (i) (ii) and (iii). Forgive me, Mr Irving, I am
    23  just trying to find the document. I apologise for that
    24  pause, my Lord. Mr Irving, yesterday you made quite
    25  something of this document from the PRO which records
    26  statements made —

    .           P-279

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: The Bruns document
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: — by General Bruns but secretly recorded
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: That is true
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You told us that this document has considerable
      5  evidentiary value. It is not self-serving
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: Not self-serving, yes
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And that it has the ring of truth from the phraseology and
      8  the things he describes, is that right
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, very similitude
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. Do you have a copy of it with you or can you tell us
    11  where to find it
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: Well, the text is in my opening speech of course
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I will try to use the same version as you
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: Page 22
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, page 22
    16   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is not 100 per cent accurate I remember
    17  noticing, but I do not think there is any real
    18  difference
    19  MR RAMPTON:  I am just checking, my Lord, to see whether the
    20  two little passages which I have are the same
    21   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, the one right at the end
    22  MR RAMPTON:  There is one, as your Lordship says, right at the
    23  end. As far as I can tell at a quick glance, the words
    24  which Mr Irving has printed in his speech are the same as
    25  I have on the document. So perhaps we can use the
    26  speech. In the middle of the page just below the middle

    .           P-280

      1  of page 22, Mr Irving, General Bruns reports having, as it
      2  were, been subjected to the experience of one of these
      3  Riga shootings. He reports that a man called Altemeyer
      4  said to him upon his protest at the use of, at the misuse
      5  of he waste of valuable manpower, Altemeyer said: “Well,
      6  let it be shot in accordance with the Fuhrer’s orders. I,
      7  that is Bruns, said: Fuhrer’s orders? Answer from
      8  Altemeyer: Yes. Whereupon he, Altemeyer, showed me,
      9  Bruns, his orders.” Yes
    10  A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct, yes
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is what is in the PRO document. Therefore,
    12  presumably, General Bruns actually said that
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And was recorded as having said it by Allies. If you go
    15  right to the end, the narrative is that they managed,
    16  Bruns and his colleagues managed, to get back to Berlin,
    17  perhaps to Canaris, an account of this shooting, perhaps
    18  in the form of an objection, is that right
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: My reading of the document was — in fact, we know also
    20  from other sources — Gerald Fleming had done some very
    21  good work on this particular episode, that an Army
    22  Lieutenant wrote a report, having been sent down the road
    23  to go and have a look for himself by these cowardly German
    24  Generals, and this Army Lieutenant’s report was sent over
    25  the Army Lieutenant’s name up to Hitler’s headquarters by
    26  the route of Admiral Canaris who was the Head of the

    .           P-281

      1  German Intelligence Service
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can I start at the bottom of the next page 24 where
      3  “Canaris” begins a line, do you see that
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: “Canaris had the unsavoury task of waiting for the
      6  favourable moment to give the Fuhrer certain gentle
      7  hints. A fortnight later I visited the Oberburgermeister,
      8  or whatever he was called then, concerning some other
      9  business. Altenmeyer(?) triumphantly showed me: ‘Here is
    10  an order just issued prohibiting mass shootings on that
    11  scale from taking place in future’. They are to be
    12  carried out more discreetly.’ From warnings given me
    13  recently, I knew that I was receiving still more
    14  attentions from spies”, etc.
    15   “They are to be carried more discreetly in
    16  future” means the shootings are to be carried out more
    17  discreetly in the future
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: I would even go so far as to say mass shootings
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. It does not mean that the mass shootings were to
    20  come to an end, does it
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: Not in that sentence, no
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: What it means is that they must be more cleverly disguised
    23  from anybody who might notice what was going on
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
    25   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Just whilst you are on that document, you
    26  told us, I think, that Bruns would have been a Colonel

    .           P-282

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: He was a Colonel at that time in the Engineer Corp. and he
      2  was a Major-General at the time of his capture in 1945
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And Altenmeyer, presumably, was his superior officer
      4  A. [Mr Irving]: No, sir. Altenmeyer, his real name was “Altemeyer”,
      5  without an “n”, he was a 21 or 22 year-old very junior SS
      6  officer who just happened to have the lives of these
      7  unfortunate people in his power
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Hitler’s orders go to him before they go to the Colonel
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: No, sir the orders went — I think the route was that
    10  Hitler told Himmler, who sent the message to Joachim which
    11  is what we talked about yesterday which we, British,
    12  intercepted and decoded, so we had an inkling of what was
    13  going on. Himmler said to Joachim, “Come straight to
    14  headquarters, that it had to stop”.
    15   In Himmler’s diary on December 1st 1941, the
    16  following day, I noticed yesterday there is the telephone
    17  call from Himmler to Heydrich on December 1st, SS
    18  Obergruppenfuhrer Heydrich “Executzionan in Riga”, the
    19  executions, the shootings, in other words, in Riga, they
    20  talked about this very episode again on the day after it
    21  happened; and when Joachim came — unfortunately, I cannot
    22  show you this, my Lord, that bundle is still at home; we
    23  know it from Himmler’s diary in Moscow — Joachim came to
    24  see Himmler on December 4th. Himmler wrote in his diary
    25  that evening that he dined with him at 9.30 p.m. and the
    26  topic of their conversation which Himmler also noted was

    .           P-283

      1  [German], Jewish question, and [German] “in Riga”, which
      2  [German], economic businesses, small shops, something like
      3  that, in Riga, which fits rather in with Bruns’
      4  description, in my view, that these executions were
      5  causing problems in the local economy because they were
      6  running out of manpower, but that is a possible
      7  interpretation of that.
      8   But, obviously, there was a certain amount of
      9  toing and froing from the very highest level down through
    10  these channels down to this very low level SS Officer who
    11  claims he received a Fuhrer order, if I may go into that,
    12  when the army Colonel came to see him and said, “What on
    13  earth is going on here?” and this very junior SS Officer
    14  said, “Oh, it is the Fuhrer’s orders” which frequently was
    15  said. Frequently people claimed they were Fuhrer’s
    16  orders. We know, however, from our other sources (which
    17  are much superior sources) that the Fuhrer’s orders were
    18  distinctly very different in this case [German] “No
    19  liquidation”
    20   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But Bruns says that Altemeyer showed him the
    21  orders
    22  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, I do not attach too much importance to that, my Lord
    23  MR RAMPTON:  Well, in considering all the other trappings of
    24  verisimilitude that this —
    25  A. [Mr Irving]: I thought you might mention that, actually
    26  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Of course I might mention it. It is obvious, is it not

    .           P-284

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but the problem we have with that, Mr Rampton, is how
      2  do you reconcile in with the kind of [German] in Himmler’s
      3  own notes what Hitler told him, Jew transport, no
      4  liquidation
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You have never shown us any evidence, shall I say, or any
      6  of your readers that Himmler [German] came from Hitler
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: It is coming from Hitler’s bunker, from a phone booth in
      8  Hitler’s bunker, just as if I made a phone call from that
      9  phone booth outside
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: But as I think you have accepted on your web site an hour
    11  before Himmler met Hitler
    12  A. [Mr Irving]: But he was in and out all day. When you visited Hitler in
    13  his headquarters, you would have lunch with him, you would
    14  have tea with him, you would be in and out of Hitler’s
    15  bunker all day
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: The entry in his log for that day — it is not a diary,
    17  except in the most primitive sense — in Himmler’s log,
    18  the only entry referring to Hitler is, I think, 1430,
    19  [German] or something along those —
    20  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, I agree entirely with what you say, Mr Rampton, but
    21  I have to say that if he drives over to Hitler’s
    22  headquarters and, for whatever reason, finds it necessary
    23  suddenly to telephone Heydrich and say, “That transport of
    24  Jews from Berlin is not to be liquidated”, it is a very
    25  reasonable interpretation indeed to say this is not
    26  unconnected with the fact that he is speaking from

    .           P-285

      1  Hitler’s bunker. And it would be perverse not to accept
      2  that
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, bear with me. I do wish that one could insert
      4  the word “objective” into every answer you give. It is a
      5  possibly, certainly, that Himmler spoke to Hitler before
      6  he made that telephone call. That is quite different, is
      7  it not, from an assertion that the telephone call was made
      8  on Hitler’s orders
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: I agree, I agree
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And you have asserted the latter, have you not
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: I agree, it is a judgment call, and it is a judgment call
    12  which — may I speak? It is a judgment which, in my
    13  submission, is entirely justified. If Himmler drives over
    14  to Hitler’s bunker in the train, [German] makes a few
    15  phone calls and then [German], from the bunker, from
    16  Hitler’s Wolf’s Lair bunker, he makes a phone call to
    17  Heydrich saying, “That train load of Jews is not to be
    18  liquidated”, it would take a very perverse and obtuse
    19  person indeed to say there is no connection between the
    20  two facts
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: May I suggest that what an objective, reputable historian
    22  who was not punting a particular line to exonerate Adolf
    23  Hitler might have written would be something like this:
    24  The evidence is that Himmler saw Hitler about an hour
    25  after he made that telephone call. There is no direct
    26  evidence that Himmler spoke to Hitler before he made the

    .           P-286

      1  telephone call. It is possible that that telephone call
      2  was made at Hitler’s instigation
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: Why did he make the phone call from Hitler’s bunker then
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Because he happened to be there for heavens sake
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: Why did he not make the phone call from his own
      8  headquarters? I do not want to say that I am less obtuse
      9  than you, but I am beginning to suspect it in this
    10  matter. It is not a question of reputable or not. It is
    11  a question of seeing a logical solution written in six
    12  inch letters in front of your own face
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I see
    14   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  My impression, I think it is relevant on this
    15  topic, from your book Hitler’s War is that at this time
    16  Himmler was seeing Hitler almost more often than anybody
    17  else
    18  A. [Mr Irving]: Very frequently as we know now from his diary and
    19  telephone log, but you will appreciate that particular
    20  episode because it is a pivotal episode has now gone
    21  through three or four different chameleon like changes
    22  with very subtle refinements and a word knocked out here
    23  which cannot be justified and so on, as happens. One is
    24  constantly revising history. This does not mean to say
    25  one is manipulating or is in any way trying to exonerate.
    26  You are trying to get closer and closer and closer to the

    .           P-287

      1  likelihood of what actually happened
      2  MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, tell me plainly, we are off course
      3  again but it does not matter, we will get back on course
      4  in a moment, tell me plainly what is the evidence for
      5  this, this is in the 1991 edition —
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: Right
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And you have repeated it since. I think you repeat it in
      8  the appendices or the footnotes to Goebbels, these words:
      9  “On 30th November he, Himmler, was summoned to the Wolf’s
    10  lair”, pause there. Sorry, page 427
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: I am looking at my Himmler diary because I know what you
    12  are going to say next
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I expect you know it off by heart
    14   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sorry
    15  MR RAMPTON:  It is D1 (v). It is Hitler’s War second volume,
    16  1991 edition
    17  A. [Mr Irving]: What is the evidence for —
    18  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Wait a minute. I am waiting until his Lordship has the
    19  volume
    20   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: What page of Hitler’s War is it? This is the new
    22  edition
    23  MR RAMPTON:  Now you can help me with some German perhaps in a
    24  moment. It is the new edition. It is changed from the
    25  1977 edition in that you have conceded that the Himmler
    26  order concerned but a single train load of Jews

    .           P-288

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Instead of Jews in general
      3  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can you first of all explain why it was that in the 1977
      5  edition this passage referred to Jews in general
      6  A. [Mr Irving]: It was a silly misreading of the word. If I show you the
      7  actual handwriting —
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, it is printed in the book, is it not
      9   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think you said you misread, you could not
    10  read the handwriting of Himmler
    11  A. [Mr Irving]: Perhaps I would like to show to his Lordship what the
    12  handwriting of Heydrich Himmler looks like
    13  MR RAMPTON:  Your Lordship will find it in this —
    14  A. [Mr Irving]: I have a reasonable facsimile of the original here. He
    15  wrote a particularly nasty form Gothic spiky handwriting
    16  which modern Germans cannot read either. You could show
    17  that document to several Germans in this room, unless they
    18  were the older generation, they would not be able to read
    19  it. It is pretty horrific. I admit I made a mistake in
    20  the transcription. I was paying more attention to the
    21  position of the full stops in the lines which are quite
    22  important
    23  MR RAMPTON:  Yes. I have it somewhere here. You actually
    24  printed a facsimile of that page in both the editions, did
    25  you not
    26   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is in the following page 506

    .           P-289

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: It would be remarkable if when one transcribes a lot of
      2  that handwriting one does not occasionally miss out a
      3  letter E or something like that.
      4  MR RAMPTON:  When printing that as a facsimile in your editions
      5  Hitler’s War, you would not expect your ordinary English
      6  reader to be able to decipher what it said
      7  A. [Mr Irving]: I would be very surprised if they could decipher that
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Even if they knew German
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: Older generation Germans can read that, prewar
    10  generations
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: But your ordinary English reader, these books are
    12  published primarily in English, are they not
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: No. My books are published in every language in the
    14  world
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I know, but are they written in English originally
    16  A. [Mr Irving]: This one was, yes. I have written books in German too
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: As you fairly concede even a modern German might struggle
    18  with that unless they had the old handwriting
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: The point I am trying to make is that this is not
    20  manipulation on my part. It is not manipulation or
    21  distortion. It is a traffic accident, shall we say
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I have to disagree with you. I do not have any training
    23  of the German language. I have relatively poor eyesight.
    24  I look at the word on the page and it quite plainly does
    25  not have an E on the end of it, does it
    26  A. [Mr Irving]: No

    .           P-290

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is perfectly clear
      2  A. [Mr Irving]: I now see that, yes
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Why did you put an E on it? Were you in a terrible hurry
      4  or very tired or something when you wrote this
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: You are asking me to recall. This was actually written in
      6  1970. We are looking at something 30 years ago you and
      7  you are asking me why I had an E on the end of a word
      8  which I wrote 30 years ago
      9  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I will tell you why I am suggesting it was deliberate,
    10  Mr Irving, for a number of reasons which are cumulative,
    11  but one which is very closely related. There are two
    12  closely related reasons. The first we are coming back to
    13  in a moment which is the way you have handled he Bruns
    14  testimony, but the other is in relation to the entry for
    15  the following day, 1st December 1941, where for some
    16  reason best known to yourself, and of course we shall need
    17  to hear your explanation, you translate the words
    18  “[German] SS” as Jews
    19  A. [Mr Irving]: No.
    20  Q. [Mr Rampton]: That cannot be a misreading, can it
    21  A. [Mr Irving]: I misread the word “harbun” for “uden” and I have it here
    22  in front of me and I will show that to his Lordship
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: What have you got in front of you
    24  A. [Mr Irving]: Himmler’s diary, the actual handwritten page
    25  Q. [Mr Rampton]: We have not got that. We would like to see it. May we
    26  see it

    .           P-291

      1  A. [Mr Irving]: Had I known you were going to attach importance to I would
      2  have provided you with any number of copies
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: You would have heard in my opening speech that I attach
      4  some importance to it
      5  A. [Mr Irving]: I am terribly sorry, but I had actually prepared a dozen
      6  facsimiles of this to bring in tomorrow in a bundle
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: In fairness to you and perhaps to me we should leave it
      8  where it is until we get the facsimile
      9  A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. I did envisage that I would have the running of this
    10  and that we would be looking at my bundle of stuff
    11  tomorrow
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: The running of what, your cross-examination
    13  A. [Mr Irving]: I had not —
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Shall I sit down
    15  A. [Mr Irving]: — envisaged that I would envisioned I would be standing
    16  up for cross-examination today. Had I known that I would
    17  not have worked to 6 o’clock this morning preparing
    18  bundles
    19   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You can blame me for that
    20  MR RAMPTON:  That said, my Lord and since he was up until 6
    21  o’clock —
    22   MR JUSTICE GRAY: ! I agree with what you are about to say.
    23  I think you have had quite a long day. 10.30 tomorrow
    24  morning
    25  (The court adjourned until the following day)

    .           P-292