Day 12 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

Part I: Initial Proceedings (1.1 to 10.2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London Monday, 31st January 2000 Before: MR JUSTICE GRAY B E T W E E N: DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING Claimant -and- (1) PENGUIN BOOKS LIMITED (2) DEBORAH E.

LIPSTADT Defendants The Claimant appeared in person MR RICHARD RAMPTON Q.C. (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons and Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the First and Second Defendants MISS HEATHER ROGERS (instructed by Davenport Lyons) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant Penguin Books Limited MR ANTHONY JULIUS (of Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant Deborah Lipstadt (Transcribed from the stenographic notes of Harry Counsell &Company, Clifford’s Inn,

Fetter Lane, London EC4 Telephone: 020-7242-9346) (This transcript is not to be reproduced without the written permission of Harry Counsell &Company) PROCEEDINGS – DAY TWELVE

<Day 12 Monday, 31st January 2000. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, Mr Irving? MR IRVING: My Lord, there are two or three minor housekeeping matters left over from the testimony of Professor van Pelt. If I can put them to you. There are five points, actually very minor ones. Firstly, I was wrong about Tauber in one respect and it is quite right that I should —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: What, bending down? MR IRVING: I beg your pardon? Bending down, yes. It was the witness Bendal who had bent down.

The reference is to crematorium (iv) and not (ii) which was, if you remember, the one we were shown with the shutters on the wall on the side. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, the 30 by 40 centimetres? MR IRVING: I beg your pardon? MR JUSTICE GRAY: 30 by 40 centimetres? MR IRVING: The shutters, yes, but obviously I was wrong on that. It was with reference to the other eyewitness. I was right about the air raid. It was

on May 5th 1943. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You say air raid in the singular — just the one? MR IRVING: Just the one. There had been an air raid before the document dated May 5th 1943. The night before there had been an air raid. You amy remember Professor van Pelt saying he thought there was no air raids until 1944.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Was that an Russian air raid or an Allied? MR IRVING: That I do not know, but it is referred to in a volume known to the Defence, the Auschwitz Chronicle, which is a relatively authoritative work. Your Lordship enquired one or two days earlier what the reference was for the fact that Professor van Pelt alleged in his report that I had only disclosed the existence of the Almeyer report after it was referred and after solicitors for the Defendants obtained it.

The reference is page 390 of his report. My Lord, I have these points listed on a sheet of paper which I can hand to your clerk. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is probably a good idea, if you would not mind? MR IRVING: My Lord, you remember we described the witness Olaire, the artist, and I referred to an incident with sausages, the SS-made sausage from the victims , according to Olaire, and I was not able to find the specific reference. It is in Pressac, as I said, on page 554.

It is on the fourth column of the page, lines 17 to 22. Finally, my Lord, I asked witness van Pelt if he was familiar with a book by Mr Brugioni, B-R-U-G-I-O-N-I, called “Photo Fakery”. He was one of the CIA experts who had first published the air photographs with the dots on the roof. That is the jacket of the book, my Lord. Those are the only which points I wish to refer

to and, with your Lordship’s permission, I will now call my witness, Professor McDonald. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Just before you do, can I just mention two things to Mr Rampton? The first is that Professor van Pelt was going to do a little sort of elementary —- MR RAMPTON: He was going to, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: — sketch, I do not mean drawing but… MR RAMPTON: Diagram, plan. MR JUSTICE GRAY: And a little explanation of what was where and so on. MR RAMPTON: That is right.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is just to remind you about that. The other thing is — this goes back a few days now — Mr Irving’s various speeches on which you rely, mostly in the US and Canada and some in Australia, I think I have already asked if it would be possible to have, ideally on tape, the excerpts that you rely on. MR RAMPTON: On tape? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR RAMPTON: You mean if they are —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: On a disk. MR RAMPTON: Yes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is that something you have got in hand? MR RAMPTON: Yes, it is all in hand. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Good. MR RAMPTON: What your Lordship will get in the end — your

Lordship has a hard copy file of the denial passages marked up already; for other categories of statement, that will also happen — is a disk also marked up in the same way. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You can see why it is going to be physically much easier to handle. MR RAMPTON: It is going to make it a lot easier, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much. MR IRVING: My Lord, can I enquire?

When you refer to the bundle of transcripts, does your Lordship take cognisance of the entire transcript, even if a particular passage is not relied on here? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think I have said this in court already and, if I have not, I will say it now. I really want to know what they are relying on. You can always take the point that it is taken out of context or it does not put the true flavour of what you have said, but the starting point must be that I know what they rely on.

MR IRVING: Indeed, my Lord, but if there were other passages there which caught your eye which I would otherwise normally have required to address your Lordship on, I am not aware of that. There is a danger, therefore, that you may take these as gospels when, in fact —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: We can be quite open about it. Once this disk is to hand, then you can see it and, if there are any particular points you want to make on it, then you can.

Right. Professor McDonald? I am bound to say, having read his report, I am not clear to what issues a lot of it goes, but perhaps you can —- MR IRVING: Will I be allowed to examine him briefly to start with? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think you should because that may —- MR IRVING: Help to bring out some of the issues on which we rely. MR JUSTICE GRAY: — reveal to me what is not at present clear, namely how his evidence is really relevant to the issues I have to decide.

MR IRVING: I appreciate that, your Lordship, and your Lordship will have noticed possibly that there is a bundle there which has freshly grown on your desk called bundle E, which I am not asking your Lordship, of course, to look at today. I am only going to rely on one document in it or two documents, in fact, including the covering letter as far as today is concerned. It is a document from the Defendants’ own discovery, so I am not actually springing it on them.

This is a bundle of documents which, I suggest, shows that I have been the victim of an international endeavour to destroy my legitimacy as an historian. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, yes, but remember- —- MR IRVING: Of which the Second Defendant has made herself a part.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Remember the Defendant is Professor Lipstadt and, therefore, it is her activities or activities for which she can be held accountable which may have some relevance. MR IRVING: Yes, but if she has made herself part of a broader endeavour, then that goes to my claim that this is an aggravated libel, I would submit, and —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us see how the evidence turns out. MR IRVING: — let us see how we get along, my Lord, shall we?

Professor MacDonald. < PROFESSOR KEVIN McDONALD, sworn. < Examined by MR IRVING. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Professor McDonald, if you want to sit down, please feel free to do so. MR IRVING: Professor McDonald, I must ask you to speak up and also slowly because of the burden placed on the transcribers and also the difficulties with the language, of course. You are Professor Kevin McDonald? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: You are Professor of Psychology at California State University? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: And you have a Doctorate in Biobehavioural Sciences from University of Connecticut? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: You are the author of six books?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: That is correct. Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you describe in very brief terms to the court the three major books which you have published, beginning with “A people that shall dwell alone”, just in two or three lines setting out —- Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Right. My background is a evolutionary biology, and beginning in the early 1990s I started writing what turned out to be three books on Judaism from an evolutionary perspective.

The first book was “A People that shall dwell alone”, Judaism as an evolutionary, a group evolutionary strategy, just basically describing Judaism from the standpoint of my evolutionary biology, including the ideology of Judaism, the segregation of the Jewish gene pool from surrounding peoples, resource competition between groups, and so on, co-operation within the group and so on.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Can you describe that roughly then as the relationship between the Jewish community as a whole and the rest of the world? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, but it was focused mainly on describing Judaism and its relationship, yes, with… Q. [Mr Irving]: Was that book well received in academic circles? Has it been generally accepted almost as a standard work? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, it has had good reviews within evolutionary, you know, periodicals, yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: You are also a member of the executive board of the Human

Behaviour and Evolution Society? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: That is correct. Q. [Mr Irving]: And your second book was “Separation and its Discontents”. Would you again in two or three lines just describe what the content of that book is and its thrust?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: “Separation and its Discontents” focused anti-Semitism from the evolutionary respect and from the perspective of social psychology, in other words, trying to develop an understanding of anti-Semitism within the purview, you might say, of modern and social science, and so it is focused on anti-Semitism but also on the tactics that Jewish organisations use to combat anti-Semitism. Q. [Mr Irving]: What kinds of tactics are you referring to when you say that?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Well, in the chapter where I described the tactics the Jewish organizations have used, I, in fact, mentioned the St Martin’s Press rescinding a publication of the Goebbels’ Diary which is why Mr Irving contacted me. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. So in that particular book you actually refer to the manner in which a New York publisher suppressed a book under pressure from the Jewish community? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, from the Anti-defamation League, yes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I think that can only be relevant, surely, if it can be established that the Defendants were in some way involved in St Martin’s Press cancelling that contract.

MR IRVING: In that case I would draw you attention then when the time comes to a third document here, my Lord, which is the Washington Post on the morning before St Martin’s Press took its decision and they quoted the Second Defendant as an authority for their decision. Your Lordship may consider it to be tenuous or you may consider it to be relevant. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I do not consider it to be tenuous. I just wonder how this witness can help on this.

MR IRVING: Well, setting it in its broader context, as saying this is not just a misfortune that has befallen me, but is part of a group strategy, my Lord, and difficult though it is to establish, I will do what I can for the next five or 10 minutes and then turn him to whatever cross-examination Mr Rampton desires to make. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But I understand the way you put it. Thank you.

Part II: Irving discusses his persecution and Rampton examines why certain groups find his allegations distasteful (10.18 to 80.16)

Section 10.18 to 25.8

MR IRVING: So you perceived the Jewish community as working in a certain way in order to suppress a certain book? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Well, there were several tactics the Jewish organizations have used. That was another one. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. You have had a chance to read most of this bundle, which is identified by me as bundle E —- Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, I have.

Q. [Mr Irving]: — over the weekend, is that correct? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, I have. Q. [Mr Irving]: Could you, again in just a very few lines, describe how the documents you have read in that bundle support or refute your own — I have to ask what these papers are that you are looking at. Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: This is simply a statement that I wrote out.

Q. [Mr Irving]: I think we will have to ask you to testify really from within yourself rather than from the written paper. Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes. I was not aware of that. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Having read the bundle of documents, would you describe roughly what the bundle of documents comprises?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Well, the bundle of documents comprises a record of suppression of David Irving, cancelling of speeches, avoiding of contracts, as a result of pressure of various Jewish organizations in different countries. Q. [Mr Irving]: Just from one country or from several countries? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: From several countries — Canada, South Africa, Australia, I believe. Q. [Mr Irving]: You would put the suppression of that book within that framework?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes. If I had known about that actually, I would have explained in that section, including more examples of that, showing some examples of that. Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you seen items in this bundle which lead you to believe that the Second Defendant has made herself a part

of that endeavour? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, I have. There was an article in the Washington Post quoting her — I do not have the exact quote here. I can read it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you are going to rely on it in some way, perhaps you could tell me what it says? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes. MR IRVING: It is —- Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: OK.

In the Washington Post of April 3, 1996, she is quoted as saying: “In the past … it says that in every generation there shall be those who rise up to destroy us. David Irving is not physically destroying us, but is trying to destroy the memory of those who have already perished at the hands of tyrants. They say that they do not publish reputations, they publish books, but would they publish a book by Jeffery Damer on man, boy relationships?

Of course, the reputation of the author counts and no legitimate historian takes David Irving’s work seriously”. It is that last part that certainly drew my attention because I have seen historians praise his work, but also just the fact that she was literally part of the pressure on St Martin’s Press. Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I ask you to go to page 250 of the bundle? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: I do not have a copy here. Q. [Mr Irving]: I will give you a copy.

This is bundle E, if you go to page 250 of bundle E?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Is that a letter from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to the Second Defendant, Mrs Deborah Lipstadt? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, it is on the head of Simon Wiesenthal, signed by Saul Litman. Q. [Mr Irving]: Does it make reference to a student paper I sent to you? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Does Mr Litman who wrote the letter conclude the letter saying, “Please recognize that it is not for publication or direct quotation. It is, after all, an unedited student’s work and contains many phrases and comments that neither you or I would use in a situation which clearly involves considerable delicacy”? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, that is a direct quote. Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you now turn to page 251? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Is this, apparently, an anonymous report of approximately —- Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: 25 pages. Q. [Mr Irving]: — 12 pages or thereabouts called, “History Rewritten, the World of David Irving”? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you seen anything in that report which indicates that there has been a deliberate attempt made by an organization to destroy my legitimacy as an historian? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Well, yes, on page 253 —-

MR JUSTICE GRAY: What do you say this document is that you are looking at, Professor McDonald? MR IRVING: It was a document that was provided to the Second Defendant by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is the one referred to in the letter you have just taken us to? MR IRVING: We have to presume so, my Lord. It took a certain amount of fight to obtain a copy of this for the solicitors. I had to obtain court order finally to obtain a copy of it.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I see. MR IRVING: They provides what looks like the covering letter in a separate episode and gave it the same discovery number, No. 500. But all I propose to do is to rely on the content of this document which went to the Second Defendant, and you have drawn our attention to page 253, and which paragraph do you consider is suggestive of an attempt to destroy my legitimacy as an historian?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: In the first full paragraph, is still in the introduction, it refers to quotes later on from you, but then it says in the middle of that paragraph: “These quotes serve as a clear example of why he should not be allowed to disseminate his message of hate as freely in other public forums”. Q. [Mr Irving]: Which paragraph is that again? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: The first full paragraph on page 253.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Beginning with the words “The focus of”? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: “These quotes serve as a clear example of why he should not be allowed to disseminate his message of hate as freely in other public forums”? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: That is quite correct, and further —- Q. [Mr Irving]: At the bottom of that page, can I draw your attention to the sentence beginning, “The importance of” —- Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: — “such work is to deny Irving the legitimacy he so desires in his attempts to spread his anti-Semitic and racist messages”, and are there any other passages in that which indicate an organized attempt to destroy my legitimacy? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, just a minute here.

It probably bears mentioning on page 256 that, although the author of this report does view David Irving as a flawed historian, it is acknowledged that his revisionist themes are interspersed with genuine historical insight. Again, that is, sort of, what exercises me, but at the bottom of page 258, the last paragraph on page 258. Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you read it out, please? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: The entire paragraph? Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: “David Irving’s techniques challenge the most educated minds to adopt his version of reality. By revealing

Irving’s methods, the illusion is portrayed as facts and his writings have been unveiled. Hence, while claiming to be a legitimate historian, Irving can now be identified with his underlying purpose, to morally rehabilitate Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich. Given this accurate version of reality, it is all the more clear why his activities must be curtailed and why his alleged legitimacy must be eradicated”.

Q. [Mr Irving]: There is one particular passage, is there not, that you have read where they actually talk about the need to destroy my legitimacy as an historian? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Well, I believe that was the main one. The final — no, OK, yes, on page 273. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: The author goes into various possibilities of how to deal with David Irving, one of which was just to go for free speech, but the other suggests, it says, “In the case of” — this is on page 253 —- Q. [Mr Irving]: “In the case of David Irving”, right? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: It is after the indent quote — what? Q. [Mr Irving]: The third paragraph, right?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: OK, yes. “In the case of David Irving, in his brand of Holocaust denial, the ultimate response is to cease providing him with a forum to convey his skewed version of history and to negate his attempts to obliterate the memory of millions of victims.”

And I might point out also the last paragraph on page 276, where he quotes John Keegan: “No historian of the Second World War can afford to ignore David Irving”. So, again, despite the fact that he is regarded among historians as important, some one must read, there are attempts to make, to curtail his freedom of speech, and so on. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Professor McDonald, how does that establish that Professor Lipstadt is part of this conspiracy to discredit Mr Irving?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: To my knowledge and my only, the only linkage between Professor Lipstadt and this is the Washington Post interview. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: What has this to do with the Washington Post? MR IRVING: My Lord, this document was from Professor Lipstadt’s own discovery. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I follow that. It is a document that she was sent, apparently unsolicited, by the Simon Wiesenthal organization. What does that prove against her?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Well, OK, this document — there is not, but my impression was that David Irving has a general complaint about persecution by Jewish organizations and that is what I thought we were addressing here. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I see. Thank you. MR IRVING: My Lord, your Lordship said “unsolicited”. In fact, there are other documents in this bundle where we

see the second Defendant specifically writing to all these bodies asking, effectively, what dirt they have on me, both in Canada and in the United States and in London. There is a whole list of them whom she thanks in her introduction, whereupon your Lordship will see from this bundle on a later date — I shall draw your Lordship’s attention to it — that I made an application for specific discovery of these items.

Unfortunately, we are not going to have a chance to cross-examine the Second Defendant on the completeness of her discovery, and I have done what best I can to establish what information she had. May I proceed? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, please. MR IRVING: Professor McDonald, have you seen correspondence in this bundle between the Second Defendant and the Yad Vashem and, in particular, with Professor Yehuda Bauer, B-A-U-E-R? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, I have.

Q. [Mr Irving]: What was the content of that correspondence in brief? We can look at the correspondence —- Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Do you have the page number for it? In brief, the content was to remind Professor Lipstadt of the importance of including David Irving in the book. Q. [Mr Irving]: Had she not then included me in the original draft of her book from the correspondence that you have seen? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: I believe it was that you were mentioned in that, but the

clear intent was to emphasise you to a greater extent than it was before. Q. [Mr Irving]: So Professor Bauer, who was the commissioning, the head of the Institute which paid the commission to Professor Lipstadt to write this research project originally, received the original draft and he said, “Not good enough, we need more on David Irving”, is that what he said? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: That is a fair summary. Q. [Mr Irving]: I will see if we can find the exact letter.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Page 161. MR IRVING: Thank you very much, my Lord. I am indebted to you. Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: 161. Q. [Mr Irving]: Will you please turn to page 161? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: He says, and it is fair to say this, in a letter to the Second Defendant: “The book is extremely well written and fascinating”, this is 1992, “but I suppose what you want is a critique. What I miss in the main is the world wide perspective”.

Then he goes on a bit lower down to say that, in his view, the author has concentrated too much on North America and I believe on France. “Irvin is mentioned but not that he is the mainstay of Holocaust denial today in Western Europe”. So what do you think Professor Bauer is asking her to do? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: He is clearly asking her to expand the coverage on you.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Right. If you will now turn to page 163, a month later we have a letter from the Second Defendant to an Englishman, Anthony Lerman, who wears various hats. Here he is at a newspaper or magazine called “Patterns of Prejudice”, and is it fair to say this is a letter asking her for more information on David Irving because she has now been given the job of shoe-horning this British author into the book?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, that seems to be the import of that letter. Q. [Mr Irving]: Does she say,”I am just finishing up the book and, as you can well imagine, David Irving figures into it quite prominently”. Do you have in your files a few Irving articles from recent months?” So would you say that she is now asking for whatever various bodies around the world because there were other letters, are there not, of this nature?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, and she clearly views him as one of the most dangerous figures. Q. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, the reason I am asking these questions is as a means of putting these letters before the court. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I see your difficulty and I see what you are doing. This seems to me to be more relevant than the general sort of evidence that the Professor was giving earlier. So let us see what the reply was, shall we? MR IRVING: I hear what you say.

I am very nearly finished, in fact, with the examination. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, this is not irrelevant.

MR IRVING: On the following page, page 1674, does Anthony Lerman, now on the headed notepaper of the Institute of Jewish Affairs, say that he is going to fax a lot of material to her? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: From your reading of this file, have you observed that various Jewish organizations maintain files on people like that? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: It is quite clear, yes, from this file plus from other things I have read, yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you know any names of other famous authors that they have kept files on, both Jewish and non-Jewish? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Noam Chomsky comes to mind — I cannot think of specific names right now. Q. [Mr Irving]: Very well. Do you think that these organizations give a chance to the victims of their dossier keeping to have a look in those files to see if the materials they keep in them are correct or not?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Not without a great deal of legal proceedings. I should say there are other people, like people associated with the Institute of Historical Review and other so-called revisionists, and they are, well, they do keep documents, dossiers, in there. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Did you see an affidavit in this file from the Director of a British organization, a similar British organization, in which he confirms that he provided

material on me to the Canadian Government indirectly? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes. I do not recall the page again, but, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: And for the purpose purely of abrogating my freedom of speech in Canada? Would you agree that is correct? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: That is correct, and there are several instances in which your talks and so on were — there was pressure placed on organizations, hotels or wherever the venues were, to cancel these talks and so on.

Q. [Mr Irving]: So we are now going from the particular of what you have seen in this file very briefly back to the general, do you consider what you have seen in this file by way of evidence in my particular case, over the last 10 years, to be part of a group strategy that has been evolved by the Jewish communities around the world to protect themselves or to preserve their interests?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Yes, I think that anti-Semitism is, you know, a perennial problem, and Jewish organizations have developed very sophisticated ways of dealing with it. This is one way of dealing with it. Anti-Semitism or any anti-Semitism is fought very, very intensely. They take it very seriously and they do quite a job, obviously, of suppressing it, yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Whom do you mean by anti-Semites, people who go round scoring swastikas on synagogues or people who have a genuine grievance? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Well, yes, the term they will use is very broad. The word

— I am not saying, I am not implying that you are an anti-Semite, I am saying that people they view as being detrimental to their interests. Some of them might — the term “anti-Semitism” is hard to define anyway. Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you seen references in this file to the Second Defendant and others describing me as being “a danger”? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: Absolutely. It says right in the previous document we have just mentioned. Q. [Mr Irving]: Particularly dangerous?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: The Second Defendant mentioned you as a very dangerous person. Q. [Mr Irving]: In what way am I dangerous, do you suspect? Am I the kind of person that they think I may place a bomb in their letter box or what kind of danger are they referring to? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: No, obviously, they view you as a danger because of your intellectual — because of your writings. Q. [Mr Irving]: But a danger to what?

Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: I believe they think it is a danger to their, what they view as an important, that their version of events be accepted as the truth, and that the dissent from certain of these tenets should be viewed as beyond the pale of rational discussion. Q. [Mr Irving]: Finally, in order to pre-empt a question Mr Rampt

on may wish to ask, do you consider me to be an anti-Semite from your knowledge of me? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: I do not consider you to be an anti-Semite. I have had

quite a few discussions with you now and you have almost never even mentioned Jews and, when you have, never in a general negative way. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. So from your discussions in private with me, or from your perceptions of me in company with circles who might be considered to be receptive to such remarks, you have never heard me expressing any anti-Semitic utterances of any kind or beliefs? Q. [Professor Kevin McDonald]: No.

Q. [Mr Irving]: I do not think I have any further questions of this witness at this stage. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, was the material promised by Mr Lerman in the letter at page 164 ever provided? MR IRVING: It is identifiable in the discovery, but only fragmentary. There are pages missing. I made application for the missing pages without much success.

I was informed that I could go behind her affidavit when the time came to cross-examine her, and as your Lordship now knows, I am going to be denied that opportunity. So it is a rather unhappy position. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But is it in this bundle somewhere, or not? MR IRVING: It is certainly in the discovery, my Lord, and it was of the nature of press clippings and that kind of thing which I may have included in part, but it would not have served any purpose in this bundle.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: All right. Thank you very much. That was

economically done. Thank you, Professor McDonald. MR RAMPTON: I have no questions. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much, Professor McDonald. There is no cross-examination so that concludes your evidence. MR IRVING: Is the witness released, my Lord? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, you are released. You are free to go. < (The witness withdrew)

Section 25.9 to 55.26

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, as I understand the plan, you are going back in the witness box to be cross-examined further. MR IRVING: We have one witness which we are calling on Thursday, I believe, Mr Peter Millar, in my timetable. I try occasionally to adhere to my timetable. MR JUSTICE GRAY: He is Goebbels diaries, is he not. MR IRVING: That is correct. He is Moscow.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not know whether the idea of reducing the ambit of the evidence on that issue has brought forth any fruit. If it has, well and good. MR IRVING: I did hear Mr Rampton mention that they were going to try and plead section 5 on Goebbels, and no-one would be happier than I, because I think it would place him in an indefensible position if they were to do that. MR RAMPTON: I am sorry, that is a misapprehension.

I fall back on section 5 if I need it, but essentially the plea in relation to Moscow is that the substance of what was

said is true. Mr Peter Millar helps to prove it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If it is remaining an issue — I just had an idea that it would be possible and obviously desirable to maybe have some admitted facts with a view to reducing the ambit of the oral evidence. MR RAMPTON: There is an admission by Mr Irving in writing already. If we can get him by writing to him to admit that what Mr Peter Millar says in his witness statement is correct, then we do not need to call Mr Millar.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: This is the sort of thing I had in mind. It is only a suggestion, obviously. Yes, Mr Irving, would you like to go back into the witness box? < MR DAVID IRVING, recalled. < Cross-Examined by MR RAMPTON, QC.. MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving, there is one thing I would like to pick up from Auschwitz, which is now more or less a closed book, which arose during the course of your cross-examination of Professor van Pelt.

Do you remember the radio signal of 15th September 1942 ordering a car from Auschwitz to Lodsh? A. [Mr Irving]: With the feldofen, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you remember that you produced a translation in court which translated the German word feldofen as field kitchens?

A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: His Lordship drew your attention to that translation or, one might say, mistranslation. A. [Mr Irving]: No. His Lord asked who made the translation. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You said you did. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You said that you made it at 2 o’clock that morning, and that there was an element of stress, thus accounting for mistranslation? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Could I ask you to look at a piece of paper, please? (Same handed) Do you recognize that piece of paper? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What is it? A. [Mr Irving]: It is from my web site, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. Despite what you told his Lordship about having that done that mistranslation under stress at 2 o’clock in the morning the same day, that has been on your web site since at least 24th November last year. A. [Mr Irving]: This is true.

However, what I said is also true. I re-translated it that morning. This was presumably put on my web site a year and a half ago so, rather than go to the web site to find out what translation I used for two and a half lines a year and a half ago, I just re-translated it. Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, Mr Irving. It was a repetition of a deliberate

mistranslation that you had already put on your web site, was it not? A. [Mr Irving]: I strongly resist the phrase “deliberate mistranslation.” In fact, I have had e-mails from Germans all over the world who have read my web site within the last 24 hours who said that the translation “field kitchens” for “Feldofen” is entirely acceptable and intelligable.

The word “ofen” is a stove as in a kitchen stove and, without knowing what the background was of the document, it was an entirely plausible translation. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Have you had a chance to consider that report from Zamoysk of 5th May 1943? No sorry, wrong date, 16th December 1942 that you said you wanted time to think about? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can you remind me what that was about, Mr Rampton? MR RAMPTON: It relates to a transport of 644 Poles to Auschwitz.

A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I was going to make a submission about that report. You remember this is one which the Defendants received anonymously, so they say, on the very day before the —- MR RAMPTON: No “so they say”, please, Mr Irving. If I tell the judge on instructions from my solicitor that we received it the day before, you can take it that it is true, unless you can prove otherwise. A. [Mr Irving]: That is precisely what I said. They say they received it

anonymously the day before. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is the case. A. [Mr Irving]: That is not the point I am about to make, my Lord. May I make a submission on that? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I would like to see the document if you can tell me where it is. MR RAMPTON: I did hand it in together with the document about keeping the plan secret. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Where did it go? MR RAMPTON: It did not go anywhere, but I have a spare. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If it is loose, I probably still have it.

MR RAMPTON: I am sorry, my Lord. It should go into K2 in due course. Let me pass it up. (Same handed). MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you. I have now found it, actually. MR RAMPTON: It can go into tab 4 of K2 in due course, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If it is going ever to go there, can it not go there now? MR RAMPTON: Yes. My only question at the moment is whether Mr Irving is yet willing to be cross-examined about it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

A. [Mr Irving]: I said that I wished to make a submission to his Lordship about this. My Lord, you know the circumstances in which this report was provided now? It has been supplied anonymously to the Defendants. Whether “anonymously” means it is anonymous in as much as we are not to be told the source?

MR RAMPTON: That is right. A. [Mr Irving]: Or whether it is anonymous in as much as they know the source but do not intend to identify it to me? There is a substantial difference there, my Lord. MR RAMPTON: Let me make it quite clear. We know who the source is. I think I said actually when I produced the document, the source did not wish to be identified. A. [Mr Irving]: This is an entirely unsatisfactory state of affairs, my Lord.

I should be placed in a position where, if necessary, if the source is within the jurisdiction, and I am sure Mr Rampton will be willing to tell us that, I should be put in a position where I can issue a subpoena duces tecum for the production of surrounding documents. MR JUSTICE GRAY: At the moment this is just a bit of typescript. I do not think myself that the identity of the person who actually physically handed it to the Defendants really is either here or there.

Its authenticity is not going to, I think, depend on the identity of the person who made it available to the Defendants. A. [Mr Irving]: It is clearly unsatisfactory that I should be supplied with an orphan stray document. We are required to rely on the assurances of the Defendants that it is authentic, that it comes from a proper provenance. I should be placed in a position, my Lord, where I can, if necessary, see the surrounding documents which we were informed by

Mr Rampton also exist. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am with you to this extent, Mr Irving, that I do think that I have to be told something by the Defendants which at any rate makes it, on the face of it, an authentic document. For all I know at the moment, this was typed yesterday on some rather old fashioned typewriter. There must be a limit to the way in which documents surface in court. MR RAMPTON: Yes. Mr Irving has the document.

Had this been discovered by us earlier, it would have been in our list of documents and he would have been enabled to investigate, and if he found it appropriate to do so, dispute its authenticity. I am only asking him whether he now accepts its authenticity. If he does not, I will shut up about it until such time as I can tell your Lordship exactly from which archive it came. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that is what you need do, if I may respectfully say so.

MR RAMPTON: That is why I asked if he was ready to be cross-examined about it. The answer seems to be no. A. [Mr Irving]: The question was not whether I accept its authenticity. The question was whether I am willing to be cross-examined on it and the answer is that I was already planning to make the submission that I did to your Lordship, that we should be told more about where it comes from so that, if necessary, I can subpoena the remaining documents. We had

a very good example with the cross-examination of Professor van Pelt on that Feldofen document, where the document has, on the face of it, a perfectly innocent explanation until you know the surrounding documents of which Professor van Pelt was aware, which gave it a very sinister connotation. In this case it may be precisely the reverse.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think what I am going to say about this, Mr Rampton, is that you can return to it when you are in a position to say which archive it came from, which should not be all that difficult. MR RAMPTON: No, it is not. I think I know the answer but I am not going to say it in case I am wrong. I am going to get chapter and verse. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Then you can cross-examine on it. MR RAMPTON: I will find out which archive it is in and how long that archive has been open to us.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that is right. I am going to put it in as 51, I think. Do you agree? K2 tab 4, page 51. MR RAMPTON: Yes. A. [Mr Irving]: Of course I have already asked all my advisers around the world what their take on this document is. I have not been idle over the weekend, but I have to have time. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that is fair. MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving, I want to turn to something completely different, if I may, which is a meeting I think at

Klessheim which I think is somewhere in Austria? A. [Mr Irving]: Schloss Klessheim, spelt either with one S or two Ss. I think it is spelt both ways. It is a castle, a chateau, near Salzburg. Q. [Mr Rampton]: That means that it is a place in Austria, I suppose, or was then. That meeting, I believe, took place on 16th and 17th April 1943, did it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, if we know which meeting you are referring to. On those days Adolf Hitler had a number of meetings with foreign leaders.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: He met Admiral Horthy, who was the Hungarian leader. I do not know whether he was President or Prime Minister or whatever he was. A. [Mr Irving]: He was the Head of State. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Head of State at Klessheim on 16th and 17th April 1943, did he not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: One of the topics which was discussed between them on both those days was the attitude of the Hungarian government towards its large Jewish population. A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: I do not know how many Jews there were in Hungary, but it was a very large number, was it not? It was over 500,000. A. [Mr Irving]: Of the order of a million. I think there were 500,000 in Budapest alone.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: You correct me if I am wrong. I am summarizing, my Lord, relevant part of Professor Evans’ report is page 437 and following. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you. I was just looking for that. MR RAMPTON: What I am putting to Mr Irving is taken from that. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is helpful to have the reference thank you. MR RAMPTON: I hope Mr Irving has it. May I ask you, to save my asking questions —- A. [Mr Irving]: What page are we on? Q. [Mr Rampton]: 437 it starts.

Is it right, as Professor Evans writes in paragraphs 1 to 8 of the introduction of this part of his report, that from about the middle of 1942 until January 1943, the Nazis had been making attempts to persuade or lean on the Hungarians to be, what shall we say, more severe with their Jews than they had hitherto been willing to be, and in particular to allow them to be deported out of Hungary? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is correct, is it not?

A. [Mr Irving]: Since the summer of 1942. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. So is it right that one of the topics discussed between Hitler and Admiral Horthy on 16th and 17th April 1943 was the Nazis’ position that they thought that the Hungarians ought to buck their ideas up about getting rid of Jews from Hungary?

A. [Mr Irving]: The Nazis regarded the Hungarians as dragging their feet on this issue. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. Were the proceedings at those meetings recorded by a plan called Otto Schmidt? A. [Mr Irving]: No. They were recorded by a man called Paul Schmidt. MR RAMPTON: Sorry, wrong man. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Both are right. Paul Otto Schmidt. MR RAMPTON: We are both right, Mr Irving, for once. Isn’t that nice.

A. [Mr Irving]: There were two Paul Schmidts, and also they were recorded by hidden microphones on disk. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. The discussions were reproduced in a book by somebody called Hillgruber, were they not? A. [Mr Irving]: The Schmidt records were microfilmed by a German Foreign Office official called Lersch, to whom Professor Donald Watt referred. Thanks to the Lersch microfilms we have that transcript, and they were printed by Professor Andreas Hillgruber in two volumes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can I then please pass up two pages? Actually, it is four pages, but they are double pages, from Professor Hillgruber reprinting of these. My Lord, bureaucrats are at work! MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think the bureaucrats are probably right. Otherwise I am going to get completely submerged with paper. MR RAMPTON: That is for Mr Irving. (Same handed) That is a

Hungary file. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can we give it a letter of the alphabet rather than Hungary? It has one already. Is there going to be a translation, Mr Rampton? MR RAMPTON: Yes. The translation appears on page 441 of Professor Evans’ report, the first page that I intend to refer to.

Professor Evans’ translation given on page 441 at paragraph 1, in the English begins “On Horthy’s retort, what should he do with the Jews then …”, that is to be found in the middle of the German on the left hand column at page 256 of the original, “Auf die Gegenfrage Horthys”, does it not, Mr Irving? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Could you please read from “Auf die Gegenfrage Horthys” down to the end of the first paragraph on the following page 257?

I do not mean read out loud. Just read them to yourself and tell us please when you have finished doing that. A. [Mr Irving]: (Pause for reading) Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Would you then look, please, at the translation in Professor Evans’ report in paragraphs 1 and 3? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you agree that Professor Evans has accurately translated the words in the German from after “Auf die Gegenfrage Horthys” down to “Moglichkeit gabe es nicht”?

That is the exchange between Horthy and the Reichs Hausen minister Ribbentrop. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Also the passage starting at the bottom of page 256, “Wo die Juden sich selbst uberlassen waren”, down to the end of the first paragraph on the next page, and this is what Hitler is recorded as having said, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. It is in the subjunctive, so it is Adolf Hitler speaking, quoted in reported speech. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes.

Whether accurate or not, it is a report by Schmidt or the tape recorder or both, the hidden microphone, of what both Ribbentrop and Hitler are said to have said on that occasion? MR JUSTICE GRAY: But, if it is in reported speech, it cannot be a transcript of a tape, can it? A. [Mr Irving]: It is the way the diplomats worked. It is the same with the meeting between Churchill and Stalin.

The interpreter would take notes as he went along but, as he interpreted between the two of them, he would take down what Hitler said, write down a note —- Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: This is not a transcript, you are saying? A. [Mr Irving]: No it is not, but it is a very accurate transcript. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: It is an account of what was on the tape. A. [Mr Irving]: It also accurate reflects the language used, too. MR RAMPTON: You have used it yourself as being a reliable account?

A. [Mr Irving]: Schmidt is a very accurate source. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is not in dispute that it is an accurate account of what was said. A. [Mr Irving]: He was a professional diplomat of very high calibre. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Could I then ask you to look at how you represented this meeting on 17th April 1943 between Horthy and Hitler? A. [Mr Irving]: Apart from the mix up on the dates, right?

Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, there is rather more to it than that, I am afraid, Mr Irving. “Mix up” is not the word that I am going to use when we look to see what was said on the 16th, but there is more to it than that, I am afraid. Could you look, first of all, please, at Hitler’s War 1977, page 509? It is the second volume, D 1 (ii). A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am going to start, if I may, with the first complete paragraph on page 509: “Nor was the language Hitler and Ribbentrop used to prod the Hungarian regent into taking a sterner line over his Jewish citizens very delicate. The Nazis found it intolerable that 800,000 Jews should still be moving freely around a country in the heart of Europe- particularly just north of the sensitive Balkans.

For many months Germany had applied pressure to the Hungarian Jews to be turned over to the appropriate German agencies for deportation to ‘reservations in the east’”. A. [Mr Irving]: Note the quotation marks.