• Search

    Day 17 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

    Part I: Initial Proceedings (1.1 to 1.26)

        1996 I. No. 113
      2  Royal Courts of Justice
      3  Strand, London
      4  Tuesday, 8th February 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)
    23  (This transcript is not to be reproduced without the written permission of Harry Counsell &Company)

    .           P-1

    Part II: Professor Christopher Browning, Day 2 (2.1 to 114.3)

    Section 2.1 to 21.15

      1  <Day 17 Tuesday, 8th February 2000.
      2  < PROFESSOR BROWNING, recalled.
      3  < Cross-Examined by MR IRVING, continued.
      4  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, I think there is a suggestion that
      5  we might at some stage amalgamate the documents really
      6  relating to Professor Browning’s evidence which at the
      7  moment are in two separate places.
      8  MR IRVING:  Miss Rogers has very kindly volunteered to do this
      9  task and I willingly accept that.
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am just mentioning it to you in case you
    11  had any feelings on the topic, but I think it must be
    12  sensible. I wonder whether we might not keep the
    13  pagination? Otherwise the transcript will make very
    14  little sense. Can I leave that to you? Yes, Mr Irving?
    15  MR IRVING:  May it please the court, I have given your Lordship
    16  a little bundle of documents, on the basis of which I wish
    17  to cross-examine the witness this morning.
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. Let us decide where we are going to put
    19  those.
    20  MR IRVING:  Whatever occurs under the new regime, I think.
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Temporarily it had better go into J or L,
    22  I do not mind which.
    23  MS ROGERS:  L.
    24  MR IRVING:  L. I think the simplest thing to do, Professor
    25  Browning, is if we just go through this heap in sequence.
    26  You will agree that the first few documents apparently

    .           P-2

      1  come from the Himmler papers, is that correct?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They come from the administrative and economic main office
      3  of the SS which is under Himmler.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Just pause a moment, Mr Irving, will you?
      6  Yes, Mr Irving.
      7  MR IRVING:  My Lord, I should explain the purpose of the
      8  following questions is to go to the quantum, the figures
      9  really. That is all I am looking at. It is Operation
    10  Reinhardt. These are documents from a file in Himmler’s
    11  papers called Operation Reinhardt. (To the witness):
    12  Professor Browning, is it correct that these documents
    13  appear to come from the Hoover Library in California, if
    14  you look down the slash on the side?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: And can you recognize the initials of Heinrich Himmler on
    17  the top copy?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: So, in other words, this document is of high level, shall
    20  we say?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Where are Himmler’s initials?
    23  MR IRVING:  The HH under the word “Hehler” about three inches
    24  from the top right-hand side of the document.
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
    26  MR IRVING:  I am purely interested in the very first line of

    .           P-3

      1  the letter under the word “Reichsfuhrer”, where it says:
      2  No. 1. Then, when you translate the next sentence, this
      3  “Bis 30.4.1943 sind angeliefert”?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: “Up until the 30th April 1943 had been delivered”.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: “Had been delivered the following”, right?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: If you look then at the list that follows, it is a number
      8  of items, a rather sad list, I suppose, a tragic list, of
      9  wristwatches, is that right, for men and women?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: Fountain pens?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Razor blades and other valuable items, is that right?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: These are all the sort of things that would have been in
    15  one’s toiletries or personal possessions, yes.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Where had these items come from?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: These were formerly Jewish possessions, but I see nothing
    18  so far that says which camps they came from.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Can I draw your attention to the reference line at
    20  the top of the transcript, the Verwertung, the
    21  exploitation of — then comes one of their stock phrases,
    22  is it not, “Jewish plundering loot”, is that correct?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In fact, I have not seen that first phrase, but the
    24  “Diebesguts”, the stolen goods, yes.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: This is the way that they sought to legitimate what they
    26  are doing, is that correct?

    .           P-4

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, their stance was all that Jewish property had been
      2  stolen by Jews originally, so they were repossessing they
      3  claimed what was properly German property.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, a very distorted, perverse, kind of thinking, right?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: A rationale that appears.
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  How does this help on numbers?
      7  MR IRVING:  It helps on numbers, my Lord, because we have
      8  numbers of items that had been collected from the victims
      9  by April 30th 1943.
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It does not say “from when”.
    11  MR IRVING:  I am hoping that the witness will assist us on
    12  this.
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Let us ask.
    14  MR IRVING:  Where did these items come from, these valuables?
    15  Did they come from victims of Operation Reinhardt?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I see nothing in the document that says Operation
    17  Reinhardt.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: Very well. Can I take you, therefore, to page 4, the
    19  handwritten number at the bottom?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: And you will notice in the third line of the letterhead
    22  the initials “Reinh.” in the top left-hand corner?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: “Reinh”, yes.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I take you to page 10, and on the same letter head
    25  also we have Reinhardt?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Those two documents do have the “Reinh.”.

    .           P-5

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: Thank you. And on the page 12 — I am sorry, it is the
      2  same document. So, if these items come from an SS folder
      3  which is called Operation Reinhardt and these particular
      4  documents have the initials “Reinh.” on them, and they
      5  appear to be items stolen from the Jews or from victims,
      6  Jewish victims in fact, depending on the subject line, on
      7  the face of it, this is a list provided to Himmler of
      8  items that have been stolen from the Jews up to April 30th
      9  1943. Is that a reasonable interpretation?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In terms of the inventory in the first document where we
    11  do not have the reference to Reinhardt, it is at least
    12  conceivable this was property taken from German Jews about
    13  to be deported, and could easily have been stuck in the
    14  same folder. I do not see anything there that would
    15  necessarily lead us to conclude that the first inventory
    16  came from camps in Poland. It could well be that this was
    17  possessed Jewish property taken while Jews were being in
    18  the process of being deported from Germany, but stuck in
    19  the same folder because it always was relating to Jewish
    20  property.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you know what happened to these valuables that were
    22  collected in Operation Reinhardt? Where did they go
    23  initially?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have seen documents that show a wide variety of
    25  distribution.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: Where they overhauled, were they recycled in some way

    .           P-6

      1  before they were parcelled out?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Once collected at the three camps in Poland they are taken
      3  to Lublin where you have several camps, the old airport
      4  camp, for instance, where some sorting and reconditioning
      5  was done. Some of the properties were distributed there
      6  to ethnic Germans and any German unit that needs something
      7  can come and ask to be given something.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I take you to document 10?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: Does this say that they have a number of, 20,000, pocket
    11  watches and various other valuables at present at
    12  Oranienburg, and does the next paragraph say that the
    13  watches and fountain pens have been overhauled and are
    14  ready to be dispatched?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The topic of the document is watch distribution to members
    16  of the SS.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: And then below they give you the different kinds. Would
    19  you allow me a moment to read the document?
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you read the paragraph beginning with the word
    21  “Insgesamt”?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. At the moment in Office D there are for repair
    23  100,000 hand wristwatches, 39,000 pocket watches, 7,500
    24  alarm clocks, 37,000 pens and so forth.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: There is no indication of any other stocks of valuables of
    26  this nature being processed by this central processing and

    .           P-7

      1  overhauling department?
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do we have all the files, all the documents
      3  in the files? I take the point you are making.
      4  MR IRVING:  This was all the documents in this file. I picked
      5  them in California about five or six weeks ago.
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Is the file complete? Is it intact?
      7  MR IRVING:  I have no way of knowing, of course, my Lord.
      8  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is the problem. I see what are you
      9  getting at. Professor Browning, can you help on that? Is
    10  this likely to be a complete record? We have only looked
    11  at three documents.
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Since so much was destroyed I think we presume a lot of
    13  them are not complete records. I have seen fragmentary
    14  records from the archive in Lublin where less valuable
    15  materials is distributed there. I think very valuable
    16  things like watches and whatever do have to be sent in
    17  but, if somebody wants furniture or wants clothing, they
    18  can requisition that in Lublin from these camps and they
    19  are never sent back to Berlin. Small volume high value
    20  items would be sent back. It would be something that
    21  would be worth shipping back, such as these particular
    22  items.
    23  MR IRVING:  Do you agree that this document on page 10, which
    24  is dated November 29th 1944, and has the heading or
    25  subheading Operation Reinhardt in its address list, says
    26  that altogether at present there are at Amtsgruppe D at

    .           P-8

      1  present being repaired 100,000 wristwatches, presumably a
      2  rounded off number and various other valuables?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: That gives an order of magnitude. It does not indicate
      5  there are any other treasure troves of such valuables
      6  anywhere else in the SS system, does it?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It says these are the ones that are available for
      8  distribution. We have no idea if there are lots of other
      9  kinds of valuables that have been sent elsewhere, but at
    10  least that much has been taken out for purposes of
    11  distribution to the SS.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I take you back to page 1 again, which is about 18
    13  month earlier, is it not, 13th May 1943?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: That says that by April 30th 1943 we have received,
    16  effectively there have been delivered to us, 94,000 men’s
    17  watches?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it likely that these were taken from the victims in the
    20  camps?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Again, it may well be that these were taken in Germany.
    22  It could be possible they were taken from the camp. In
    23  both, at least in the second case, I would presume that
    24  there was a selection of the best ones that they were
    25  sending back for repair for the Waffen SS. Cheaper goods
    26  in general would not have been worth doing that.

    .           P-9

      1  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Does page 10, Professor, relate entirely to
      2  Oranienburg?
      3  MR IRVING:  Oranienburg, my Lord, was the headquarters was it
      4  not? Witness, was not Pohl actually based at Oranienburg,
      5  the head of this particular section?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The part of the administrative and economic main office
      7  that dealt with concentration camps is in Oranienburg, so
      8  Ampt D, which is here, is stationed in Oranienburg, or at
      9  least part of it. It says by the Office D in Oranienburg
    10  so we know at least they have one office there.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: All the wealthy Holocaust victims, either at the time they
    12  were dispatched from their places of residence or upon
    13  their arrival in the camps, were systematically robbed of
    14  their valuables by Operation Reinhardt, or as part of
    15  Operation Reinhardt? Is that correct?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Operation Reinhardt, in a sense, is the last stage of a
    17  long process of dispossession because the Jews in Germany
    18  were disposed of much of their property for that. When
    19  they were put on the trains the last things like rings and
    20  valuables and jewellery are taken. These are the small
    21  personal possessions they would still have been allowed.
    22  Again in Poland Jews are dispossessed of their property
    23  and moved into ghettoes and, when they are taken to the
    24  camps, the last remaining possessions are taken by
    25  Operation Reinhardt. Operation Reinhardt, in a sense, is
    26  the last cleaning up of whatever property had not been

    .           P-10

      1  taken already.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Not many more questions on this matter, Professor. Would
      3  you be able to make any kind of global estimates on these
      4  kind of data and say, well, therefore, the number of
      5  victims was not less than a certain figure and it was
      6  probably not more than a certain figure, on the basis that
      7  of course not everybody had valuable wristwatches or
      8  valuable fountain pens, but on the other hand not many
      9  people wear two wristwatches, shall we say, so it was
    10  probably not less than 100,000 people? Can you say that?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would say that this would help us with a minimum figure
    12  but it would be nowhere close to a maximum figure because
    13  they are presumably skimming the cream and taking the very
    14  best things. Most Jews would have traded their
    15  wristwatches for food and whatever else long before this
    16  if they were in desperate straits, which they were. So it
    17  does not give us anything approaching a maximum figure.
    18  MR RAMPTON:  Can I intervene to say that I just have done some
    19  arithmetic? It is not obviously an exhaustive figure for
    20  whatever reason, but the total under A on this page is
    21  200,000 items.
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Which page are you?
    23  MR RAMPTON:  Page 10, my Lord, at A. Many of these items may
    24  of course come from the same person, one does not know.
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is what I was wondering. You can have a
    26  fountain pen and a watch.

    .           P-11

      1  MR RAMPTON:  Of course you can.
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What was the number?
      3  MR RAMPTON:  200,000 precisely.
      4  MR IRVING:  Exactly, but it is giving orders of magnitude, in
      5  my opinion, my Lord. We are really clutching at straws
      6  and trying to arrive at figures. Is it not right,
      7  Professor, that our statistical database for arriving at
      8  any kind of conclusions for the numbers of people who have
      9  been killed in the Holocaust by whatever means, we are
    10  really floundering around in the dark, are we not? Is
    11  that correct?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. I would not express it that way. I would say we have
    13  a very accurate list of the deportation trains from
    14  Germany. In many cases we have the entire roster name by
    15  name and we are not floundering. We can tell you, as we
    16  have seen in the intercepts, 974 on one train.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: But I interrupt you there and you say in many cases, but,
    18  of course, had we got a complete list of all the —-
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Can I finish my answer.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: — trains, then —-
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: May I finish my answer?
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Let him finish. You have been very good,
    23  Mr Irving, but let him finish this answer.
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In terms again of France, the Netherlands, the countries
    25  from which there were deportations from Western Europe, we
    26  can do a very close approximation by trains, the number of

    .           P-12

      1  people per train.
      2  In the area of Poland, there were at least
      3  statistics in terms of ghetto populations and these
      4  ghettos were liquidated completely, so we can come to a
      5  fairly good rough figure of Polish Jews. We also have a
      6  fairly reliable prewar census and postwar calculations so
      7  that one can do a subtraction. So, in terms of Holocaust
      8  victims from Poland westward, we are not floundering. We
      9  are coming fairly close approximation.
    10  Where historians differ and where you get this
    11  figure of between 5 and 6 is because we do not have those
    12  figures for the Soviet Union.
    13  MR IRVING:  Can I halt you at this point —-
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: There is where we are — that the numbers vary greatly.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: But can I halt you at that point and say the fact that a
    16  train load of Jews sets out from Amsterdam or from France
    17  does not, of course, necessarily mean that they end up
    18  being gassed or killed in some other way, does it?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: If they are sent to camps like Treblinka or Sobibor or
    20  Chelmno or Belzec, yes, they are virtually all
    21  exterminated.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: On the basis of eyewitness evidence?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: On the basis of, yes, what I have presented here. We know
    24  that —-
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: Which we are coming to later on?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, and they do not come back.

    .           P-13

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They disappear.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: Well, the Nazis did not want them to come back, but would
      4  you accept that large numbers were also the subject of,
      5  shall we say, population movements, particularly in the
      6  1939/1940 period. You talked about the Jews in Poland?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, this is a move from one area of German control to
      8  another. So Jews that are moved from the Warthegau into
      9  the General Government are then included in the ghetto
    10  population statistics of the various towns in the General
    11  Government and those ghettos are then liquidated and they
    12  count as part of the disappearance —-
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: When you mean “the ghetto is liquidated”, you mean the
    14  ghetto is just wound up?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The ghetto is empty. People are put on trains.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: Emptied, but the word “liquidated” is rather suggestive
    17  that something else is happening?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, that was the German term. “Ghetto liquidierung” is
    19  their word, and that these liquidation, ghetto
    20  liquidations, also we know the mode in which they were
    21  carried out with extraordinary brutality and —-
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but come back to Poland for a minute. You talk about
    23  the fact that we had the prewar population census and the
    24  postwar census. We are having a major problem with Poland
    25  because the whole of Poland was shifted westwards as a
    26  result of the agreements, so what do you mean by Poland?

    .           P-14

      1  This is the first problem. Is that not right?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, you are talking about territory, but the Polish
      3  population in terms of number of Jews left at the end
      4  really is not changed or altered by a shifting of borders
      5  because there were no Jews in either the German or the
      6  Polish territory.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: They also have a problem caused by the fact that the
      8  Soviet Union arbitrarily declared that everybody who was
      9  in the Soviet occupied part of certain parts of Poland
    10  became Soviet citizens. After they had entered,
    11  I believe, on September 19th or September 17th 1939, did
    12  they not arbitrarily declare after that that large number,
    13  the citizens who had previously been Polish were now
    14  Soviet citizens?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, but those areas ten fall back under the Germans and
    16  they are part of the statistics — I mean, the prewar
    17  census we have is pre1939.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you saying that the Jews who were in the Soviet part
    19  of occupied Poland in 1939 stayed there until the Germans
    20  invaded two years later?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think most did. Some did manage to get — those that
    22  were saved, for the most part, were the ones that Stalin
    23  sent on to Siberia.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it right the figure of those who left and were sent on
    25  to Siberia was of the order of 300,000?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The total number of Polish Jews in Siberia I do not think

    .           P-15

      1  is even close to that. We know that the estimated number
      2  of Jews that fled or were deported from the German zone to
      3  the Soviet zone in 1939/1940 was in the magnitude of 200
      4  to 300,000. How many for 1941 are, in a sense, caught in
      5  the German advance which in these areas, of course, is the
      6  very first territories they overcome, that you do not have
      7  any indication that very large numbers escaped at all.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: But there is an area of uncertainty, is there not?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The point at which the German documents start saying “The
    10  Jewish populations have managed to flee” is when you get
    11  much deeper into the Soviet Union where it took longer for
    12  the Russian armies to get to and there was more warning.
    13  The German documents indicate only then are they beginning
    14  to find that the Jews had managed to flee before they
    15  arrived.
    16  So, while there is certainly a degree of
    17  uncertainty, to suggest that significant vast numbers of
    18  Jews escaped from these very border territories the very
    19  first days occupied by the German Army, I do not think is
    20  — it is not one that I can accept.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: But is not the evidence, in fact, that the Soviet Union
    22  had evacuated large parts of their forward territories in
    23  preparation for their attack on Germany, and that when the
    24  Germans advanced into these areas in Operation Barbarossa
    25  in June 1941 they found the population relatively thin
    26  because of these evacuations?

    .           P-16

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, I do not think so.
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can we —-
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: There were deportations of what they — there were
      4  deportations of what they considered political enemies.
      5  MR IRVING:  So, in other words, I am not right in suggesting
      6  there is any area of uncertainty about the figures, in
      7  your view?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. What I said is the area of greatest uncertainty is
      9  the areas of the Soviet Union and that from that boundary
    10  westward we come to a fairly close proximation. After
    11  that it varies, estimates vary greatly.
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can I just interrupt because I want to go
    13  back to Operation Reinhardt which is where we started and
    14  we have rather sort of spread out from there. Can you —
    15  Mr Irving, you are probably going to ask this at some
    16  stage anyway — put an estimate on the number of people
    17  you would say were killed by gassing at the smaller death
    18  camps like Treblinka, Sobibor and Chelmno?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The numbers that the German courts came to in their
    20  investigations in which they emphasised that they were
    21  using the minimum estimate so that this would not be a
    22  controversy between the defence and the prosecution, in
    23  the first Treblinka trial, I believe it was 700 or
    24  750,000. By the second Treblinka trial, they had upped
    25  that figure to 9 or 950,000. Belzec is estimated at about
    26  550,000. Sobibor, I believe they estimated 200,000, and

    .           P-17

      1  Chelmno, as a minimum, I think they said 150,000, but they
      2  thought it was more likely in the 250,000 area.
      3  MR IRVING:  When were these estimates made?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: These were in the various judgments of the 1960s in German
      5  courts.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: 1960s and 1970s or 1960s?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: These particular trials, I believe, all — and I think the
      8  last one was in 1968/69, so I think all of those concluded
      9  before 1970.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: You say these figures were reached at by agreement between
    11  the parties?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: These were the figures that were put into the judgment and
    13  what the prosecution said — I mean, let me see if I
    14  can phrase this right, I want to be very careful on this
    15  — that this was the figure that in a sense was in the
    16  realm where they had sufficient documentation that it was
    17  not contested. Then you have the estimate, possible
    18  additional that they did not want to put into the judgment
    19  or the indictment because they did not want that to be an
    20  obscuring issue or become a detracting issue, “Well, we
    21  did not kill 250,000, we killed only 200,000″.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: I was going to ask, to put it in common language, was it
    23  any skin off anybody’s nose if people added 100,000 more
    24  or less? I mean, was anybody going to get a shorter
    25  sentence because the numbers were lower or a longer
    26  sentence because the numbers were higher? What I am

    .           P-18

      1  getting at is were the figures properly tested in court?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The figures were reached in general by historical expert
      3  witnesses that submitted these to the court and they were
      4  open to cross-examination by the Defence.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: And these witnesses were German or?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The most, the most active witness was Wolfgang Schafler
      7  who was a German historian.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: A German historian?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is that the very reputable German historian too.
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: A very reputable German historian, who, in fact, looked
    12  at —-
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, if you challenge these figures,
    14  I think now is the time to do so. I do not know whether
    15  you do or you do not.
    16  MR IRVING:  My Lord, I am not in a position to challenge them
    17  on a numerical basis, but I do wish to plant or implant
    18  doubts in your Lordship’s mind as to the rigour with which
    19  the figures have been arrived at, shall I put it like
    20  that? All I have to establish, if I have understood it
    21  correctly, in your Lordship’s mind is the position that
    22  I am entitled, as a writer myself, not to be called a
    23  Holocaust denier because I question figures. I can put it
    24  as simply as that. Your Lordship has a different take on
    25  that, I ought to be told it now perhaps in order that I
    26  can —-

    .           P-19

      1  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sure about “ought”, but I understand the
      2  way you use this evidence.
      3  MR IRVING:  I mean, this is not a court of law, criminal law,
      4  where they are trying somebody for murder. We are just
      5  trying to establish a matter of Holocaust denial really
      6  which is a different standard of proof, I think.
      7  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Would it be helpful if I said a little bit about how
      9  Schafler arrived at his figures?
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think it might be in the sense that
    11  Mr Irving is really saying, “Well, I question the figures”
    12  and I think he must by implication be saying, “and I have
    13  good grounds for questioning the figures”. So I think if
    14  you wanted to add something about the way in which the
    15  figures were arrived at, I think that would be helpful.
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, the figures for each of the camps he did by trying to
    17  trace the ghetto liquidations at the different periods
    18  into which camps they were sent. So we have a very
    19  accurate reduction of the Lodz population, which trains
    20  went to Chelmno, when, and we can come very accurately to
    21  the number of people deported from Lodz to Chelmno, then
    22  one is on a little bit less secure grounds for the various
    23  other surrounding towns where we do not have a day by day
    24  deduction or a train by train calculation, but we do have
    25  statistics of what the populations were there before the
    26  whole operation began.

    .           P-20

      1  So with some rough estimate of how many would
      2  have been selected for labour, he came to a figure for
      3  Lodz as a minimum figure and then a more probable but not
      4  putting forward as necessarily a somewhat higher figure.
      5  He did the same calculations for the other camps.
      6  We know how many Dutch transports went to
      7  Sobibor. We know which regions were cleared that were
      8  directed to Sobibor. We had the figures of the Jewish
      9  populations in those ghettos before the liquidation and
    10  the number of workers that were shifted to some of the
    11  work camps, and it was on the calculation, on that basis
    12  that he arrived at his figures.
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is very helpful.
    14  MR IRVING:  Yes.
    15  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do ask anything you want, Mr Irving.

    Section 21.16 to 40.20

    16  MR IRVING:  I think this is probably an appropriate point to
    17  ask the witness about the atmosphere in Germany for
    18  historians. Is it possible for an historian in Germany
    19  now, whether reputable or disreputable historian, to
    20  advance opposing hypotheses in any degree of safety?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Oh, absolutely. For instance, in this court earlier I saw
    22  in the transcript you said that no one could refer to the
    23  Himmler guidelines without risking that — the intercept
    24  of the Himmler guidelines, and, of course, Christian
    25  Jerloch has published that in Germany, and has suffered
    26  absolutely no repercussions and there is no question that

    .           P-21

      1  he would, that there is a very vigorous discussion among
      2  German historians on the Holocaust.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: But would I be right in saying this discussion is skewed
      4  or distorted by the fact that anybody who goes to the
      5  other end of the spectrum, shall we say, and starts
      6  saying, “I think the figures are much lower because, for
      7  example, it was not a systematic liquidation” or anything
      8  like that, anybody who accidentally says one of the taboo
      9  phrases in Germany is going to end up in trouble, in
    10  prison, and that this must certainly cast apprehensions in
    11  the mind of somebody about which side of the debate he
    12  takes?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think that is nonsense. For instance, Hans Monson
    14  shares your view that Hitler did not give an order.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you tell the court who Hans Monson is?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Hans Monson is a very notable historian at the University
    17  of Bochum, now retired boss tonne.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: He is not a Holocaust denier, is he?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: You asked me with taboos and one of the things that has
    20  generally been seen that you have been identified with is
    21  the argument that Hitler did not make the decision. Hans
    22  Monson and Martin Broszat have accepted or have argued
    23  that Hitler did not give an order or a decision—-
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I just halt you there? It would be useful if you
    25  would—-
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I am still talking.

    .           P-22

      1  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You are interrupting a little bit,
      2  Mr Irving. Try and restrain yourself until the end of the
      3  answer.
      4  MR IRVING:  Your Lordship will know why I want to interrupt
      5  there.
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Far from being thrown in jail or fearing, Hans Monson
      7  currently is the Shapiro Visiting Scholar at the United
      8  States Holocaust Museum. There is a wide of range of
      9  debate covering a wide spectrum of opinion. There is in
    10  Germany a law that outlaws Holocaust denial, but I know of
    11  no German historian that I have come across that has lost
    12  a night’s sleep worrying that this prevents him from
    13  arguing from documents and from carrying out a full
    14  academic discussion.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you heard of Dr Reinhard Seitelmann?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have heard of Dr Reinhard Seitelmann. I know him.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar with the course of his career after he
    18  made certain statements? Was he originally a historian at
    19  the free university in Berlin?
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, I think this is a digression
    21  really.
    22  MR IRVING:  Very well. Would you explain to the court then who
    23  Professor Martin Broszat was? Was he an eminent German
    24  historian?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. He was the head of the Institute for Contemporary
    26  History in Munich.

    .           P-23

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: His opinion on my hypothesis that Hitler did not issue an
      2  order or that there is no Hitler order, are you familiar
      3  with that?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He takes your view that Hitler did not know of this, or
      5  that it was kept secret from him, or he would not have
      6  authorized it. That it was done by others behind his back
      7  he does not accept. He does not think that Hitler gave an
      8  order for or made a decision for the Final Solution, but
      9  that rather he —-
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: It just happened?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He encouraged it, he instigated it in the sense that he
    12  made known his feelings and that others clamoured, or
    13  strove to gain Brownie points to get credit by realising
    14  the programme that Hitler hinted that he wanted to see
    15  done.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar with the word Verliegenheitslosung, a way
    17  out of an awkward solution, a way out of an awkward
    18  problem?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He used the phrase that it was a way out of a Sackgasse,
    20  out of a dead end.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: He picked up this word from the introduction to my book
    22  and said this was probably correct. Are you familiar with
    23  that?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know if he picked that expression up from your
    25  book, but he did. In so far as the issue of the Hitler
    26  order, Monson and Broszat have argued for a long time, as

    .           P-24

      1  you have, they do not think that Hitler gave an explicit
      2  or formal order.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: It would be a grave injustice to call either of those two
      4  professors Holocaust deniers, would it not?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. The argument over whether Hitler gave an order or not
      6  is not commonly part of the issue of Holocaust denial.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: Thank you very much for saying that. Hans Monson, would
      8  you identify him? Is he a Professor at the Royal
      9  university in Bochum?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, he was. He is retired.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: A very eminent historian, is that correct?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Very well. I hope your Lordship pardons me for having
    14  made that little excursion?
    15  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. You picked up the answer that Professor
    16  Browning gave about whether denying Hitler’s having given
    17  an order was an aspect of Holocaust denial, but I do not
    18  think the Defendants really say that it is.
    19  MR RAMPTON:  We do not.
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I was checking your summary of case.
    21  MR RAMPTON:  The Hitler exculpation, exoneration, apology part
    22  of the case has nothing to do with Holocaust denial at
    23  all. They may have a similar motive at the end of the day
    24  but that is completely different. We have focused on
    25  Hitler’s exoneration to prove what we call distorted
    26  history.

    .           P-25

      1  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. I think what you do say is that it is
      2  part of Holocaust denial to deny that there was a
      3  systematic programme.
      4  MR RAMPTON:  Yes.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is not the same as denying that it was
      6  Hitler who instigated that programme.
      7  MR RAMPTON:  That is right. It is number 3, no systematic
      8  programme of exterminating Europe’s Jews, whether on the
      9  part of Hitler or the Nazi leadership.
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think that Professors Monson and Broszat would say that
    11  Hitler instigated it in various ways. They would simply
    12  say there was no formal order or decision in the sense
    13  that we understand that is the way —-
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You say that yourself.
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    16  MR IRVING:  Is this the debate between the intentionalists and
    17  the functionalists?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is one aspect of that debate.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: By instigating it, would you say that Hitler instigated it
    20  by raising the climate of anti-semitism in Germany, or was
    21  it more specific than that?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think that was the beginning of it, but it gets also
    23  more specific than that when one continually indicates
    24  that you want this whole problem to disappear, that you
    25  want a settlement to this. You prophesy a disappearance
    26  of the Jews, which is in a sense to set the climate in

    .           P-26

      1  which people are to come forward to you with proposals
      2  which you then can approve or not. We know the pattern
      3  that Himmler comes to Hitler in mid September with the
      4  proposals for the ethnic cleansing of western Poland.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: September 1939?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He comes to Hitler. They bring the Madagascar plan to
      7  Hitler. They bring proposals about marking and
      8  deportation to Hitler. In terms of concrete proposals
      9  Hitler is not the micromanager, but the proposals are a
    10  response to the signals that he gives of what he wants and
    11  wants done, and this is what I would say we would call
    12  instigation.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: You refer to his prophesy, that was the speech of January
    14  30th 1939?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That is one example.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: That was January 30th 1939. Did the killings start
    17  immediately?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. That is a prophesy that could be realised in a number
    19  of ways.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Nothing really happened for about three years, did it?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. I would not interpret that as understood yet as total
    22  destruction. But when this does not work and there still
    23  needs to be — that is, expulsion, ethnic cleansing, does
    24  not work, the reservation plans prove to be impractical,
    25  then the demand that something be done is still there, and
    26  then one brings more extreme points.

    .           P-27

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: How realistic was the Madagascar plan to which you just
      2  referred?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Do I think they took it seriously? Yes, I do think they
      4  took it seriously. It is fantastic but of course
      5  Auschwitz is fantastic, too.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: In what way is Madagascar a fantastic plan?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Fantastic in the sense that one is bizarre, the notion
      8  that you could take 4 million Jews and put them on ships
      9  and send them to Madagascar, and that anything other than
    10  the vast bulk of them would die under the conditions of
    11  being dumped into the jungle of Madagascar. Even that a
    12  plan that clearly in its implications involved vast
    13  decimation, they still talked in these words of
    14  resettlement.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is this not exactly what happened with the state of
    16  Israel? Millions of these people were taken and dumped in
    17  Israel, so to speak, although they did it voluntarily? It
    18  was an uprooting and a geographical resettlement.
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The number of people coming into Israel of course came in
    20  gradually and there was a structure and an organization to
    21  arrange for and assist their reception.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you seen in the German files references to the
    23  planning for the Madagascar settlement? In other words,
    24  the necessary retraining, the agricultural specialists and
    25  everything being set up by the Foreign Ministry and by the
    26  German Navy, the Naval staff?

    .           P-28

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. I did not see some setting up retraining. I saw them
      2  planning to take all the property and who would be in
      3  charge of gathering the Jews, and that it would be an SS
      4  state at the other end, but I certainly did not see, as
      5  part of the files on Madagascar, retraining. There was
      6  some toleration of Zionist groups in Germany setting up
      7  agricultural camps in the prewar period when they were
      8  trying to encourage the emigration of Jews, be it to
      9  Palestine or anywhere else.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: Adolf Hitler repeatedly referred to the Madagascar
    11  solution, did he not, from 1938 in the Goebbels diaries
    12  right through until July 24th 1942 in the table talk?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The Madagascar plan is a concrete plan, in which people
    14  are actually working on it. It is the period of June to
    15  September 1940, but there are references to Madagascar
    16  earlier and later. It is an idea that had floated in a
    17  number of anti-semitic pamphlets and the Jewish expert of
    18  the German Foreign Office in fact, who sort of arrived at
    19  this on his own, claimed that he got the idea from reading
    20  one of these pamphlets, so it was an idea in the air.
    21  This was one of the sort of anti-semitic fantasies that
    22  this problem would disappear if all of these Jews could be
    23  sent to the most distant island they could conceive of.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: Out of mind, out of sight. Would you agree that it was
    25  Hitler’s pipe dream?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would not call it pipe dream, because I think, if

    .           P-29

      1  England had surrendered, they would have tried to do it.
      2  They would have tried to implement it just as they tried
      3  to implement the Lublin reservation plan and just as they
      4  tried and succeeded in implementing the death camp plans.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you seen indications in the negotiations with France
      6  over the peace settlement with France, the armistice
      7  negotiations, that there was an attempt by the Germans to
      8  secure permission for the Madagascar plan because
      9  Madagascar was a French territory?
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I thought it was British.
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, French.
    12  MR IRVING:  Madagascar was French but it became British after
    13  May 26th 1942, my Lord, or thereabouts, when we did the
    14  usual thing.
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They sent people to the French colonial ministry to get
    16  information on Madagascar. They certainly did not need
    17  French permission, and I am not sure how much this was a
    18  topic in armistice negotiations that were going on after
    19  the armistice, I do not know how much that was a topic
    20  between them.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: You think it was a totally impracticable proposition, the
    22  idea of sending 6 million Jews, or whatever it was, to an
    23  island the size of Madagascar?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think they would have attempted it, and I think the
    25  results would have been disastrous.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: Why would they have been disastrous?

    .           P-30

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Because I think a large percentage of the people sent
      2  there would have perished.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: I think that the Jews are a very sturdy people. They have
      4  shown that by their forthrightness in Palestine, have they
      5  not?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think the conditions under which they arrived there, an
      7  island which the documents said clearly was to be an SS
      8  state, would not have been anything remotely similar to
      9  the conditions of an attempted and organized reception of
    10  refugees in Palestine after 1945.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: The population of Madagascar at that time was about 1
    12  million?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I could not say.
    14  Q. [Mr Irving]: The population of Madagascar now is over 13 million?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I could not say.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: So it could have housed that number of people quite
    17  easily? It is a country the size of Germany, is that
    18  correct?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It would depend on the circumstances and indeed bringing
    20  Jews in, and all of their property taken, and under SS
    21  custody, I do not think one could say that they would have
    22  been housed easily. I think it would have been lethal.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: If Hitler’s intention was to exterminate all the Jews
    24  systematically, then why would he have had a pipe dream of
    25  sending the Jews to a country like Madagascar where they
    26  would have survived?

    .           P-31

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is where we get to the interpretational issues of the
      2  intentionalist and functionalist. I do not believe at
      3  that point that he intended to destroy the Jews
      4  systematically. He wanted a problem to disappear.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: When did the intention then develop? This is important
      6  I think.
      7  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. Let us get on to that.
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: As I say in my report, my feeling is that there were two
      9  separate phases of decision making. Both of them stretch
    10  out over a period of time.
    11  MR IRVING:  With particular reference to Hitler, please?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is an incremental decision making process. We have in
    13  the Spring of 1941, in preparation for Barbarossa, a
    14  number of his statements about what kind of war this is
    15  going to be, a war of destruction, a killing of what he
    16  calls Judao- Bolshevik intelligentsia and this kind of
    17  thing. This results in proposals coming to him, one of
    18  which is the creation of the Einsatzgruppen in its
    19  arrangement with the army or logistical support, the
    20  Commissar order, and that in the opening weeks of the war
    21  this led to the selective killing of adult male Jews in
    22  the regions that the Einsatzgruppen enter.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I halt you there for a moment and say, when he talks
    24  about the Judao-Bolshevik enemy, which half of that
    25  adjective weighs strongest in his mind, the Bolshevik or
    26  Judao?

    .           P-32

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think for him it is a package deal, but in terms of what
      2  is wrong with Bolshevism is that it is the latest
      3  manifestation of the Jewish threat, so the Jewish issue is
      4  the prime one and the Bolshevik is the current
      5  manifestation of this Jewish threat as he understands it,
      6  because he has seen previous manifestations are the French
      7  revolution and the liberals. Christianity is the first
      8  Jewish threat.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: There have been more recent manifestations, have there
    10  not, for example in the Spanish Civil War?
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, this is getting a bit discursive.
    12  Can we just pin it down a little bit?
    13  MR IRVING:  I am trying to pin it down.
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Professor Browning, I know we are
    15  interrupting an answer and I want you to resume it, but
    16  can we just anchor it to particular dates? The date that
    17  is in my mind, and I would be interested to see the
    18  document if possible, is the 25th May, and I think it was
    19  1940 rather than 41.
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The May 25th document is the Himmler guidelines for the
    21  treatment of the peoples of Eastern Europe, in which he
    22  wants to reauthorize the ethnic cleansing from the western
    23  territories, which Frank and Goring had managed to whittle
    24  down.
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Is that not, in a sense, the start of it all?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, that is still in the ethnic cleansing phase. That is

    .           P-33

      1  the document in which Himmler is still referring to a
      2  total extermination as unGerman and impossible.
      3  MR IRVING:  I was going point that out, yes.
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is the following year, 1941 in the spring, when Hitler
      5  begins to talk about this war of destruction in the East,
      6  the destruction of the Judao-Bolshevik intelligentsia,
      7  that leads to the selective killing of adult male Jews in
      8  the opening five or six weeks of Barbarossa.
      9  MR IRVING:  Can I halt you there and say which documents? Are
    10  you referring to the Kommissar order then?
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can we look at some of these documents?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We are referring to a collection of documents, the
    13  agreement between the military and the Einsatzgruppen in
    14  which the Einsatzgruppen will get its instructions from
    15  the SS but its logistic support from the military.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it not possible to argue that these are purely military
    17  measures at this time?
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can we look at the document? I really do
    19  want to look at this document, the Kommissar order.
    20  MR RAMPTON:  Your Lordship will excuse me for interrupting.
    21  You will find three relevant documents cited, or rather
    22  utterances by Hitler in a military or a semi-military
    23  context on pages 55 and 56 of Dr Longerich’s first
    24  report. They are all three of them in March 1941 before
    25  Barbarossa starts. Perhaps Professor Browning might be
    26  given that, so that he can see it.

    .           P-34

      1  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think it is quite important because, if
      2  this is too broad brush, it is perhaps not as helpful as
      3  it could be.
      4  MR IRVING:  I agree, my Lord, because I shall want to draw
      5  attention to the military nature of these orders.
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do so please, but let us do it by reference
      7  to the documents.
      8  MR IRVING:  They are criminal, there is no question, and they
      9  are Draconian, but they are military.
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I understand that. So 55 and 56 of the first
    11  part of Longerich, Mr Rampton?
    12  MR RAMPTON:  Yes, my Lord.
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you.
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. I think, if we look at the very first one, in fact
    15  he makes clear that his campaign has both a military and
    16  an ideological side. As he says, the coming campaign is
    17  more than just a struggle of arms. It will also lead to a
    18  confrontation of two world views. Then he goes on, it is
    19  does not suffice to defeat the enemy army, Jewish and
    20  Bolshevik intelligentsia must be eliminated. So this
    21  campaign from the very beginning is to be conceived as
    22  more than a conventional war between armies. It has a
    23  strong ideological element and that ideological element
    24  relates to race, and particularly to Jews, and that tenor
    25  I think is very strong in his spring of 1941
    26  declarations. As I say, when we then look at what was the

    .           P-35

      1  result of that, if one looks at the Einsatzgruppen
      2  reports, the overwhelming bulk of the victims who were
      3  shot in the first five or six weeks are —-
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: Described as Jews?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: — as male Jews. They kept some communist
      6  functionaries. They regret, in a sense, most of the
      7  communist functionaries seem to have disappeared, the Jews
      8  have not, and that these then are the main target group.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: If this document refers to the Judao-Bolshevik
    10  intelligentsia, this does not explain why large numbers of
    11  thousands of ordinary Jews are being taken off trains or
    12  taken out of the towns and taken out of the country side
    13  and machine gunned into pits They are not the
    14  intelligentsia in any way. This document covers the
    15  intelligentsia.
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No one is saying that this is a hands on micromanaged
    17  order. This is a speech by Hitler in which he is
    18  declaring a set of expectations, and then there are
    19  various preparations made and proposals brought forward
    20  that, in a sense, cast his vision of a war of destruction
    21  into concrete terms.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: If I could rephrase that document, if this was going the
    23  other way and the Russians were saying, we are going to
    24  invade Washington and we are going to destroy the
    25  capitalist intelligentsia, and subsequently very large
    26  atrocities took place and millions of ordinary Americans

    .           P-36

      1  being machine gunned into pits, you would not link those
      2  two facts, would you?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think one could, in the sense that one would say —-
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: Just Americans with bank accounts or otherwise fitted?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, one, it sets a mood in which destruction of civilian
      6  populations, killing will not be limited to armed
      7  soldiers.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would I be right in suggesting that this order
      9  effectively created a killing field, and that anybody else
    10  who fitted the title of Jew who came within that killing
    11  field was therefore at risk, put it that way?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This certainly creates an atmosphere in which clearly
    13  there will be lots of killing and it will not be
    14  restricted to military combat, that there will be killing
    15  of those that are seen to be an ideological and racial
    16  enemy, as well as military. I think, when we look at, in
    17  a sense, the kinds of proposals that are brought forward,
    18  very revealing are not only the Kommissar order and the
    19  agreement between the military and the Einsatzgruppen, but
    20  the economic plans that come forward, such as the May 2nd
    21  meeting of the State secretaries, in which they say, for
    22  Germany to be blockade proof, we must take lots of
    23  material out of the Soviet Union, and we must be very
    24  clear that, when we do this, umpteen million Russians are
    25  going to starve to death. So we have an atmosphere of a
    26  war of destruction in which civilian life is going to be

    .           P-37

      1  totally cheap.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: He does not say, as a result of our taking economic goods
      3  out of the country, millions of people, preferably Jews,
      4  are going to die. That is just any Russians?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is that lots of Russians will die, lots of civilians
      6  will die. Then, of course, if we cast that, as an
      7  historian, to put it into the wider context, you would not
      8  disagree with that, I think.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The wider context basically is where people have been
    11  shot, Jews have been shot in larger percentages than
    12  others, where people have starved, the Jews have starved
    13  first. So, if you have a programme of shooting and
    14  starving, one can begin with the fact that there is going
    15  to be a large loss of Jewish life, that this would be
    16  clear to anyone in the context of Nazi Germany in the
    17  spring of 41. That is not yet. That is not yet an
    18  explicit order for the killing of Soviet Jewry. It is a
    19  creation of, we might say, a hunting licence. No one will
    20  get into trouble killing Jews. One will get credits
    21  rather than anything against them.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: I agree entirely, but the focus is at this stage on this
    23  document strictly, shall we say, the upper 10,000? It is
    24  the Judao-Bolshevik intelligentsia and their hierarchy,
    25  all the way down to the Kommissars, is that right?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The focus is selective killing and indiscriminate

    .           P-38

      1  starvation.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: The emphasis is on this as a measure of war? This is the
      3  kind of war we are going to be fighting?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. The emphasis is on measure of a war that is
      5  understood to be both military and ideological and racial.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: A war to the death, yes.
      7  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Professor Browning, where do you get
      8  indiscriminate starving from?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That is a document I believe is not one that I cited. It
    10  is a protocol of a meeting of the State secretaries on May
    11  2nd 1941. It is a Nuremberg document, in which the
    12  protocol is that we all agree that, when we take out of
    13  the Soviet Union what is necessary to make Germany
    14  blockade proof, we must be perfectly clear that this will
    15  mean the mass starvation of umpteen million Russians. So
    16  it is a document that speaks to what was clear to
    17  everybody involved in the planning process, that this war
    18  of destruction was going to mean a vast loss of life.
    19  Given what had happened in Poland, I would argue, everyone
    20  understood that, in a vast loss of life, Jewish life was
    21  even cheaper than other life. That is what I would call
    22  the beginning of this first phase of the decision making
    23  process. It sets up a genocidal atmosphere, it does not
    24  yet set up a systematic plan for total liquidation.
    25  MR IRVING:  Can I leap forward —-
    26  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, I am going to highlight that.

    .           P-39

      1  I am also going to suggest — the questions have been fast
      2  and furious this morning. That is not a criticism.
      3  I suspect you would quite welcome a break and I am sure
      4  the transcriber would. It has been actually quite
      5  intensive this morning.
      6  MR IRVING:  Can I have one short question? On that point we
      7  shall round it off and let us say that this kind genocidal
      8  order, is it not almost identical to the Morgantower
      9  decision of September 1944, where the Americans said, let
    10  us do this to the Germans, we do not care how many starve?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would have to look at that document before I could say
    12  whether it was similar or not. What we do know of course
    13  is that that document never was implemented.
    14  Q. [Mr Irving]: It was signed by both Roosevelt and Churchill, was it
    15  not?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would have to see such a document.
    17  MR IRVING:  Thank you.
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think five minutes is enough just to have a
    19  breathing space.
    20  (Short Adjournment).

    Section 40.21 to 62.3

    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, can we just identify the Kommissar
    22  document you refer to? I am not sure I know where that
    23  is.
    24  MR IRVING:  The Kommissar order is in May 1941, I believe,
    25  about May 7th or May 5th. These March 1941 documents,
    26  I believe I am right in saying, are the kind of working

    .           P-40

      1  level papers, are they not? I do not know exactly what is
      2  before the witness. I do not have copies of these
      3  documents.
      4  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I only mention it and perhaps we can locate
      5  it in due course.
      6  MR IRVING:  The Kommissar order is important because it was
      7  dictated by Hitler to General Jodl, I think, so it very
      8  clearly represents Hitler’s thoughts. That would be
      9  useful if I do obtain a copy and bring it into court
    10  tomorrow.
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If we can at some stage, yes.
    12  MR IRVING:  May I ask what this particular document was that
    13  you were quoting from?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The State secretary’s meeting.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: No, the actual one with the references to the
    16  Judao-Bolshevik intelligentsia?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is footnote 137 from page 55 from the opinion by
    18  Peter Longerich.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: And there are two more documents that Mr Rampton wished
    20  you to consider, I believe?
    21  MR RAMPTON:  Yes. They are just summarized on pages 55 and
    22  56. There in fact may be four, paragraphs 15.1, 15.2, two
    23  documents, and 15.3 on page 56, all in March of 1941.
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, thank you very much. Professor
    25  Browning, looking at those further documents, they do not,
    26  as it were, perhaps add anything, but they maybe confirm

    .           P-41

      1  what you have already said in relation to the 3rd March
      2  document. Is that fair?.
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. What I think they confirm is that Hitler does not see
      4  this, and does not want his generals and others to see it,
      5  as a conventional war, but that it has a very strong
      6  ideological dimension to it, and that the enemy to be
      7  destroyed is not just the Soviet army and its power to
      8  resist, but what he considers to be Judao-Bolshevism,
      9  communism, he uses different phrases.
    10  MR IRVING:  Would it be right to say that at this time Hitler
    11  had knowledge of the manner in which the Soviet Union
    12  fought its wars, both its colonial wars as in Spain, for
    13  example, and also in the Finnish winter war of 1939 to
    14  1940?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: What picture the German intelligence portrayed of the
    16  Soviet Union in all of this, is an area that others have
    17  studied, it is not an area that I think I could speak with
    18  authority.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would he be familiar with the activities of the Russian
    20  Kommissars within the Red Army hierarchy?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is very likely he would have been given even a more
    22  lurid description than maybe would have been historically
    23  accepted but that is just speculation on my part. As
    24  I say, I cannot think of any documents at the moment that
    25  I could speak from with authority.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: The Soviet Commissart system was a political agitator, am

    .           P-42

      1  I correct, within each Army unit to make sure that they
      2  pointed their guns in the right direction, roughly?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It was to establish, in a sense, a dual control of
      4  military units, someone who would be there with military
      5  expertise and someone with political, what they called
      6  reliability.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: Did these Commissarts have an NKBD rank?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That I do not know.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can you estimate for the court approximately what
    10  percentage of these Commissarts were, in fact, Jewish?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have absolutely no idea.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: No idea. Very well. But if a substantial percentage were
    13  either Jewish or were perceived by the Nazis to be Jewish,
    14  would that justify the kind of language that Hitler used
    15  in these military plannings for the coming Russian
    16  campaign?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, I do not see that Jews who were part of the NKBD, in a
    18  sense, often were totally secular Jews separate from the
    19  Jewish religious communities in these towns, that they had
    20  given up, in a sense, their Jewish identity. They were
    21  often all part of the Jewish communities that were going
    22  to face the onslaught of the genocide. So if you ask me
    23  is there a justification, my answer would be absolutely
    24  not.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you aware that, in fact, the Jewish community formed
    26  the backbone of the Red Army and of the NKBD?

    .           P-43

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I am certainly not aware of that and I doubt that that is
      2  the case.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you aware of the fact that 300 heroes of the Soviet
      4  Union of General’s rank were Jewish?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know the number, but I do not know that it is
      6  relevant.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: Welt, I am just trying to establish the fact there may
      8  have been a military reason for Hitler to have used this
      9  kind of language in preparing his Generals for the very
    10  ugly war that was to come.
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If that were so, I just wonder, Professor
    12  Browning, whether the word “intelligenzija” would have
    13  been used? It is an odd word if one is talking in terms
    14  of talking military combat, is it not? Is that right or
    15  wrong?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, I think for Hitler he equates Bolshevism and the
    17  Communists with Jews, and in a sense he is talking about
    18  — he sometimes used “leadership”, sometimes he uses
    19  “intelligenzija” and in his mind these are intertwined.
    20  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: The point I was really putting to you is if one is talking
    21  about military extermination, if that is a fair way of
    22  putting it, one would expect to find a reference to not
    23  “intelligenzija” but “senior military personnel” or
    24  something of that kind?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, I mean, and that I think is there as well, but the
    26  fact that he adds these others would again reinforce the

    .           P-44

      1  point I am making that there is a strictly ideological
      2  racial dimension as well as a military dimension.
      3  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: More than a struggle of arms?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      5  MR IRVING:  Is it not right, however, also to say that in
      6  defeating the Soviet Union, he would not only have to
      7  defeat the Red Army, he would also have to defeat the
      8  Soviet hierarchy, the bureaucracy; he would have to
      9  eradicate that as well in order to implement the German
    10  colonial rule on those regions?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Have to eradicate what?
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: The bureaucracy, the entire Bolshevik hierarchy?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That certainly was his goal, yes.
    14  Q. [Mr Irving]: And the Nazis frequently used the phrase “Jewish
    15  Bolshevik”; it had become a bit of a slogan, had it not?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It was more than a slogan. It was a reflection of their
    17  mentality.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I think we have taken that question as far as we
    19  can go, unless your Lordship has further questions on
    20  those particular documents?
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, not at all.
    22  MR RAMPTON:  May I just add this? It may save time later on.
    23  Your Lordship was asking about the guidelines —-
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
    25  MR RAMPTON:  — for Barbarossa, conduct of troops. The date
    26  is 19th May 1941 and the relevant part is summarized in

    .           P-45

      1  and translated on page 5 of part 2 of Longerich.
      2  MR IRVING:  Yes. This is not a Commissart order, but it is
      3  very much a parallel document.
      4  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Right. That is very helpful.
      5  MR IRVING:  It effectively says that ordinary court procedures
      6  will not apply and this kind of thing.
      7  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you very much, Mr Rampton. I was not
      8  aware of that at all.
      9  MR IRVING (To the witness): Are you familiar with those
    10  guidelines of May 19th 1941? Can you answer questions
    11  about it, roughly, were they specifically anti-Jewish in
    12  nature?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: There are, I would say, three key orders, one is the
    14  Commissart order, one is the order concerning military
    15  jurisdiction and then there is the troop, guidelines for
    16  the troops, in which “Jews”, simply the term “Jews”, is
    17  put in the same line with saboteurs, guerrillas, so that,
    18  in effect, Jews are created as a class that can be equated
    19  on the basis of who they are with other targets who are
    20  defined by what they do. This, of course, is the essence
    21  of a racial genocide.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar with the origins of these three documents
    23  you have mentioned?
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think you mention them in your own report
    25  actually, do you not?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I am not sure if I mention the three documents.

    .           P-46

      1  MR IRVING:  I have not come across them in this witness report.
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Paragraph 4.2.1, I thought it was.
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I may have mentioned them briefly.
      4  MR IRVING:  I would have remembered them if — I think they
      5  must be in the Longerich report, my Lord.
      6  MR RAMPTON:  It is in Longerich.
      7  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is certainly there, but this is another
      8  guideline, is it not, at 4.21?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: 4.2.1, the Heydrich order of July 2rd, which we discussed
    10  yesterday, is his summary to the higher SS and police
    11  leaders of his oral instructions to the Einsatzgruppen
    12  leaders on June 17th, five days before the invasion. This
    13  is when he includes among those to be shot will be Jews in
    14  state and party positions.
    15  MR IRVING:  This is the document your Lordship wanted
    16  translated yesterday.
    17  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  These are guidelines at that stage?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. This is the guidelines of early July — in fact, the
    19  guidelines of late June, prior to the invasion, because he
    20  is summarising what was already given to the
    21  Einsatzgruppen on the eve of the invasion.
    22  MR IRVING:  This is Heydrich, of course, who is two or three
    23  rungs down the hierarchy, is he not?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Very close to Himmler.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. The question, witness, which I asked you just before
    26  that little discursive, are you familiar with the military

    .           P-47

      1  planning documents or working papers that led to these
      2  three documents we were just talking about, the
      3  guidelines, not these ones, but the May 19th guidelines?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have, I think, briefly seen in the Hans Adolf Jacobsen
      5  study his account of the emergence of the Commissart order
      6  and the Krasvnik(?) article on the emergence of the
      7  military jurisdiction order. I have not worked on those
      8  in the archives, but I have seen other historians’ studies
      9  of those two particular cases.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar with the private diary of General Franz
    11  Halder, the Chief of the German Army General Staff?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, I have read parts of that.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you agree that in that private diary, which was
    14  written by him in shorthand (so it was of a very
    15  confidential nature) it emerges that the German Army were
    16  the source of the inspiration for those documents, in
    17  other words, it did not come from Hitler down to the Army;
    18  it went from the German Army effectively up to Hitler or
    19  up to the German High Command, they wanted —-
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I cannot say that that was my impression from Halder, but
    21  I would have to disagree in the sense that we have
    22  Hitler/Jodl conversation in early March, in which Jodl
    23  then comes back to the Generals and says, “Hitler wants us
    24  to do something in terms of the” —-
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: The Commissarts?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: — “Commissarts” and the negotiations over the shaping of

    .           P-48

      1  the military jurisdiction order comes I think from a
      2  similar instigation from above, that the Army is not to be
      3  involved in disciplining the behaviour of troops against
      4  the civilian population which previously would have been
      5  primed under martial law.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you identify Jodl to the court, please?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Jodl is, if I get it right, the Chief of Staff of the High
      8  Command.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: Was he Chief of the Operations Staff at the German High
    10  Command.
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: High Command, not the Army, the Arm Forces High Command,
    12  the global one.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: And if Hitler, as Supreme Commander, was having this
    14  discussion with the Chief of Staff of the German High
    15  Command, then it must have been a discussion of a military
    16  nature rather than ideological nature?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Not if he wants the Army to take part in and not to be a
    18  problem concerning this war of destruction. If the
    19  military is to take part in a wider kind of war, not to
    20  conceive of this war is a war like they fought against the
    21  French, and that they are to remove themselves from or to
    22  give to their own officers a new understanding that
    23  certain kinds of behaviour, the troops will no longer be
    24  subject to the jurisdiction of military court martial and
    25  will not be criminalized. Now, this has to go to the
    26  Army. But that certainly cannot be said to be —-

    .           P-49

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: But this is the military discipline?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, but it is an issue of military discipline that is
      3  completely related to the notion of this wider war of
      4  destruction. It is not compartmentalized to military
      5  operations but to the ideological war.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it not likely, in fact, that Hitler would have these
      7  discussions with the German High Command on the military
      8  side of the problem and he would have similar discussions
      9  with Himmler on the ideological side of the problem, and
    10  these documents only refer, therefore, to the military
    11  side of the problem.
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I disagree totally. That certainly is the postwar plea of
    13  the German Generals of self-exculpation, but I think the
    14  documents we see is that he makes very clear to the
    15  Generals that this a multi-dimensional war, and that he
    16  does not compartmentalize. He wants the Army to revise
    17  its multiple court martial code. He wants the Army to
    18  take part in the finding of the Commissarts and either
    19  shooting them or turning them over to the SS, that he does
    20  not compartmentalize this war.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: We so far have not mentioned one very important conference
    22  that took place around this time after Barbarossa, which
    23  is the conference of July 16th 1941. You are familiar
    24  with this?
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If there is a document, can we go — I am
    26  quite keen to pick up these points and not deal with

    .           P-50

      1  them —-
      2  MR IRVING:  It certainly be referenced by Longerich. It is not
      3  referenced by this witness in his report, but it is one
      4  with which he is quite familiar, my Lord.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It does not make it any easier, but if we can
      6  identify and locate these documents.
      7  MR IRVING:  I was going to ask one question on this conference
      8  really which is — are you familiar with the conference to
      9  which I am referring?
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  This is for my benefit rather than yours or
    11  Professor Browning’s.
    12  MR IRVING:  Are you familiar with the conference to which I am
    13  referring?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is July 16th conference?
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: July 16th. Hitler, Rosenberg, Martin Bormann wrote a
    16  memorandum on it?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Lammers, I believe, was present.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: Lammers was present, Himmler was present?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, Himmler is not present. Himmler met with Hitler on
    20  15th and left for Lublin.
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sorry, I am going to ask you to pause. I
    22  think I really must have the document, if only a reference
    23  to it.
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is a Nuremberg document. I think it is L…
    25  MR RAMPTON:  I can help. Page 57. Longerich 1, paragraph
    26  15.7.

    .           P-51

      1  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sorry to interrupt you, Mr Irving, but
      2  I have to try to digest all this and it is easier.
      3  MR IRVING:  Problem is, my Lord, that both the witness and
      4  I have all this in our heads.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, but it is quite important that you get
      6  it into my head too.
      7  MR IRVING:  It is not an easy task.
      8  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sorry to hear you say that.
      9  MR RAMPTON:  If your Lordship wants to see the German?
    10  MR IRVING:  My Lord, the reason I said this is because it has
    11  taken me 35 years to get it into my head, the whole
    12  history
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
    14  MR RAMPTON:  It has only taken me nine months! It is 4.2, if
    15  your Lordship would like to see another splodgy German
    16  document.
    17  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It may be that now you have given me the
    18  reference here, I can follow it up. Is it paragraph 15?
    19  MR RAMPTON:  Paragraph 15.7.
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Then it is in the transcript at least so
    21  I can go back to it. Yes, Mr Irving, follow that up if
    22  you want to.
    23  MR IRVING:  All that I want to say is, I mean, I have no idea
    24  where this question and answer is now going to lead. It
    25  may harm, it may help me. This was a very important, top
    26  level conference deciding areas of responsibility in the

    .           P-52

      1  Eastern territories; is that right?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Immediately after that conference, the next, they issued
      3  the Fuhrer decrees delineating the responsibilities of
      4  Himmler and Rosenberg, the SS and the civil administration
      5  for the occupied territories, Soviet territories.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: And this, effectively, gave Himmler absolutely police
      7  control over all these regions, is that correct, the
      8  executive control?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It put the SS in a very dominant position.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: In the rear areas?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Actually, I think it gave him powers — at least
    12  Einsatzgruppen already had powers to operate all the way
    13  up to the front, and this established in a sense that that
    14  would become permanent as the SS positions are changed
    15  from mobile units to a permanent police structure on
    16  occupied territory.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: I think that, Professor, you once mentioned that the
    18  Jewish problem was mentioned in this conference, but that
    19  is not correct, is it?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not think he does mention that. He does talk about
    21  “shooting anyone who looks askance at us and isn’t it
    22  good that Stalin has called for a guerilla war because it
    23  gives us the pretext”, I believe is the word, “to shoot
    24  anyone that we want?”. I do not believe that I have said
    25  that —-
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: That is a very interesting phrase. What was the phrase he

    .           P-53

      1  used? “It gives us the pretext to shoot”—-
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: “To shoot anyone who so much as looks askance at us” I
      3  believe is the …
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: “Schief schaut”
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The German is there on page 57 if you want to
      6  look at the footnote.
      7  MR IRVING:  Effectively, “Anybody who stands in our way or
      8  looks like he might stand in our way”?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, it does not even say “stand in our way”, “looks
    10  askance at us”, I believe, is a much wider shooting
    11  licence than “stands in our way”.
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What does “nur schief schaut” mean?
    13  MR IRVING:  “Looks askance”, literally.
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: “Gives us a twisted look” or “looks askance at us”.
    15  MR IRVING:  Anybody whose face does not fit would be another
    16  way of saying it? It is a pretty broad kind of
    17  directive.
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is an open shooting licence.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but there is no reference to the Jewish problem at
    20  all?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Not a specific reference, no.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Just that Himmler has now given, effectively, carte
    23  blanche?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: We will deal with that, I think, in more detail, my Lord,
    26  when we come to Longerich?

    .           P-54

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: You were still asking me my view of the decision-making
      2  process. Do you wish me to continue?
      3  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
      4  MR IRVING:  If you have had after thoughts, yes. My view (and
      5  I would wish you to correct it) is that the German Army
      6  provided the impetus for these orders, and that this is
      7  evidenced in the papers of the German High Command where
      8  the position papers are, effectively, written by German
      9  Army officers and also from the diary of General Franz
    10  Halder. In other words, that the initiative did not come
    11  from Hitler?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would disagree. I would say that the open invitation
    13  for these proposals comes from Hitler and, in terms of
    14  guidelines and policies, it is the response of the SS and
    15  the military and the economic planners to turn into
    16  reality this vague vision of a war of destruction in an
    17  ideological crusade against the Soviet Union.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: When you say you disagree, is this just a gut feeling or
    19  do you have any specific document you want to reference?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think we have both the Jodl/Hitler meeting and Jodl’s
    21  response, and we have the meeting of March 30th with the
    22  Generals in which he again makes clear to them his desire
    23  to have a war of destruction, a war that is not fought by
    24  the ground rules of a conventional war.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: The latter meeting is, of course, recorded in detail in
    26  the diary of General Halder, is it not?

    .           P-55

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Again it would help me, rather than just
      3  having this —-
      4  MR IRVING:  Interesting discussion.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  — debate between the two of you if —-
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That would be 15.3, page 56, of Longerich, again where he
      7  emphasises the dual nature of the war, the struggle of two
      8  world views against one another.
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The Jodl/Hitler meeting, can you pinpoint
    10  that for me?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: March 3rd.
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I mean, in terms of where I find a
    13  reference.
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: 15.1.
    15  MR RAMPTON:  Page 55, my Lord.
    16  MR IRVING:  Would it be correct to describe these features as
    17  pep talks by Hitler to his Generals to fire them up for
    18  the coming campaign?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would say they are more than pep talks. I would
    20  say they are a setting of expectations and, as you know, I
    21  have tried to develop this model of Hitler eliciting,
    22  setting a level of what he expects and that that brings
    23  responses and proposals that are brought to him. I think
    24  this is a very good example of that dialectic.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. But he does not say, “We are going to invade the
    26  Soviet Union so that we can destroy Jews”?

    .           P-56

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Nothing as crude as that?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: What he is saying is, “We are confronted by a Judaio
      5  Bolshevik enemy, and that we will destroy the Judaio
      6  Bolshevik intelligenzija and the leadership class and
      7  whatever, and that is what he is effectively in all these
      8  documents he is saying, he is just mapping out who the
      9  enemy is going to be?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is not yet an explicit instruction to systematically
    11  kill all the Jewish population on Soviet territory.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: Even in this important meeting of July 16th 1941, there is
    13  still no such instruction at any rate recorded in the
    14  memorandum by Martin Bormann?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, in this case we have no smoking pistol document — I
    16  have declared that often — that we are working from
    17  inference, and the inference we draw is very similar to
    18  what you did about the November 30th meeting. Himmler and
    19  Hitler meet, Himmler gives an order. As you put it, it
    20  would be perverse not to assume a connection between them.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: Except that we now unfortunately —-
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Find out the meeting came after rather than before.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: The meeting came after the telephone call, yes.
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In this case the meeting, I say, comes before. We know
    25  that Himmler meets with Hitler and then leaves for Lublin
    26  on 15th, that the others meet with Hitler on 16th, and

    .           P-57

      1  what follows thereafter is very quickly that Himmler
      2  vastly increases the number of people behind the Front in
      3  terms of putting the police battalions under the command
      4  of the higher SS and police leaders, of throwing in two of
      5  his brigades of his own and authorizing the raising of the
      6  auxiliaries and that within a very short period after that
      7  we begin to be able to document the systematic killing.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: And then it is an inference, but I think it is one that
    10  circumstantial evidence supports, that there is a
    11  connection in that period of July 16th to —-
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is not the likely inference that Himmler had received from
    13  Hitler the carte blanche that he had sought and Himmler
    14  strutted into occupied Russia and told his often teenage
    15  thugs who were wearing SS uniform, “I have carte blanche.
    16  Go ahead and deal with these people and pacify the rear
    17  areas”?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In fact, that is not what we know of how Himmler does it.
    19  Himmler says, “This terrible burden has been laid on my
    20  shoulders by the Fuhrer. This is the hardest thing I have
    21  ever been given to do.” He does not strut; he shares
    22  crocodile tears —-
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: 1944 he says that, does he not?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, but in ’43 too. We are talking about — what we know
    25  about Himmler and how he speaks to others about this task,
    26  he does strut in and say, “Boy, aren’t I lucky? I can now

    .           P-58

      1  kill them”. He comes and says: “The Fuhrer has laid this
      2  burden on my shoulders. This is a terrible thing we have
      3  to do, but we must fight this battle now so other
      4  generations do not”.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: He says this just once, am I right?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We have the Posen speech where I think he says it on —-
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: October 1943.
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: — both occasions. But this is, I think, an accurate
      9  reflection of how Himmler speaks to others about this. So
    10  your portrayal that Himmler is the eager go-getter is not
    11  supported by how he talks when we can document it to the
    12  other SS leaders about his role and responsibility.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: The documents are very thin, though, are they not? We do
    14  not have a whole sheaf of documents to draw these
    15  inferences from; there are a lot of gaps?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: There are gaps, but this is a very strong document. Here
    17  he is talking to all of the SS leaders and this is the
    18  stance that he takes to them.
    19  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think, Mr Irving, just so that you know —
    20  you may know this from the transcript — draws the
    21  distinction between after October 1943 and before.
    22  I think he accepts that Hitler knew and, indeed,
    23  authorized, I think.
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: But this is a different question, my Lord. The question
    25  here is how did Himmler act towards his SS Generals?
    26  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. As I understand the way you put it,

    .           P-59

      1  what he was saying in October 1943 and later is consistent
      2  with the interpretation you put on the slightly thin
      3  documentation of 41/42. Is that a fair summary?
      4  MR RAMPTON:  It may be relevant to point out —-
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can I have an answer first? Is that right?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, I am saying that in so far as we want to know how
      7  Himmler talked to others about this, it was not that
      8  “Hitler has given me carte blanche”, it is that “Hitler
      9  has laid a duty on me, it is a hard duty”. It is not one
    10  that he portrayed himself as eager to do, but one that he
    11  felt obligated to do. That was an answer to the scenario
    12  that Mr Irving gave of an eager Himmler running with the
    13  ball with very little authorization from Hitler.
    14  MR IRVING:  Is it not also right to say that on one occasion
    15  Himmler specifically says to I think Berger, “The Fuhrer
    16  has ordered these territories to be made free of Jews.
    17  This serious grave order that Fuhrer has placed on my
    18  shoulders nobody can take off me”?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That comes end of July of 1942.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: 1942, which is closer to the time we are talking about?
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Is that what you are going raise?
    22  MR RAMPTON:  Yes, because the date came out wrong first of all.
    23  It is 28th July 1942.
    24  MR IRVING:  Yes, and that when Himmler is, therefore, talking
    25  about the order, he is talking about the blanket order to
    26  get the Jews out of here, and the way that Himmler then

    .           P-60

      1  interpreted that is where you and I begin to differ.
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We differ a great deal on how one interprets that, yes.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: But, Professor, I remind you that yesterday I showed you
      4  one coloured page photocopy of an intercept, did I not,
      5  and I suggested to you that we have hundreds of thousands
      6  of such intercepts in the British archives now, and
      7  I suggested that neither my expert, Dr John Fox or Richard
      8  Brightman or any of the experts who have waded through
      9  these hundreds of thousands of intercepts of top level and
    10  medium level and low level messages, is this correct, has
    11  found even one inference, one document, which supports the
    12  inference that Hitler was behind this?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have not read through them, but no one has said that
    14  these intercepts, the place that we have found such a
    15  thing, and we have not found the smoking pistol document.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: So the more documents that do come our way, whether from
    17  Minsk or Riga or Moscow or from Bletchley Park or
    18  wherever, and yet we still fail to find even a luke warm
    19  gun, let alone a smoking gun, indicates that possibly
    20  I may be right and my opponents may be incorrect, or, at
    21  any rate, I am justified in suspecting, would you agree?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, because I do not think one would ever expect to find
    23  such a thing in a radio intercept. These are, from what I
    24  have seen of them, very specific things. They are not
    25  general points at which, for instance, Hitler has ordered
    26  Barbarossa or decisions of that level.

    .           P-61

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: You refer — I am now coming on to Adolf Eichmann, unless,
      2  my Lord, you wish to ask further questions?
      3  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No. Take your own course.

    Section 62.4 to 81.4

      4  MR IRVING:  I now come on to Adolf Eichmann. What reliance can
      5  be placed on his writings, do you think?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have used him as a very important source because we
      7  have —-
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, understandably.
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: — a collection of documents from him that stretch over a
    10  period of time and were given under different conditions
    11  before his arrest in Argentina under arrest by the
    12  Israelis, the private notes that are part of his
    13  attorney’s, Nachlass that is in Koblenz, that subject to
    14  the confidentiality that were only between him and his
    15  attorney and were not in the possession of the Israelis.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: There is a lot of paper then?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: There is a lot of — and now, apparently, we have learned
    18  there is about 1300 or more pages of notes that we have
    19  never seen yet.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: When you were in Koblenz, did you have the opportunity to
    21  look at the 600 pages that I gave to the German government
    22  which I found in Argentina?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. I have not seen those. I do not know what the
    24  overlap is between those and —-
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: They are similar to Sasson material. Would you
    26  characterize for the court what kind of witness Adolf

    .           P-62

      1  Eichmann was in all these stages? What kind of person —
      2  was he robust, was he servile, just characterize him.
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would say that there are elements of both, that he is
      4  very robust and contentious in protesting against certain
      5  aspects of what he is being accused. He has no problem
      6  saying Hoess is lying about him, that he did not be
      7  involved there; that he engages in a vigorous denial of
      8  certain parts of the documentation the Israeli
      9  interrogators at court show him.
    10  On the other hand, he comes and says things that
    11  there is no documentation for, admits to things that they
    12  would never have known otherwise, except that they are
    13  repeated consistently in all of his stories, and it is a
    14  story he sticks to from beginning to end for which we
    15  would not know other than that he consistently told that
    16  story.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. There are plausible elements and there are
    18  implausible elements, is that right?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In any eyewitness testimony, there will be elements that
    20  are more plausible than others. I think a fair amount of
    21  the Eichmann testimony is plausible. Again, it would
    22  depend on when he is reacting to particular documents they
    23  present, sometimes he takes a very defensive position, and
    24  in other areas he is very self-incriminating and very
    25  forthcoming.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: Hannah Arred in her book “The Banality of Evil” I think

    .           P-63

      1  refers to him as being almost complacent and compliant and
      2  anxious to please?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not agree with her characterization there.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: You do not agree with that?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. He is quite vigorous in defending himself in many
      6  areas.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: I had the dubious fortune some time ago of coming into
      8  possession of his personal copy of Rudolf Hoess’ memoirs.
      9  I will pass to you, if I may?
    10  MR RAMPTON:  May I enquire whether this is, I do not know, this
    11  is an entirely open enquiry, whether this is part of
    12  Mr Irving’s discovery?
    13  MR IRVING:  It was in my box called “Judenfrage” but if you
    14  wish —-
    15  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  This is the original you are handing up, is
    16  it?
    17  MR IRVING:  This is a photocopy of it which I have retained, my
    18  Lord.
    19  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  A photocopy of the version you discovered or
    20  were given?
    21  MR IRVING:  That is correct, my Lord. It is only interesting
    22  in one very minor respect.
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, that is what I thought.
    24  MR IRVING:  Pages 13 and 14 of your Lordship’s little bundle
    25  which I gave your Lordship this morning. This is, of
    26  course, the published edition of Hoess’ memoirs which you

    .           P-64

      1  are probably familiar with?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. The handwriting on that has been identified as the
      4  handwriting of Adolf Eichmann, as is evident also from the
      5  internal evidence of the comments that he makes. The
      6  original is in the possession of a friend of mine in
      7  Germany. He bought it in a store.
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: OK. I am, of course, not an handwriting expert.
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Rampton, you are happy with this, are you?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: And so I cannot confirm or deny.
    11  MR RAMPTON:  I have never seen it before. I do not have a
    12  translation.
    13  MR IRVING:  I just wish to refer to page 14.
    14  MR RAMPTON:  But what is puzzling me about this is if this is a
    15  selective use of the document, it may be that there are a
    16  considerable number of other comments by Eichmann of which
    17  Mr Irving is aware on these memoirs which we ought to see
    18  because they are relevant.
    19  MR IRVING:  I would be very happy to make available a copy to
    20  the Defence and I will leave this copy with them overnight
    21  and they can make a copy if they wish.
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is fair. I think Mr Rampton is happy
    23  you should make the point that you make on these two
    24  pages.
    25  MR IRVING:  I just wish to put this to the witness. I
    26  just draw your attention, witness, to page handwritten 14

    .           P-65

      1  which is page 122 of the book.
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: 122.
      3  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can you give us the context, Mr Irving?
      4  MR IRVING:  The killing of the Russian prisoners in 1941
      5  I think he is talking about. This is by Rudolf Hoess.
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  And he had been ordered to carry it out, is
      7  that right? He, Hoess, had —-
      8  MR IRVING:  “It was ordered that I had to carry it out”, writes
      9  Hoess, “but I have to say openly that this gassing had a
    10  calming effect on me, as in the near future we had to
    11  begin with the mass destruction of the Jews too, and
    12  neither Eichmann nor I was clear about how we were to deal
    13  with these masses”, is that roughly the sense of that
    14  final sentence on page —-
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Roughly, yes.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: And underneath it in his appalling handwriting Adolf
    17  Eichmann has written — can you read the words: “Ich war
    18  gar nichts zustandig”?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: What does that mean?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I was not at all competent, this was not at all my
    22  jurisdiction.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: And in the margin next to the footnote he was written just
    24  one word “falsch”?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Correct.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: In other words, Eichmann, who ought to have known, if

    .           P-66

      1  I can use one of the phrases Mr Rampton likes, disputes
      2  the version given by Rudolf Hoess. In private, he does
      3  not know that David Irving is going to come into
      4  possession of that years later, so can we assume therefore
      5  that there is some conflict in the evidence that Hoess
      6  writes?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. This is the major case where Eichmann contests
      8  vigorously the evidence the Israelis bring to him and
      9  present this before him. For instance, in the handwritten
    10  notes to his attorney, he says: “Hoess is the arch liar.
    11  I have nothing to do with Hoess, with his death camp or
    12  his gas chambers”. That is in Eichmann’s handwriting and
    13  Serwateus’ notes. He disputes having anything to do with
    14  Hoess’s gas chambers. He does not deny the existence of
    15  gas chambers but confirms Auschwitz, but he says that was
    16  not my thing.
    17  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The falsehood is his own involvement,
    18  Eichmann’s own involvement.
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. He is saying that Hoess is laying responsibility on
    20  him for playing a part in the selection of the gas chamber
    21  site, and the selection of the type of gas at Auschwitz,
    22  and in this regard I think Eichmann is correct and that
    23  Hoess is utterly wrong.
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is the means, not the end, in other
    25  words.
    26  MR IRVING:  You use the interesting phrase, of course, “Hoess’s

    .           P-67

      1  gas chambers” and that Eichmann —-
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is Eichmann’s phrase; what I quoted to you from
      3  memory is what Eichmann wrote to Serwateus in the
      4  Serwateus papers.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: Serwateus was his lawyer in Israel?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is there any hint there, therefore, that people like Hoess
      8  and the other concentration camp commandants were loose
      9  canons, and that they were doing things their own way
    10  without — ?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not think that there is a hint of that at all. The
    12  hint is that Hoess is trying to shift blame elsewhere and
    13  that Hoess has a very bad memory.
    14  Q. [Mr Irving]: Or a conveniently bad memory perhaps?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, Hoess has many self-incriminating things. Where
    16  Hoess’s testimony is particularly unreliable is anything
    17  related to dating.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: Dating and numbers?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Numbers as well, and to, in this issue certainly,
    20  Eichmann’s role in all of this.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it not correct that Hoess, in fact, fluctuates between
    22  2.8 million and 1 million, and then back to 2.7 million,
    23  as late as March 1947? Before his execution, he is back
    24  to 2.7 million again killed in Auschwitz.
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not remember the exact figures but I believe he does
    26  give fluctuating figures.

    .           P-68

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can any kind of credence be attached to figures like that
      2  when they vary by such enormous amounts?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This would be a case where you would look at the testimony
      4  and say that, when Hoess is talking about dates and
      5  figures, one would not use it as reliable. When he is
      6  talking about experiences that he recalls with great
      7  vividness, one would say this is more likely to be
      8  something that one at least must look at, can we
      9  corroborate this? It would not mean that everything Hoess
    10  says is wrong, but it would mean that, in the areas of
    11  dating and where he is trying to share responsibilities
    12  with others, one must use it with great caution.
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You do not know this, Professor Browning. We
    14  looked at the 2.8 million figure in some detail and it is
    15  quite clear that that is actually not his own account but
    16  it is what he has been told by others.
    17  MR IRVING:  It did actually creep up again, the 2.8 just before
    18  he was hanged. He appeared to be readily flexible and
    19  this is what I am getting at; I suppose “suggestible” is
    20  what I am aiming at, the word that these witnesses — you
    21  yourself have said that you had to pick and choose what
    22  they wrote, effectively?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: You had to make judgments about it. “Pick and choose”
    24  sounds as if one was picking and choosing for my
    25  convenience rather than my ability to explain in terms of
    26  —-

    .           P-69

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: We will come to that in a minute, Professor Browning, when
      2  we come to Gerstein.
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We will get there but, in terms of ability to bring
      4  reasons as to why you think parts of it are more reliable
      5  than others.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Is there any reason why, when somebody is in
      7  captivity on trial for one’s life, one might write things,
      8  either deliberately or inadvertently, that were not true,
      9  do you think?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is a possibility but, again, one looks at it and
    11  judges. If one is already sentenced to be hanged and
    12  there is, in a sense, nothing further they can threaten
    13  you with, then wonders one why would one go through the
    14  business of writing out a long handwritten document.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you not read large numbers of interrogations and
    16  pretrial interrogations yourself, where you have marvelled
    17  at some of the statements that these people have made?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Can you give me a context?
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: For example, self-incriminating statements which, as you
    20  said in the case of Eichmann, nobody knew what he was
    21  admitting there. Have you never wondered why people would
    22  make these statements?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think in cases I have used he is telling the truth.
    24  I think he is relating—-
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: Obviously. Otherwise you would not have used them. But
    26  does it not occur to you that sometimes people make

    .           P-70

      1  astonishing statements, self-incriminatory statements?
      2  The most extraordinary examples are, for example, in the
      3  Soviet show trials. It is a psychological problem. I am
      4  just trying to assail the credibility of eyewitness
      5  evidence basically. That is what I am getting at.
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Certainly in Soviet trials where part of the protocol, in
      7  a sense, is to have a signed statement at the end.
      8  I would not put great weight on something collected in
      9  1937 and 38 in which a witness said, “Oh yes, I was part
    10  of the Trotskyite conspiracy”, or whatever.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: Or American agent. Do not the same kind of duresses
    12  prevail when you are in a cell in a bleak prison in
    13  Nuremberg and the Americans come to you and say, well, we
    14  can guarantee you will not get the death sentence if you
    15  sign this affidavit which we have taken from your
    16  testimony?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would not accept that Americans came and said, “Sign
    18  this or we are going to kill you”.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar with the case of Dr Friedrich Gauss, who
    20  was Ribbentrop’s legal adviser?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, I am not.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar with Dr Robert Kempton, who said, “If you
    23  do not sign this we are going to turn you over to the
    24  Russians”?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, I am not familiar with that.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: Obviously I cannot develop that particular line. If you

    .           P-71

      1  are not familiar with that case I cannot develop it. In
      2  later trials in Germany we have another problem, do we
      3  not, and this is the passage of years? 20 or 30 years
      4  pass. You have referenced in your own very interesting
      5  expert report a number of German war crimes trials
      6  conducted quite properly by the German government in the
      7  1960s and even in the 1970s?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: How reliable is that kind of evidence being given by
    10  Germans who have been taken out of their little bedsits
    11  somewhere in Ingoldstadt or somewhere and they find
    12  themselves on trial, they are going to be locked away for
    13  20 years, and they are being asked to remember something
    14  that happened 30 years before?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think that much of it is very reliable. They did not
    16  have to give testimony. They had counsel, they did not
    17  have to, under German law, give self-incriminating
    18  testimony. They could remained silent.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: how many did remain silent?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Virtually none. A few. The document that we see in the
    21  Chelmno gas vans, the villager who signs that refused to
    22  talk and nothing happened to him. He is one who did not
    23  get brought to trial.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: So the man who signed the famous memorandum about the
    25  97,000 killed, is this the document you are referring to?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is the document and this is the case where someone

    .           P-72

      1  refusing to talk —-
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Nothing happened to him?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They said, we have not enough evidence to contest that he
      4  contributed in a causal way to the killing, even if he
      5  knew of it, and therefore we have no grounds. In fact,
      6  there was a case where the one who did not talk did much
      7  better than his colleagues in the motor pool who did talk,
      8  incriminated themselves and were tried.
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, I do not want to interrupt you
    10  unduly. I am not finding this terribly helpful because we
    11  all know that eyewitness evidence has to be looked at very
    12  carefully. Everyone agrees on that.
    13  MR IRVING:  If you think I have laboured the point too strongly
    14  then I shall not bring it up again.
    15  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is not really that, but illusive
    16  references which are not really followed up do not help me
    17  very much, besides which it appears to me we are straying
    18  perhaps a little bit from what I think is the intended
    19  structure of your cross-examination, which really goes to
    20  the case for saying that Hitler knew about the
    21  extermination. I am not keeping you to any tramlines.
    22  MR IRVING:  I was trying to undermine the quality of his
    23  sources by referring to the fact that a very large number
    24  of the sources which he refers to in his report in the
    25  footnotes appear to be —-
    26  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Not in relation to Hitler’s knowledge. I do

    .           P-73

      1  not think eyewitnesses come into that at all, do they?
      2  MR IRVING:  It is certainly in connection with the numbers and
      3  I was just about to get on to the 97,000 figure again,
      4  when your Lordship intervened.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. Develop that, but can you help me by
      6  giving me a little bit more information about which figure
      7  you are talking about, given by whom, in what context?
      8  MR IRVING:  This is one of two letters. One is the Greiser
      9  letter of May 1st 1942, Greiser to Himmler. Are you
    10  familiar with that document?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    12  MR RAMPTON:  Page 38 of Professor Browning’s report, my Lord.
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you.
    14  MR IRVING:  In that letter Greiser says that we shall have
    15  within, I believe, two to three months killed 100,000
    16  effectively. That is what he is saying, is he not?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: Has he already started by then?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. Chelmno has opened in early December 1941.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Does he actually refer to Chelmno in that document?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He does not refer to Chelmno in that document.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: We do not know whether he is actually referring to the
    23  document or actually to Chelmno, and whether even one of
    24  those 100,000 has died at that time or not.
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He does not say explicitly but Chelmno is the operating
    26  death camp in the region to which he is referring, the

    .           P-74

      1  Warthegau.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: There is a reasonable inference?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      4  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do not assume too much. You have been, as
      5  you say, for 34 years on this topic.
      6  MR IRVING:  Not on the Holocaust.
      7  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I appreciate that, but you know what I mean.
      8  I have had rather less long. So can you just help me who
      9  Greiser was?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Greiser is the head of—-
    11  MR IRVING:  The Gauleiter of the Warthegau.
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Gauleiter of the Warthegau. Lodz and Chelmno are located
    13  in the Warthegau.
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you.
    15  MR IRVING:  The second document is the one — you must help me
    16  on this — with the 97,000 figure in it?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I believe it is June 6th 1942.
    18  MR RAMPTON:  June 5th?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: June 5th.
    20  MR IRVING:  1942, correct.
    21  MR RAMPTON:  Perhaps in this case we should maybe get the
    22  document.
    23  MR IRVING:  I agree. There are two rather odd features about
    24  the document I want to draw your Lordship’s attention to.
    25  MR RAMPTON:  It is in the second volume.
    26  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I hope it is in J or L.

    .           P-75

      1  MR RAMPTON:  I think it is in the main bundle now.
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If Greiser’s letter is there too, then
      3  I would quite like a reference to that at the same time.
      4  MR IRVING:  Do you have the actual document in front of you?
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Just a moment. Let us catch up..
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, I do not.
      7  MR RAMPTON:  One starts at page 92 of the new Browning file
      8  which is Greiser’s letter.
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You tell me about a new Browning file. I
    10  feel I am the last to know about it.
    11  MR RAMPTON:  Tab 7, I am sorry.
    12  MR IRVING:  My Lord, meanwhile I can tell you what I am aiming
    13  at here.
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Let us pause a little, Mr Irving. You have
    15  to be patient with us.
    16  MR RAMPTON:  Then the motor pool letter, the 97,000, is on the
    17  following page, I hope, 93 to 97.
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think I may have misunderstood. Are we in
    19  tab 7 of L1.
    20  MR RAMPTON:  Tab 7 of L1.
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Page 97.
    22  MR RAMPTON:  Starting at page 92, that is Greiser to Himmler of
    23  1st May in a printed form. We have not got a copy of the
    24  original.
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. And the other one, Mr Rampton?
    26  MR RAMPTON:  Then the very next page, 93, is the 97,000 letter

    .           P-76

      1  of 5th June 1942.
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you.
      3  MR IRVING:  I am just going to wave one little flag about the
      4  document’s oddities. This is the document containing the
      5  97,000 figure, correct?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Correct.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you see at the top it says “Einzigste Ausfertigung” in
      8  German?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you ever seen that designation on a document anywhere
    11  else in your entire archival experience?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not recall seeing it.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. “Einzigste Ausfertigung” which means the “onlyest”
    14  copy.
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, the motor pool sergeants were not terribly literate.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: I take that point. Can you see that the document begins
    17  with the sentence: Beispielsweise, for example? The very
    18  first sentence in the document.
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, it says, “seit December”, yes.
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sorry, I have not got that. Where are
    21  you?
    22  MR IRVING:  In the very first sentence of the document, my
    23  Lord.
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  “Seit December”.
    25  MR IRVING:  The one with 97,000 figure in it.
    26  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Since December.

    .           P-77

      1  MR IRVING:  No. The word I am looking at is “Beispielsweise”.
      2  It is a letter beginning with the phrase, for example,
      3  “Beispielsweise”, it is just lifted out of the middle of
      4  nowhere. Have you ever received a letter from somebody
      5  beginning with the word “Beispielsweise”,
      6  Professor Browning?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: Or “for example”?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: But I think to have to realize Mr Schuss was not a college
    10  graduate, that these are people who are working in the
    11  motor pool in Berlin, and that the tone, as I see it, is
    12  someone who is trying to emulate what he thinks is proper
    13  bureaucratic German and he in fact is someone is not a
    14  bureaucrat, he is a mechanic.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: He was not stupid because, as you say, he was the only one
    16  who was not punished in this entire horrible affair.
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: You have to remember that “Beispielweise” comes after the
    18  subject, which is they are talking about technical
    19  changes.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I presume that this is a result of a conversation people
    22  have had, there has been a meeting.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: And someone has said, write it up.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: OK.
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We get a very —-

    .           P-78

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can you do a rough calculation of how many people were
      2  being killed per van per day?
      3  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Just pause, Mr Irving. If I may say so, you
      4  must just let me absorb the points you are making.
      5  MR IRVING:  I am just planting suspicion.
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You are casting doubt on this, partly because
      7  it has “Einsigste Ausfertigung” on the top and
      8  I understand that, but I am not sure I am really following
      9  your point on “Beispielsweise”.
    10  MR IRVING:  It is an unusual turn of phrase to start a letter
    11  with, my Lord.
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Why is it unusual? He is picking three
    13  trucks, is he not, to give an example of the sort of
    14  numbers that are being processed if that is the right
    15  word, in the special trucks.
    16  MR IRVING:  I agree, my Lord, but you would normally expect
    17  that in the second paragraph of a letter. In the first
    18  paragraph he says, well, we are going to have troubles
    19  doing this, that and the other, troubles with the trucks,
    20  the exhaust hoses are getting corroded and all the rest of
    21  it, for example, but in fact his letter begins with the
    22  word “for example”. This is the oddity about it. But I
    23  can do no more than —-
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You rely on that as an indication that this
    25  is not an authentic document?
    26  MR IRVING:  I am trying to plant a seed of suspicion in your

    .           P-79

      1  Lordship’s mind, that is all.
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You are not succeeding at the moment because
      3  I would have thought, if you are trying to create a
      4  document that is going to deceive anybody, you would not
      5  do what you say is something obviously inappropriate,
      6  which is to refer to an example in the first paragraph.
      7  MR IRVING:  It would be improper for me to do anything else.
      8  Mr Rampton will object if I do anything else because
      9  I have already stated that I fully accept that this
    10  document refers to the homicide of large numbers of human
    11  beings in gas vans.
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Where are we going?
    13  MR IRVING:  We are going to look at the number, my Lord, the
    14  97,000.
    15  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So you accept this is an authentic document?
    16  MR IRVING:  For the purposes of this morning, yes.
    17  MR RAMPTON:  I do have to know sooner or later, and so does
    18  your Lordship, whether Mr Irving accepts for the purposes
    19  of this trial that this is an authentic document. If it
    20  is a forgery, we need to know why he says it is a forgery.
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You do not say it is a forgery?
    22  MR IRVING:  No.
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Then we can forget about Beispielsweise, can
    24  we not?
    25  MR IRVING:  But it also helps to address the court’s attention
    26  to the fact whether this witness had competently

    .           P-80

      1  questioned the integrity of the documents we are
      2  confronted with.
      3  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is not a valid criticism of him if you do
      4  not question it.

    Section 81.5 to 97.22

      5  MR IRVING:  I personally would question it but not for the
      6  purposes of this morning’s hearing. Shall we just proceed
      7  to the number?
      8  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Let us do the numbers. 97,000 — what is
      9  wrong with that?
    10  MR IRVING:  I am sorry about that detour. 97,000 people killed
    11  in three vans in what space of time?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: From December to June, this would be six months, by my
    13  calculation.
    14  Q. [Mr Irving]: Six months?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are these regular German army diesel trucks, five ton
    17  trucks or something?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They refer to two and then a third, and I think they had
    19  — we do not know the capacity of two of them because
    20  they were not either the Opal or the Saurer trucks. They
    21  were apparently converted Renault. Then they brought in a
    22  Saurer truck, which is the biggest model and could carry
    23  I think 50 to 80 people. The Opal was 30 to 50. We do
    24  not know the capacity of the actual two trucks that
    25  were—-
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: From the descriptions we have, it did not actually do it

    .           P-81

      1  on the spot. They were loaded aboard, the victims, and
      2  they were driven off into the country side for a couple of
      3  hours and then they were gassed on the way?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. As best we can tell they loaded them, gassed them
      5  there, or for a while ran the engines, and then drove them
      6  off.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: So it was not a long way from Chelmno to the forest.
      9  I think it is two kilometres or 3 kilometres.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: I have read 20 kilometres.
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That is not correct at all. I have driven it myself. It
    12  is not far, and one would have to do a considerable amount
    13  of the time needed to kill the people, one would have to
    14  remain in the courtyard unless you wanted to run the
    15  engines for a prolonged period after you arrived in the
    16  forest camp.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you ever calculated the quantities of gasoline or
    18  petrol that would be needed for these kind of trips?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Not knowing the fuel consumption of the various truck
    20  models, no, I have not made a calculation.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: Does it strike you as being a very economical way of
    22  killing people?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think this camp was probably very inexpensive to run in
    24  comparison to what they were taking in, property and
    25  getting in labour from the Jews in Lodz. My guess is that
    26  this was an infinitesimally small part of their budget.

    .           P-82

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: If they had just the three trucks and this length of
      2  time to do it in, and they had the problem of persuading
      3  the people to get into the truck, and loading them up,
      4  driving off, waiting for the gas to have its effect, then
      5  unloading them at the other end and cleaning up the mess
      6  so that the next cargo did not have any suspicions, there
      7  must have been quite a substantial turn around time?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The trucks made return trips each day. In fact, we know
      9  with just one truck at the Semlin camp, it took about two
    10  months, with just one trip a day and occasionally two, to
    11  gas the 7,000 people there. So, with three trucks
    12  operating on a shorter run, they did not have to drive all
    13  the way through Belgrade to the far side, which is what
    14  happened in Semlin. I did the calculations for Semlin.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: You have done the calculations?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. I have not done them for this.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: Does the 97,000 not strike you as being wrong by a factor
    18  of two or three?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Absolutely not. It does not strike me as wrong at all.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: It depends strictly on what the capacity of the trucks
    21  would have been, what the turn around time was, whether
    22  they were really efficient, whether they worked 24 hours a
    23  day and whether the trucks had any down time.
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: From the witness reports the trucks made numerous trips
    25  each day, the drivers traded off so that they in fact
    26  operated continually during the day.

    .           P-83

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: Around the clock 24 hours a day?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Not 24 hours, through the day.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
      4  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is pretty distasteful, but may I ask this
      5  question? How many people were there in a gas van when
      6  they were being gassed? How many people could be
      7  accommodated?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We do not know for Chelmno because it is a different
      9  truck. There is a Saurer truck, one Saurer truck was at
    10  Chelmno. That is the one that exploded. Then they had
    11  two converted Renault French military trucks that they
    12  turned into gas vans, so we do not have a knowledge
    13  there. The small truck that they produced, the Opal
    14  Blitz, was the smallest. The Saurer could carry 50 to 80
    15  people, the Opal Blitz was 30 to 50. So, even if the
    16  Renault was smaller than the Opal, which probably as a
    17  military truck it was larger, would be in between the two.
    18  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: That is the order of magnitude?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    20  MR IRVING:  Were there more than three of these ominous trucks
    21  of death going around the Eastern Front do you think? Did
    22  they go from location to location?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Some of them were distributed to each of the
    24  Einsatzgruppen so there were some operating in Riga, some
    25  in Minsk and south, so that they were a few. We know, for
    26  instance, that Minsk, I do not have the document, but

    .           P-84

      1  I think they had 3 or 4 trucks and they asked for more.
      2  So we know that they had small fleets of these trucks with
      3  different Einsatzgruppen.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: Was this the principal means of killing at that time?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. It was a very minor part of the Einsatzgruppen. The
      6  vast bulk of the killing in the East was by shooting. The
      7  gas vans attached to the Einsatzgruppen were a very minor
      8  part of their killing operations.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can you draw any conclusions from the fact that they used
    10  different methods of killing people, a lack of system?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think we can find a kind of chronological sequence.
    12  They start with shooting. The next thing implemented is
    13  the gas vans starting at Chelmno and Semlin. Then they
    14  move to the fairly primitive gas chambers, which is the
    15  gas chambers that Operation Reinhardt and the converted
    16  peasant bunkers at Auschwitz. Then they move to the
    17  design construction. Once they have experience one can go
    18  back and say, how would you do this if you were creating
    19  something modern? So I do not find anything haphazard and
    20  confusing. I find it quite a logical sequence in which
    21  they add new methods of killing at the same time as the
    22  old methods continue.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you not agree that the lack of preparedness at the
    24  time Barbarossa began on June 22nd 1941 is in itself an
    25  indication that they did not go into Russia with the
    26  intention of carrying out systematic liquidations on a

    .           P-85

      1  large scale?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That has been my argument. We get evidence of
      3  preparations at the death camps coming in the fall of 41,
      4  which is when I have argued, partly because of that, that
      5  one then concludes that they have now reached the point
      6  where they want a systematic killing of the Jews of
      7  Europe.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. My Lord, I wanted to take this witness briefly on to
      9  the table talk document which your Lordship may remember,
    10  October 25th 1941.
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sure I will when you tell me what it
    12  is. Is that the Himmler Hitler meeting?
    13  MR IRVING:  It is the ugly rumours one, good thing that the
    14  rumour goes ahead of us.
    15  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Let us dig it out.
    16  MR IRVING:  I put in my clip, my Lord, of documents I gave to
    17  you.
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If it is somewhere else perhaps we will go to
    19  where it is already.
    20  MR RAMPTON:  It is in part 1 of Longerich.
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I was wondering about the actual document.
    22  MR IRVING:  We will find it most neatly on page 25 of the clip
    23  I gave you, my Lord, in the actual original Martin Bormann
    24  version.
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The problem is that I do not have the document.
    26  MR IRVING:  It is the clip that I gave you this morning,

    .           P-86

      1  Professor.
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Page 25.
      3  MR RAMPTON:  Page 59 of Longerich 1, paragraph 16.4. It is
      4  translated and the relevant part of the German is given at
      5  the footnote 149.
      6  MR IRVING:  Professor, do you have the document in front of
      7  you?
      8  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Just pause a moment, Mr Irving.
      9  MR IRVING:  Page 25.
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
    12  MR IRVING:  Professor, in your absence, before you arrived in
    13  the United Kingdom, I was taking stick for having wrongly
    14  translated two or three words in the second paragraph of
    15  that document.
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: The translation which I relied upon was the Weidenfeld
    18  edition of Hitler’s table talk.
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: I will read out most of the paragraph. They are talking
    21  about the Jews. They are going to have to disappear from
    22  Europe. The Weidenfeld translation continues: “That race
    23  of criminals has on its conscience the 2 million dead of
    24  the First World War — this is Adolf Hitler allegedly
    25  speaking — and now already hundreds of thousands more.
    26  Let nobody tell me that all the same we cannot park them

    .           P-87

      1  in the marshy parts of Russia. Who is worrying about our
      2  troops? It is not a bad idea by the way that public
      3  rumour attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews.”
      4  I will stop there. That is the translation of
      5  the phrase “Es ist gut, wenn uns der Schrecken
      6  vorangeht”.
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: I would ask you how would you translate the phrase, “it is
      9  good if wenn uns der Schrecken vorangeht”?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is good if the terror precedes us that we are
    11  exterminating the Jews.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: The terror?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The Schrecken, the fear of the terror. I certainly would
    14  not have translated it as “rumours”.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: You would not translate it as “public rumours”? So they
    16  have it wrong and I was wrong, criminally wrong,
    17  perversely wrong to have adopted the Weidenfeld—-
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is for me, not for the witness.
    19  MR IRVING:  Professor, are you familiar with a historian by the
    20  name of Philip Burrin?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Philip Burrin, yes.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Is he a notable historian? He is not an extremist
    23  in some way, is he? Is he a dependable historian? His
    24  works are published?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He is an historian of accepted reputation.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar with a book that this historian wrote

    .           P-88

      1  called “Hitler and the Jews, the genesis of the
      2  Holocaust”.
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: Please turn to page 17 of your bundle of documents that
      5  I gave you and look at page 145? Would you say that in
      6  the second half of that paragraph this historian has done
      7  his own translation of the original German? Perhaps
      8  I ought to draw your attention, first of all, to the end
      9  note 47, which you will find on page 18 of my bundle.
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  How do you know he did his own translation?
    11  MR IRVING:  That is what I am just referring to.
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  How does that prove that?.
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He wrote the book in French and someone else translated
    14  it. Burrin’s original book is in French. He is a French
    15  speaking Swiss historian.
    16  MR IRVING:  He has not used the Weidenfeld translation from
    17  what you can see.
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is obvious.
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He has not listed his monologe.
    20  MR IRVING:  Is that the title of the German edition of the
    21  book, Hitler’s table talk, Monologe im Fuhrer…
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, but what it looks to me is that his translator got
    23  lazy and, instead of translating Monologe, in fact grabbed
    24  the Weidenfeld and borrowed an English translation from an
    25  earlier edition and goofed it entirely. Burrin has been
    26  betrayed by his translator. That is how I would look at

    .           P-89

      1  this.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Will you take it from me that this Weidenfeld edition, sad
      3  to say, only went through one edition and there were no
      4  other editions than this? If he had had this edition
      5  before him, he would have used use phrase “public
      6  rumour”.
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I am in possession of a paper back that presumably was
      8  sold in great quantities that has exactly the Weidenfeld
      9  translation, so it is not a scarce book to get.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: They did not change this wording then? They did not use
    11  the word ominous reputation, which is the wording that has
    12  been used by Philip Burrin?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I am afraid I am not following you right now.
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think this is such an open question that it
    15  is not going to get you anywhere really. There is no
    16  point in my not saying that. I see the point you are
    17  driving at but it is too speculative.
    18  MR IRVING:  My point, my Lord, is quite clearly that, if this
    19  historian uses the phrase “ominous reputation”, which is
    20  arguably very close to the translation which is adopted
    21  both by myself and Weidenfeld translation, then it would
    22  be perverse to call me perverse for having adopted a
    23  perverse —-
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No. I think the criticism is more focused
    25  really, that you saw the German text, saw the word
    26  “Schrecken”, but were nevertheless content to use the

    .           P-90

      1  word “rumour” because it was in Weidenfeld when
      2  “Schrecken” does not mean “rumour”. That I think is the
      3  point.
      4  MR IRVING:  So, my Lord, does this translator.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I follow that. In a sense, this is
      6  beside the point.
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: One have would it to —-
      8  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is my feeling. I have the point you
      9  seek to make. I have told you what I think about it.
    10  MR IRVING:  The point I am seeking to make is that he is not a
    11  Holocaust denier. He is not perverse. Others also use a
    12  milder version of it than the outright terror, which is
    13  possible translation of “Schrecken” but not the only one.
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: One way to deal with it is to get the Burrin original and
    15  see what he says in French, because this is what would
    16  reflect what he was thinking, and then we could decide
    17  whether Burrin, as a historian or a historically ignorant
    18  translator, using a different version to save himself the
    19  time from a responsible translation, is at fault here.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: While you have the bundle in front of you, we can now
    21  dispose of the bundle in a few minutes, page 32 of the
    22  bundle, my Lord, I am just using this witness in order to
    23  introduce a document.
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You are doing it in exactly an appropriate
    25  way, as I say.
    26  MR IRVING:  Page 32 and page 33: Are you familiar with the

    .           P-91

      1  Harvard University? Of course you are.
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar with the fact that their library at
      4  Harvard University is called the Weidener library?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: Does this appear to be a list of books which the library
      7  has in its card file by an author called David Irving?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: And do there appear to be 47 books by that author in the
    10  Harvard University library?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: 47 entries. Some of them are duplicate.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. In other words, 47 copies of my books are in Harvard
    13  University Library?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is that a commendable total, would you say?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is a large number.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: How many books by Professor Browning are there in the
    18  Harvard University Library? Have you any estimate?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know if they have any of mine!
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, joking apart, what I get out of
    21  this is that you are thought by Harvard University or the
    22  Wagner Library to be the sort of author of whose many
    23  books they have a large number in stock. I think that is
    24  a fair point for you to make.
    25  MR IRVING:  Taken in conjunction with one of the earlier
    26  paragraphs of Professor Evans’ expert report, my Lord —

    .           P-92

      1  I am sure your Lordship will remember it — Professor
      2  Evans went to the British Library and found that my book
      3  “Hitler’s War” was kept on the pornographic and
      4  restricted list. Apparently, it is not the case in
      5  respected institutions in the United States.
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If Professor Evans makes points like that,
      7  you are entitled to make this sort of point in reply.
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would just add that Harvard University tries to have a
      9  complete list so they will buy everything. It does not
    10  reflect an endorsement of the authors by virtue of the
    11  fact they have them available in the library.
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, of course.
    13  MR IRVING:  Would you turn to page 34 of that bundle? These
    14  are just odds and ends and this is the appropriate way to
    15  use them, I think. It is the last page. My Lord, this is
    16  the German original and also I have translated it into
    17  English for your Lordship.
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is very helpful. Thank you.
    19  MR IRVING:  It is German police decodes. It is Traffic of
    20  November 13th 1941, is that correct? Intercepted and
    21  decoded a month later roughly. There are two radio
    22  messages here, is that correct?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Item 10 and item 32, yes.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: Item 10 and 32. Would you agree that item 10 appears to
    25  be a radio message sent from the SS Chief Medical Officer
    26  in Riga to the firm of Tesch and Stabenow in Hamburg?

    .           P-93

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not see the Riga. I see radio message of the SS at
      2  Hamburg.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: The last line says: “Signed, Senior Medical Officer”?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I was looking at the top.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you agree this is from the Senior Medical Officer
      6  attached to the Chief SS Officer in Riga and it is going
      7  to the firm of Tesch and Stabenow in Hamburg?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Via the Hamburg SS, yes.
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, sorry, can I just ask you this?
    10  It is called a decode. Is this is an intercept?
    11  MR IRVING:  This is a British intercept.
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  A Bletchley intercept?
    13  MR IRVING:  From Bletchley Park. One of this myriad of
    14  hundreds of thousands of messages, but it is typical of
    15  the kind of information that is there waiting to be fished
    16  out of the Public Record Office. Would you agree that
    17  this shows a request for information on which Zyklon was
    18  dispatched for the use of a man called Dr Tesch?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you know who Tesch and Stabenow were?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They are people involved — no, I do not know for sure. I
    22  will not say. I mean, I have heard their names.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it right to say that they are the firm in Hamburg which
    24  had the monopoly of supplies of Zyklon and other
    25  fumigation agents east of the River Elb?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I remember the names in connection with the production of

    .           P-94

      1  Zyklon-B. I could not testify that they were in Hamburg
      2  or had a monopoly.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: And that this message is referring to dispatch, not only
      4  of Zyklon, but also substances referred to as Tegas,
      5  Athylo, Trito?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They are referring to three other products. Whether they
      7  are gas or not, we do not know.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: Well, we do.
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you accept they are other fumigation products?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I will accept that they are referring to three products.
    12  I do not see anything that says what their purpose is.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, and the message also shows that Dr Tesch who is doing
    14  something in Riga connected with training?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Obviously, they did not get the complete message, but they
    16  do have the word “training” in Riga, at least as part of a
    17  garbled part of the intercept.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: So that the inference to be drawn from that telegram is
    19  that people were being trained in the use of fumigation
    20  agents, both lethal and non-lethal?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Since I do not know what Tegas, Athylo.D and Trito are,
    22  I can only say that there are three products in addition
    23  to Zyklon being dispatched.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: Will you accept that Tegas is a substance which is nine
    25  parts of ethylene oxide to one part of carbon dioxide? It
    26  is one of the proprietary fumigation agents that the

    .           P-95

      1  German Army used?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, I have no ground to accept or dispute. If you want
      3  to present that to the court or whatever, I cannot comment
      4  on that because I simply do not know.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: And the other items were, in fact, proprietary fumigation
      6  agents?
      7  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Professor Browning, does this decode tell you
      8  anything about whether it was a lethal or a non-lethal use
      9  of these gases, assuming they were gasses or fumigation
    10  agents?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They say nothing to that regard and I do not know of any
    12  lethal gassings in Riga, except for the gas vans which
    13  gassed with carbon monoxide.
    14  MR IRVING:  I just need one further piece of evidence. Have
    15  you read the Tesch trial at all, the trial of Dr Bruno
    16  Tesch by the British?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: You have not read that?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: But the word “training” indicates the people were being
    21  trained in the use of fumigation agents or could be both?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They were engaged in the training of something.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. I am going to go through the remaining pages of your
    24  report. We have started at I think round about page 24.
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Before you go further, Mr Irving, shall we
    26  just decide what should be the home for this? I will be

    .           P-96

      1  guided by the Defendants, Mr Rampton.
      2  MR RAMPTON:  I am so sorry.
      3  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do you have any suggestions about where this
      4  clip should go?
      5  MR RAMPTON:  My Lord —-
      6  MR IRVING:  L, I think.
      7  MR RAMPTON:  — what we will do, if your Lordship will just
      8  put it all at the back of L for the moment, we will take
      9  out the ones which are chronological.
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. Thank you very much.
    11  MR IRVING:  My Lord, so you have an overview, I have now
    12  finished the general part and what may seem to your
    13  Lordship rather vague and eccentric (as the opposite of
    14  concentric) questioning. We are now focusing just on the
    15  report. I think I will be finishing this half way through
    16  the afternoon.
    17  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do not hurry at all. My problem was simply
    18  you were assuming too much knowledge on my part.
    19  MR IRVING:  I was hoping to hit a few nails in while this
    20  witness was here.
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Of course. You are perfectly entitled to do
    22  that.

    Section 97.23 to 108.14

    23  MR IRVING:  And we will do the same with Professor Longrich
    24  when he comes. (To the witness): Paragraph 4.4.1, which
    25  is on page 24 of your report, Professor?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.

    .           P-97

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: Once again, simply stated, I do not deny that these
      2  shootings occurred and these killings occurred. All I am
      3  looking at here are two specific matters. First of all,
      4  the scale, and, secondly, the quality of the evidence that
      5  is available to us. That is what these questions are all
      6  going to. You say: “The commanders in the field were
      7  explicitly told to report extensively” — this is your
      8  middle sentence — “as both Hitler and Himmler were to be
      9  kept well informed.”
    10  Now, did you have a specific reason for
    11  including Hitler in that sentence, or what I am asking for
    12  is what is the proof that Hitler had asked to be kept well
    13  informed?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The document that we cited of August 1st 1941, I do not
    15  say Hitler asked, I said the document there said Hitler
    16  was to receive, you know, a regular supply of reports, the
    17  current reports.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: But this paragraph refers only to the systematic mass
    19  murder, does it not? It does not refer to the
    20  Einsatzgruppen’s other operations?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: If you want to know the work of the Einsatzgruppen and one
    22  major piece of the work of the Einsatzgruppen was the
    23  killings.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: But I do not want to repeat the discussion we had about
    25  that document yesterday, but we concluded that the
    26  document was looking for visual materials?

    .           P-98

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: To supplement, it was following on the already existing
      2  policy of handing on these reports and they wanted to
      3  fatten them.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: I guess what I am asking really is that the only document
      5  you rely on when you say that both Hitler and Himmler were
      6  to be kept informed?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That is the one for Hitler, I am not —-
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: I am not interested in Himmler. We have accepted that
      9  Himmler needed to be kept informed.
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So solely based on the 1st August 1941?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That is the documentary evidence we have, yes.
    12  MR IRVING:  Thank you.
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In terms of a wider thing, of course, Heydrich then
    14  summarized these, and that we have the monthly summaries
    15  that are spread out and copied as many as 100 for report,
    16  that are distributed to various Ministries, and the
    17  Foreign Office report will be seen by 30 or 40 people. So
    18  there does seem to be a great eagerness to get the word
    19  out. This is not something within the government that
    20  these reports are terribly shielded.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: You are familiar with Hitler’s order on secrecy, are you
    22  not, of January 1940, the need-to-know order, that Hitler
    23  issued the order saying that only those were to be told of
    24  secret operations or events —-
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have seen reference to it. I do not believe I have read
    26  it myself, but I have seen reference to it.

    .           P-99

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: So that would have tended to keep information
      2  compartmentalized, would it not?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: These always listed who was to receive, so there was — it
      4  was not circulated on the street corner. They had a list
      5  of who was authorized to receive it.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: But you say now in paragraph 4.4.2, the next paragraph:
      7  “Such a thorough documentation does not exist concerning
      8  the fate of the Jews from the rest of Europe”. In other
      9  words, we are reliant on postwar materials, eyewitness
    10  accounts, inferences, are we?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We are reliant on that systematic documentation in the
    12  sense we do not have a complete run of reports like we
    13  have of Einsatzgruppen. We have some documents that have
    14  survive here, some there. We are reliant on less complete
    15  documentation, though some pockets of documentation that
    16  are very suggestive and, in addition, postwar testimony as
    17  well. Documentation, for instance, concerning the
    18  deportation operations is fairly rich in some countries.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: But you are referring to the railroad information?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, I say “concerning the fate of the Jews from the rest
    21  of Europe”, we have a mixed bag of documentation, rather
    22  than a fairly rich and steady run. I mean, Einsatzgruppen
    23  reports, to have a complete series, it is fairly rare for
    24  an historian.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: I appreciate that.
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We do not have that rich —-

    .           P-100

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: But if you take one specific matter, for example, the
      2  deportation of the Jews from France, is it right to say
      3  that there is a broad measure of disagreement on what the
      4  total number involved was, ranging from 25,000 at one end
      5  of the scale (which I think Pierre Vidal Nacette supports)
      6  right up to the high 200,000s?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Of how many in France or how many deported?
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: How many Jews were deported from France?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think most historians accept the figure of around
    10  75,000. I have not been aware of a huge difference
    11  because we have references to most of the trains and when
    12  they left, and we can add up the trains. So I did not,
    13  I do not think — it is not my — I am not aware that
    14  there is a vast discrepancy of interpretation concerning
    15  the number of Jews deported from France.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: Why would Himmler have discussed with Hitler the
    17  deportation of 200,000 or 300,000 Jews from France when
    18  that figure was not in France at that time?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In mainland France there is roughly about 300,000 Jews.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The number in North Africa, I have no idea, but it is —-
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: This is a discussion on 10th December 1942. Do you
    23  remember what happened one month before that?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, the Germans were pouring troops into Tunisia.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: And we had seized control of most of French North West
    26  Africa, had we not, so that the Germans could not have

    .           P-101

      1  done anything with the Jews in that part of the world, so
      2  those figures could not have been included, could they?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Not in the 2 or 300,000, but if you are working — the
      4  question is why — let me back up so we do not get totally
      5  lost. There is a figure in the Wannsee conference
      6  protocol that has mystified historians because it is
      7  listed I think 600,000. It is a number well beyond what
      8  any historian believes of Jews in France. Puzzling, some
      9  people have speculated, purely speculated, that this may
    10  include the Jews of French North Africa too.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: But on December 10th 1942 that can no longer have
    12  pertained?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, but we do not get that figure. We get the 2 to
    14  300,000 that is —-
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: Still wrong?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. That is still approximately right. If you started
    17  with 300,000 and 40,000 were deported in 1942, you would
    18  be at 260,000.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: But there were not two or 300,000 Jews in mainland France
    20  on December 10th 1942, were there?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Oh, there were. 300,000 is the figure that I have seen
    22  for the population in all of France and, of course,
    23  Germany occupies the southern part of France and thus
    24  would have the Jews of all of France in December 1942.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: Where have you seen these figures?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This would come from Michael Merris and Paxton’s book on

    .           P-102

      1  the Vichy France and the Jews.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you turn to page 25 please? I am looking at
      3  paragraph 5.1.1 which I suppose is your topic paragraph.
      4  You are setting out what you are going to be saying. You
      5  say, the final sentence in that paragraph, you are
      6  referring to the fact that there are disagreements over
      7  historical interpretation?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Absolutely.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: They are not at all unusual, you say?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We have seen several of these, the questions of
    11  interpretation from circumstantial evidence about what
    12  date decisions were made —-
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: You do not have to have a Professor’s title to be entitled
    14  to have a different opinion, do you, or to be Lord
    15  somebody or Sir John somebody, do you? You are entitled
    16  to have a different opinion?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: There is a range of opinion and one does not have to have
    18  a PhD to hold an opinion.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. You do not have to be rocket scientist, as they say
    20  now. You say: “On the contrary, it is quite a normal
    21  occurrence” to have different opinions about how the
    22  programme for murder of the Jews came about?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: You finish that paragraph by saying: “What follows is my
    25  interpretation concerning the emergence” of what you call
    26  “the Final Solution” by which you are referring to the

    .           P-103

      1  murder of the Jews, are you not?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Correct.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: “It is not shared in every aspect by other able and
      4  learned historians of the Holocaust”.
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Correct.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: But it would be wrong to call them Holocaust deniers,
      7  would it not, just because they disagree with the
      8  established view?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: As I have said, there is a large body of interpretation on
    10  a number of issues, including the issue of whether Hitler
    11  gave an order or not, that is within the historical
    12  debate.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: What is permissible, in your view, and his Lordship may
    14  interrupt this discussion, to debate and what is
    15  impermissible to debate? Where is the line drawn?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Where we draw the line? I would say —-
    17  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  In relation to these death camps, do you
    18  mean, or more generally?
    19  MR IRVING:  The Final Solution — the mass murder of the Jews.
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would say if interpretations are based upon evidence
    21  such as you invented yesterday when you added the lines to
    22  the Himmler notation, and that becomes the basis of an
    23  interpretation, that would be one that we could say, “This
    24  is flawed”.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: Over the line?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: “This is over the line”.

    .           P-104

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, we are talking about December 18th 1941 note?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: We put things in square brackets saying, if you remember,
      4  Jewish problem to be treated as partisans or to be wiped
      5  out as partisans —-
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: And when you added “that they were” —-
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, in square brackets?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: — I said that was invention, and if one is using
      9  invented evidence, this would be one example of where we
    10  would say, “This person is no longer taking part in the
    11  debate. He is fantasizing evidence”.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: That is a very good example. Suppose the person who did
    13  the inventing put the invented words in square brackets,
    14  which is the accepted connotation for his assistance to
    15  the reader, and if he also then gave the German original,
    16  if there was any doubt, would that be over the line or
    17  within the line?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would have to see the particular case to get a sense of
    19  whether it was clearly intending to help the reader or to
    20  mislead the reader. I mean, this would be a border line
    21  case and one would have to look at the individual
    22  circumstances.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: So the criterion then is if something has been changed or
    24  included with the intention of misleading, then that would
    25  be over the line?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Certainly when the intention is clear, then we are — it

    .           P-105

      1  is easier to decide. I, myself, would feel that if one
      2  has a pattern of distortion, even if it is not intended,
      3  but is so much of the personality of the person that they
      4  are so identified with this that they no longer in a sense
      5  can see the evidence except by kind of default position,
      6  one gets a consistent pattern of distortion even if it is
      7  not a calculated and wilful distortion.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: This is a very useful concept. In other words, if an
      9  historian is so imbued with the notion that, “Surely,
    10  Adolf Hitler gave the order and, even we cannot find it,
    11  it must be there somewhere and I am going to disregard any
    12  evidence to the contrary”, that would fit within that
    13  concept, would it, or are you only looking at the people
    14  on the other side of the mirror when you say that?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think it is a general rule and the is, as you have
    16  brought it up, obviously, one can reverse these things,
    17  and if every piece of evidence one gets, the first thing
    18  is, “Does this implicate Hitler? Is there Hitler in it?
    19  Well, it does not implicate Hitler, we can deal were this
    20  document; but if Hitler is in there, then we have to do
    21  something with it”.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Suppose there was a document which suggested that Hitler
    23  had repeated the order that he wanted the Final Solution
    24  postponed until the war was over and all the historians
    25  ignored that, would they be being perverse or would they
    26  be entitled to act like that?

    .           P-106

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In the circumstances, which I am sure we will discuss in
      2  detail, I will explain why, I do not think it would be
      3  perverse not to discuss that document.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: We do not discuss the document today. I just wanted to
      5  know would it be right to ignore it and pretend it did not
      6  exist or would that be perverse?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not think one is obligated to footnote all the
      8  documents they do not use.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. In other words —-
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: And that they have made a judgment they do not find
    11  helpful.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: You put it under the carpet and you do not even put a
    13  footnote about it, and that is OK, is it? That is what
    14  you are saying?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Again, it would depend very much on the circumstances.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: So I am trying to help you here because the picture you
    17  are giving is that a person is considered to be a
    18  respectable historian provided he has views that are
    19  respectable, if I can put it like that, but as soon as he
    20  starts having disrespectable views, then — if he has
    21  politically incorrect views, then this makes him
    22  disreputable and beyond the pail?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It not said that at all.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: But there are certain views which one has no problem with
    25  at all?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: There is a range of views which involve a looking at the

    .           P-107

      1  evidence that historians seeing that evidence would say,
      2  “This is within a range of interpretation”. The example
      3  I then gave was that if one invents further evidence, this
      4  is not within the realm of acceptance as one example of
      5  where I would say we could say one has gone over the line.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but putting something in square brackets to assist
      7  the reader is not inventing evidence, is it? If you are
      8  adding an interpretation for the reader and helping the
      9  reader to see that — would that be —-
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving —-
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think that could be called misleading.
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  — I think that for two reasons we have had
    13  enough of this. (A) it is my province, and (B) I think
    14  the questions are too broad. I think it all depends.
    15  MR IRVING:  It is, my Lord, and I am going to ask the witness
    16  now to turn to 5.1.6 which is on pages 27 to 8. We have
    17  had this before already in another context, my Lord. In
    18  fact, it is not irrelevant to the previous matter. (To
    19  the witness): If one has a certain mind set, Professor,
    20  is it correct that one might read a document the wrong
    21  way?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That is possible.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: I think we are going to come to one example of this
    24  straightaway. You say at the foot of page 27:
    25  “Rademacher reported: ‘Then as soon as the technical
    26  possibility exists within the framework of the total

    .           P-108

      1  solution to the Jewish question, the Jews will be deported
      2  by waterway to the reception camp in the east.”
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: Now, the fact that they were going to go to a reception
      5  camp implies to your mind that they were going to go to a
      6  sticky end, to some kind of sinister place where nasty
      7  things were going to be done to them?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: What I used this for was to show that a reception camp,
      9  and we will come to my mistake in terms of the plural and
    10  the singular, I am sure, immediately. As I said
    11  yesterday, yes, I did make mistakes.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is that an example of the kind of mistake one might make
    13  if one had a mind set where you were expecting that we are
    14  talking about one of the Operation Reinhardt camps, one of
    15  the camps, that they are going to be sent there and they
    16  are going to be bumped off; but when we read that the
    17  actual document says they are going to be sent to
    18  reception camps, all the sinisterness goes out of this
    19  particular document?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: On the contrary, I think my interpretation was against
    21  interest, that I have looked and what, as an historian,
    22  I have been concerned with is evidence in the fall of 1941
    23  of this, as say, a vision between Himmler, Hitler,
    24  Heydrich and others, that they have now decided on the
    25  murder of Jews. For my purposes, in terms of what I would
    26  have been predisposed to find, would indeed to have found

    .           P-109

      1  evidence of a much broader thing and to have interpreted
      2  it correctly. To have it in the singular was against
      3  interest; an error on my part, but certainly not one that
      4  would be one that I would have made willingly or would
      5  have been disposed to make because of opinions I held that
      6  this is a case, in fact, where I made an error that
      7  limited the importance of the document I had, and the
      8  correct translation, I think, is very useful to me because
      9  it goes towards something that I have been working to
    10  collect evidence on, hoping to bolster an argument. So in
    11  that case, I would say this is not a reflection of a
    12  predisposed mine set to read the document wrongly. I read
    13  it wrongly despite a prior interpretation that I had
    14  published.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: So you do not think that this very minor translation error
    16  has in any way damaged the burden of the argument you are
    17  making?
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I cannot see that it makes a blind bit of
    19  difference myself.
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think it limits it. If my argument has been that after,
    21  that the second Hitler decision came in early October and
    22  that after that there is an awareness among the Germans
    23  they are going to build a series of camps, to put this in
    24  the singular instead of the plural, that Eichmann’s
    25  assistant saw travelling with Rademacher is speaking about
    26  the creation of, I put it there, within “the technical

    .           P-110

      1  possibility of a framework for a total solution” is
      2  talking about a series of camps, this is a much stronger
      3  document than the way I have interpreted it.
      4  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, it depends if it is one big camp or a
      5  lot of little camps.
      6  MR IRVING:  Except that one big camp might have been Belzec or
      7  Sobibor or Treblinka, whereas a lot of little camps could
      8  not have been, my Lord. It would have been the “new
      9  life”, if I can put it like that? It would be the
    10  gettoes, the alternative solution that was being
    11  propagated. I fully accept that it was an accidental
    12  mistranslation on the witness’s part. But the other point
    13  I was going to make is do such accidents happen and are
    14  they necessarily perverse in translation?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: If they happen, they should at least sort of be 50 per
    16  cent one way and 50 per cent another, and here the case we
    17  have found is one, as I say, against interest. If there
    18  was a consistent pattern where all mistakes tended to
    19  support the position of the man making the mistakes, one
    20  could make a case that (indeed, what we have talked about)
    21  a predisposed mind set was contributing.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: You mean it is like a waiter who always gives the wrong
    23  change in his own favour?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: 5.1.8, please, which is on page 28 — I am just going to
    26  refer very briefly to Aberhard Wetzel. We have looked at

    .           P-111

      1  this document many times. I am not going to look at it
      2  again. What happened to Aberhard Wetzel, do you know?
      3  Was he prosecuted or punished in any way?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know of a Wetzel trial, so I assume he was not,
      5  but I do not know that.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: So this is yet another case of a man who, prima facie, on
      7  the basis of the documents on which you rely was
      8  committing crimes of great enormity or encouraging them or
      9  inspiring them, and yet nothing happened to him.
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, the problem is, of course, that it is a letter in
    11  which they propose something. It was never done.
    12  Therefore, the document does not — the only documentary
    13  evidence was to a crime that was not committed because, in
    14  fact, this plan was not carried out and, therefore, they
    15  had no crime with which to charge Mr Wetzel. Knowledge of
    16  the killing does not constitute in German law a felony.
    17  It is contributing to the killing and in this case there
    18  was no gas van killing in Riga resulting from this action
    19  by Wetzel, so there was no crime to charge him with.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Now page 29 please, paragraph 5.1.9, you summarize: “In
    21  short, surviving documents show that by late October 1941
    22  the Nazi regime” had done a number things. But does not
    23  the previous paragraph, 5.1.8, suggest that it is actual
    24  individuals who are doing it and that frequently their
    25  proposals were not being taken up? What do you mean by
    26  the “Nazi regime”? Are you talking about Himmler, from

    .           P-112

      1  Himmler downwards or from Hitler downwards?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, I am talking about a policy that is out there.
      3  I think Hitler is involved. I do not have a document to
      4  prove it, but given how I think the Himmler/Hitler
      5  relationship worked, and that in every case, numerous
      6  cases we can find that Himmler did not act without
      7  Hitler’s permission, that I would say — my conclusion
      8  circumstantially is that Hitler is part of that, but I do
      9  not have the document to collect my £1,000.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: You say in paragraph 5.1.10: “These documents suggest
    11  that a policy of systematic extermination”, and so on, was
    12  going on, but is suggestion enough really? You have
    13  documents from which inferences can be drawn, and yet here
    14  we are, 55 years after the war is over, we are still
    15  looking for documents that only suggest things?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, this is, in terms of dating, suggests that by late
    17  October, and that others like Jerloch argue it is not
    18  until December, some like Dr Longerich will argue that
    19  this comes even later than that. The suggestion is not
    20  that there was or was not a killing programme. It is at
    21  what date it will take shape.
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think that must be right, as a matter of
    23  the interpretation of what is in the report. I think,
    24  Mr Irving, it is probably a time to — unless you have a
    25  short point you would like to deal with.
    26  MR IRVING:  No. It is quite a long point, the next one, it is

    .           P-113

      1  going to go to page 31, yes.
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, we will do that at 2 o’clock.
      3  (Luncheon adjournment)

    Part III: Professor Christopher Browning, Day 2, continued, Afternoon Session (114.4 to 210.25)

    Section 114.5 to 128.22

      4  (2.00 p.m.)
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, Mr Irving?
      6  MR IRVING:  Thank you, my Lord. Professor Browning, are you
      7  still under contract to Yad Vashem?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have contracted to write a book for them and that has
      9  not been completed.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: They paid you $35,000?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, they have paid me, I believe, 27,000.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you aware of the fact that Yad Vashem also paid money
    13  to the second Defendant in this case?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know. No, I am not aware.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. So you do not see any possible conflict of interest
    16  in giving expert evidence in this action on behalf of the
    17  Second Defendant?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: One, I did not know that and two, I do not see the
    19  connection if I had none.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you seen the book published by the Second Defendant
    21  “Denying the Holocaust”?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, I have.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: Had you not seen that very early on in the book in her
    24  introduction and on the title pages, she thanks the Yad
    25  Vashem/Vidal Sassoon Institute?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not remember reading that. I may not have read the

    .           P-114

      1  credits. One often goes directly to the body.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Yad Vashem is an institution of the State of Israel,
      3  is it not?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: So you are, in that respect, a paid agent I suppose of the
      6  State of Israel using the word “agent” in its purely legal
      7  sense?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: If that was the case, then since I had been at the
      9  Holocaust Museum, I would also have been an agent of the
    10  American Government, and since I have received
    11  scholarships in Germany, I would be an agent of the German
    12  government, so I must be a very duplicitous fellow to be
    13  able to follow these regimes.
    14  Q. [Mr Irving]: There is lots of money, is there not, in connection with
    15  the Holocaust research scholarships? It has become a
    16  well-funded kind of enterprise, can I say, Holocaust
    17  research, history, publishing —-
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: All in the past, I wish it had been much better funded.
    19  I did not find that I lived particularly well.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: $35,000 to write a book which you have not delivered seems
    21  relatively well remunerated to me?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They have got the manuscript for the first half and that
    23  is where I have been remunerated from. They have it as in
    24  France.
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Is the book that, I have not quite got the
    26  name of it, but this organisation is going to publish

    .           P-115

      1  written by you connected with your evidence?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. I mean I was in the course of researching that book.
      3  I am using evidence here, but it is not directly related
      4  to this, no.
      5  MR IRVING:  Will you tell his Lordship what the nature of the
      6  book is you are going to write for Yad Vashem which is the
      7  Holocaust memorial in Israel, is it not?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The book is an overview of Nazi/Jewish policy from 1935 to
      9  1945. The first half of September 1939 to March 1942 is
    10  what is now in the hands of both the editorial board of
    11  Yad Vashem and the Cambridge University Press, and it is
    12  under completion of that manuscript that I was paid the
    13  money, according to the contract that we had signed.
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So it covers the same general area as your
    15  evidence but is broader?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    17  MR IRVING:  If you were to write a book for Yad Vashem which
    18  suggested that you discovered that Adolf Hitler had not
    19  issued the order or that it was just a totally haphazard
    20  killing operation that had resulted from the Holocaust,
    21  would this book be welcomed by them, do you think? Would
    22  that enhance his prospects or diminish them?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: As I have said, a number of historians have already made
    24  the argument that Hitler did not give the order, and
    25  I have been with them at a conference at Yad Vashem. They
    26  had been invited to take part in the discussion there.

    .           P-116

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: Will it surprise to you hear —-
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have been on what we would call the functional end in
      3  terms of Hitler not having, as I say, a blueprint from the
      4  beginning, and though that is different than many Israeli
      5  scholars’ view, that does not cause them to view me as
      6  outside the pale.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, I have not had anyone interfere with or attempt to
      9  interfere with how I write the book.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: The point I am trying to make is obviously quite clearly
    11  you do not feel that your evidence, expert evidence in
    12  this case, has been in any way tainted by the money you
    13  have received from the State of Israel or Yad Vashem?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. I have written a book from which obviously my
    15  scholarly reputation is going to be based, that would be
    16  far more important to me than whatever money may be given,
    17  and that certainly would not be a factor in what I was
    18  writing.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: Very well. If an historian writes a book, just a
    20  hypothetical historian writes a book, and then between
    21  that publication of that book and the publication of the
    22  next edition of that book he changes his mind in any
    23  respect, on whatever basis of evidence, and he makes
    24  deletions from the text of the original edition of his
    25  book, is this reprehensible necessarily?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Not necessarily. In my review of the second edition of

    .           P-117

      1  Raul Hilberg I noted where he had made changes.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: You are running ahead of my question.
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That represented his view of the change between 61 and 85.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: You have correctly anticipated my next question,
      5  Professor, which is you are familiar with Professor Raul
      6  Hilberg?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can you describe Raul Hilberg and his qualifications to
      9  the court, please?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would say that Raul Hilberg is the major historian who
    11  has written the overview of what we call the machinery of
    12  destruction, bureaucratic —-
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Hold it one moment. You describe him as an historian.
    14  Did he actually study history at university? Did he get a
    15  degree in history?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. He sits in the Political Science Department, but in
    17  terms of political science he is an historical end of that
    18  field which in fact involves people who do many other
    19  things that do not have particularly historical dimension.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: So you do not have to have book learning as an historian
    21  in university to be regarded as an historian?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: Walter Laqueur is an example, is he not?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know what Laqueur’s Ph.D., is but Raul Hilberg’s
    25  is political science.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: And Winston Churchill is another historian of course and

    .           P-118

      1  he never history, and Edward Gibbon I believe he also
      2  never studied history, and we can keep on going through
      3  the list, am I right?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: — and Heroditus, yes.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: Raul Hilberg is, as you say, one of the world’s leading
      6  Holocaust historians?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In my view.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: He wrote a book called —-
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The Destruction of the European Jews.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: The Destruction of the European Jews. What was his
    11  position on Hitler’s responsibility in the first edition
    12  of his book?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In the first book he was mainly laying out what he called
    14  bureaucratic structures, but that he did have sentences
    15  that talked about two decisions, a two-decision theory,
    16  that Hitler made a decision in July of 1941 and then
    17  Hitler made the decision later, the first for Soviet
    18  Jewry, the second for the mass murder of the European Jews
    19  outside Soviet territory. He rephrased that to —-
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Hold it for a moment, you have very carefully chosen your
    21  word there. You said “decision”.
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Two decisions I said.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, decisions. Is there a distinction in your mind
    24  between “orders” and “decisions”?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, I think so. I usually use the word “decisions”.
    26  I do not usually use the word “order”, because an order

    .           P-119

      1  implies a more formal, it is a formal transfer from
      2  position of authority requesting a certain action be taken
      3  in a more specific way. “Decision” I have used, and
      4  I would also say I use this in a broad way, a point at
      5  which it became crystallized in the mind of Hitler and
      6  Himmler and Heydrich, or at least Himmler and Heydrich
      7  knew now what Hitler expected of them had been conveyed
      8  what they were to do. I have said that in the senses at
      9  the end of this decision-making process, and I have always
    10  said that is an amorphous incremental process. I have
    11  argued against what I would call the “big bang” theory,
    12  there is a certain moment in time in which suddenly,
    13  voila, we will kill all the Jews.
    14  Q. [Mr Irving]: So did Hilberg in the first edition of his book, The
    15  Destruction of European Jewry, refer to a Hitler order or
    16  a Hitler decision or both?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I cannot remember exactly. I would have to look at the
    18  text.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: What happened between the publication of that edition and
    20  the publication of the second edition? What did he do?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He took out specific references to a Hitler decision or
    22  order, I forget how he phrased it, and phrased it more
    23  generally.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it not right that he went the whole way through the
    25  book cutting out the word “Hitler order”, and the notion
    26  that Hitler had issued and order?

    .           P-120

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In so far as it refers to a specific order, yes.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: And you actually wrote an article on this subject called
      3  “The Revised Hilberg”?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: Which is no doubt well in your memory?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, it was written in mid-1980, so it is 15 years in the
      7  past.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: And your recollection of events 15 years ago is not all
      9  that good?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is not bad, but if you want to tell me which word did
    11  I use I would like the like text. If you want the general
    12  gist of it I can give it to you.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: I am suggesting that if your recollection of something you
    14  did 15 years ago is not all that hot, then an eyewitness’s
    15  recollection about something 30 years ago might be equally
    16  shaky?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I can remember writing the article and I can tell you the
    18  gist. I cannot tell you if I used a word or a different
    19  word. It depends on the magnitude of detail that you are
    20  talking about.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: Just winding up that matter, there is nothing
    22  reprehensible whatsoever about Hilberg going all the way
    23  through his book taking out any reference to a Hitler
    24  order, which is quite a major element to the book
    25  obviously, because he had reflected. On second thoughts
    26  he had decided the evidence was not there, is that the

    .           P-121

      1  right way of putting it?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He had decided that the way he had phrased it in the first
      3  volume should be revised.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Surely the key consideration is what
      6  persuaded him to change his mind. If there were good
      7  reasons, there good reasons, and if there were not there
      8  were not.
      9  MR IRVING:  Witness, can you answer his Lordship’s curiosity in
    10  this respect?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He does not explicitly address that question as to why the
    12  change. He rephrases it in such a way that he felt that
    13  was too specific.
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No. What I am getting at is, that the ground
    15  for criticising him for changing his mind would depend on
    16  the quality of the evidence that convinced him to change
    17  his mind. If there were not good reasons for his change
    18  of mind, then he should not have changed his mind or the
    19  text, that is obvious, do you agree with it?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    21  MR IRVING:  But of course it would be an entirely subjective
    22  decision by the author or historian concerned as to what
    23  evidence would meet his own personal criteria?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, and I think in this case it was partly a semantic
    25  question. He felt the word “order” implied or had come to
    26  imply by the 1980s more than he was comfortable with in

    .           P-122

      1  specificity, and so he phrased it in a more general way
      2  because by this point of course the controversy between
      3  intentionalist and functionalist had broken out. In fact
      4  he withdrew himself from that controversy. He phrased
      5  things in a way that was not part of that debate.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I put to you just a few words of your testimony in a
      7  court action in Canada in about 1988, which obviously your
      8  recollection then was refresher, it was 12 years ago:
      9  “I will go on, thank you, said Browning. There
    10  is a question of how we understand the word ‘order’ and
    11  this is a case where I think we have deepened
    12  understanding. Though we have tried to deal with the
    13  concept, what does it mean for there to be Hitler order, a
    14  so-called Fuhrer befehl. I have certainly looked into
    15  that question. I have myself”, that is you, “proposed
    16  that we have to look at it in terms of a series of signals
    17  or incitements”, and that appears to have been a favourite
    18  concept of yours, signals or incitements?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I believe —-
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I did not mean to interrupt.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you remember saying that in that particular legal
    23  action in Canada, in the Zundel case?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I remember we discussed the question and that sounds very
    25  much like what I said.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you just explain to the court what you mean by this

    .           P-123

      1  phrase of signals and incitements from somebody like
      2  Hitler which would lead to a Holocaust?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would say it is the same as we have been discussing this
      4  morning and yesterday. Hitler sets a level of
      5  expectation, in this case, for instance, that the war in
      6  the Soviet Union is to be not simply a conventional war
      7  but a war of destruction, an ideological war, and then
      8  people bring him proposals and he approves or does not
      9  approve.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: It all sounds frightfully vague, does it not, far short of
    11  an order with a heading signature Adolf Hitler that we
    12  have in some of the other Hitler crimes like euthanasia?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. This in a sense is a very different kind of process,
    14  and I think the reason why Hilberg took that word out is
    15  because people would read that word and interpret it that
    16  there must be a specific piece of paper, and so he talked
    17  more about a general process in which intentions or
    18  desires are conveyed, but did not want to use the word
    19  “order”.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Does your Lordship wish to explore that particular
    21  matter any further?
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, thank you very much.
    23  MR IRVING:  I think it is quite useful that we should establish
    24  that somebody of the reputation of Hilberg became uneasy,
    25  that in his own conscience, would you agree, he felt that
    26  he could no longer accept, having suggested there was a

    .           P-124

      1  Hitler order in his first edition and he went through
      2  actually — I think, would you agree this is more
      3  significant than not mentioning it in the first place,
      4  that he had put it in the first place and then took it
      5  out? This is a more significant step than just not
      6  mentioning that there was no Hitler order?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It does mean that this had become I think a word that had
      8  become more freighted than when he wrote the first
      9  edition, and that he felt now the connotation of the
    10  expectation or the interpretation of the word “order”
    11  would place him in an interpretation that he was not
    12  comfortable with.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you visited any of the Nazi concentration camps or
    14  the sites that you are talking about?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, I have been to Poland and visited Chelmno, Treblinka,
    16  Sobibor, Belzec and I have been to Auschwitz, Birkenhau.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: You have been to Auschwitz and Birkenhau?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: And to Semlin.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: Was this recently or some years ago?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In 1990 or 1991.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: 1990, 1991?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: One of those. I forget which summer.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: Did you visit the sites of the alleged gas chambers in
    24  Auschwitz one and Auschwitz two in Birkenhau?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I visited both of them, and so I did go into the
    26  crematorium building, the reconstruction in Auschwitz one.

    .           P-125

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: You called it a reconstruction?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: In other words, it is not the original building?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. It was a crematorium and then in 43 to 45, I am not
      5  an expert on this but I believe it was used for other
      6  purposes, and then it was reconstructed back to close to
      7  what it had been before. Then I visited in Birkenhau and
      8  walked around the grounds, including the four sites of
      9  crematoria 2 through 5. One could walk to bunker two, the
    10  site of bunker one that seems to be totally unknown now.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Did they make any attempt to tell you at the time
    12  you visited these two sites that the Auschwitz one site,
    13  the old camp, that what they were showing you was a
    14  reconstruction?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know even remember. I went in and I knew what I
    16  was looking at and I do not even recall how it was signed
    17  or labelled.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: Were you aware of the fact that you were not being shown
    19  the real thing?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I was aware that this was a reconstruction, yes.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: Did you say you also went to Dachau concentration camp?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have been to Dachau much earlier. I believe that would
    23  have been 1972, the fall of 1972.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: Do they have gas chambers on display at Dachau
    25  concentration camp?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: There is a gas chambers on display in Dachau concentration

    .           P-126

      1  camp.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you wish to express an opinion to the court as to
      3  whether that is a genuine gas chamber or not?
      4  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Whether he wishes to, is it going to help me
      5  really at all? I know that that there was at one time a
      6  belief that there had been gas chambers at Dachau. I know
      7  it is now accepted, I think on all sides, that there were
      8  never any. Do I any need any more than that?
      9  MR IRVING:  If your Lordship will accept the proposition that
    10  the Allies and their Allies after World War II are capable
    11  of erecting fakes for whatever purpose, and that it is not
    12  perverse of me to have said that and it does not make me
    13  ipso facto a Holocaust denier, then I will move on to
    14  another matter on.
    15  MR RAMPTON:  If the word “fake” were changed for
    16  “reconstruction” or “demonstration” or something like
    17  that there would be common ground. The word “fake” is
    18  inappropriate for the reconstruction at Auschwitz one.
    19  MR IRVING:  I would happily give Mr Rampton a reconstructive
    20  $50 bill if me gives me ten fives in exchange.
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You can have your wagers outside court. I do
    22  think we must move on. I do not think Dachau has anything
    23  to do with this case. I have explained my understanding
    24  of the position.
    25  MR IRVING:  Are you familiar with the fact that at Nuremberg
    26  the British prosecutors stated that there had been

    .           P-127

      1  gassings at Dachau, Buchenwald and at Oranienburg?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, I am not familiar with that passage.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: But you have read the Nuremberg war crimes trials records?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have read some of them. I have not read the whole 42
      5  volumes, no.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you aware of the fact that large numbers of
      7  eyewitnesses, and I think this is relevant, my Lord —-
      8  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
      9  MR IRVING:  — testified to the existence of homicidal gas
    10  chambers at Dachau?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know how many did.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you aware that any did?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No.
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If you want to take that further you would
    15  have to put chapter and verse.
    16  MR IRVING:  My Lord, I cannot put chapter and verse to him at
    17  this time. If the witness says he is not aware of these
    18  eyewitnesses’ testimonies I cannot take it further, but
    19  I shall certainly do so again with successor witness. If
    20  your Lordship agrees that putting it that way is relevant.
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, I think that is a rather different kind
    22  of question and I think it is legitimate.

    Section 128.23 to 145.20

    23  MR IRVING:  Moving back to the integration of Adolf Eichmann,
    24  are you aware of the conditions under which he was
    25  interrogated when he arrived in Israel?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He was in prison.

    .           P-128

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: Was he in prison with the light permanently switched on?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have read that that was the case. My guess is, and this
      3  is purely speculation, the Israelis might have been very
      4  worried that he might commit suicide, so they wanted a
      5  constant watch on him. They did not want a dead witness
      6  on their hands.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: That he was constantly in the company of a guard?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I presume he was under constant watch.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you suspect that this might have some affect on his
    10  mental stability if he was deprived of sleep through these
    11  conditions?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have no idea how bright the light was. There are such
    13  things as night lights that would not disturb the sleep at
    14  all.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you have any reason to believe that he was provided
    16  with a night light on these occasions?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have absolutely no idea what the wattage of the light in
    18  his cell was.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: Mr Leon Poliakov who is also an expert on the Holocaust,
    20  is that name familiar to you?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I am familiar with the name.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is he a trained historian with a university engagement?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know what his academic background is.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: I would now like to revert to the December 1941, the Hans
    25  Frank diary, the meeting which is familiar to this court
    26  now held on I think December 13th 1941 — no, it is

    .           P-129

      1  December 16th.
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The speech is December 16th.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: The speech by Hans Frank is on December 16th?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: I am purely concerned with your treatment of this,
      6  Professor. You have gone in some detail over the content
      7  of that speech, and this is on page 31 of your expert
      8  report.
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: Paragraph 5.1.13. I will ask that you have in front of
    11  you —-
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have the English text and the footnote I believe
    13  contains the original, yes.
    14  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can we have footnote 88, the document that corresponds to
    15  it? I think it would be adequate if I ask the witness
    16  just to read the three lines in German and translate what
    17  he has omitted.
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. I personally think it is a good idea to
    19  actually have the document.
    20  MR IRVING:  The whole document.
    21  MR RAMPTON:  Pages 68 to 75 of what I now know to be L17.
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I missed the page number.
    23  MR RAMPTON:  68 it starts.
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you very much.
    25  MR IRVING:  The passage which you have quoted, Professor, is on
    26  page 457 of the printed text.

    .           P-130

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: If you remember this is the passage where the translation
      3  is: “What is to happen to the Jews? Do you believe that
      4  they will be lodged in settlements in the Ostland in
      5  Berlin? We were told why all this trouble. We cannot use
      6  them in the Ostland or in the Reichskommissarat either,
      7  liquidate them yourselves. We must destroy the Jews
      8  wherever we encounter them and wherever it is possible in
      9  order to preserve the entire structure of the Reich”, and
    10  there you cease to quote. You then paraphrase for two or
    11  three lines on page 32 of your report?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Then you continue with the word: “Nonetheless, we will
    14  take some kind of action”. If you will now go to page 458
    15  of the original text you will see what you have omitted.
    16  It is seven lines down. Do you agree that you have
    17  omitted from the front of that quotation beginning with
    18  the word “nonetheless” —-
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I am afraid I have still not located it.
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I have the German text. I have not got the
    21  English.
    22  MR IRVING:  Line 2 of page 32 is what I am looking at on the
    23  expert report, my Lord.
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have not found it yet.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: It is line 2 of the expert report on page 32 and it is
    26  line 7 of the original Hans Frank conference.

    .           P-131

      1  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I have the line 2. It is the line 7.
      2  MR IRVING:  Page 458.
      3  MR RAMPTON:  One should start from the first complete
      4  paragraph.
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Is Judensendt the paragraph you want us to get to?
      6  MR IRVING:  That is correct.
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: OK.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: His Lordship has not found it yet. Footnote 88 and it is
      9  page 488 of the printed text.
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you translate, please, those first five or six
    12  lines, the first four lines of that paragraph: “The Jews
    13  are exceptionally damaging eaters for us”, right?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: “In the general government we have got an estimated 2.5
    16  million, with the Jewish next of kin and all the rest that
    17  depends on them, now 3.5 million Jews”, is that correct?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Correct.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: Then a significant sentence follows: “We cannot shoot
    20  these 3.5 million Jews. We cannot poison them”. Then you
    21  continue with the passage about: “Nonetheless, we will
    22  take some kind of action”?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: I do not want to get into the content of this particular
    25  paragraph. I just want to ask for your motivation for
    26  leaving out that opening sentence, unless his Lordship

    .           P-132

      1  feels it is irrelevant?
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I do not feel it is irrelevant at all. No.
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, I do not know that it was a specific motivation.
      4  I do not see why one concluded or not concluded. What
      5  I did is, he rejects certain kinds of or when he says, “We
      6  cannot do this or cannot do that”, I simply summarized
      7  that as —-
      8  MR IRVING:  He effectively says: “We cannot shoot them. We
      9  cannot poison them.”
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is he suggesting we should strangle them?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: What he is suggesting is he does not know how they are
    13  going to do it.
    14  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you not agree that if another historian had omitted
    15  sentences like that at the beginning of a paragraph,
    16  without any even any indication of an omission, he would
    17  be held up to opprobrium and obloquy?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I mean by putting precedents, you know, switching out of
    19  direct quotes I do not think I indicated that there was
    20  nothing that I was continuing directly on.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: Unless of course the part that was being omitted
    22  substantially altered the sense of the gist that you were
    23  trying to convey?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not think it substantially alters the gist.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: If the man who is speaking says “We cannot kill them” —-
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, he does not say we cannot kill them. He says, “We

    .           P-133

      1  cannot shoot them or we cannot poison them”.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Which is another way of saying, in my submission, that we
      3  cannot kill them?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, I do not accept that.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Apart from gas what are the alternatives?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, the alternatives are that one can starve them. One
      7  can keep them in conditions where they will perish. Of
      8  course Frank does not know yet, I think, that in fact they
      9  were working on ways to poison them. This would indicate
    10  Frank has not yet been initiated into the fact that indeed
    11  they will be poisoning them. What he does say, and what
    12  I think is important, is the fact that he is told there is
    13  going to be a big meeting to sort this out, and when they
    14  go, when Buhle then is sent to the Wannsee conference he
    15  is going to get some answers to this.
    16  MR IRVING:  But did they discuss methods of killing at the
    17  Wannsee conference?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: According to Eichmann it is not literally in the
    19  protocol. They use the euphemism we talked about,
    20  solutional possibilities or possible solutions when
    21  Eichmann was asked —-
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Which could mean anything, could it not?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: When Eichmann was asked what did that mean, he said it was
    24  ways of killing or something to that effect.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: When Eichmann was asked in Israel during these
    26  interrogations we were talking about a few minutes ago,

    .           P-134

      1  right?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: And he agreed it could have meant killing?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. He did not agree that it could have meant. He said
      5  that is what it did mean. When he did not want to agree
      6  to such things such as Auschwitz, he denied it vigorously,
      7  which would indicate that he could say no when he wanted
      8  to.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: We are now on to the Wannsee conference which is quite
    10  useful, Professor.
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Before we do can I ask this. Do you read
    12  Frank at this point in the omitted words, do you read
    13  Frank as still quoting Hitler’s speech?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. I think at the beginning part of his talk in which he
    15  says, “We must put an end to the Jews” and he cites the
    16  Fuhrer and that he goes on, you know, “We must have
    17  compassion only for the German people”, these are citings
    18  I think in a sense the speech that he got there. Then
    19  when he gets down to beyond that I believe he is now not
    20  necessarily paraphrasing what he had heard in Hitler’s
    21  peach on December 12th.
    22  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: He does say, “In Berlin we were told why all this
    23  trouble”, and so on?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. My feeling here is that that is more than a speech,
    25  that he has had a separate meeting with Hitler and he must
    26  have at some point had meetings with people who told him

    .           P-135

      1  about the upcoming Wannsee conference, because there is no
      2  indication that Hitler would have mentioned that. So that
      3  I think he has talked to — my interpretation would be
      4  that he had talked to a number of people, possibly with
      5  Hitler alone, and clearly with someone who let him know
      6  that there would be further meetings, because he makes
      7  reference to this meeting under the SS at which much of
      8  this will be sorted out.
      9  MR IRVING:  Are you aware of testimony that Hans Frank gave
    10  at Nuremberg, evidence-in-chief I believe, in which he was
    11  questioned about his contacts with Hitler, and he
    12  mentioned having visited Hitler once and talked to Hitler
    13  about Auschwitz and asked him what was going on there,
    14  that he described having tried to gain access to Auschwitz
    15  but that he was turned back on the excuse that there was
    16  an epidemic? Are you familiar with that passage?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I am not, but Auschwitz is not in the General Government
    18  and certainly not in Frank’s jurisdiction, and I would see
    19  no reason why he could barge into Auschwitz.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Was this particular passage put to you in the Canadian
    21  trial that I referred to earlier?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have a vague recollection but I do not remember in fact
    23  that discussion in any detail. I know that we brought up
    24  aspects of the Frank testimony at Nuremberg. I do not
    25  remember.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: And that Frank testified on oath at Nuremberg that when he

    .           P-136

      1  put this to Hitler, Hitler said to him, “I do not want to
      2  hear about this, this nothing to do with me, this is
      3  entirely Himmler’s business”?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not remember us discussing that passage. We may have
      5  but I just do not remember it right now.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: If your Lordship is interested I could find the actual
      7  quotation and read it to you.
      8  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, do not do it now, but that is quite a
      9  revealing exchange.
    10  MR IRVING:  Yes.
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It seems to me.
    12  MR IRVING:  I will do that overnight.
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, do.
    14  MR IRVING:  We are now at the Wannsee conference. Is there any
    15  indication at all that Hitler was involved in the Wannsee
    16  conference or was even apprised of it?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We have no evidence of him being apprised of it. We do
    18  know that Heydrich cites him as authority that the Fuhrer
    19  has now ordered something other than the territorial
    20  solutions that now will be sent to the East.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you referring to the letters of invitation that
    22  Heydrich sent out in the middle of November 1941?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, I believe it is in the opening of Heydrich’s remarks
    24  that he cites that he is acting on the authority of
    25  Hitler.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is that a reference to the vulmardt which was issued to

    .           P-130

      1  Heydrich by Goring, do you think, on July 31st 1941?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The fact it includes the Goring authorization with the
      3  invitation, I think that is indeed what he is partly
      4  referring to. He is bolstering his credentials because he
      5  is dealing with people who might not be anxious to take
      6  orders from him.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is there a dispute among historians as to the significance
      8  of the Wannsee conference?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think that most of them view it as an implementation
    10  conference, at a point at which they are now trying to
    11  initiate the ministerial bureaucracy and in which Heydrich
    12  is going to visibly assert his leading position in this.
    13  I do not think it is viewed by many historians now as a
    14  conference at which a decision was taken. They did not
    15  debate should we do A or B and then say we will do B.
    16  They said, “Hitler has ordered this and now how are going
    17  to implement it? Are we going to include mixed marriage?
    18  Are we going to include this?” It is an implementation
    19  conference.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you saying that it has been overrated?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Not overrated, because it is a crucial part of bringing in
    22  the ministerial bureaucracy. I have always seen it that
    23  way, so I do not consider it, I am not backing up from
    24  something I think that I have claimed more than.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: Am I correct in describing it as being an
    26  inter-ministerial conference at State Secretary level?

    .           P-138

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: In other words, the ministers themselves were not brought
      3  in; it was just at the lower levels?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Because Heydrich cannot sit there with people higher than
      5  his rank. Cabinet ministers would have been parallel with
      6  Himmler. If Heydrich is sponsoring it he cannot bring in
      7  people higher in his rank in a programme he is trying to
      8  assert his leadership. So he would invite the State
      9  Secretaries.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: This rather tends to down-play the significance of
    11  Heydrich was acting on Hitler’s orders at this meeting
    12  then, if he is only able to bring in State Secretaries.
    13  As you say, he is only relying on his own rank. He is
    14  only pulling his own rank and he is not pulling Hitler’s
    15  rank on those present?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, at the place he cites Hitler’s authority, buried
    17  against all protocol for him summoning cabinet ministers.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: He cited Hitler’s authority just proforma, is that what
    19  you say?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not think it is proforma. It is setting out his
    21  authority and he has the signed Goring letter which, as
    22  best we can tell, he drafted and took to Goring for
    23  signature and that he, likewise, invokes Hitler’s
    24  authority at the conference.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: You said earlier at any rate in the record of the
    26  conference (which is not verbatim) there is no explicit

    .           P-139

      1  reference to killing. There is one inference from which
      2  killing can be drawn, am I correct?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: There are a number of passages in which — that most
      4  people would view as transparent references.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can you remember one offhand?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would suggest two. One is that most of the Jews will
      7  diminish away under physical labour and the rest —-
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: The hard core will remain?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: — will be treated accordingly. The second is Buhle’s
    10  reference that where we should we begin, and he said, “We
    11  should begin in the General Government because there we do
    12  not have to worry about Jews capable of work”. They do
    13  not mention in the first place what happens to the
    14  non-workers. They talk about the workers will diminish,
    15  the survivors will be handled accordingly, and there is no
    16  reference to the vast majority, the women and children and
    17  old people, who obviously are not even going to work.
    18  Then Buhle’s reference, “Well, let us begin this programme
    19  with the General Government because most of the Jews are
    20  not even work worthy there any longer”, I would interpret
    21  it as a fairly — as a reference to the fact that they can
    22  be killed first of all.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is there a passage in the protocol that reads: “The
    24  remnant that finally survives all this” — do you remember
    25  this passage — “because here it is undoubtedly a question
    26  of the part with the greatest resistance will have to be

    .           P-140

      1  treated accordingly”? This is what you were referring to
      2  right, right?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: “Because this remnant representing a natural selection can
      5  be regarded as the germ cell of a new Jewish
      6  reconstruction”, what are the next two words, do you know?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: “If released”.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: “If released”, that is the way you translated them, is it
      9  not?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: And you are familiar with the fact that people accused you
    12  of having mistranslated that, people accused you of having
    13  translated the words “upon release” “as if released”?
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What is the German?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: “Abfreilasung”.
    16  MR IRVING:  “Abfreilasung”. It is one of those German words
    17  which you can translate so oder so, as the Germans say,
    18  one way or the other.
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: And when you say people, quite specifically, Mr Christie,
    20  the attorney for Zundel —-
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: Precisely.
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: — spent a great deal of time trying to make a great deal
    23  out that.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: Trying to embarrass you, I agree. I certainly shall not
    25  try to embarrass you today with that, Professor. I
    26  just wanted to draw attention to the fact that we do have

    .           P-141

      1  problems with words, do we not, in German? I know that
      2  there are occasionally from the public ranks behind me
      3  when I spend time going into these words, like “vie” and
      4  “als” and so on, but it is a problem, is it not, how to
      5  translate words with the right flavour?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: There are many areas where we could have disputes.
      7  I think the context here does not leave a whole lot of
      8  doubt in this case.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it not possible, and have you in fact done it, to
    10  either interview those who were at the Wannsee conference
    11  or to read the interrogations of them which were conducted
    12  by the Allies after the war, people Stuckart and
    13  Kritzinger? Have you read the interrogations when they
    14  were questioned about their recollections of that and
    15  other conferences?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, I have not read those systematically. I have seen
    17  excerpts of them, I believe, but I have not gone through
    18  the exercise of tracing all of those.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: For once I have to express my astonishment that, as an
    20  Holocaust historian, knowing that in the national archives
    21  in Washington they have verbatim transcripts of the
    22  questionings of these half dozen or so surviving
    23  attendees, you did not read what they had to say about
    24  their recollections?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: You are free to express your amazement.
    26  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, what did Kritzinger have to say? Can

    .           P-142

      1  you put that?
      2  MR IRVING:  As a question?
      3  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, otherwise —-
      4  MR IRVING:  Can you justify why you did not do so?
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, no. He has accepted he did not do so,
      6  but that perhaps is only material if there is something
      7  really significant he missed by not having consulted what
      8  Kritzinger said, whoever Kritzinger may be, I do not know.
      9  MR IRVING:  He was a State Secretary in the Reichschancellory,
    10  I believe, under Lammers. Is it right — well, I cannot
    11  ask him what he has not read, my Lord.
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, you can.
    13  MR IRVING:  Would you not expected to find that they would have
    14  been questioned about as to whether there was actually
    15  explicit reference to killing operations in the Wannsee
    16  conference and that this might have clarified the
    17  uncertainties from the text?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think I have seen excerpt of the Stuckart one and, in
    19  general, they are denying that this had much significance.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. So all of them denied that there had been any
    21  discussion explicitly of killing operations?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, as far as I know all of them did.
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Does that influence your thinking about what
    24  Wannsee was about?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. I think these people were shown the protocol and if,
    26  of course, their participation there made them more

    .           P-143

      1  vulnerable legally, and here is one case where I would
      2  invoke Mr Irving’s practice that we look at oral testimony
      3  very carefully, and ask what motive would they have to say
      4  less than the full truth, and when I have a written
      5  document, on the one hand, and a self-exculpatory
      6  testimony post war, on the other hand, I put more weight
      7  on the written document.
      8  MR IRVING:  But suppose this self-exculpatory testimony after
      9  the war contained references, for example, by a man called
    10  Gottfried Buhle who attended the subsequent conference on
    11  March 5th 1942, and he says: “It was disgusting the way
    12  these SS officers treated the Jews like cattle”, and
    13  referred to forwarding them here and shipping them there,
    14  “and when we protested, Eichmann’s deputy said, ‘We are
    15  the police and we do as we want'”, would that be taken as
    16  self-exculpatory? Would you expect this man also to have
    17  remembered and testified if there had been decisions on
    18  killings?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would take that as testimony that, in fact, they talked
    20  fairly openly about killing at these conferences, and a
    21  denial of others to the contrary should not be trusted.
    22  This is a non-self-exculpatory statement with much more
    23  specificity and would indicate, in fact, that Eichmann’s
    24  indication that there were open in their discussion about
    25  killing than his euphemism has for their credibility.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: Well, if I am more specific here and say that these

    .           P-144

      1  interrogations referred only to the brutal nature of the
      2  language used by the participants in the uncouth language,
      3  but there was still no talk of killing, it was just
      4  treating these people like cattle, does this not indicate
      5  that probably there was no talk of killing at these
      6  meetings, no open talk anyway?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, there is no open talk of that at the second one, at
      8  the March 6th. That is all that Buhle is referring to.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: But again neither in the interrogations nor in the records
    10  of the Wannsee conference, as far as you have seen them,
    11  have you seen any explicit references to killing only
    12  references by inference?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Except for Eichmann.
    14  Q. [Mr Irving]: Except for?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Eichmann is a participant and he —-
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: What he said in Israel in 1963?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. Or 1960/61.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: ’61. My Lord, do you wish to ask further questions about
    19  Wannsee?
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, thank you very much.

    Section 145.21 to 165.17

    21  MR IRVING:  You referred to Hermann Goring’s authorization to
    22  Heydrich dated July 31st, 1941. One very brief question
    23  on that: was it intended or taken by either party as
    24  being a blank cheque to kill?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I believe it was intended as a kind of authorization for a
    26  feasibility study, that what it says is, “Please study the

    .           P-145

      1  question of”—-
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Of what?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: –“the fate of the Jews in the rest of Europe”. It does
      4  not say killing, it says a total, you know, examine the
      5  possibility of a total solution for the Jews in Europe.
      6  Deal with, the second sentence, I believe, is to deal with
      7  the agencies whose jurisdiction is affected. The third is
      8  to bring back a plan for a Final Solution, both
      9  “gesamtlosung” and “endlosung”, and my interpretation is
    10  this is not an order, this is an authorization for
    11  Heydrich to look into the possibilities of what will they
    12  do with the rest of the Jews of Europe?
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Can it be taken just as an extension of the powers
    14  conferred on Heydrich in January 1939?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: My feeling is no, that the very fact they needed a new
    16  authorization means that we are no longer talking about
    17  immigration but a new kind of solution that is no longer
    18  immigration is what is envisaged, otherwise he would not
    19  need a new authorization.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I ask to go to page 44 in your expert report, please?
    21  This is another criticism, I am afraid, of your
    22  methodology.
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Page what?
    24  MR IRVING:  44 of the Professor’s expert report. Two lines
    25  from the bottom you say: “… unloading the train cars
    26  some 2,000 Jews were found dead in the train”?

    .           P-146

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: That is the figure you quote?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: You have made the translation yourself?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I draw your attention to the footnote 113 on the
      7  following page, 45?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: In which you state, no doubt correctly: “A more legible,
    10  retyped copy of this document contains the figure 200
    11  rather than 2,000″?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Why did you use the larger figure rather than the smaller
    14  figure?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Because it was the original document. The other one says
    16  “Abschrift” and I use the original rather than copy if
    17  I have both of them.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: Why do you, therefore, state that a more legible retyped
    19  copy contains the figure 200 rather than 2,000?
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Was the figure illegible in the original?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The original is clearly 2,000. It is just a hard document
    22  to read because the photostat quality is less. The
    23  retyped copy is a clear one to read but in neither —-
    24  MR RAMPTON:  Your Lordship has it.
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: — is there any doubt about —-
    26  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do I? Well, we can actually look at it for

    .           P-147

      1  ourselves.
      2  MR RAMPTON:  Yes. Everybody should look at it. It is page 103
      3  to — it is the Westerman report, I think, of 14th
      4  September 1942 — 105 of L1.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  And this is the original, not the Abschrift?
      6  Whereabouts?
      7  MR RAMPTON:  That I cannot — your Lordship will need the
      8  Professor’s report. I can barely read the wretched thing.
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So it is not legible?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, the report itself is very difficult to read in this
    11  edition and in terms of whether it is, you know, what the
    12  number is.
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, I think I have found it in it. I think
    14  it says 1,000. It is the third paragraph on page 105. It
    15  looks to me like 1,000 Juden.
    16  MR IRVING:  How many spaces does it have? Is it enough spaces
    17  for —-
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It has plenty of spaces to be 1,000.
    19  MR IRVING:  Four digits then?
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, four digits.
    21  MR IRVING:  In that case I will accept that 2,000 is probably
    22  correct.
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You can have a look at it, if you want to,
    24  Mr Irving. I may have the wrong bit.
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It will come near the end.
    26  MR RAMPTON:  My Lord, I think it is the wrong paragraph. I am

    .           P-148

      1  sorry. I think it is the last paragraph up from the
      2  bottom of the last page and I think it is the third line
      3  and I can read it very clearly. 5,000 “Juden tot” — it
      4  is five words in from the right-hand margin is the word
      5  “tot” and 2,000.
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
      7  MR IRVING:  How did that figure of 2,000 dead on a transport of
      8  that size compare with the average for journeys like
      9  this? Was the average, am I right in saying, about 20 to
    10  25 per cent?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is an extraordinarily high one, but when one looks at
    12  the surrounding documents of the Westerman report, one
    13  realizes what had happened, that they — in these previous
    14  reports that they had march people from surrounding towns
    15  in August, and a very hot August, for three or four days,
    16  left them in a collection centre for several days — these
    17  people had not eaten or drunk for nearly a week — were
    18  then crammed into cars in which they had not nearly enough
    19  room. So instead of the usual 100 to 120, they were
    20  packed in even further, so that you have in a hot summer
    21  in suffocating conditions packed totally full of people
    22  who have not eaten or drunk for a long time, being shipped
    23  in which the guards say they fired off all of their
    24  ammunition into the cars. This is not a normal transport
    25  and, thus, I concluded that the 2,000 number is not, in
    26  fact, unrealistic, given what we know about the nature of

    .           P-149

      1  this transport, that it was not a normal transport.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Which would have happened to the 2,000 bodies when they
      3  arrived at Belzec?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They would have been a logistical problem. You would have
      5  had — they do not walk out of the trains, so you have to
      6  get people to carry them from the ramp to the pits.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: And there they would have been buried or cremated or
      8  disposed of?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: At this stage they would have been buried. They were not
    10  cremating yet at Belzec.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: And lots of people would have seen this going on,
    12  presumably?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The people inside the camp. The train cars were brought
    14  into the camp in the ramp —-
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: There would have been lots of eyewitnesses, in other
    16  words, of 2,000 bodies been buried in Belzec?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, they were burying much more than that, in my opinion
    18  because —-
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: I am asking about these 2,000.
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They would have seen these 2,000 being —-
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: And that would have remained in the memories of very many
    22  of these eyewitnesses?
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, the railway line runs into the camp,
    24  does it? There is a spur?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The main line runs through and then I believe they pulled
    26  off on a ramp which, in effect, is fenced in, a siding, so

    .           P-150

      1  this would not have been at the central train station,
      2  this would have been somewhat off, though the Belzec camp
      3  lies very close to the train tracks there.
      4  MR IRVING:  The reason I am saying this is, quite clearly, as
      5  you say, it is a logistical problem, it is a human
      6  problem. You have 2,000 corpses being carried into a camp
      7  in which there are living people, there are guards, there
      8  are eyewitnesses, there are prisoners. They are being
      9  buried, they are being disposed of. It is an horrific
    10  problem, it is an atrocity, there is no question of that,
    11  and there are eyewitnesses to it?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: If one is gassing 5,000 people a day, an extra 2,000
    13  bodies in the train cars is not going to be a memorable
    14  experience. They are seeing more corpses than that every
    15  day, day after day, week after week, month after month.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: If I take you now to page 46, paragraph 5.3.14?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: Here you say that the documentary evidence of the killing
    19  at Belzec and Treblinka is scant. Have I got it right?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The scant surviving documentation concerning the purpose
    21  of Sobibor.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: Do we have documentary evidence about Belzec and
    25  Treblinka, about the gassing?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, about the kinds of people, this is a section that is

    .           P-151

      1  still dealing with people being sent there who are not
      2  sent there to do work and who do not reappear. This is
      3  not yet the section in which I say how do we find out what
      4  the documents do not tell us and that is how they were
      5  killed.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I take you now to page 48, paragraph 5.4.1? Here we
      7  have the talk about the pestilential smell from all the
      8  rotting bodies caused by the inadequate burial of the
      9  Jews. “No contemporary document specifically states how
    10  the Jews sent to these three camp were killed”. We have
    11  the same kind of documentary problem again, do we not?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We are dealing with something — yes, as I have said, that
    13  they do not have a document, we do not have a document
    14  from Operation Reinhardt that specifies their being killed
    15  in gas chambers.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: So how do we know then? Eyewitnesses?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is what we then turn to, yes. At the beginning
    18  I said there are numbers of kinds of evidence. Eyewitness
    19  is one category among a number.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: You very honestly state in the same paragraph towards the
    21  end: “As in any body of eyewitness testimonies, there are
    22  errors and contradictions as well as both exaggerations
    23  and apologetic obfuscation and minimisation”?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Correct.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: So, in other words, the whole sorry of these three camps
    26  which I am not challenging — I am only challenging the

    .           P-152

      1  scale of the operations — the whole story is rather
      2  hedged in uncertainty and lack of the kind of documentary
      3  evidence we have for the killings that went on on the
      4  Eastern Front.
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is evidence of a different quality. The convergence of
      6  testimony I think establishes beyond any reasonable doubt
      7  what took place in those camps.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: The convergence of testimony, as I am beginning to
      9  believe, is a phrase that people take refuge in when there
    10  is no testimony and little evidence?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, I believe it is a very useful concept that we deal
    12  with a totality of evidence, and that if one were to argue
    13  that we cannot use eyewitness testimony and had to let out
    14  every criminal in prison on that ground, we would have a
    15  fairly chaotic society.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: But you would agree that there is are different qualities
    17  of eye witness testimony; there is eyewitness testimony
    18  gained from somebody who saw something this afternoon,
    19  reports this afternoon what he saw this morning or
    20  yesterday evening, but eyewitness testimony recalled 30
    21  years later in a West German court is liable to be
    22  somewhat more shaky?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is liable to have less specificity. My feeling is if
    24  somebody had spent six months or 12 months in a death
    25  camp, he does not forget the existence of gas chambers.
    26  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, can I just go back to something

    .           P-153

      1  you said a while ago which was that you were not
      2  challenging — I am just picking up your quote.
      3  MR IRVING:  This is quite right, my Lord. I am not challenging
      4  the nature of these three camps.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You are not challenging that?
      6  MR IRVING:  As killing centres.
      7  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, you do not have to put it quite like
      8  that, but you are challenging the scale of operations?
      9  MR IRVING:  Yes.
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I understand that completely. But at
    11  paragraph 5.4.1 what Professor Browning is dealing with is
    12  the way in which Jews were killed. I just wanted to have
    13  clear from you, you do accept that gas was used to kill
    14  Jews at all these three camps, as I recall; is that
    15  correct?
    16  MR IRVING:  I think it is immaterial what way they were killed
    17  or the way I accept they were killed at these three camps.
    18  There is a lot of debate about it. But in order to keep
    19  this trial far shorter than it could be if we really
    20  wanted to challenge everything in it or debate everything
    21  in it —-
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, if that is right, you need not bother
    23  with paragraph 5.4.1 because that is where Professor
    24  Browning says that they were basically killed in gas
    25  chambers at those three camps —-
    26  MR IRVING:  It goes to the whole problem of —- no.

    .           P-154

      1  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  — and, as I understand it, you are not
      2  challenging that.
      3  MR IRVING:  — reliability of eyewitnesses. We have now
      4  established since that concession or statement by me — I
      5  hate to say “concession” because it implies that —-
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do not worry about that, yes.
      7  MR IRVING:  — we have now established since that once again
      8  it is the eyewitnesses that we are relying upon for this,
      9  and I am using this as a way of undermining the
    10  credibility of eyewitnesses or eyewitness evidence as a
    11  general source. We are later on coming to quite an
    12  important eyewitness who is a man called Gerstein who
    13  I shall spend a few minutes assailing the credibility of.
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Does Gerstein deal with gassing at Belzec,
    15  Sobibor or Treblinka?
    16  MR IRVING:  Indeed, yes. He claims to be an eyewitness and he
    17  introduced — Your Lordship will remember the pretrial
    18  hearing on November 4th where we learned that Professor
    19  Browning had desired to incorporate subsequent material
    20  relating to one particular man.
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. All I am getting at this is — I am
    22  sorry to interrupt you because I want to keep the
    23  interruptions to a minimum — if you are accepting that
    24  gas chambers were used to kill Jews at these three camps,
    25  in a sense, there is not terribly much to be gained by
    26  challenging the credibility of Mr Gerstein who says that.

    .           P-155

      1  Is that unfair?
      2  MR IRVING:  It is a general attack on eyewitness evidence which
      3  is important for the main plank of my case which is
      4  Auschwitz where we have established, I think —-
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I see.
      6  MR IRVING:  — from Professor van Pelt that the only evidence
      7  one can really rely on is the eyewitness evidence.
      8  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So you are using Gerstein as a sort of
      9  example of the fallibility?
    10  MR IRVING:  Rather like Rommel, I am coming round from the rear
    11  and attacking am attacking the eyewitnesses.
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  All right.
    13  MR IRVING:  It is an indirect attack. (To the witness): One
    14  of the eyewitnesses that you rely on is, of course,
    15  Eichmann. He saw, he visited, some of these camps, did he
    16  not?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. We have talked a bit about his reliability. Does he
    19  ever have a tendency to exaggerate, do you think?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Much less than others and I think sometimes he probably
    21  understates, but, in general, his memory of sequence of
    22  events and things seems to be better than most witnesses.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: Did he describe once visiting a scene of executions and
    24  seeing blood spurting from the ground like in geysers?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, and then when we have the — when you have lots of
    26  bodies like that, I believe that coming up of blood was

    .           P-156

      1  testified to by others as well.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Did he once testify or write in his papers — in fact, in
      3  my collection of papers too — did he write that he got so
      4  close to one shooting that bits of babies’ brain were
      5  splattered across his nice leather coat?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He complained that at Minsk that happened and, of
      7  course —-
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is that credible in your view?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have written on police battalion 101 where the men came
    10  routinely with their uniform saturated in blood. When you
    11  shoot people at point blank range, you get bloody.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: Eichmann, of course, testified that he was told there was
    13  a Hitler order, and perhaps we ought to ask your views on
    14  that.
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He consistently says that he learns from Heydrich, so this
    16  is second-hand, that he learns from Heydrich that Hitler
    17  has issued the order for the physical annihilation of the
    18  Jews of Europe.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it second-hand or third-hand or fourth-hand? If Hitler
    20  has Himmler who has told Heydrich or Himmler has told
    21  Muller who has told Heydrich or Himmler has told Heydrich
    22  who has told Muller?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We only know that it goes from — all we know is what he
    24  says and that is that Hitler — that Heydrich tells him
    25  Hitler has ordered. Heydrich does not give details of
    26  what may or may not have intervened.

    .           P-157

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: What importance do you attach to that particular piece of
      2  evidence?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He says that from beginning to end, and I think that he is
      4  probably accurately relating a meeting with Heydrich in
      5  which this issue was clarified.
      6  Q. [Mr Irving]: The end was, presumably, 1963 when he was hanged, and when
      7  was the beginning in the 1950s, late 1950s?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Certainly from the —-
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: The Sassen papers?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I am not sure what he says in the Sassen papers except
    11  I think it must be included because Aschenal wrote a bunch
    12  of footnotes saying that the person he was publishing was
    13  mistaken on this — a strange thing for the editor to do.
    14  So I believe that — sometimes I do not remember exactly
    15  which one says which, but my recollection is that the
    16  published Adolf Eichmann which based on some Sassen papers
    17  does stipulate that he was told there was a Hitler order.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: I secured the publication of those actually. I am the one
    19  who found a publisher because I thought they needed a
    20  publication, a publisher. I insisted that they should be
    21  published in their original form because they did contain
    22  these very odd passages. But can you see any reason why
    23  Adolf Eichmann in the 1950s, living in the underground in
    24  Argentina, should have wanted to state in his writings
    25  that he remembered a Fuhrer order in that way? Can you
    26  think of any reason why should he have written that?

    .           P-158

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think he was absolutely convinced there was an order,
      2  that he was carrying out state policy.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, would the existence of a Fuhrer order in his mind
      4  have let him off the hook? “I was only acting on orders”,
      5  would that have let Eichmann off the hook in his own mind
      6  if there was a Fuhrer order?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It would have been a defence after being arrested, but if
      8  he says it before that, I think it is a reflection of his
      9  feeling that he had been carrying out a very major Hitler
    10  order.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it evident from these papers that he wrote or dictated
    12  to the journalist, Sassen, while in the underground in
    13  Argentina while hiding that he was aware that there was a
    14  worldwide hue and cry searching for him?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know how much he was aware of. It is very
    16  strange that the man who, obviously, had fled to Argentina
    17  because he knew he was hunted would talk to a journalist.
    18  What sort of self-destruction wish he had, I do not know,
    19  but it was very strange behaviour for someone, but
    20  certainly not an indication that he would then take the
    21  opportunity to lie.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you not agree that it is possible that he was either
    23  consciously or unconsciously creating an alibi for
    24  himself, rehearsing the alibi he would used when he was
    25  caught or if he was caught?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, I do not think he would be increasing his chances of

    .           P-159

      1  getting caught by trying to establish an alibi when if you
      2  kept your mouth shut he would not be caught in the first
      3  place.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it not evident that Sassen had a commercial interest in
      5  marketing these papers and that he sold them to a major
      6  New York magazine?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He did sell them to Life magazine. What his motive was
      8  earlier, I do not know.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: So, in fact, we do not know whether Eichmann actually made
    10  that confession or whether it was incorporated by the
    11  journalist?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, we do have — the Israelis have the transcripts of
    13  the tapes in which he made handwritten notations, and
    14  I would have to look at those to find if there was a huge
    15  discrepancy. I think the one discrepancy in the Life
    16  magazine report, as opposed to what he consistently says
    17  in his other testimony, is that they portray his visit to
    18  Belzec where he talks about there is a camp in a sense
    19  under construction, I think the Life magazine account
    20  talks of this being already in operation. My guess is
    21  that that is a Sassen invention to make it more spiffy.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Who was Kurt Gerstein?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Kurt Gerstein was a covert anti-Nazi in the SS who was in
    24  the hygienic department.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: What makes you suggest that he was a covert anti-Nazi?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He had joined and then been expelled from the Nazi Party

    .           P-160

      1  and then, at least in his own account, got back into the
      2  SS because he had heard of the euthanasia programme and he
      3  wanted to find out more.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: You say “in his own account”, when was his account written
      5  to which you are referring?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The accounts that he gave that he writes are dated in late
      7  April and early May 1945. He also had conversations with
      8  others that have been related to us later, would be his
      9  statements at a time earlier than 1945.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would it be to his advantage after World War II to
    11  establish or to maintain the position that he had been a
    12  covert anti-Nazi?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Certainly, lots of people claimed that they were
    14  anti-Nazis who were not, and the question then is you have
    15  to look, is this a bona fide claim or not? Certainly,
    16  lots of people were claiming that, and that would be one
    17  question you would have to put to the evidence. If you
    18  have other people such as Bishop Dalias(?) who said
    19  Gerstein came to him in 1942 or ’43 and corroborates his
    20  anti-Nazi stance, then you would lend more credibility to
    21  the 1945 statement as opposed to someone who had been
    22  killing Jews over the years and then suddenly poses as an
    23  anti-Nazi in 1945.
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Was he tried?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Gerstein? He was arrested and sent to a French prison
    26  where he died, and the French prison ruled it as suicide.

    .           P-161

      1  Some have voiced suspicion that he was killed by fellow
      2  prisoners as a traitor.
      3  MR IRVING:  Kurt Gerstein is used or relied upon as an
      4  important eyewitness, or was relied upon as an important
      5  eyewitness, for various camps or killing operations. Is
      6  that right?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He is relied upon, as far as I know, for Belzec and
      8  Treblinka.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: For Belzec and Treblinka, because he visited these camps?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is the visits to the camps, yes, that he says he
    11  visited these camps and I am sure we will get into why
    12  I credit that.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: What was his actual position in the SS?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: One of the things he was doing was delivering Zyklon-B to
    15  places for fumigation.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: He was head of the SS pest control office, can we say,
    17  their fumigation or hygiene department?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Their fumigation department, I think we can say that, yes.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: I mean in the non-homicidal sense —-
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: — a straightforward meaning of the word. So he visited
    22  these camps. Was he delivering anything to these camps?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: According to his account, he brought out Zyklon-B to
    24  Lublin to fumigate the clothing that was there and then
    25  went on to Belzec and Treblinka, and that in his account
    26  at Belzec, I think it is, he buries the rest of the

    .           P-162

      1  Zyklon-B and does not deliver that to the camp.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: You talk about “in his account”. How many accounts were
      3  written by Mr Gerstein, to your knowledge?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think there are a number of drafts and notes, but, in
      5  general, in terms of the finished product, we have the
      6  French version and the German version and maybe even two
      7  French versions, but how many — I have not seen the
      8  actual notes. I do not know how many drafts that we might
      9  count as a version, but —-
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: There is no question as to the authenticity. He was the
    11  author of these —-
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not believe that has been challenged.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar with the work of a French academic called
    14  Henry Rocques? R-O-C-Q-U-E-S, I think it is.
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have not read his work. I have heard the name.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: You have heard the name. Did he write a dissertation on
    17  the various reports by Kurt Gerstein in order to obtain a
    18  PhD?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I believe so — I have heard that.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Was he awarded a doctorate on the basis of these,
    21  initially?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I believe initially.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: On the basis of his PhD thesis. Did he keep his
    24  doctorate?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I believe not.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: What was the problem?

    .           P-163

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think somebody said the document did not deserve a PhD
      2  and it was looked into and they withdrew it.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: So the university decided to knuckle under pressure, am
      4  I right?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I believe you could say that the university discovered
      6  somebody had let through a very sloppy dissertation and
      7  decided that they had better get their house in order.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: Do these things happen often? Are people often stripped
      9  of their doctorates?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Not very often.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: Does it happen very often in France?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Does it happen largely to revisionist historians?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I know of this case. I do not know of any other.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: Professor Faurisson, are you familiar with the case?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not believe he has had his dissertation withdrawn.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: Did he have his Professorship removed from him?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I believe he is suspended from teaching but I do not know
    19  that he had the position terminated. I do not know.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: To get back to Gerstein, is it right that Henry Rock, in
    21  writing his dissertation discovered no fewer than seven
    22  different versions of the Gerstein report?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I cannot answer that.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: And that he obtained also access in the French police
    25  files to all the private letters that Gerstein had
    26  written?

    .           P-164

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That I do not know.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Not that either. Is it not surprising that your Holocaust
      3  historian, you have not read his PhD dissertation which
      4  relies on these papers?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, I have not seen the PhD dissertation, and it is not
      6  in circulation that I know of.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: Like most PhD dissertations, it can be obtained from the
      8  university, can it not?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: If it has been withdrawn, I do not know.
    10  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, I am not going to stop you, but
    11  this is all slightly Alice in Wonderland, is it not? For
    12  the reason we went through before, you accept there were
    13  gas chambers so criticising Gerstein for saying there were
    14  is slightly limited value, I think. Do not take it too
    15  slowly.
    16  MR IRVING:  A well deserved reprimand, my Lord.
    17  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is not a reprimand.

    Section 165.18 to 182.13

    18  MR IRVING:  Can I take you to page 50 of your report, please?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: I want you to look at the second version of page 50, which
    21  contains the bold type on it. Your Lordship said in
    22  November you would interleave the pages?
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I have done that and I have crossed out
    24  the superseded one.
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: My account does not have bold type.
    26  MR IRVING:  It does not have bold type?

    .           P-165

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: In the new version you interpolated certain sentences.
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I can get my own version and I believe I may be able to
      4  use that.
      5  MR IRVING:  My Lord, I shall be another half hour at most.
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do not hurry. I really mean that. I am not
      7  seeking to hurry you, just to guide you to the areas which
      8  I think are of greater significance.
      9  MR IRVING:  Is it fair to say that, after you wrote your report
    10  initially, you realized that you had omitted, either
    11  accidentally or wilfully, certain passages which, if
    12  included, would have cast grave doubt on the reliability
    13  of this man as a witness?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: What happened is that I in fact sent a draft, mistakenly
    15  you were sent what was not my final report, and, when
    16  I got back, it was clear that things that I had put in
    17  were not included. One of the things was that I was able
    18  to look at both the French and the German reports and the
    19  French has some exaggerations not included in the German,
    20  and I then amended mine and I emphasised further the
    21  elements —-
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: I do urge you, before you continue, to consider your
    23  replies carefully, because the tenor of each of these
    24  interpolations is very much material that has been
    25  previously left out or not included which, if left in,
    26  would have totally destroyed the veracity of this report

    .           P-166

      1  or certainly tended to undermine it. In other words, it
      2  all tends the same way. It is not random omissions. It
      3  is all that kind of document, right? That kind of
      4  omission?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The ones that were added were the cases that highlighted
      6  exaggerations in Gerstein, that on reflection I felt
      7  should go in.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: According to Gerstein, I am reading from the middle of
      9  paragraph, new version, this is the sentence which
    10  you omitted but have now put in: “According to Gerstein
    11  Globocnik also claimed with great exaggeration Belzec
    12  Treblinka and Sobibore respectively 15,000, 25,000 and
    13  20,000 Jews were killed daily with diesel exhaust gas”.
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you consider those figures to be reliable?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. I think they are not reliable at all.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: Rather lower down that same paragraph, we have a 45 wagon
    18  transport arriving from Woolf with 6,700 Jews, of whom
    19  1,450 were already dead. That is about the same kind of
    20  proportion, is it not, 20 per cent?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That is similar to the Versterman report and, given the
    22  conditions under which the Galetian transports were
    23  coming, I do not consider that to be an exaggeration or,
    24  on the face of it, outrageous.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: This was in your original report. What would have
    26  happened to those 1,450 corpses? Would they have been

    .           P-167

      1  dragged into the camp and disposed of?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I can only speculate, but my guess would be that after the
      3  entire operation was over they would then bring the dead
      4  bodies from the transports. That would have been the last
      5  clean up item when they had finished liquidating the
      6  transport.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: Now we have, “The Jews were forced to undress who arrived
      8  on this transport”, and then comes a parenthesis that you
      9  originally left out, “the piles of shoes were allegedly 25
    10  metres high”. Is that from the Gerstein report?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That is from Gerstein report.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: 25 metres is, what, 80 feet?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, it would be.
    14  Q. [Mr Irving]: About as tall as that building out there, probably?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know, but it clearly is an exaggeration.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: It clearly is an exaggeration, but you left it out because
    17  of space reasons, or was there some other reason why it
    18  got left out?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It was not a matter of left out, it is a decision of
    20  putting something in. I had said in the original working
    21  draft that there were many exaggerations and I felt we had
    22  better be specific about what they were.
    23  Q. [Mr Irving]: Then over the page, my Lord, page 51 of the new version,
    24  with bold face on the third line, you say: “Approximately
    25  750 Jews were driven into each of four gas chambers,
    26  measuring 5 metres by 5 metres each.” Is that a

    .           P-168

      1  reasonable kind of estimate of the number of people? Why
      2  did you leave out the phrase “measuring by 5 by 5 metres
      3  each or apiece”?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: As I said, it was question of putting it in when I felt
      5  I had to be more specific about what I meant in terms of
      6  Gerstein’s exaggerations.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would it be perverse to believe that, if that measurement,
      8  the dimensions had been left in, that would have tended to
      9  undermine the credibility of that sentence?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, given that later I have 200 Jews per gas chamber and
    11  in another the 750 figure was already considerably out of
    12  line with other stuff that I put, I make clear in this
    13  from beginning to end that there are exaggerations and
    14  that Gerstein does exaggerate.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: But he does not exaggerate just on an amateur scale, does
    16  he? He exaggerates on a Munchhausen scale.
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: There are some extraordinary exaggerations, yes.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I draw your attention to the next paragraph,
    19  This is one you left in, I believe?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This was there.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: “The following day Gerstein drove to Treblinka where the
    22  gassing facilities were larger and he saw, you quote,
    23  veritable mounds of clothing and underwear 115 to 130 feet
    24  high”.
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, which I would suggest was that I was putting in
    26  already in the first draft considerable materials that

    .           P-169

      1  were demonstrating my conclusion that much of his report
      2  was exaggerated. I added further material. Certainly in
      3  the working draft there was no attempt to hide that fact.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: But would you agree —-
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: You suggest that there was some sort of cover up or
      6  sinister attempt to sanitize Gerstein, I do not think that
      7  is borne out by looking at either first and second draft.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: I am not trying to suggest that you tried to cover up or
      9  sanitize, but merely to make passages you wanted to rely
    10  on seem more plausible. I put it to you that, if you had
    11  left these passages in, it would have totally demolished
    12  the veracity of this witness, and no responsible historian
    13  would have dreamed of using Gerstein as a source.
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They are in, and I use him, and others have used him, and
    15  we use him with caution.
    16  Q. [Mr Irving]: They are in now, of course, because you subsequently
    17  amended your report to include them.
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, “amend” is not the right word. As I have said, it
    19  was a mistake by Mishcon de Reya to have turned over what
    20  was not the final draft.
    21  Q. [Mr Irving]: In other words, in your first draft?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Do you write one book in one sitting, or do you revise
    23  things as you go, and do you reflect about what you are
    24  writing? I have things in a number of drafts.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: I quote Mr Rampton and say you are not allowed to ask me
    26  questions. I am the one who asks the questions.

    .           P-170

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Then let me phrase it this way. I write in many drafts.
      2  I would expect any careful author would write a number of
      3  drafts, the second and third drafts would not be
      4  identical, or one would not write numerous drafts.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: Out of your own mouth, Professor, you are condemning
      6  yourself. That implies that in your first draft you chose
      7  to leave all these passages out, and only later did you
      8  decide to put them back in again for whatever reason.
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is not a matter of having decided to leave out, I was
    10  constructing it. I said in the initial draft there were
    11  many exaggerations. Looking at it, I said let us spell
    12  that out more clearly.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Does it not indicate in fact, if you read these monstrous
    14  exaggerations by Gerstein, that he was a man with a
    15  severely disordered mind, which finally crashed when he
    16  committed suicide in prison?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think he was a man that was utter traumatised and
    18  unstable.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. In other words, totally unreliable and undependable
    20  and it was responsible to base an important piece of
    21  history just on the eyewitness testimony of this man
    22  because — is there any other eyewitness testimony of
    23  equal colour?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Two things wrong. To say he is unstable is not identical
    25  to saying unreliable. To say that it is the only
    26  testimony is false because we have lots of other

    .           P-171

      1  testimony.
      2  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you referring to Pfannenstiel?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We certainly are.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you referring to what Gerstein is alleged to have said
      5  to a Swedish diplomat?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: When did this conversation with a Swedish diplomat take
      8  place?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: August 21, 22, coming back from Warsaw.
    10  Q. [Mr Irving]: In 1942?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: What date is the Swedish diplomatic memorandum on that
    13  conversation? Was it contemporary or was it written years
    14  later?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The one that is in the file of the Swedish Foreign Office
    16  was written after the war.
    17  Q. [Mr Irving]: Three years later. Was there any opportunity for that
    18  Swedish Foreign Office gentlemen to have cross-pollinated
    19  his knowledge with what he had read in the Allied and
    20  Swedish newspapers about what had been discovered?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I have no idea on that.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: No, but you agree that, if this Swedish diplomat had
    23  written a contemporary memorandum dated August 1942, that
    24  would have very strong evidentiary value?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That would have been much stronger.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: Something written after the war in 1945, for various

    .           P-172

      1  reasons, is less dependable?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is evidence of less strength than one written at the
      3  time.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: Why did this man Pfannenstiel accompany Gerstein on his
      5  visits to these extermination camps?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know why he went.
      7  Q. [Mr Irving]: What was his position?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He was a Professor.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: Was he a Professor at the Institute of Hygiene in Berlin?
    10  Yes, not in Berlin, Mabuch on the Lan.
    11  Q. [Mr Irving]: And why did he accompany Gerstein?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Was that the kind of position where a Professor would
    14  accompany an SS officer in connection with controlling
    15  epidemics?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It could well be that he would be invited along as an
    17  expert or someone who wanted to learn, or that the SS was
    18  trying to bring in, I do not know. There are a number of
    19  possible explanations.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Pfannenstiel, of course, after the war, am I right,
    21  testified broadly in accordance with what Gerstein had
    22  stated?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    24  Q. [Mr Irving]: He confirmed that he had seen these things happening?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: What did Gerstein testify that he had seen happening in

    .           P-173

      1  two or three sentences? He had seen gassings?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Gerstein testified that he went to both Belzec and
      3  Treblinka and saw gassings at each. I am not sure — yes,
      4  I think he said he saw them at each. Pfannenstiel said
      5  that he only went to Belzec, that he did not go to
      6  Treblinka, it could well be that Gerstein went on and he
      7  did not. Pfannenstiel only confirms being with Gerstein
      8  in Belzec and seeing the Belzec gassing.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: Take these two people separately. Gerstein went to these
    10  two camps, carrying with him a hundred kilograms of Zyklon
    11  or some fumigating agent and his story is that, after he
    12  had delivered the goods, which was for fumigation of
    13  clothing — and he himself states that am I right?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: That the local SS people then gave him a treat and let him
    16  watch a gassing on the following day. Is that plausible
    17  in your view?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, I think they said they did some of the work in
    19  Lublin and then they took him up, and of course, by his
    20  account, he had gotten into the SS to find out what he
    21  could. So he would have taken this opportunity.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is there any reason why they should have shown him
    23  something that was top secret?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: To people in Lublin this was not top secret, and he was a
    25  member of the SS.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: What about Pfannenstiel? Why should they have shown to

    .           P-174

      1  this Professor of Hygiene one of the most secret and
      2  deadly operations going on, namely the Final Solution and
      3  operation? Why should they have done that?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know why they should have done that.
      5  Q. [Mr Irving]: Can you think of any reason why Pfannenstiel, testifying
      6  in a West German court after the war, would have said that
      7  he had seen these things?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It led to a lot more interrogations. If he had denied it
      9  entirely, I think nothing would have happened, and, when
    10  he said this, nothing happened either, because witnessing
    11  it was not committing a crime.
    12  Q. [Mr Irving]: You are absolutely right. Witnessing was not committing a
    13  crime and Mr Gerstein, was he still alive at that time?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: He was dead. So, by saying that Gerstein had witnessed it
    16  and was involved bringing Zyklon and so on, that did not
    17  hurt Gerstein either, did it?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Gerstein was dead.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: There was no skin off Pfannenstiel’s nose to accept
    20  whatever was put to him?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think it led to a series of interrogations and, if it
    22  had not happened, he would have said it. He had no reason
    23  to incriminate, not incriminate but to involve himself in
    24  supporting Gerstein’s account if it had not occurred. To
    25  me, it would have been much more likely that he would,
    26  even if it happened, have denied it than vice versa.

    .           P-175

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: Surely, if he had denied it, then he would have been
      2  subjected to even more intensive interrogations until
      3  finally he came round. Is that not more likely?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: These are German interrogations in the 1950s and, from my
      5  looking through a number of court cases, the notion that
      6  he would have been subjected to ongoing pressures and
      7  whatever, I see no evidence of that in the Belzec trial or
      8  other trials of this sort.
      9  Q. [Mr Irving]: Gerstein has however been pretty comprehensively
    10  discredited as an eyewitness, has he not?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Gerstein, as I think most would agree, was a very
    12  traumatized and, they decided, unstable individual, but
    13  what he witnessed, in terms of having been in Belzec, that
    14  he knows the names of several of these people, he gets
    15  them slightly wrong but close enough, whatever, he could
    16  have come up with those names in his cell in 1945 when the
    17  Allies had absolutely no knowledge of the names of the
    18  personnel in these camps. How could he have known that
    19  there were Galetian transports in August? This was not
    20  knowledge in 1945. He knows a number of things that could
    21  not have been known if he had not been there. In that
    22  case, in those areas, I think one can say that this is a
    23  witness that is telling what he saw, even if it is in a
    24  highly excited and exaggerated mode.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: So his visit is plausible but one is entitled to
    26  disbelieve large parts of what he claims to have seen?

    .           P-176

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: If this was the only witness for all of Operation
      2  Reinhardt, we would say that this is a very contested
      3  one. What he did say in fact, there is very good
      4  plausibility in the details of which he tells us about
      5  some things that he could not have known if he had not
      6  been there, and in turn it is confirmed by a number of
      7  other witnesses.
      8  Q. [Mr Irving]: Does it not tell us something about the integrity of
      9  historians who have relied so wholeheartedly on Gerstein
    10  and have suppressed the details which you omitted from
    11  your original report. I am not pointing a finger at you,
    12  Professor, I am just talking about a number of other
    13  historians. I am not going to mention any names.
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Why does it matter for our purposes, what
    15  other historians may have made of Gerstein? I do not
    16  understand.
    17  MR IRVING:  It does not matter at all.
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I do not think it really does if one thinks
    19  about it.
    20  MR IRVING:  It does not, no. The point which I am finally
    21  going to develop is that, if an eyewitness like Gerstein
    22  can be discredited so largely through the good fortune of
    23  our having access to his French police records and other
    24  materials, is it not likely that other eyewitnesses will
    25  turn out also to be made of straw to a greater or lesser
    26  degree, for one reason or another?

    .           P-177

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, I do not agree. I think that he is confirmed in his
      2  essentials, and the question before us here was how did
      3  the killing at these camps take place? And he is one of a
      4  number of witnesses that say they take place in gas
      5  chambers. In so far as he can come up with the names of
      6  the people that were there, the transports from the
      7  particular region that were arriving at Belzec at that
      8  time, I think this is very essential for saying this part
      9  of his testimony is reliable. I do not consider that
    10  having been destroyed in any way, and I think there are a
    11  large number of other witnesses that are also believable
    12  that tell the same story.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Just dealing with Gerstein at this moment, I do not have
    14  to destroy all the eyewitnesses. I just want to tackle
    15  the principal ones. If he was who he said he was and he
    16  had the task of delivering these fumigation supplies, the
    17  Zyklon, to those camps, then he would know the people who
    18  were operating whatever they were operating, would know
    19  the names. This does not necessarily presuppose that all
    20  the rest of his story is true, or any of the rest of his
    21  story is true.
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We know that transports from the Volf went there at this
    23  time. This was the place from where they were coming. We
    24  know that Hockenholt was the man who ran the gas chambers,
    25  that Oberhauser was Wirt’s assistant, that he could have
    26  come into this information without having visited Belzec.

    .           P-178

      1  Q. [Mr Irving]: How did he know that Hockenholt ran the gas chambers? Is
      2  this another eyewitness?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is the other eyewitnesses, but people from whom
      4  Gerstein could never possibly have heard of and known of
      5  when he was giving this testimony.
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can I ask a question at this stage,
      7  Mr Irving, really because it might suggest to you that
      8  there may be one or two questions you would want to ask as
      9  a follow up? It is really this. Given that there is a
    10  live issue about gassing at Auschwitz, does the evidence
    11  about what was happening at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka
    12  have an impact on the issue in relation to Auschwitz? Do
    13  you follow my question?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: In the sense that it has the impact that, if the Operation
    15  Reinhardt camps are basically killing the bulk of Polish
    16  Jewry, then the bit provides the historical context for
    17  weighing, is Auschwitz a similar camp for killing Jews
    18  brought from other parts of Europe? So they are
    19  interrelated if, in that sense, the camps are dividing up
    20  geographical areas from which they receive people. We
    21  know, I do not know if he does concede but it seems to be,
    22  that the people sent to these camps died in one way or
    23  another, and at least the eyewitness testimony tells us
    24  how that was done. That would contribute to the
    25  credibility of those that say Auschwitz was a similar camp
    26  as part of a similar programme.

    .           P-179

      1  MR IRVING:  My Lord, may I remind you, of course, that I do not
      2  challenge that there gassings at Auschwitz on some scale?
      3  It is the scale that we very much challenge.
      4  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think, I do not want to quote him without
      5  his permission, as it were, but I imagine, Professor
      6  Browning, it is implicit in the answer he has just given,
      7  would say that you learn something about the scale of the
      8  gassing at Auschwitz from what was happening at these
      9  other death camps.
    10  MR IRVING:  With respect, my Lord, I think not.
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Am I misrepresenting you?
    12  MR IRVING:  I am just alarmed at the notion of building such a
    13  major part of World War II history just on the testimony
    14  of half a dozen eye witnesses as far as Auschwitz is
    15  concerned.
    16  MR RAMPTON:  I do not know where that comes from. It is the
    17  second time we have had that today. It is built on a mass
    18  of evidence, documentary, archeological, eyewitness,
    19  goodness knows what, all of which, as Professor van Pelt
    20  puts it, converged to the same conclusion.
    21  MR IRVING:  The transcript will show what position we reached.
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We will obviously have to deal with the
    23  totality of the evidence, but it had gone through my mind,
    24  this thought, and I therefore thought it right to put it
    25  to Professor Browning, because it seems to me to be an
    26  argument for the existence of gassing on a substantial

    .           P-180

      1  scale at Auschwitz. You have heard the answer that
      2  Professor Browning has given to me. It is a matter for
      3  you whether you want to pursue it. I appreciate you do
      4  not accept it.
      5  MR IRVING:  I can only ask the supplementary question, which is
      6  does that answer depend entirely on eyewitness evidence,
      7  or is there any documentary basis whatsoever for what you
      8  have just told his Lordship?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We have documentary evidence for gassing in Semlin and
    10  Chelmno and the uses of the gas van. We have only
    11  eyewitness testimony for the existence of gas chambers in
    12  the three Operation Reinhardt camps.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: So there is no documentary evidence relating to scale
    14  then?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Not to scale, to mode of killing. What we do have is
    16  documentary evidence concerning the emptying of Poland of
    17  Jews to these three camps, which are teeny little villages
    18  which do not accommodate one and a half million people.
    19  Q. [Mr Irving]: We have been through part of that argument sometime ago
    20  when I mentioned the English village of Aldershot, to
    21  which large numbers of English people went during World
    22  War II.
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: If the population of Aldershot had been a group of people
    24  already deprived of their rights and property, if they had
    25  been rounded up with all of the brutality that left bodies
    26  lying all the way to the train station, and if they had

    .           P-181

      1  been sent there and never came back, and if a hundred
      2  witnesses from Aldershot said they had been gassed, we
      3  would, I think, say something happened at Aldershot.
      4  Q. [Mr Irving]: Absolutely right. We do not have 100 witnesses in these
      5  cases, do we? We have apparently, in the case of
      6  Auschwitz, about which Mr Rampton is concerned, tens of
      7  thousands of survivors, but only five or six have been
      8  questioned on this matter so far as we know from these
      9  proceedings before us. Anyway, I have no further
    10  questions. Thank you very much for coming to England,
    11  Professor Browning.
    12  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you.

    Section 182.13 to 201.25

    13  < Re-examined by Mr Rampton QC.
    14  MR RAMPTON:  My Lord, if I ran maybe past quarter past 4
    15  perhaps I would be forgiven?
    16  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I had thought already that, if needs be, we
    17  will do that.
    18  MR RAMPTON:  We would like to get the Professor off the stand.
    19  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think that would suit Mr Irving actually,
    20  and then he will have a free run tomorrow, preparing
    21  Evans.
    22  MR RAMPTON:  Yes. I do not have that many questions,
    23  Professor, but it may take a bit of time because I want
    24  your help with some documents. Can we start, please, with
    25  what I call the Browning document file, which is tab 7 of
    26  L1? I would like you to turn to page 19A. This is a

    .           P-182

      1  document which by now we all probably can recite in our
      2  sleep. There was a lot of cross-examination about it. It
      3  is the message from Muller to the Einsatzgruppen of 1st
      4  August 1941, I hope, is it?
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
      6  MR RAMPTON:  19A in a circle. There are about four numbers on
      7  the page. You are looking for a handwritten number in a
      8  circle in the bottom right hand corner of the page.
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, 19A I have.
    10  MR RAMPTON:  First of all, can I ask you whether you know how
    11  long this document has been accessible to scholars?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think the first reference I saw to it was in Gerald
    13  Fleming, a book published in 1982.
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Is that “Hitler und die Entlosung”?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Second question. I am coming back to the content of it in
    17  a moment. You see it has the security mark Geheim on it?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, I see Geheim.
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I want you just to have a quick look at some of the other
    20  documents in this bundle, not for the content but for
    21  their superscription, if I can call it that. For the
    22  moment, I have lost my note. Can we turn, please, to page
    23  38? You will remember the context of these questions. It
    24  was that Mr Irving was suggesting that Geheim was such a
    25  low security classification that this document could not
    26  have a sinister connotation.

    .           P-183

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Page 38 ought to be what I call the Rademacher report,
      3  following his visit to Belgrade. Is it?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Correct.
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can you tell me, just glancing at the first page, you know
      6  it backwards, what is the substance of this document, the
      7  first page of it?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He is reporting here on the shooting of the male Jews in
      9  Serbia. He had been sent down there to deal with what was
    10  to happen to them and he says there really is not a
    11  problem concerning the male Jews, they are being shot.
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: They are being shot. He is an official in the Foreign
    13  Office?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He is the so-called Jewish expert in the Foreign Office.
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you see that has the mere marking Geheim at the top of
    16  it?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    18  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Thank you. Then can we go to what I think is 40A? It is
    19  25th October 41. I am going to ask you to do a bit of
    20  stationery work, if you do not mind, Professor. Just put
    21  this in the file. There is one for the witness and one
    22  for the judge (Same handed).
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  One for Mr Irving?
    24  MR RAMPTON:  One for Mr Irving, yes. This is another of your
    25  documents, Professor. I say “your documents”, documents
    26  referred to by you. 25th October 1941, from a Dr Wetzler

    .           P-184

      1  to somebody called Lohse, who is the Reichs Kommissar for
      2  the East land. What is this document about?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is the one in which he discusses the possibility of
      4  sending someone to Riga to construct gassing apparatuses.
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is in the fourth line on the first page Vergassungs
      6  apparate. Then, if you turn over the page, can you just
      7  tell us what the first sentence of the first complete
      8  paragraph says?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: He says that, given the situation, there are no objections
    10  if Jews not capable of work are removed by Brock’s “little
    11  helper”.
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: His Vergassungsapparate?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Notice then please on the first page the appellation, the
    15  security?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The security rank is Geheim.
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. Then, finally, three other documents. Page 91 is a
    18  document dated 26th March, the year I do not know. 42,
    19  I guess, is it?
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am going to be very pedantic and say
    21  Wetzler document, 40A, or otherwise we will never find it.
    22  MR RAMPTON:  Sorry, my Lord?
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  40A for Wetzler.
    24  MR RAMPTON:  To Lohse?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is a carbon, so they would have had on the original
    26  stationery the 194 and the blank paper behind just recalls

    .           P-185

      1  the two they typed in.
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Have you got page 91?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I think it is the 26th, 26th March 1942.
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: This is a letter, I think, from somebody called Rauf.
      5  What is this about?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Rauf is the head of the sort of, I guess we could call it
      7  the administration of material matters of the
      8  Reichssicherheitshauptamt. Included in that is the motor
      9  pool, and this I would have to read through to see
    10  exactly.
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Something about Sonderwagon.
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. This is about the Sonderwagon that are prepared by
    13  them.
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I see. It is about the supply of Sonderwagon?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: What are Sonderwagon?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is one of terms they used for gas vans.
    18  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I notice again in a box at the top of the first page the
    19  word Geheim only, please. Then, last but one, page 99A,
    20  this I hope is a letter or a copy of a letter, I think it
    21  is a Nuremberg document in fact, from Gantzen Muller to
    22  Karl Wolff?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: This, I think there is no dispute about this, announces
    25  the starting of the journeys of 5,000 Jews a day from
    26  Warsaw to Treblinka and twice a week of 5,000 Jews from an

    .           P-186

      1  unpronounceable Polish word.
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Schemeshall.
      3  Q. [Mr Rampton]: To Belzec, is that right?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And again the appellation or classification is, is it not,
      6  on the front page, Geheim?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is Geheim.
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: A mere Geheim for that one. Just by way of contrast, we
      9  can look at Wolff’s reply, which is 99C, 13th August
    10  1942,. This is not a Nuremberg document. This looks like
    11  a copy of an original, does it not? Have you got 99C?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. We have the initials on this, but it is not clear.
    13  I am not sure whether this is in the files of the person
    14  who received it, or the person who sent it I assume this
    15  is in fact in Wolff’s file because that is I think where
    16  these documents come from.
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It may be. The only thing we can see about this is that
    18  there is no Geheim, still less a Geheimerreichssacher .
    19  The only thing you can see in the box at the top of the
    20  page is a Gothic AR. Do you see that?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: What does this series of documents that we have looked at,
    23  and I can tell you in the file there are lots of other
    24  fairly sinister documents which have no security
    25  classification at all, what does that tell you about the
    26  classification Geheim as used on documents of this kind?

    .           P-187

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That there are many documents referring to the workings of
      2  the Final Solution and deportation and killing that do not
      3  have a high secrecy rating.
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Finally — I know this has been laborious — what is
      5  your reaction then to the suggestion that the
      6  classification, a mere classification of Geheim, on the
      7  Muller order or message to the Einsatzgruppen? It is
      8  suggested it is not a document of any importance.
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That would not be a persuasive document.
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Now, this will be slightly disorderly, not in any sense a
    11  criticism of Mr Irving, simply because I track his
    12  cross-examination in my questions to you. Are you
    13  familiar, I am talking now about numbers, with something
    14  called the Korherr report of 23rd March 1943?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So as to save us all getting it out, it is noted in some
    17  detail in Mr Irving’s book Hitler’s War, in the 1977
    18  edition, at pages 503 to 4. The numbers it apparently
    19  gave—-
    20  MR IRVING:  My Lord we have not raised Korherr report in the
    21  examination.
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, but there was an issue about numbers.
    23  MR RAMPTON:  It has to do with the cross-examination about
    24  numbers, scale.
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If it casts light on that issue, it does not
    26  matter whether it has been referred to or whether it has

    .           P-188

      1  not.
      2  MR RAMPTON:  It has to do with numbers in the East. I can give
      3  you the numbers. Numbers given for people subjected to
      4  Sonderbehandlung before it was edited.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can you, Mr Rampton, very quickly remind me
      6  who Korherr is?
      7  MR RAMPTON:  He was Himmler’s statistician. Is that right?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Correct.
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I had forgotten that.
    10  MR RAMPTON:  He is Dr Rickard Korherr, he is an anorak and he
    11  crunches numbers for Himmler. Anyhow, the numbers he
    12  gave, if you remember, I will read them out, are for
    13  people deported from the eastern provinces subjected to
    14  Sonderbehandlung 1,274,166; for people in the Warthegau,
    15  and this is at the 23rd March 1943, 145,301, making a
    16  grand total of 1,419,467. Now, as at that date, 23rd
    17  March 1943, do those numbers seem surprising to you?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No. If anything, I would have thought they would have
    19  been slightly higher, because at that point in these
    20  regions the first sweep through the ghettoes has already
    21  taken place, so this is a very cautious estimate.
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: By this date, speaking from your general knowledge of the
    23  subject and your detailed knowledge, end of March 43,
    24  roughly speaking, how many people do you think have been
    25  Sonderbehandelt in the three Reinhardt camps? Roughly.
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Roughly. I would say that would be the lower estimate and

    .           P-189

      1  it might be 100 or 200,000 higher. Basically, the
      2  question is how many Polish Jews do we still know are in
      3  other places and they are in the work camps in Lublin,
      4  there is still 50 to 60,000 in the Warsaw ghetto. They
      5  have not liquidated the remnant ghettoes. So, when they
      6  made the first sweep, they would take between 70, 80, 90
      7  per cent and there would be remaining then in the ghettoes
      8  a smaller group that would be left for work. Then the
      9  sweep through those ghettoes came in 43. So most of the
    10  Polish Jewry has been destroyed but there is still a
    11  segment that has not.
    12  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I was going to ask you that as my final question on this
    13  part of numbers. We saw that Hans Frank estimated between
    14  2 and a half and 3 and a half million Jews or people with
    15  Jewish connections on 16th September 1941.
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Is it known how many Jews were left in Poland by the end
    18  of the war?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: First, I should say those who have looked at real
    20  statistics and not Frank talking off the top of his head
    21  would not accept the 2.5 to 3.5 in the
    22  Generalgouvernment. I should say in Poland the pre 1941,
    23  that is the German share of Generalgouvernment and to the
    24  West, I believe German demographers who made reports
    25  thought it was close to 2 million Polish Jews who were
    26  there. Galicia has another 500,000. Bialystok I believe

    .           P-190

      1  has 200,000 or 300,000, and then of course the unknown
      2  question is just how many managed to flee. And of those
      3  who fled were they then killed in White Russia or the
      4  Ukraine?
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am coming to some fleeing along the line because we had
      6  that yesterday in report number 81, I think. What shall we
      7  say then? 3 million? We are talking about Warthegau,
      8  Generalgouvernment, Bialystok and Galicia in the
      9  southeast. Total 3 million? Three and a half?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would say that the prewar population has been estimated
    11  about 3.3 million for all of Poland but in terms of the
    12  Generalgouvernment, Galicia, Bialystok, that would leave
    13  us I think around 3.
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can I repeat the question? You are quite right not to
    15  adopt Frank’s figure and to give us what one might call a
    16  real figure. Has anybody done work to estimate how many
    17  Jews were left in this area of Europe after the war?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This is the difficult question because you had a constant
    19  flow of Jews who survived fleeting from Poland to Germany
    20  so you always have a moving target.
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: They flowed westward as well, did they?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: After the war they fled westward. Most of the immigration
    23  to Palestine came in fact via Germany. Jews returning
    24  from hiding who came back to Polish towns felt very
    25  insecure in the atmosphere, where it was feared they would
    26  be reclaiming their property and this kind of thing, and

    .           P-191

      1  so they moved out of Poland very quickly.
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So population lost figures are not necessarily a very
      3  reliable means to an accurate answer?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We get an approximate figure by subtracting the postwar
      5  from the prewar to get an approximate number of Polish
      6  casualties. So we generally say out of 3.3 million
      7  probably 3 million were murdered and 300,000 survived, but
      8  those are rough figures.
      9  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. I am only asking for what you Americans call ball
    10  park figures.
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Are they worth anything, these ball park
    12  figures?
    13  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, I think those are accurate as ball park figures, but
    14  they could easily be off 100 thousand on either side,
    15  I would think.
    16  MR RAMPTON:  Yes.
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Where the ball park figures are very uncertain is for the
    18  Soviet Union.
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Now I am afraid I shall need some help from people in
    20  court. This has to do with three different things that
    21  arose during your cross-examination, Professor. The first
    22  thing is to go back, if you will, to 19A in the Browning
    23  document section of file L1, which is tab 7. Please could
    24  somebody find the Professor file H1(vii) please? That
    25  file hunting can stop now because Miss Rogers has done the
    26  trick with a little file of documents which can go into

    .           P-192

      1  this section. I would like to start with the Muller
      2  message of 1st August 1941, the first sentence of which
      3  says something like this, does it not, Professor: Running
      4  reports on the work of the Einsatzgruppen in the East are
      5  to be placed, or will be placed, before the Fuhrer from
      6  here”?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. I am sorry about my translation. That is roughly
      9  what it says, is it not? Then can you have a look,
    10  please, at what I think is probably the first of the
    11  documents in that little clip, which is the situation
    12  report number 80 dated 11th September 1941?
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  In English?
    14  MR RAMPTON:  This is an English translation. The German is
    15  there too and I shall need to ask you about that in a
    16  moment.
    17  MR IRVING:  My Lord, I am unhappy about this introduction of
    18  documents in this way when I have no chance to re-examine
    19  on them.
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You will be offered the opportunity to follow
    21  up any new points, but this is entirely legitimate
    22  re-examination.
    23  MR RAMPTON:  Yes.
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Because it arises in relation to a topic that
    25  you have cross-examined on.
    26  MR RAMPTON:  Indeed. It arises, if I may say so, in relation

    .           P-193

      1  to three topics. It arises in relation to what
      2  information Hitler was being given, about which the
      3  Professor was cross-examined. It arises in relation to
      4  the disappearing Jews that ran across the Urals, which we
      5  had yesterday, and it arises in relation to the
      6  translation given by Mr Irving for Hitler’s table talk on
      7  25th October 1941, where he translates the word
      8  “Schrecken” as “rumour”, if I have the right German, but
      9  anyhow he gives “public rumour” as the translation. So
    10  all three of those points arise from these documents.
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
    12  MR RAMPTON:  Can I ask to you look at report number 80 in
    13  English, September 11th 1941. Have you got that one?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    15  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Good. The second paragraph read as follows. I ask you to
    16  note the words carefully. “The rumour that the Germans
    17  shoot to kill all the Jews has advantages. This is
    18  probably the reason why all the time the EK’s encounter
    19  fewer Jews. Thus it should be noted that everywhere more
    20  than 70 to 90 per cent of the original local Jews have
    21  fled. In contrast to the past this concerns not only
    22  those Jews who once held influential positions”. This
    23  comes I think from Einsatzgruppen C, which had which area
    24  under its jurisdiction?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Ukraine.
    26  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Then, just in passing, please note the other side of the

    .           P-194

      1  page, which has a 129 at the bottom, “Notwithstanding that
      2  those people had, as it were, done a bunk, we still find
      3  something like 30,000 Jews shot by the 11th September
      4  1941″. Do you see that?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, at the bottom.
      6  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I have done the arithmetic for you.
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The Kommandant, he mentions already 23,600, then
      8  Sonderkommando A had reached a figure of 7,000 so the
      9  cumulative is 30,000.
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: 31,000, something like that, and notwithstanding that some
    11  had been able, most had been able, to get away, they still
    12  found 23,600 which they managed to shoot in three
    13  days yes.
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Now I would like you to look at the German of that
    15  document, if you will, and the relevant passage, if you
    16  have this thing, this one is marked Geheim Reichssacher.
    17  It looks like a 60 on the front but it is not in fact, it
    18  is an 80, and you can see the date 11th September 1941 on
    19  the top right hand corner. Have you got that one?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can you turn to page 9, please, and look at the last
    22  paragraph on the page?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It reads: (German – document not provided) Please
    25  translate that for me.
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It turns out to be beneficial. The rumour turns out to be

    .           P-195

      1  beneficial, that all the Jews are shot by the Germans.
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: If you were asked to translate the word “rumour” into
      3  English, what word would you use?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well gerucht would be the common one.
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Finally this, and do you still have Dr Longerich’s report
      6  up there with you?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Could you turn to page 59?
      9  MR IRVING:  My Lord, I fail to see under what wangle Mr Rampton
    10  is being allowed to produce this document to put it in? It
    11  has had no relevance at all of the cross-examination that
    12  I conducted.
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We may not have quite got to it yet. It is
    14  certainly relevant on the questioning so far on whether
    15  Schrecken is properly translated as “public rumour”, which
    16  was one of the points we went through this morning.
    17  MR IRVING:  A very tiny shoe horn for such a long document, my
    18  Lord.
    19  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I can promise you I am not going to plough
    20  through it unless I am shown other bits of it that are
    21  worth ploughing through.
    22  MR IRVING:  This document was one of the ones that was put to
    23  Hitler.
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  This is, as I understand it, one that is
    25  suggested was generated by the request.
    26  MR IRVING:  I think the witness should be asked if there is any

    .           P-196

      1  evidence that this document was one of the ones that was
      2  put to him.
      3  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think that is a fair point. I think that
      4  question should be asked, whether there is any evidence
      5  that this particular situation—-
      6  MR RAMPTON:  I am going to come to that.
      7  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think you may have jumped the gun,
      8  Mr Irving.
      9  MR RAMPTON:  These documents, taken in conjunction, affect
    10  three questions, Mr Irving’s —-
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We have through them. I remember them.
    12  MR RAMPTON:  They all arise directly out of cross-examination.
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think that is right.
    14  MR RAMPTON:  I mentioned, Professor, that you have also got
    15  there report number 81 about which Mr Irving
    16  cross-examined you yesterday without producing the
    17  document. He has not got it there, but I can tell you.
    18  On page 14 it makes similar remarks about the 72, 90 per
    19  cent of the people having fled across the Urals?
    20  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This was one that was cited yesterday?
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is the day after. It is 12th September. We will hand
    22  those in later, if we may, my Lord. Can you turn to page
    23  59 of Longerich, part I?
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Rampton, before we leave this, I am taking
    25  it that the reference to 70 to 90 per cent of the original
    26  refugees having fled is a reference supporting one of

    .           P-197

      1  Mr Irving’s points, which is that that was what happened
      2  to quite a lot of the local Jews, namely they went into
      3  Russia.
      4  MR RAMPTON:  I do not think we dispute that at all.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No. We are agreed about that.
      6  MR RAMPTON:  Oh absolutely. How many Jews do you think there
      7  were in the Ukraine before the Germans got there?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not know, but the total Soviet population of Jews was
      9  probably around 5 million, and of course only the question
    10  of whether one or two million of those were murdered is
    11  really where you get the difference between five and six
    12  million victims of the Holocaust.
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: In your mind, I know this is probably a matter for his
    14  Lordship than for me, but maybe I can ask this. In your
    15  mind does it matter whether it is one million or two
    16  million?
    17  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think that is for me, is it not?
    18  MR RAMPTON:  Well, except in so far as it may impinge on the
    19  question of system, but I think that has been conceded so
    20  I need not pursue that. Page 59 of part I of
    21  Dr Longerich, do you have that?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    23  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Paragraph 16.4.
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    25  Q. [Mr Rampton]: He writes this: “On 25th October, the year is 41, Hitler
    26  made the following remark at his table talk after he had

    .           P-198

      1  once again made mention of his prophecy of 30th January
      2  1939. ‘This criminal race has the 2 million dead from the
      3  world war on its conscience, now hundreds of thousand. No
      4  one can say to me we cannot send them into the morass.
      5  Who then cares about our people? It is good if the terror
      6  we are exterminating Jewry goes before us”, and the word
      7  for terror is Schrecken in German.
      8  You saw in report No. 80 the words the rumour
      9  that the Germans shoot to kill all the Jews has
    10  advantages. You notice that that comes about a month and
    11  a bit before Hitler’s table talk on the 25th. You have
    12  seen the Muller order of 1st August 1941. Is it
    13  legitimate in your mind as an historian to draw any
    14  inference about Hitler’s reception and knowledge of these
    15  reports from that information?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We could say that there is a certain resonance. It is not
    17  a direct one, but it is an inference that the materials
    18  were getting to him and that the Table Talk might be a
    19  reflection of having read that.
    20  Q. [Mr Rampton]: If we are good, cautious historians, we do not need leap
    21  to giant conclusions from little inferential sketches like
    22  that, do we?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We would say that this a possible inference.
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. Thank you. The Barbarossa guidelines are on — if
    25  you have got Dr Longerich’s report, can you turn to the
    26  second part of it on page 5 where in paragraph 2 he sets

    .           P-199

      1  out a part of the guidelines for the conduct of the troops
      2  in Russia of 19th May. That is about a month before
      3  Barbarossa is actually launched, is it not?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: He translates it as: “Bolshevism is the mortal enemy of
      6  the National Socialist German people … (reading to the
      7  words) … Germany’s struggle.
      8  2. This struggle demands ruthless, energetic and drastic
      9  measures against the Bolshevik agitators, guerillas
    10  saboteurs and Jews as well as the complete removal of all
    11  active and passive resistance”. The German is at footnote
    12  10 at the bottom of the page and I have two questions
    13  about this. Professor Longerich translates the German as
    14  “Those Jews were a separate or disjunctive category from
    15  all the rest of them”. Do you understand?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    17  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can you look at the German at the bottom of page 10 and
    18  tell me whether you think he is right write about that?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That is the way I would translate it too.
    20  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  How else could you do it?
    21  MR RAMPTON:  I do not know.
    22  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am not sure —-
    23  MR RAMPTON:  I do not know.
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  — is this a bit of an Aunt Sally? I mean,
    25  I am not sure what Mr Irving has made of this.
    26  MR RAMPTON:  I do not know. I have not heard what he says

    .           P-200

      1  about this. I know that he does not —-
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, it is re-examination.
      3  MR RAMPTON:  No, this arose in the course of cross-examination,
      4  this document.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I know it did, but this point about
      6  whether Jews are disjunctive as a category.
      7  MR RAMPTON:  Yes. Professor Browning said in his
      8  cross-examination Jews are a separate category.
      9  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
    10  MR RAMPTON:  So I wanted to check with him against the German
    11  whether he thought that Longerich had translated it
    12  correctly.
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I see.
    14  MR RAMPTON:  He did not have it in front of him at the time
    15  when he said it, I think, actually.
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, I was doing that from memory and now I am looking at
    17  the document.
    18  MR RAMPTON:  The second question is this. Again, this is said
    19  to be a document directed at the Vermacht, not at the SS
    20  or anybody else like that or the Gestapo. Who would have
    21  written it?
    22  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: These would have been prepared in the General Staff,
    23  I think.
    24  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Somebody underneath Jodl?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, or even further down but in the Armed Forces, yes.

    Section 201.26 to 210.25

    26  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Now, the numbers — page 38 of your report, please,

    .           P-201

      1  Professor, now — this is the famous 97,000, I should say
      2  “notorious”. We do not need the German for this. I am
      3  going to excuse the motor mechanic who is not good at
      4  German grammar.
      5  Page 38: “Since December 1941, for example,
      6  97,000 were processed by three trucks in action, without
      7  any defects in the vehicles being encountered”.
      8  How many trucks did they use during this period,
      9  December to June 1942?
    10  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They had two trucks that were there constantly. Another
    11  truck came and that is the one that had the accident that
    12  blew up. So most of time they had two trucks running,
    13  part of the time a third truck.
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am going to use some arithmetic, then I will ask you
    15  further questions, if may? I do not know whether 1941 was
    16  a leap year or not, but there are from 1st December ’41 to
    17  1st June 1942, 172 or 173 days.
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    19  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So let us assume it was not a leap year and it is 172. If
    20  you divide 97,000 by 172, that means they are processing
    21  564 people a day. If you divide that by three trucks —
    22  I know this is rough stuff and maybe the trucks did not
    23  have equal capacities — that means roughly 188 people per
    24  truck per day. If they did, say, four trips a day, that
    25  would be 47 people per trip and that would mean — when
    26  I say “a day” I mean on a 24-hour basis?

    .           P-201

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      2  Q. [Mr Rampton]: That would mean there would be six hours, roughly
      3  speaking, five and a bit, between each trip. Does that
      4  seem feasible?
      5  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We know the Saurer truck was much bigger than 40. We do
      6  not know the size —-
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: What do you think its capacity was?
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The Saurer truck was, depending on, you know, women and
      9  children or adults, would be between 50 and 80.
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Right.
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: But, in general, you know, I mean, I think as they show
    12  that the number per day is not beyond the capacity of the
    13  two and three trucks.
    14  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Right. So four trips a day, that would actually cover the
    15  numbers involved, would it not?
    16  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, we know in Semlin when they made — they could do two
    17  trips a day and that would be all the way across Belgrade
    18  to a burial site that was much further away than the
    19  distance between the burial grounds and the Chelmno camp
    20  here.
    21  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I mean, how long does it take to drive 20 kilometres in
    22  one of these trucks?
    23  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: We are talking about driving about two or three kilometres
    24  from the camp.
    25  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Two or three? That is a matter of minutes?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes. The longer period would be the period to gas. That

    .           P-203

      1  is why the motors had to run inside the camp before they
      2  left or the passengers would not be dead when they
      3  arrived.
      4  Q. [Mr Rampton]: From start to finish of the operation, what is your
      5  estimate of how long it would have taken?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, would you have to let the desired number of people
      7  into the basement of the main building where they would be
      8  undressed, force them up ramp into the truck, close the
      9  truck doors, run the motor for probably 20 minutes, and
    10  then drive, given the issue of undressing and the driving,
    11  on the generous side, we would say an hour, and then you
    12  must empty the van and clean it out and drive back.
    13  MR IRVING:  My Lord, this is purely speculative. He is not an
    14  expert on gassing operating —-
    15  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, Mr irving, you must understand if you ask
    16  almost identical questions in cross-examination,
    17  Mr Rampton must be entitled to ask the same sort of
    18  questions in re-examination.
    19  MR IRVING:  Well, I was objecting really to the question that
    20  was asked about how long would it take to gas them and…
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But you went into the arithmetic, Mr Irving.
    22  That opens the issue for Mr Rampton. I am afraid you have
    23  to take that as being the rule.
    24  MR IRVING:  Well, I asked a slightly vaguer question. He asked
    25  a specific expert question.
    26  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Again that is legitimate, I am afraid.

    .           P-204

      1  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I would say this is not speculation in the sense that
      2  I have read through virtually all the testimony of the
      3  Chelmno trial and have seen a number of descriptions of
      4  the operations, so to call what I have said speculation
      5  would be unfair characterization.
      6  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, it is speculation in the sense it is
      7  reconstruction.
      8  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Correct.
      9  MR RAMPTON:  Yes, reconstruction. My real question is this.
    10  Those sorts of rates, whether it is two or three trucks in
    11  operation at any one time, whether it is 40 or 50 people
    12  in the truck at a time, whether there are three or four or
    13  five trips a day for each truck, does the figure of 97,000
    14  seem to you to be credible?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It is entirely credible.
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can we please turn back to your L1 tab 7 documents and
    17  turn to page 74 where I think you were accused — this is
    18  Hans Frank on 16th December accused by Mr Irving of
    19  deliberately suppressing significant parts of the German.
    20  It is the paragraph that begins “Die Juden”?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: I only want you to look at the sentence, the next
    23  sentence, which begins: “[German – document not
    24  provided]”. What would you say if you were going to say
    25  “gas” there?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: “Vergasung”.

    .           P-205

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: “Vergasung”. So he cannot shoot them, he cannot poison
      2  them, then he says “verden aber”, that means “but”, does
      3  it not?
      4  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      5  Q. [Mr Rampton]: [German], what does that mean?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Well, “Verden aber” would be in the sense “but
      7  nonetheless”.
      8  Q. [Mr Rampton]: “Nonetheless”?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: And “eingriffa” would be, you know, “steps would be
    10  undertaken”.
    11  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, [German] “We can do something”?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    13  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And then it says: “Die [German – document not provided]”
    14  That means what?
    15  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That is “one way or another”, “in some way”.
    16  Q. [Mr Rampton]: [German] and then the word “vernichtung erfolch”. What
    17  does that mean?
    18  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: “That would lead to a successful”, literally in the way
    19  Germans combine words it means “a destruction success” and
    20  an English translation usually would be, we would invert
    21  those and say “a successful destruction”.
    22  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So “We will find a way to bring about a successful
    23  destruction”?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Correct.
    25  Q. [Mr Rampton]: “One way or another”?
    26  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes, yes.

    .           P-206

      1  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Then I think you will be pleased, Professor, that that is
      2  that, but I would like, if you can give me the answer —
      3  what is this? Finally, I would like a little bit of
      4  history from you. You were asked about the Wannsee
      5  conference?
      6  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
      7  Q. [Mr Rampton]: Was the date in January, 20th January, I think it was,
      8  ’42, its original date?
      9  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, it was originally scheduled for December 8 or 9.
    10  Q. [Mr Rampton]: And when was it cancelled, do you know, or postponed?
    11  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Just right before that, basically at the time of the
    12  Russian counter offensive around Moscow on 5th and Pearl
    13  Harbour on the 7th. I forget the exact date. The notices
    14  of — when the marginal note that Rademacher makes on the
    15  invitation, you know, that he hears it has been cancelled,
    16  I do not remember the exact date, but it comes just
    17  before.
    18  Q. [Mr Rampton]: So does one know the reason why it was cancelled?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: They do not stipulate — they do not specify, but I think
    20  a probable inference is that at that point a crisis is
    21  going on and the people who are invited have too many
    22  other things to do.
    23  MR IRVING:  It says “because of intervening events”, I think,
    24  does it not?
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: It would suggest that the 5th and 7th were very important
    26  events that suddenly did not allow — that Heydrich’s

    .           P-207

      1  schedule had to be changed.
      2  MR RAMPTON:  Right. Thank you very much, Professor. My Lord,
      3  those are all the questions I have in re-examination.
      4  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, if you think there is anything
      5  raised by the re-examination would you like to further
      6  question the Professor about, feel free.
      8  MR IRVING:  My Lord, going in reverse order, the “We cannot
      9  shoot them, we cannot poison them”, what would the
    10  objections to shooting and poisoning have been that would
    11  not also have applied to gassing, if any?
    12  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: The shooting of 3 million or 2 million in this case very
    13  possibly would have, simply it would have been much too
    14  public. I do not know why Frank would have said they were
    15  impossible. He is not the one that has been charged with
    16  trying to figure out how to do it. This is an
    17  extraordinary thing that is to about to take place, and
    18  the mind boggles that Frank could not conceive immediately
    19  of how this would be done strikes me as —-
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: He was not talking from a script, was he?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Finally, on this document which has been put to which
    23  I have not seen mentioned before, which is the Event
    24  Report No. 80.
    25  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Yes.
    26  Q. [Mr Irving]: You will notice it has the top State Secret classification

    .           P-208

      1  on it?
      2  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: This has Geheim, yes.
      3  Q. [Mr Irving]: Would I be right in saying that all SS documents are very
      4  pernickety about the classification of security on them,
      5  an that the Foreign Office and other bodies were less
      6  pernickety about the security grade placed on them?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: I do not think I could say that. I notice here that this
      8  is 48 copies. They may have wanted to stamp it so those
      9  who were getting, given the number in circulation, that
    10  they would be very careful with it. That is speculation,
    11  but I do not know that SS had a tendency to use the Top
    12  Secret stamp more than the Foreign Office.
    13  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is this document typed in the special Fuhrer typewriter?
    14  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No, it is not.
    15  Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you ever seen any Event Reports typed in this special
    16  Fuhrer typewriter for submission to Hitler?
    17  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Nothing, except the No. 51 we have talked about.
    18  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is that called an Event Report?
    19  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No.
    20  Q. [Mr Irving]: Or is it called Meldung Fuhrer?
    21  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: That is a report to the Fuhrer.
    22  Q. [Mr Irving]: Is there any indication on this document that it was shown
    23  to the Fuhrer or submitted to the Fuhrer, like vorgelegt?
    24  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: No.
    25  Q. [Mr Irving]: Thank you.
    26  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Why would just the one document have been

    .           P-209

      1  typed out in the large type for the Fuhrer and marked
      2  vorgelegt?
      3  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Why were these not typed out?
      4  Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Sorry, that was a rather badly phrased question. Does the
      5  fact that there is only one such document extant indicate
      6  that there only ever was one document?
      7  A. [Professor Christopher Robert Browning]: Given the destruction of documents, particularly, say, in
      8  Eichmann’s office and in the SS, it leaves open the
      9  question that there was a file of such things, and they
    10  were destroyed. We do not know.
    11  MR IRVING:  My Lord, I answer that. There is in fact an
    12  extensive file of such reports to the Fuhrer, but they
    13  cover everything like the midget torpedo attack on
    14  Turpids. It is the whole gamut.
    15  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sure there are. I was talking only about
    16  reports from the Einsatzgruppen.
    17  MR IRVING:  That is only one I have seen also.
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I appreciate it is the only one anyone knows
    19  about. I was wondering whether that suggested that there
    20  only ever was one, but the Professor says not. No more
    21  questions?
    22  MR IRVING:  No further questions.
    23  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Professor Browning, thank you very much. You
    24  are free to go.
    25  < (The witness stood down).

    Part IV: Closing Proceedings (210.26 to 214.21)

    26  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We are going to resume at 10.30 on —-

    .           P-210

      1  MR RAMPTON:  I think Professor Evans will be here on Thursday.
      2  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Are you wanting to interpolate some witness
      3  of your own before him?
      4  MR IRVING:  We have Dr John Fox.
      5  MR RAMPTON:  Whatever you like.
      6  MR IRVING:  I am only going to ask Mr Rampton whether he was
      7  going to cross-examine me further and, if so, when?
      8  MR RAMPTON:  I will not only say when but I hope what, because
      9  it is the last things I have to ask about. I was hoping
    10  to do it on Friday, so as to get it out of the way, but
    11  I am in other people’s hands.
    12  MR IRVING:  Can you say about how long you will be
    13  cross-examining?
    14  MR RAMPTON:  I do not think it will take all that long.
    15  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What are the topics?
    16  MR RAMPTON:  The topics are, well, there is the question of
    17  Mr Irving’s knowledge of that Muller signal to the
    18  Einsatzgruppen. I do not accept his answer that he has
    19  not seen it before, and there is a reason for that which
    20  I shall not say what it is now, apart from the fact that
    21  it appears to have been in the public domain for nearly 20
    22  years.
    23  MR IRVING:  I have been in the public domain for 62 years.
    24  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We are not going to have the
    25  cross-examination now.
    26  MR RAMPTON:  That I think we have dealt with. So that has

    .           P-211

      1  gone. There is Zamus report of 16th December 1942 which
      2  appeared and then disappeared because your Lordship said
      3  Mr Irving needed more time.
      4  MR IRVING:  Also you should reveal where it came from.
      5  MR RAMPTON:  That is happening and I hope that will be in place
      6  by Friday. There is Anne Frank that I forgot about out of
      7  Evans and also van Pelt, and I think I ought to ask a
      8  couple of questions, it is quite short. Then there is,
      9  again which I hope I can keep quite short, the question of
    10  Mr Irving’s associates, if I may call them that.
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
    12  MR RAMPTON:  That will certainly be completed in a day or
    13  perhaps less.
    14  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  My slight feeling, and it is up to Mr Irving
    15  in the end, well, I suppose it is up to me in the end, but
    16  I wonder whether it is right to interrupt his
    17  cross-examination —-
    18  MR RAMPTON:  I agree.
    19  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  — of really your major witness,.
    20  MR IRVING:  May I suggest that I bring Dr Fox on Thursday?
    21  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If you are going to do that bring him first
    22  off.
    23  MR RAMPTON:  Can I say not, because I think I told your
    24  Lordship Professor Evans is in real difficulty on Friday.
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
    26  MR RAMPTON:  Which is why I am proposing — if your Lordship

    .           P-212

      1  wants to leave Friday blank I quite understand the reason
      2  why, nothing personally, but from Mr Irving’ point of
      3  view, then he has three clear days to gather himself again
      4  for a renewed assault on Professor Evans on Monday.
      5  Alternatively Dr. Fox might come on Friday, but it seems a
      6  bit of a —-
      7  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That I would not have so much difficulty
      8  with, because Fox, frankly, I do not quite know what he is
      9  going to say, but he has not a major problem for Mr Irving
    10  in terms of preparation.
    11  MR RAMPTON:  Absolutely certainly not, and none for me because
    12  I am not going to cross-examine him.
    13  MR IRVING:  You do not what he is going to say yet.
    14  MR RAMPTON:  Of course I do. I have read his witness
    15  statement.
    16  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So I have but I have forgotten what is in it.
    17  MR RAMPTON:  Something about free speech I think.
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Shall we just plan the timetable? On
    19  Thursday we will have Evans all day. On Friday we will
    20  Fox for as long as he takes. Then we will resume with
    21  Evans on Monday. We will have the cross-examination of
    22  yourself at a later date to be fixed.
    23  MR RAMPTON:  That means only one more day and a tiny bit in
    24  court this week I think.
    25  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Which I think at this stage of the case is
    26  not such a bad thing.

    .           P-213

      1  MR IRVING:  Preparation of Evans is complicated by the fact
      2  that I now have to shoe-horn the material which I have
      3  prepared for Levin and Eatwell into the Evans
      4  cross-examination.
      5  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We are giving you a day tomorrow and then you
      6  are going to have most of Friday.
      7  MR IRVING:  Very well.
      8  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Are you happy with that because tell me if
      9  you are not?
    10  MR IRVING:  So Fox on Thursday?
    11  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Fox on Friday morning.
    12  MR RAMPTON:  If he can manage it.
    13  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Tell me if it turns out to create any
    14  problems for you.
    15  MR RAMPTON:  We do not mind, my Lord. If Mr Irving would
    16  rather have Dr Fox here on Thursday we do not mind.
    17  MR IRVING:  No.
    18  MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think it is quite a good idea to have him
    19  on Friday. So we are not sitting tomorrow but we are
    20  sitting on Thursday.
    21  (The court adjourned until Thursday, 19th February 2000)

    .           P-214