[click
image for enlargement
(spellings in the extracts below have been corrected)
Day 14, February 2nd, 2000. [pages 56 ff, cross-examination of David Irving] MR RICHARD RAMPTON QC [for the Defence]. My Lord, what I am going to do now is refer to three documents -- they are different documents -- which Mr Irving told us in evidence that he had never seen. The first one is the letter from Müller, the head of the Gestapo, the order rather, to the Einsatzgruppen, all four of them, of 1st August 1941, which says, in effect, that the Führer will be getting continuous reports about the work of the Einsatzgruppen in the East. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Where is it, just in case it is necessary to look at it? MR RAMPTON: My Lord, it is in Professor Browning's documents. It is referred to by him. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That will do. MR RAMPTON: On page 7 of his report. I think my memory is that he has written it out in translation. Unfortunately, I do not have it here. It is actually in H4 II. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that, unless Mr Irving wants it dug out, this will probably do. MR RAMPTON: I have given a sort of a translation. A. I am not normally very picky, my Lord, but in this particular case it would be nice sometime to see the original or a facsimile of it. MR RAMPTON: I agree. I do believe that Mr Irving should be given H4 II. That is actually Dr Longerich's documents but it is the same document. A. It is a document from the Russian archives? Q. Yes, and it is the first sentence of the writing which I am interested in. It is footnote 143, in handwriting at the bottom right hand corner of the page. Do you see it? It is a copy. A. Yes. Q. It says so. Did I more or less translate the first sentence correctly? A. Oh dear. I can only say "oh dear" about this document. Where does it come from? Q. I can tell you that, Mr Irving. It has been available in the Munich Institute of Contemporary History (IfZ) with the reference number Fa.213/3 since before 1982. A. That does not tell us so much about the provenance though, does it? Q. Why? What is the matter with it? A. Well, I mean, normally you would have either a Nuremberg document number in the top right hand corner or some indication of provenance, and it would not contain German spelling mistakes. Q. Why not? Do soldiers not make mistakes when they write, or civil servants? Goodness me. We have spotted several already in the original documents in this case, have we not? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Are you saying that this not an authentic document? MR RAMPTON: Another fake, I think. He does not like it so it is another fake. A. I am seeing this for the first time, of course, but I noticed straightaway at the bottom line that interestingly it does use the SS runes after the word "Müller", which implies that it is a wartime document. MR RAMPTON: [...] Both Dr Longerich and Professor Browning make reference to this. A. It may be that I am more picky than they are when I am dealing with what looks like a duplicated copy of a document. Q. Never mind. It is a what? A. It looks like a duplicated copy of a document, in other words on an old fashioned Gestetner duplicator, so to speak, but it has the SS runes on it after the name Müller, which implies, or should be taken to imply, that it is a wartime document rather than a post-war one. Q. I would guess that it is. Why not? A. What worries me is the word "verschlüssel" in the fifth line, which is neither fish nor fowl in German. It is "verschlüssel". It is not "verschlüsselt," it is not "Verschlüsselung". It is a word that does not exist by itself. Q. Well tell me what it means. A. If it was completed it could be to be coded or ciphered, encyphered, but it is just, as I said, wrong. Q. Mr Irving, suppose that there was an N instead of an L, would that make a difference? A. It would have to be after the L. It is a strange error, I would say that. If it is genuine, then the next thing I would point to, of course, is the fact that it has a very low classification, just "g.", secret. Q. Mr Irving, I am not asking you about the document. A. All right. Q. When I asked you about this document before, it was ages ago, you denied ever having seen it. A. Now I am seeing it for the first time, yes. Q. So you say. A. I beg your pardon. I am on oath and, if I say I am seeing this for the first time, then I am seeing it for the first time. Q. Mr Irving, you have said many things on oath which I simply do not accept, so we can get past that childish stage of this interrogation. A. I think this is probably the time to have it out. Where you think I am lying on oath, then you should say so. MR JUSTICE GRAY: He is saying so. MR RAMPTON: I am doubting it, Mr Irving. A. My Lord, he is not saying when. He is just alleging in broad terms. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, that is not right. Let me make it clear to you. MR RAMPTON: Will you please wait. I do not do that. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We are all talking at once. Mr Rampton, I was talking. MR RAMPTON: I am sorry. It might be valuable if your Lordship reminded Mr Irving of my duty. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I am going to. I think it is fair to say that every time Mr Rampton is challenging the truth or credibility of what you are saying, he has made that clear in his questions. A. He is saying that he does not believe ---- Q. Please wait. If you think that he is not making his case clear at any point, then you are entitled to say, what are you asking me, Mr Rampton? What are you putting to me? But on this particular document, I would like to know whether you do or do not challenge its authenticity. A. I think for the purpose of today I will accept that it is genuine, but it has these blemishes to which I may refer later on. But to suggest that I have seen this document before is inaccurate and untrue. MR RAMPTON: I have not said that yet, Mr Irving. A. You said "so you say" and the record shows that. Q. I do say "so you say" because I doubt your answer, and I will tell you precisely now why I doubt it, as I always do, because I am not allowed to make that suggestion unless I have a basis for doing so. It has been in Gerald Fleming's book Hitler und die Endlösung ever since 1982. A. I have not read that book. Q. You have not read that book? A. It has been sent to me twice by Gerald Fleming, once in English and once in German, and I have not read that book. Q. Are you not interested in books which contain references to documents which focus on your very field of historical activity, that is to say the connection between Adolf Hitler and the Endlösung? A. The reason why is because Gerald Fleming and I had a very lively correspondence and he was constantly sending me copies of his latest documents. It is was unlikely there were going to be documents in the book which he had not already sent me months earlier. Q. You told us near the beginning of the case that Gerald. Fleming has done some very good work on one particular episode, not this. That was Bruns and Altemeyer. A. Yes he corresponded with me about it. You have seen my entire file of correspondence with Gerald Fleming and you know exactly how detailed that correspondence is. It is about 4 inches thick. Q. Do you possess a copy of Hitler und die Endlösung? A. Yes, two copies. Q. And you have never looked at them? A. I may have looked for a specific document in it. I seem to remember looking to see -- that is right. When I wrote my web site page on General Bruns, I checked up on the spellings of the names and the correct identification of Altemeyer and people like that, and I used it as a reference work. I looked in the index, in other words, for Bruns and Altemeyer and got the data out of that, one or other of the editions. Q. How much time have you spent in the Munich archive, the IfZ if that is what it is? A. Until I was banned in 1993? I was there from 1963 for 30 years. Q. If Gerald Fleming found it in the Munich archive before his book was published while he was writing it, it was published in 1982 and you spent time in that archive, I know not how many days or hours or weeks, looking for documents about Hitler. Do you expect us to believe that you did not come across this document? A. Both. I looked for documents back in 1964 and 1965 and I hired a lady whose name [Dr Elke Fröhlich] almost certainly will be mentioned later on in today's hearing to do the research for me, to re-research the files for me, looking for material on Adolf Hitler and the final solution, and certainly neither of us came across that document. However, your researchers could have established if I saw that particular file, because the IfZ keeps a detailed log of who sees each file, just as the Public Record Office does. Q. Down the line that may happen, Mr Irving. Now I want to turn to another document, which I find even more puzzling, if I may say so. A. You are implying that the IfZ has a record of my having seen that document, which is untrue. Q. No, I am not implying that at all. I have absolutely no idea. All I would say, if you want me---- A. That was the innuendo of "down the line this may happen", was it not? Q. It may do if we look. That is all that means. All I will say at the moment, if you want me comment, is this, that I do not find your answer very convincing. But that is not my task, it is his Lordship's task. A. I am sorry I do not convince you but it is your duty to come forward with plausible evidence to the court that I am lying, and you cannot because I have not seen this document before. Q. You have two copies of Gerald Fleming's book. A. I have two copies of Fleming's book, one in German and one in English. Q. You write about Hitler and his connection with the Endlösung. You spent hours in the Munich archive and this is a key document which you have missed. A. I read the reviews by Tom Bower and by [Professor] Gordon Craig of Gerald Fleming's book. Tom Bower said that Gerald Fleming "has failed to destroy David Irving's central hypothesis", and Gordon Craig said exactly the same. That being so, why should I waste my time reading that book, apart from looking up specific references, because undoubtedly Fleming has done very detailed research, but I am not a Holocaust historian. If I was writing a book about the Holocaust, then no doubt I would consult Fleming. MR JUSTICE GRAY: This does not really go to the Holocaust, does it? It goes to Hitler's knowledge of the shooting by the Einsatzgruppen. A. Yes, but I can only repeat that my attention was never drawn to this document, I never saw it in that book, there is no reason why I should have done.
[…]
A. Well, you put to me specific example of books and
said, "Have you read this?" Q. You have just been having a go at the Müller order of 1st August. A. Well, that is because I have seen it for the first time, and every time I look at a document for the first time, my first instinct, particularly when it is not an original, but a Gestetner-duplicated copy which comes from an uncertain provenance with no kind of markings whatsoever, is it say, "Hello, what is this then?" If my eye immediately alights on German words that have been spelt wrong and, as I say, are neither fish nor foul, then that makes me slightly more nervous about it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, you backed off that in relation to the Müller document, did you not? A. I did not want to waste the court's time, my Lord. Q. Well, do not worry about that. A. Well, I appreciate your Lordship's impatience when I start looking at documents in detail. Q. No, no, I am not in the least bit impatient. I am interested to know. A. No, the reason why I backed off it, my Lord, is because I accepted that Hitler knew about these actions and there not much point going into that one.
Day 16, February 7th, 2000. [pages 84ff.] Q. Yes. Can we now turn to paragraph 4.5? This brings us to the interesting document, my Lord, of August 1st 1941? [...] MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, have you got this? It is probably quite useful to use this. MR IRVING: I am looking to see how original it is. I have sent a fax to Germany last night to ask for the original facsimile, but I do not think they are going to co-operate with me. MR JUSTICE GRAY: This is as good as we have got at the moment. It is Abschrift but we have not got anything else, have we?. MR RAMPTON: The printed one is 19, my Lord. MR IRVING: This is a pretty important document. We have all agreed in this courtroom, I think. This is August 1st 1941, Müller to the Einsatzgruppen ---? PROFESSOR BROWNING: Yes. Q. --- A, B, C and D. (To the witness): Can you translate the line "betrifft"? A. Concerning or subject? Q. Yes. Just translate that line, please. A. "The procuring of visual materials". Q. "The procuring of visual materials". I will translate the rest of the paragraph and interrupt me if you disagree. "The Führer is to be provided with" or, to be, "there are to be submitted to the Führer from here on a current basis reports on the work of the Einsatzgruppen in the East. For this purpose, particularly interesting visual materials like photographs, placards, leaflets and other documents are needed. In so far as such material falls into your hands or can be obtained, I ask it to be transferred to here as rapidly as possible." Would you read that as referring specifically to the killing operations of the Einsatzgruppen? A. I would say the first sentence refers to the current reports on the work of the Einsatzgruppen, and I think the likeliest, most plausible, interpretation is that is referring to the Einsatzgruppen reports, and then for the purpose, in a sense, of adding something to that, it would be especially interesting to get visual material. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of people being shot? MR IRVING: Other documents? A. Yes, they want documents, they want leaflets, they want placards. They do not say pictures of what, pictures relating to what the Einsatzgruppen are doing, presumably, or captured Soviet pictures. We do not know. Q. But the reference of this document, the subject matter, is "visual materials." A. But "in connection", that is for the purpose of keeping of the regular reports going to the Führer, they would like -- in a sense, it implies already there is an ongoing process of the Führer receiving reports and now they want, to sweeten that, they want visual aids to be added. My feeling is this implies a process already underway to which they now wish to add visual materials as well. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But the first time it says ---- MR IRVING: My contention is (and correct me if I am wrong) that earlier today we established that the Einsatzgruppen had several tasks, of which killing was one, as indicated in their reports? A. Yes. Q. One paragraph was the killing and the other paragraphs were the other tasks that they were involved in. Other tasks included the collection of intelligence documents and any material like that? A. Yes. Q. And if this message from Müller to the Einsatzgruppen commanders, A, B, C and D, simply says, "Concerning visual materials, the Führer is interested in the tasks of the Einsatzgruppen, he wants to be kept up-to-date on them. Please supply him with pictures, photographs, captured documents and the rest", am I not right in suggesting that this is not referring solely to the killing or possibly even to the killing at all? A. It is referring to the work of the Einsatzgruppen and, therefore, it does not exclude the killing, but it does not imply the killing is the only thing that is being reported. Q. Yes. A. But, basically, it is inclusive if it says "the work of the Einsatzgruppen" and, therefore, killing would be among the things that would be reported on a regular basis to him. Q. Well, we have another clue, Professor. There is a lot of documents in this bundle, and I am not going to ask you to look through them all, but would you like to hazard a guess, on the basis of your expert knowledge, at the security classification of all the documents connected with the Aktion Reinhardt or with the extermination programmes? Would they be Vertraulich (Confidential) or Geheim (Secret) or Geheime Reichssache (Top State Secret)? A. I think some are Geheim -- are gKdos [geheime Kommandosache], but there are, they vary and I think there are documents that do not have classification as well. Q. Would you look at the classification on this document and tell us what classification it is? A. "Geheim". Q. In other words, a very modest security rating? A. Yes. Q. Not a security rating you would associate with a document concerned with the Final Solution? A. Well, given that the contents going out, that there is nothing in here that stipulates, as you say, "Give us the reports and the photos of killings", there is nothing in the document that would require, as far as I can see, even a "secret". Q. Except that even intelligence matters would normally rate a security rating of secret anyway, would they not, like collecting documents and things like that, am I right? A. If there is a tendency to overclassify, someone could possibly stamp that on even though, as far as I can see, looking at this, there is no reason to classify the document at all. Q. In other words, it is a document of janitorial level. A. No. It is a document that does not reveal anything that if it were seen by others would pose any problem. MR JUSTICE GRAY: The Germans worked like that, did they, or the Nazis worked like that? If the ultimate topic was going to be secret, they did not introduce the higher security classification from day 1? Do you follow the question I am putting because I suspect maybe here we might operate differently, I do not know. MR IRVING: Professor, can I ask you to look at the letter register number or the file number just under the word "Reichssicherheitshauptamt" ---- A. Yes. Q. And after the letter at the end of that line is a letter "g."? A. Yes. Q. That indicates the file only has a secret rating? A. It would certainly indicate that this particular number has a secret rating. Q. Just above his signature at the bottom of the document, again ---- A. We have the same file number, yes. Q. We have a similar file number, again with just the letter "g." So the whole thing they are talking and writing about is only "g."-- geheim? A. Yes. Q. Would you be adventurous enough to hang a hypothesis on a document like that, or would you want to couch your hypothesis in the most guarded language and say this might quite possibly refer to the killing operations, on the other hand the document contains no specific reference? Would that be the way you would write it as a cautious historian? A. I would say that it has a reference to the work of the Einsatzgruppen, and that we should interpret this as referring to all of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen. Because we have seen the reports, we know that includes killing, but someone looking at this letter from the outside would not know that. Q. Yes. Have you any reason to believe that Hitler was shown photographs of the killing operations? A. I do not know. Q. Were there placards connected with the killing operations saying, "You are to assemble at such and such a place?" A. There were such placards put up, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can you give me an idea? It is really the scale of the thing. These Einsatzgruppen at this time, because we are talking about August 41, you may not be able to answer this, what proportion of their duties did shooting people occupy? MR IRVING: Not only that. I think that Professor Browning is right. I believe the first intercepts were mid August onwards, were they not, when they began reporting 30,000 shot? MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is what he said. MR IRVING: I draw Professor Browning's attention once more to the subject line of that document. The document is only concerning provision of "visual materials"? A. Yes, but the reason for the procurement of visual materials is to supplement the fact that the Führer is receiving regular reports. So we learn from a particular document about the procurement of visual materials, an existing policy of Hitler receiving current reports. Q. Can you -- I am not an expert on the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and I am not sure how much are you, but can you draw any conclusions from the desk number, shall we say, it is IV, that was the Gestapo? A. Yes. Q. Then we have A1. Now, Eichmann was A something was he not? A. It changes over time. At one point I think it is IVB4, that is the most common designation. Q. That is right. Eichmann was IVB4. So what would IVA1 be? Have you any idea? A. My guess is that it is the secretary, the administrative centre. This would be his own personal office. I do not have an office plan. One could find that out with an office plan. Q. A logical question arises from this document. Have you anywhere in any of the archives in which you have worked seen any documents generated by this request, either incoming to Müller from the Eastern Front or going from Berlin to Hitler in consequence of this? A. I have not seen any collections of photos that are marked as in reference to our order of August 1, these should be sent to the Führer. I have not seen such a thing. Q. Are there any collections of documents or placards or things relating to shootings on the Eastern Front that were sent to Hitler? A. I do not ---- Q. Either demonstrably or otherwise in connection with this order? A. I do not know of any evidence of particular photos or placards that were sent. Q. How many such reports on the work of the Einsatzgruppen were actually sent to Hitler that we know of? A. We do not know. Q. Have we seen any at all in the archives? A. We have seen various ones that are sent to different places but none of them are marked as a copy that was sent to the Führer's headquarters or whatever, no. Q. Apart from the famous Meldung number 51 --- A. Yes. Q. --- of December 1942? A. Yes. Q. Which we will come to in chronological sequence. My Lord, do you have any further questions on that August 1st document? It is quite important. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No. I think you have dealt with it very thoroughly. A. Can I add something? MR RAMPTON: Yes of course. A. This is an example of a document that was available in the West fairly early. Gerald Fleming quotes it in his book which was published I guess in 1982. It is found in the Zentralstelle [Ludwigsburg]. This is when they got there. They sent the copy to the Institute. The copy he cites here is the copy in the Bundesarchiv. So there are at least three copies of this in Germany. MR IRVING: Professor, would you agree that it is difficult to form an opinion just on a loose sheet of paper like this? You want to see the file it is in, is that correct? A. We would always prefer to see the whole file. I do not turn my back on an individual document because it is not everything that I would wish. Q. Would you also agree that, when you see a document like that, you should not jump up and down and say, Eureka, this is the Philosopher's Stone I have been looking for. A. I would be cautious not to yell Eureka, yes. Q. So historians in this respect are somewhat different from leading counsel, would you suspect? MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, Mr Irving. Next question.
Day 18, February 10th, 2000.
MR IRVING: May it please the court. Two or three minor housekeeping matters. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. […] MR IRVING: My Lord, the fourth matter concerns the document which you are familiar with, which is August 1st 1941 from Müller to the Einsatzgruppen chiefs, about which we spent some discussion. MR JUSTICE GRAY: And about the authenticity of it. MR IRVING: A serious problem has arisen because I contacted the West German archives, your Lordship will see that the second page of that little bundle I gave you, the bundle beginning with the words "from Monday", the second page of that is headed "translation", does your Lordship have the page? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR IRVING: A letter from me on February 7th this year to the German Federal Archives saying, this is a translation: "There is a big trial in London. I need an original copy of the following document." I give the reference number which is given by our witnesses in their bundles. MR IRVING: "I need it immediately. Professor Browning is going to be for the next three days only in the witness box. Could you please fax the documents, we need them in facsimile." I attach importance if possible to seeing the original documents rather than printed versions, as your Lordship appreciates. They replied to me yesterday, saying that document is not in the file. And to clarify any ambiguities as to what that letter meant, I spoke with Dr Lenz yesterday of the German Federal Archives in Berlin and he said, yes, that means this document is not in the file at all, it is full of completely different documents, which he then describes. There may be an innocent explanation for this but I would ask, before being questioned about this document as I understand the defence wish to, that I should be apprised as to where the original is and, if possible, shown a facsimile. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We have had evidence about that, but I am afraid it is not in my mind at the moment. I think it is been around for a long time, the Müller document, has it not? MR RAMPTON: It was published in 1982. I have Mr Irving's copy which he kindly gave me. MR IRVING: Loaned you. MR RAMPTON: Yes, of course. I have no intention permanently to deprive Mr Irving. The point is this, not what the authenticity of the document might be, but that it is in a book which Mr Irving has, and that is what I shall be cross-examining him about. I am not going back to history. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, but he can rely on this letter. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is all of this little clip connected with Müller? MR IRVING: No, my Lord. The final document in that little clip is actually a press report of 1983 in which Fleming refers to that very document. I include it purely because I found it by accident last night in my files. I would certainly rely on this little episode as being further proof of the negligence of the historians adduced as expert witnesses by the Defence in this case. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do we know where Fleming got the document from? MR IRVING: No. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is he still ---- MR IRVING: He is still extant. MR JUSTICE GRAY: -- alive and well? MR IRVING: Yes. I spoke to him a few days ago. He never wrote about it in a letter to me in his considerable correspondence which I searched. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I will leave this clip on one side. MR IRVING: We will be coming back to it in the course of the cross-examination of Professor Evans, my Lord.
Day 24, February 23rd, 2000.
[Mr Irving's cross examination of Dr Peter Longerich, German historian, expert witness for the Defence] [Pages 149ff.] Q. I would be interested. Do you know off the top of your head or from your memory what is the evidence that Hitler actually read the Einsatzgruppen reports? A. I should be cautious here. We have this document from the 1st August 1941. MR IRVING: Müller document? A. The Müller document, which I erroneously dated 2nd August, 41, in this report. I cannot find it for the moment. Q. That document does not show he was shown any? A. No, you are right. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Take this a little bit more slowly. Lets find your reference to the Müller document. Is that in your second report? MR RAMPTON: Yes. [...] A. I use the wrong date. It is definitely the 1st August. It says here: "Dem Führer soll von hier aus lfd Berichte über die Arbeit der Einsatzgruppen im Osten vorgelegt werden". In English, the Führer should be presented with continuous reports on the work of the Einsatzgruppen in the East from here. So it is an intention, yes. But we have also other evidence that were not only the Ereignismeldungen, which were done on a daily basis, but there were also monthly and bimonthly reports about the activities of the Einsatzgruppen. We know that these reports were widely circulated. They had a distribution list with more than a hundred names or institutions on it. These monthly reports were widely circulated among the different ministries. For example, in the Foreign Ministry one of the monthly reports was shown to 22 people. It is difficult, I think impossible, to argue that the result of the activities of the Einsatzgruppen could be hidden before anybody, because it was literally, I think hundreds of people actually in the official capacity have seen these reports. So I think that this is enough evidence to say that the intention that Hitler should see this, that this actually was carried out, because it could not be, it was impossible to hide it before. On the contrary, it is exactly what he himself demanded in these orders. It is about the destruction of the Bolshevik-Judaeo empire. That is what he wanted to hear and that is why they presented him I think with these reports. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You say he ordered it and it happened? A. Yes. MR IRVING: Now I have to ask supplementary questions on that of course. You say that these Einsatzgruppen reports had lengthy distribution lists. You mentioned "22 names" on one. A. Yes. Q. Was the Adjutantur des Führers, one of them? A. I did not say that 22, the Einsatzgruppen reports, we do not have complete distribution lists for every report and they vary from report to report. So I do not know. Q. Well let me ask in general terms. On any of the distribution lists was there any of Adolf Hitler's offices? A. We do not have a complete set of distribution lists. Q. Yes. On even one report then? A. I have to look to the reports. I cannot say this. I found in report No. 128 the Party Chancellery [Parteikanzlei], for instance, involved. If you want to argue that these operations of the Einsatzgruppen were hidden before Hitler ---- Q. --- hidden from --- ? A. From Hitler, sorry, then you must argue that [Martin] Bormann was part of this conspiracy because he received a copy, and he would not be alarmed and go to Hitler.
MR RAMPTON: I am sorry. I do not interrupt in the middle of an answer -- at least I try not to. Again, I am a bit troubled by all of this. I had the transcript reference some days ago, weeks ago, I have not got it at the moment. My recollection is that Mr Irving accepted in cross-examination, first that there was systematic mass shootings in the East by the Einsatzgruppen and, secondly, that they were approved by Hitler. So where are we going I ask myself?
]Pages 153ff] MR JUSTICE GRAY: Interrupt, if you would, again when you have the reference, but I think it is the sort of thing that we must have a reference on. Carry on, if you would, Mr Irving, unless and until you are interrupted. MR IRVING: Very briefly, from your knowledge, if you had seen an Einsatzgruppen report which had indicated in the distribution list that it had been shown to Hitler, or to Hitler's staff, or to his Adjutants, then you would have mentioned it, would you not? A. Yes. Q. Can you just say geographically where was the Party chancellery situated? A. The Party Chancellery, the main office, was in Munich, but they had of course a liaison office in Berlin, or wherever Hitler was. Bormann was, after he became secretary of the Führer, almost constantly a member of Hitler's personal entourage. He also made sure that the Party Chancellery was always represented in Hitler's entourage if he was not able to be present there. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have seen documents where Bormann is on the distribution list for these Ereignismeldungen? Q. Would that have been the Munich office? A. I think it only said Party Chancellery, and it says Party Chancellery in the main well .... Q. Let me ask another specific follow up. On all the copies that you have seen, are there any handwritten annotations like "has been submitted to the Führer" or anything like that? A. As far as I have seen, no, there is nothing like that. Q. No. Again if you had noticed that, you would have brought it to our attention? A. Yes. Q. It is not impossible they were shown to Hitler, but we have no evidence, is that right? A. I would phrase it much stronger. I would think it is inconceivable that Hitler was not informed about these reports because they were so widely circulated, and there was a specific order on 1st August actually that materials should be shown to him. Q. What period are you talking about now? Before December 1941 or after December 1941? A. We are talking about what? Q. The Einsatzgruppen reports where you say it is inconceivable that he was not shown them? A. The reports started in June and ended in March '42, and I think this would apply to the whole period because this letter actually from Müller which says it should be shown to him is from the early stages, from 1st August 1941. Q. The fact that the letter from Müller says that the Führer wants to be shown them does not necessarily mean to say that it was acted upon? A. Well, I assume that this was acted upon because, in general, orders by Müller were carried out as a very efficient head of the secret police. I think ---- Q. One example is that I requested that I should be shown proof of where this document is and that has not been acted upon either? MR IRVING: One further question on the Müller document. The subject of the Müller document is the "provision of visual materials", is it not? A. Yes. Well, it says, in particular, visual material, it does not include -- it does not exclude, of course, other material. It says "Dem Führer soll von hier aus lfd. Berichte über die Arbeit der Einsatzgruppen im Osten vorgelegt werden," so they should be continuously informed and, in particular, he is interested in visual material. Q. Will you read out what the topic line of the telegram is? A. Yes, the topic line is "Beschaffung von Anschauungsmaterial". So the topic line is the visual material. But, of course, if you look into this, I mean, if you really look into the text here, [German - document not provided] So you can read it as it is an established fact that Hitler should be on a continuous basis provided with reports, and for this purpose he needs, in particular, with the material, so it could be that this refers to an older, to an older, earlier order, and this is kind of common practice, established practice. Q. What were the tasks of the Einsatzgruppen that are referred to in this? A. Well, the tasks were basically the same, I would say, like the [German]. So they were, in particular, I mean, they, of course, had the explicit orders to execute enemies or potential enemies of the Reichs, particularly including the Jews, but also they had other tasks, in general, one could say intelligence work, for instance, to trace documents from the Communist Party, for instance. But also you can see from the reports that they were dealing with all kind of matters; they were dealing with the situation of the churches in the Soviet Union and with the food situation, and so on. Q. So these reports were sometimes, what, nine or ten paragraphs long of which only one paragraph concerned the killing of Jews? A. One is, I think, in general, they had a kind of scheme and there is one paragraph concerning the fate of Jews and the other paragraphs were concerning other issues. Q. So from the Müller telegram of 1st August 1941, is it plain what Hitler asked to be shown? A. "Visual material." Q. Everything, visual -- would there have been visual material about the killings? A. Well, it refers to posters. We know that there were posters, for instance, demanding the Jews had to -- my English is running out. Q. "Concentrate"? A. --- concentrate somewhere a place. It refers to other documents; photographs, there were definitely photographs of mass executions. So from this, from this list of things, I would say, yes. Q. Have you seen any photographs of mass executions in German files? A. I have not seen photographs of mass executions in German files like the Ministry or something like that.
Day 26, February 28th, 2000.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, Mr Irving. Now are you going at this stage to make the submissions you mentioned this morning about the ---- MR IRVING: After two or three other minor points, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, all right. Deal with the others first.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Just let us have a look. MR IRVING: I showed your Lordship my correspondence with the German Federal Archives in which they said they had checked the file and they have not found the document in the file as stated by the Defendants. MR RAMPTON: I think this has been sorted, but, my Lord, can I just ask Dr Longerich, because I think he probably has the answer to this. I think the short answer is, from what I remember of what I was told, is that, when Mr Irving -- it is not Mr Irving's fault -- telephoned to look for the document, they looked in the wrong file. I think it is as simple as that. I am quite certain that the document is there and elsewhere. I have a belief that it is at Ludwigsburg, which is the centre for prosecutions, but can I just take instructions? MR IRVING: Quite simply, my Lord, the reason is that I would like to know what else is in that file, of course. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Pause a minute and we will see what the result of the huddle is. MR RAMPTON: I am sorry about that, my Lord, but I think I am right. The united brains of German historical research tell me that the file number which was given by Mr Irving, through no fault of his own, to the person at the Bundesarchiv was the wrong one. It is in the Bundesarchiv, but it is also in the Zentralstelle at Ludwigsburg. MR IRVING: The German government archives are corresponding with me because I am offering them something by way of a horse trade at present. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Why do you not keep that up? What are you asking me to do? MR IRVING: I need to know the actual file number of course, my Lord. I need to know the correct file number. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is fair enough. Mr Rampton, when you have found out which file number or numbers it is in, will you pass that on to Mr Irving? MR RAMPTON: Yes, we will let Mr Irving know. MR IRVING: The second problem, my Lord, it is not a problem, is that I learned from yesterday's Israeli newspapers that the Defendants are applying for access to Adolf Eichmann's private papers. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I saw that this morning. MR IRVING: I welcome this initiative. Would they also apply to the Israeli government for access to Heinrich Himmler's private diaries which are in the Israeli archives?
Day 29, March 2nd, 2000.
[Mr Irving again cross-examined by Richard Rampton QC] [Pages 83ff.] Q. As we discussed earlier today in this court, recent discoveries have very little bearing on your competence or honesty as an historian. Page 86 Mr Irving. What is it that Professor Fleming is reciting on the top of that page? A. He is referring to the Müller document, about which of course I have made representations to this court, dated August 1st 1941. Q. Yes. The Müller document, saying the Führer is to have running or continuous information, or reports, about the work of the Einsatzgruppen in the East. A. Got to be kept au courant. Q. Laufend is the German. A. I was using a French phrase, on the work of the Einsatzgruppen in the East, yes. Q. Do you remember that I put it to you in cross-examination that, contrary to what you said in court, you were indeed familiar with the Müller order of 1st August? A. You put to me, yes. Q. Are you saying you did not read this passage in Fleming's book? A. I have to say that you are asking me about something 18 years later but I can say with great confidence that, as there are no kind of markings on those pages, then, with the high degree of probability, I did not read them. Q. Then I asked you by reference to this very passage, "Have you read Gerald Fleming's book?" And your answer is, "I have not read that book". A. I have not read the book as such, no. But may I also say that had I seen that passage about the Müller document, which is very interesting, obviously, I would have written to my friends at the Institute of History or the very next time I went there, -- because that is the source he gives there, footnote 172, -- and on my next visit to Munich after 1982 I would have said, "Can I, by the way, have a look at that file, please?" and, obviously, that is one indication that I did not see that document. But I have to say that I will have submissions to make about that document when the time comes, unless the Defence can produce the exact file of where it is stated to be. Q. Do not worry; we are working on it, Mr Irving. Don't you worry about that. A. Well, I am just reminding... Q. We have plenty of time and lots of contacts. Many rabbits ---- A. Well, I need time after I have been told the file number, of course, to make use of it. Q. There are many rabbits in this burrow.
Day 30, March 6th, 2000.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can I mention some things that perhaps should be done before [closing speeches] speeches. One is the Müller document. MR RAMPTON: Yes, it is in hand. It is being dealt with by Dr Longerich who is dealing directly with Munich and I think also with Ludwigsburg where it is thought there is another copy. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Bearing in mind how quick Munich was to respond on the other document, I would be hopeful that you would be able to let me have something this week. MR RAMPTON: Yes. This is more problematical because they have been given the wrong file reference. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I thought they had tracked down the right file? MR RAMPTON: No, they know that it is the wrong one. They think they have the document but they have got to find it. MR IRVING: The problem with Munich is all that all that they have is a duplicated copy. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I know and that is why enquiries are being made of other archives, as I understand it. That is fine.
[Comment: The file was never produced to Mr Irving, either before the trial ended, or after, despite an order from the Court to do so. The Germans merely produced another copy of the same duplicated version, without any of the surrounding documents.]
Day 31, March 14th, 2000. [Pages 6ff] MR IRVING: I do not know whether this is the right point to your Lordship's attention to the fact that I am challenging now the Müller document, purely on the basis that it has not been provided to me in the way that your Lordship ordered -- the August 1st 1941 document -- and this might be the place with which to deal with that. I have dealt with it in the submission that I handed in this morning. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, you will have to direct me to where it comes because, obviously, I have not read it. MR IRVING: I have not got it with me, my Lord, but, basically, the document was supplied to me on the weekend. It does not advance our knowledge as to the original document or the original file. There are no surrounding documents provided with it. I have not been able to make any more detailed researches into the nature of the document. So I have made a submission in the document I have handed your Lordship, both on the admissibility of that [Müller] letter and, if your Lordship is minded to admit the letter in evidence, nonetheless, also on the content of the letter. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, this is all a bit opaque to me. Are you able to point to where you deal with this in your revised closing statement? I simply do not know my way around it all because I have only seen it within the last couple of minutes. MR IRVING: It was finished at 5 o'clock this morning. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I can understand that. Even so, if I am going to make sense of what you are telling me about the Müller document, I need to have the references, do I not? MR IRVING: I shall have to hold that over then, my Lord, until tomorrow. MR RAMPTON: My Lord, I simply do not understand this. I have never understood, apart from the fact that he does not like its contents, what Mr Irving's problem with this document has been. We have many documents in the file which are original Nazi documents headed "Abschrift" by the person who made the copy because that is what they are. They are copies of original documents that have disappeared, but they are contemporaneous copies. We now have three copies of this document, one from Moscow which is where the original copy is held in the archive. That is the one that looks like that. It has a front cover that looks like that. Your Lordship has had all these, I think? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not remember that front cover. Can you give me the reference? [...] MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I am just reminding myself of what the points were that Mr Irving took and he will tell me if there are any others. Firstly, it is an Abschrift; secondly, it has a rather [low] security classification given its contents, just "Geheim". MR RAMPTON: There are plenty of those. MR JUSTICE GRAY: And also Mr Irving, I think, said that he had been told by the German Federal archives that the document is not to be found in the file from which it purports to come. MR RAMPTON: Well, the explanation for that, I know not. As I said, my speculation is that it is just a reference to the wrong file. What I do now know, and Mr Irving knows and your Lordship knows, is that the original document, the original Abschrift, is held in Moscow. A copy of that has been sent to us from Moscow, sent to Dr Longerich. There is another copy at the prosecution centre at Ludwigsburg, that we also have. There is another copy in the archive in Munich, that we also have. MR IRVING: My Lord, the problem I have with the document is it is very analogous to the Schlegelberger document. The Defendants were able, in my view unsuccessfully, to attack the Schlegelberger document on the basis of the other documents in the same file. We have been shown just this one [Müller] document. I am not able to attack it on the basis of other documents in the same file because, firstly, I was given the wrong file number and the Bundesarchiv told me, "This is the wrong file number". Secondly, we have once again only been shown exactly the same copy which appears to be a copy which has been recopied for various other archives inside Germany. We have not been told what else is in that file which may give it a completely innocent meaning. I submit that the content of the document is relatively innocent anyway, but, in view of the fact that the Defendants have had two months to provide me with sufficient identifying material which would enable me to identify the file so that I could rummage around in the rest of the file, in the same way as the Defendants were able to do with the Schlegelberger document, I submit that your Lordship should say this is one document that should not be added to Mr Irving's burden. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, there was a stage in the trial when I think it was proposed that the Defendants should write to I think the archive in Munich to try to find out what documents, therefore, in whichever archive this did come from. I do not know whether that happened.
MR IRVING: My Lord, it does actually have SS runes in the last line. MR RAMPTON: It is an original Abschrift, that is the point. It was an Abschrift made by some SS person at this time, August 1941. There cannot be any doubting that. If Mr Irving wanted, as it were, to skew or displace the document's obvious significance, then it was up to him to do so. The document has been in the file since goodness knows when. It is no part of our burden to stand up a document which is on its face quite evidently authentic. MR IRVING: My Lord, the problem is I have not been able to go behind that document, if I can put it like that, because the wrong file was given to me. They have not provided me with the correct file number. They have provided me just repeatedly with the same Abschrift or copy, and all this has been done literally after the close of business on Friday, including sending me a document which they had received on January 28th, 42 days earlier, and they had only just forwarded to me, namely the copy they got from Munich, and this has made it impossible for me to go behind that particular document. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We are launching into the detail of this one document, and there is a lot of other ground to cover, but are you saying to me that you would like to be told and have disclosed to you by the Defendants such correspondence as has taken place between them and the Munich archive? MR IRVING: That would be a very useful Order for your Lordship to make. If it turns out that they did not make the enquiries that your Lordship directed, then I would submit your Lordship should properly say in that case, "I will not admit this document in evidence". MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is stage two as it were. Mr Rampton, why should I not make an order that Mr Irving sees whatever correspondence there has been? MR RAMPTON: Because there is not any correspondence. It was done orally by Dr Longerich so far as I am aware. If there is a letter back from the Munich archive which I do not know about, which Mr Irving ought to see, then of course I will disclose it, or if your Lordship would like to see it. MR IRVING: Then of course we can see if there is any reference to the ---- MR RAMPTON: So far as I know, there is no correspondence. Can I ask your Lordship to look at the fax cover? There are two fax covers. MR IRVING: The analogy, my Lord, would be if I produced only the Schlegelberger document without the surrounding documents in that file. MR RAMPTON: That is as may be. I rather doubt it myself. I have no idea of the size of the file to which this document may belong. For all I know, it may contain thousands of documents. It is not as though Mr Irving is confined to Munich. There are two other archives in which this document resides. You will see this is not Munich, this is Ludwigsburg who has written to Dr Longerich. MR IRVING: My Lord, it is not only the authenticity, it is also the purport of the document, if I can put it like that. MR RAMPTON: I believe your Lordship's note may not be precisely accurate. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can somebody track it down? MR RAMPTON: I am told, I have not done it of course, that those around me, including Miss Rogers and my instructing solicitors, have searched transcripts for this last week. The bit I just read was the relevant bit, and Mr Irving said on page 128 of the same day: "I need to know the actual file number of course. I need to know the correct file number". Your Lordship said: "That is fair enough, Mr Rampton. When you have found out which file number or numbers it is in, will you pass that on to Mr Irving?" In fact, we did a good deal more than that, because we discovered the document, as I say, in three different archives, and he has had all three copies. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think the passage you just read out pretty much bears out what I had in my note, if I may say so, but I think we are getting a little bit bogged down in the Müller document.
Day 32, March 15th, 2000.
[Both sides made their closing statements. Mr Irving's closing statement was five hours long. The transcript shows interpolations by the Court.] MR IRVING: They have withdrawn the witness reports of the Russian archivists, and will provide me no opportunity to cross-examine them. I was prepared to pursue those cross-examinations most vigorously. I produced a witness statement from Mr Peter Millar of The Sunday Times, my colleague in Moscow, and I made him available for cross-examination. He confirmed that there was no verbal or written agreement, as I had also stated in my various replies, so therefore I could not have broken it. The Defendants have left no satisfactory evidence before the court that refutes this, in my submission. Mr Millar also confirmed to the court that he did not agree that my conduct gave rise to significant risk of damage to the plates. The plates had been withheld from historians by the Russians for 55 years or more. (That figure of course is wrong. It is 48 years at that time, I am sorry. The plates [of Goebbels diaries] have been withheld from historians for 48 years or more.) By my actions I made this historically very important materials available to the world, and I placed copies of them in the appropriate German archives at my own expense. My Lord, I make submission now on the Heinrich Müller document. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think I would read that out if I were you. I think that is not the best way of dealing with it. MR IRVING: No. I will leave it as a written submission. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Have you seen what -- I am sure you have seen it because I have a copy of a letter to you with attachments. MR IRVING: I have seen it, my Lord, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: In the light of those attachments and including Professor Longerich's really quite helpful account of his investigations, what is your submission? MR IRVING: I am not challenging the authenticity of the document, my Lord, but I am asking that attention be paid to the fact that it is highly unsatisfactory that I am not provided in good time, in a timeous manner, with the file that I needed in order to go behind the document and establish whether there was anything which would undermine the purport that the defendants were seeking to attach to that document. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You mean the other documents in the same file? MR IRVING: Like in the case of the Schlegelberger document, which enabled the Defendants to attack the meaning of the Schlegelberger document, because they had documents relating to it in the same file which enabled them to narrow it down and say this is clearly a reference to the Mischlinge. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Sorry, we are talking about the Müller document, are we not? MR IRVING: I could have gone behind the Müller document, using the other documents in the same file. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You mean as you did with Schlegelberger? MR IRVING: As they did with Schlegelberger. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I follow. I am not quite sure, Dr Longerich wrote to Dr Aaron Reich, as I understand it, to see what other documents there were in the file, but I do not know what the result was, or indeed when the question was asked. You do not know either? MR IRVING: I asked the question and I was given a totally fictitious file number in the German Federal archives. MR RAMPTON: Not by us. MR JUSTICE GRAY: As I understand it, and do not let us talk over each other too much, my understanding is that first time around the wrong file number was given, but then later the correct file number is thought to have been discovered, which then prompted Dr Longerich to write to or to fax Dr Aaron Reich, asking if he could say what the other documents in this file are. MR IRVING: The correct file number was then notified to me this last weekend, which of course gave me no time whatsoever to do the kind of research that I would have had to do. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Anyway, your position is you do not deny its authenticity, but you do say that the provenance is unsatisfactory. MR IRVING: I do say it has been improperly produced to me, in a manner which has made it impossible for me to attack its meaning, but I have attacked its meaning nevertheless in my submission. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I know you have. MR IRVING: I am not seriously worried about it because I am sure that your Lordship will accept what I said about the meaning. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do you mind if I ask Mr Rampton what the explanation of---- MR IRVING: Can I just finish? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. You have some other points?
[...]
|
 to
his fighting fund. |
to
which my answer has always been accurately on oath, "No, I
have not read it". We have looked at two documents today in
detail, one of which is the 
[Comment:
Whenever things got dangerous for the Defence, defence
Counsel Rampton would leap to his hind legs and interrupt
with some point in the hope of distracting the Court. He
ofteb succeeded, and the Judge did not discourage these
interruptions.]