Day 13 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

Part I: Initial Proceedings (1.1 to 3.7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London Tuesday, 1st February 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 THIRTEEN

<Day 13 Tuesday, 1st February 2000. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving? MR IRVING: May it please the court. Your Lordship will have appreciated that the Defence relied to a certain degree on that document about crematorium capacities. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

MR IRVING: I was going to ask your Lordship’s leave to have Professor van Pelt back in the box for 10 minutes to put further points about it to him which he may not be able to answer, but which would give the chance then for their other experts later on in the procedure to come back and address. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think your position on that document was that you doubted its authenticity. Is that fair? MR IRVING: This is, I think, the only document whose integrity I am challenging.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think it is the only one but it is certainly one that you are challenging. MR IRVING: It is a very important document. I did not appreciate at the time that we went over it the degree to which Professor van Pelt was going to rely on it. You remember the diagram he drew with the tall green column, and so on? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Subject to what Mr Rampton says, as Professor van Pelt is here, I do not see any reason why he should not be further cross-examined, do you?

MR RAMPTON: No, I do not mind at all, provided he does not. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am not sure he has a choice. MR RAMPTON: He has not got any of his papers and I do not have the document here myself. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am sure he will manage. Let us have him back, shall we, now? Professor, would you mind coming back?

Part II: Professor Robert Jan van Pelt’s Cross-Examination by David Irving, continued (3.8-24.9)

< PROFESSOR VAN PELT, recalled. < Further Cross-Examined by MR IRVING. MR IRVING: It is in the Auschwitz core file No. 2. I have provided a set of documents to the Defence to operate with. It is under tab 4, item 49. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I have it. What about these odds and ends, Mr Irving? Where are you suggesting we put them? MR IRVING: If we come to Dresden during the day, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: These are Dresden, are they? MR IRVING: They are Dresden, my Lord.

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: This is Kristallnacht, so this is my own report. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can he have a copy of K2? MR IRVING: This is the actual document. The first thing is that Jean-Claude Pressac on page 247 himself points to the fact that this document did not surface until 1981. Would you agree with that, Professor? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No, I do not agree, because it was available in the Vienna trial. The first copy I found was in the Vienna trial.

What I actually had in my hand was, I think, in file OM

461 at the Dejaco and Ertl trial. Q. [Mr Irving]: When was that trial? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: That trial was in 1971. Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you aware of any earlier occasions when that document surfaced, shall we say? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I think that Jan Sehn had it his hands in the early 50s, but I cannot be sure about that.

When I talked about the Domberg version of the document — there is a version of that document, as far as I know, in the Hoess trial transcript, and that would have been there in ’48. I am not yet absolutely sure any more that I have seen that document in the Hoess trial transcript. I went through the Hoess trial transcripts. This was in 1990, but I am not absolutely any more sure that I have seen the Domburg copy in that transcript.

I thought it was brought up — I have certainly seen the Domburg copy. A copy was elsewhere in the Auschwitz und Bauleitung files. Q. [Mr Irving]: These would be useful pointers to the defence to research the document over the next few days. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Sorry, Professor van Pelt, you referred to the Domburg document. I do not know what you mean by that. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: There is an archive in the DDR, in Domburg.

They sent at a certain moment a copy of that document to the State Museum. MR IRVING: Would that be in 1959 that that transfer took

place? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I am not sure. If indeed it is in the Hoess trial transcript it should have happened earlier because Hoess was in 1947, and then, of course, the other camp SS men were tried in 1948, and some of these files of the Hoess trial and that of Grapner and the others are actually combined, so it is kind of difficult to determine exactly what comes from where.

Q. [Mr Irving]: The operative word in that response is the word “if” of course, “if it was in the trial”. Is it right that the document as published, or a version of the document as published, in a 1957 volume published by the East German, the DDR, the German Democrat Republic? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I am not sure. I wonder, do you remember — do you mean the Petsalt book? Q. [Mr Irving]: I do not know the title of the book. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I cannot comment on that.

I am not absolutely sure, I think that Petsalt did it, but I thought the Petsalt book was later. Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I now draw your attention to the document in front of you which is in facsimile? This is taken from the Defence bundle, the Auschwitz core file No. 2. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: This is an original document, is it not? It is not a postwar transcript, to the best of your knowledge? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, this is a copy of an original document. I mean a

wartime copy. MR JUSTICE GRAY: A 1943 document? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. MR IRVING: Yes. But you have not seen this particular one in the Auschwitz archives, or have you? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No, this one is in Moscow. Q. [Mr Irving]: This one is in Moscow? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: This is from the captured files of the Auschwitz construction office which are at present in the Moscow archives? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: I draw your attention to the first line, the date 28th June 1943, right? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: How many documents have you seen in carbon copy which do not include the word “Auschwitz” and the following word, “Den”, D-E-N? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: If this is a carbon copy, I presume it was a carbon copy of an original which was on a letter head. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: On the letter head it does actually say “Auschwitz”, so in carbon copies one can have quite often just the date and no information about the place. Q. [Mr Irving]: Very well. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: But I cannot give a quantity in this case of how many

documents I have seen. Q. [Mr Irving]: We go down now to the next line, which is what I will call the letter register line, which begins with the No. 31550. You will notice that that number is typed in and not handwritten in? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: How many documents have you seen in the Auschwitz construction archives that have that letter register number typed in on a carbon copy? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I cannot say. I have seen it, but I cannot say how many copies.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Very well. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: If I had my files with me right now, maybe I could show you examples of it typed in, but at the moment I am standing here just with one document. Q. [Mr Irving]: I agree. I draw the attention of the Defence to what I call this discrepancy. The next event in that line is an oblique, stroke, followed by “JA.”, JA period. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: How many items have you seen in the Auschwitz construction office files which have a period after the JA? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I am sorry. I cannot answer that. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. I appreciate that. I draw your attention to the next item which is an oblique stroke and the initials “Ne.-“. How many items have you in the Auschwitz construction office files which have the initials “Ne” as

a secretary, signing a letter dictated by Jahrling or Jahrnish, or by the man whose initials are “JA”? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am not quite sure I follow that question. MR IRVING: I am sorry. Let me phrase it in two parts. Am I correct in saying that the man whose initials are “JA” was the man who dictated the letter? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is Jahrling? MR IRVING: Yes. Am I correct in saying that the following initials “Ne” would be his secretary?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you seen any other letters whatsoever in the entire 50,000 documents in the Auschwitz archives which have a secretary whose initials are “Ne”? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Since you brought up the challenge a few days ago, I thought it was an “M” here. I mean, it seems to read as “M”. I actually checked. I think I mentioned the name of the secretary a couple of days ago. It should be in the transcript because I checked.

A 28 year old woman employed as a secretary at that moment in the Zentralbauleitung, I think. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You cannot remember her name? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Sorry, I cannot remember her name. I had all the documentation with me on Friday and on Wednesday. MR IRVING: Very well. Are you aware that his secretary, actually her name began with an “L” or his name began with

an “L”, and that of the 50 items which are in the collection which we control or which I am advised exists, dictated by this man, 49 of them have the secretary’s initials as “L” or “Lm”? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I cannot comment on that. Q. [Mr Irving]: Very well. And that in none of these cases is there a period after either the “JA” or after the secretary’s name? Can you comment on that? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No, I cannot comment on that.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Clearly, the reason I am saying this, my Lord, is to give the Defence a chance to come back possibly with documents proving me wrong on these points? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I think that is fair. MR IRVING: Will you now look five or six lines lower down to the address: “SS Wirtschafts-Verwaltungs-hauptamt, Antsgruppenchef C”. I draw your attention now to the following line. Is there anything missing from that line “SS Brigadefuhrer u. Generalmajor”?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Generalmajor SS that would have been normally. Q. [Mr Irving]: Generalmajor der Waffen SS? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you seen any other documents whatsoever in the entire construction files of the Auschwitz office, either in Moscow or in the Auschwitz archives now, in which the words “Der Waffen SS” are omitted after the word”Generalmajor”?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I cannot comment on that. Q. [Mr Irving]: In other words, the address is improper in its present form; is that correct? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, he cannot comment. MR IRVING: Yes. Well, my Lord, it is an incorrect rank. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: It is an incorrect designation of a rank — a very important one because they were very particular, particularly if they had the rank of a Brigadier General. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You can be a Brigadefuhrer.

MR IRVING: They were a Brigadier General in the SS and simultaneously they had a military rank in the Waffen SS. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But you make it clear that it was an SS rank you were talking about, is that your point? MR IRVING: No. What I am saying, my Lord, is that the correct rank, the proper designation, of Hans Kammler was SS Brigadefuhrer und Generalmajor der Waffen SS, and in every other document which exists it is written out in full.

Those are the only comments I have to make on the face of the document, but possibly, Professor, you are qualified to comment on the content, and I am now purely dealing with the crematoria. Am I right in saying that crematorium (i) was already out of service on July 19th 1943? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: It was taken out of service shortly before, but the crematorium was completely intact, which means it was never dismantled. The incinerations, because, as we have

seen, in May and June 1943 the total incineration capacity in the camp was so much larger than anything really the Germans needed at that moment.

It was absolutely no problem to take out, to decommission the incinerators of crematorium (i) because they were next to the SS, the house of the Kommandant and the laseret and the Kommandantur, to move all incineration capacity to Birkenhau and so that the SS quarters at the Stammlager would be spared the kind of environmental disadvantages of having a working crematorium right next to it.

So this crematorium remained actually on stand-by throughout 1943, and these incinerations were only finally dismantled in late ’44. MR JUSTICE GRAY: So the capacity still exists? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: The capacity still exists. MR IRVING: The capacity still exists. Are you aware that on the date of this document, June 28th 1943, crematorium No. (ii) was also out of service?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, but it was being repaired at the time and it was brought back into service a month later. Q. [Mr Irving]: You are familiar, presumably, with the letter from the Topf firm dated July 23rd 1943, which states, “Since the crematorium has been out of service for six weeks now” in one sentence? In other words, this particular crematorium was stated on July 23rd already to have been out of service for six weeks, so obviously it was a major problem

with crematorium (ii) and yet they list it here as being capable of operating. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, but this is a general accounting. This letter goes back to a request which was actually made early in January when Hoess wanted to have, the first indication anyway that he wants to have an accounting of total cremation capacity in the camp.

Indeed, crematorium (ii), after having had an overload of incinerations in March and April, had shown problems with the flues, actually the flues started to collapse, and was taken out of commission in May for repair. It took the Topf workers some time to actually determine exactly what had happened. It took them even more time to actually decide who was to blame, because the chimney maker said that it was Topf who was to blame, and Topf blamed the chimney makers.

So they were, basically, negotiating who was going to pay for

all of this throughout June. Finally, in August, the crematorium was brought back into operation. But throughout this time, I mean, when you look at incineration capacity in general in the camp, this letter does not refer to actually that day, but to the general capacity available in the camp.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Professor, do you not agree that in that case, since these crematoria were so frequently down, out of service and under repair and being squabbled over, it was improper for a document to exist giving an overall figure which made no

reference to the fact that at any one given time, 20 or 30 per cent of the capacity might be down? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: That was not yet known in June 1943. We know in hindsight that indeed crematoria (iv) and (v) showed many problems, and that ultimately even the incinerators were at a certain moment left alone for later ’43 and early ’44, but the fact that we have, in hindsight, acknowledged does not mean that on 28th June ’43 that knowledge existed. Q. [Mr Irving]: Very well.

One final question: in view of the discrepancies I that have drawn to your attention and which I allege exist in this document, will you be undertaking any steps to investigate whether there are any similar documents with a similar letter registry number and which contain similar discrepancies in the rank and other items to which I have drawn your attention? MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is really a question for Mr Rampton, not for Professor van Pelt.

MR IRVING: I want it to go on the record, my Lord. That is all. I have no further questions. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton, do you want to re-examine on that aspect? MR RAMPTON: I would like the Professor — I am sorry, I have only got the German with me. I have not got the Professor’s report, unfortunately, or any of the other documents with me because I had no notice of it. I would just like him — his German is pretty good — if he will,

just to read the text. (To the witness): Leave out the figures in the middle, if you will, Professor, but just read the text of the letter to us in English starting with “Unter den Eichen 126 – 135”, will you? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: So, OK. There is the address, “Unter den Eichen 126 – 135″, which seems to be the correct address, as far as I remember. “I announce the completion of crematorium (iii) on 26th June 1943.

With this all of the crematoria which were ordered, which were commanded, have been completed. The capacity of the now available crematorium when used at a 24-hour work cycle”, and then we get the numbers. Q. [Mr Irving]: Then you get the numbers and the total at the bottom. I have one other question only. To your knowledge, did they ever actually use any of these crematoria for a full 24-hour period? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: The time that they would have used it — we have no account.

Quite literally, we use it 24 hours or 16 or 18, whatever like that, but the only period in which they would have had to use these crematoria on a 24-hour cycle would have been in May and June 1944 during the Hungarian action. Q. [Mr Irving]: Were they using all five of these crematoria in the Hungarian action? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: They certainly used No. (ii) and (iii) which were in full function at the time. (iv) and (v) were repaired for the

Hungarian action, shortly before the Hungarian action, because they had been out of commission. But during the Hungarian action (v) and (iv) showed problems, and I think that ultimately (v) was a crematorium where the incinerator collapsed. We always have to make the distinction between the incinerating and the gas chambers.

The gas chambers of (iv) and (v) were in full operation during the Hungarian action, but ultimately they created these outside incineration pits during the Hungarian action to compensate for the problems in crematoria (iv) and (v). Q. [Mr Irving]: Just to complete the picture of potential capacity, if we go on to the Hungarian action in the early summer of ’44, what about bunker 2? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Are we talking about gassing capacity?

Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes bunker 2 was brought back into operation during the Hungarian action because they felt that the gas chambers of crematoria (ii) to (v) would not be able to cope with the arrivals. Q. [Mr Irving]: Where did they incinerate the people that were killed in bunker 2? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: They were incinerated in open air pits which followed the example developed by Stammamptfuhrer Bloebbel in Chelmno which Dejaco Hussler had inspected in mid September 1942.

MR IRVING: My Lord, this re-examination is rather exceeding the bounds of the original cross-examination.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: You are quite right, it is. But I want to ask you a question which I hope does reflect the cross-examination, and that is this, Professor van Pelt. Taking on board, as it were, all the points that have been put to you by Mr Irving about the authenticity of this document, do you have a view about it? Are you doubtful about it?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: If this document were to pop up right now, after having not been seen for 50 or 60 years, given the kind of challenges which have been made by Holocaust denier/revisionist historians, however one would want to call people who challenge the historical record, I would be more suspicious, because, you know, where does this document come from?

The issue is, however, that this document has been in existence, and the records of these documents before ever a challenge was being made to the incineration capacity of the crematoria. In fact, this document shows a much lower incineration capacity of the crematoria than we find in the testimonies of Hoess and others.

So what I do not understand is what purpose would have been served, let us say, in the 1950s by, let us say, somebody who wants to make a case that Auschwitz was an extermination camp, by creating a document, by falsifying a document, which shows a lower incineration rate for the crematoria than that which has been attested

to under oath by the German eyewitnesses. That is the discrepancy. So, given the fact that it is lower, and given the fact that it appeared at a time that no one was challenging the incineration capacity, because the German testimony on it was kind of self-evident, and given the fact also that this document, I think, shows a very good convergence with Tauber’s testimony, and Tauber’s testimony which after 1945 really was not published until Pressac did it, and Tauber describes in detail the

way the corpses in the incinerators were incinerated, with many corpses at the time, and he gives times for this, and in fact Tauber’s figures do converge with this one, I think there is absolutely no reason to doubt the authenticity of this document as far as the content is concerned. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Can I ask you one more question? When did the issue about incineration capacity really surface?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: The issue of incineration capacity really started to surface, I think Faurisson mentioned it. Faurisson in the late 70s really concentrated on the issue of the gas chambers. The first major challenge which was made I think was Fred Leuchter in 1988. Butts in 76 also made an issue of it, but in some way this was buried, I think, in the larger context of his work. Q. [Mr Irving]: In the 70s anyway?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: In the 70s, after this document had been admitted as evidence in the Vienna court.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, there is a bit of a new point there, so do you want to ask any further questions? MR IRVING: I do wish to re-examine just briefly. I do not want to go into the matter of the burning pits. I think that that is a side issue that was raised in cross-examination. I do not think it should have been because we had not mentioned the burning pits, but I do want to raise just two or three of the points you mentioned there.

You referred to the witness Hoess, and you relied on his figures. Is it correct that the witness Hoess in his statements said that 2.8 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I feel uncomfortable discussing what Hoess says without the documents, but since I discussed it in length in my expert report, Hoess ultimately comes down to 1.125 million. He makes a detailed calculation, and he does it actually on two or three different occasions.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Did he use the figure 2.8 million at any time? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: As a general, he said there were different ways to account to it. He said he had one kind of figure based on, he thought how many people had been killed, but then at a certain moment he corrects himself and he says but the real way to calculate it is by looking at how many Jews arrived by the transports. Then I come to 1.15 million people.

Q. [Mr Irving]: If somebody oscillates between 2.8 million and 1.1 million

under oath, how can you place any reliance whatsoever on his other figures? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I think that there is the issue of how do you calculate the figure? There is one thing. He had no documents in front of him because no record was kept. He at a certain moment tries to reconstruct without having any figures, and of course we must remember that Hoess was, in the crucial time of the camp’s history, Hungarian, actually late 43, he was not any more Kommandant of Auschwitz.

He left Auschwitz. He was attached to the inspectorate in Oranienburg. So he only came back later to Auschwitz. Q. [Mr Irving]: We are only talking about the reliability of his figures. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, we have to confine this. We cannot have an open ended further cross-examination. Confine it to the authenticity of the document. MR IRVING: That did go to the authenticity because he relied on Hoess as a source of statistical evidence, my Lord.

Secondly, is it correct that the version of this document which is in the Auschwitz State museum was provided to them by the East German communist authorities? In other words, not the other way round, as one would expect? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Thank you. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: The version in Auschwitz, but this is the Moscow version, so we are talking here about the Moscow document. It is a different document. It is a different object, so to

speak. The object means the actual sheet of paper which came from East Germany. Q. [Mr Irving]: The final question is on the question of why the matter has only just recently been raised. Is it not correct to say that the Moscow archives have only become available for purposes of comparison over the last ten years or so? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, that is true. MR IRVING: Thank you very much. I have no further questions, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much, Professor. < (The witness stood down) MR IRVING: Your Lordship may have considered that a rather useless exercise but, as it is such a crucial document, I thought that we ought to examine it in greater detail. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I personally think that the issue of authenticity of this document is important for the purposes of this trial. MR IRVING: It is almost pivotal, along with the roof. Thank you very much.

MR RAMPTON: I certainly do not agree that it is pivotal. It may be an important document in some senses. MR JUSTICE GRAY: The challenge to it may be important. MR RAMPTON: Yes, absolutely. If I feel the need to meet that challenge beyond what the Professor has said in the witness box, I will do so. MR JUSTICE GRAY: The Moscow archive presumably can be, as it

were, consulted to see if the document is there. MR RAMPTON: Oh, yes, but, if it was in the Vienna trial in 1971, I do not know that the Moscow archives have a lot to do with it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: What now? Mr Irving back into the box? MR RAMPTON: Shall I give your Lordship a little plan? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Before you do, can I say something which I actually said yesterday?

I think it became called L2, I think my L2 has gone back to you, but, in trying to go through yesterday evening, it really is impossible for me to follow it in the transcript when all I have is German documents, some of which have been partly translated in odd bits of Professor Evans’ report. It is a nightmare exercise. MR RAMPTON: It will not surprise your Lordship to be told that I took that on board. What I am going to do today will involve no reference to German documents by me.

It will consist of a document prepared with, I have to say, the most extraordinary skill and expedition by Miss Rogers in relation to Dresden. There is a file of Dresden documents. They are mostly in English. I shall not make reference to them myself, because they have been summarized in the little document that Miss Rogers has prepared. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Good. MR RAMPTON: Contrary to my feeling yesterday evening, I am

going to go to four topics in the aftermath of Reichskristallnacht, but I am going to do those, unless again I am pushed by Mr Irving to the German, exclusively from Professor Evans’ report. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do think that is easier. Can I at the same time make this enquiry? It is important that we are clear for later on.

Looking at Kristallnacht, not the aftermath of Kristallnacht, there are several points made in Evans and Longerich, I think, which I do not think you cross-examine to specifically. It is not a criticism obviously, but does that mean they have gone out of the case, or what? MR RAMPTON: It is very difficult. I am very conscious of the amount of time that this case could take.

That means I am also conscious of the amount of money it could cost my clients, never mind court time and the time of all the people involved. I have taken the view, right or wrong, that, if I have three or four, or maybe two or three, or even five or six, dead cert winners, to use a colloquialism, in any particular topic, I am not going to spend a lot of time having argy-bargy about minor points with Mr Irving.

I have one more what I regard as dead cert winner to finish which is this business about ND3052 or ND3051 because I have chased that it and I know the answer. But if your Lordship should take the view at the end of the cross-examination of my expert witnesses that

certain points have gone from the case, well, why then they have gone, but if Mr Irving should take up with my expert witnesses things I have not cross-examined him about, why, then they will come back into the arena. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But at the moment they are not in the arena. MR RAMPTON: No. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is rather what I thought, but I think it is quite important to be clear about it.

MR RAMPTON: If I have missed something out, something important, I miss something important and that is just too bad. But there has to be a sense of proportion in

all of this, in my belief. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It might be something — I have not got them in mind now — there are some points that I think Evans attaches importance to on Reichskristallnacht which maybe we have not really touched on. MR RAMPTON: I agree there are some things in relation to eyewitness testimony. I am as mistrustful of that in general as is Mr Irving, and I prefer the original documents, and that is what I did yesterday. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

MR RAMPTON: I am going back to one other original document in a moment. MR IRVING: I thought there was going to be a complex on the Adjutants we were going to hear about. MR RAMPTON: There may be something about the Adjutants along

down the road, but I have not got to that yet. It is a separate topic. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That clears the air a bit. MR RAMPTON: I have not given thought to what, if any, Adjutants I am interested in. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, if you go back we are starting off now on Dresden. MR RAMPTON: No. I am going to finish Reichskristallnacht and then I shall go to Dresden.

Part III: David Irving’s Cross-Examination by Mr. Rampton (24.10-109.7)

Section 24.10-47.8

< MR DAVID IRVING recalled. < Cross-Examined by MR RAMPTON, QC, continued. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Your Lordship and the witness will need a document which we dug out yesterday. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I will need my L2 back too, will I not? MR RAMPTON: Yes, I do not know where it has gone. (To the witness): Mr Irving, can you please go back to your Goebbels book at page 276? At the bottom of that page we saw yesterday, we are going to read it again, you write: “What of Himmler and Hitler?

Both were totally unaware of what Goebbels had done until the synagogue next to Munich’s Four Seasons Hotel was set on fire around 1k a.m. Heydrich, Himmler’s national chief of police, was relaxing down in the hotel bar, he hurried up to Himmler’s room, then telexed instructions to all police authorities to restore law and order, protect Jews and Jewish property, and halt any ongoing incidents.” You give us

the reference No. 43, you give us the reference for that on page 613, ND3052-PS? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Now please look at the document I have just handed in. A. [Mr Irving]: Well, in fact, there are two sources there. I have also referenced Karl Wolff. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Will you please look at the document I have just handed in? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is —- A. [Mr Irving]: 3052 — yes, there is a mistake in the number.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: You have mistaken the number? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Professor Evans is right? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: The correct number is 3051, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: It is probably 3051. There may be another one, but this is clearly the wrong one, but I have also referenced Karl Wolff as my source. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can we please look then at what Professors Evans used as the translation of the key part of 3051 at the top?

A. [Mr Irving]: Which, of course, I have not referenced. Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, you have not. But, Mr Irving, I suggest that you had it in front of you and you simply made a slip of the pen (as we all can) and called the document 3052 when, in fact, it was 3051.

A. [Mr Irving]: You may be right, but you may be wrong. MR JUSTICE GRAY: When you say “you may be wrong”, you mean there is another document very similar to 3051 which you did in have in front of you? A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, note 43 also refers to Karl Wolff which is a source which I also used. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: That is another matter. A. [Mr Irving]: I would have to look and see what Karl Wolff said which may very well be the source of that.

MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving, forget Karl Wolff. You have given —- A. [Mr Irving]: No, because — I am not going to forget him because he is given in the footnote 43. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, you have given 3052 as the reference? A. [Mr Irving]: As one of the references. Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is wrong, as you can plainly see from the document? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It follows, does it not —- A. [Mr Irving]: It was another document.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: — that the overlying probability is that you meant 3051 which is, indeed, a telex from Heydrich at 1.20 a.m. on 10th November? A. [Mr Irving]: That is one telex from him at 1.20 yes, but if —- Q. [Mr Rampton]: Wait, Mr Irving. A. [Mr Irving]: — if you look at the time scale, if you look at the time scale, these instructions I am referring to are unlikely to have got into a telex machine at 1.20 a.m. It would

be closer to 2 a.m. that things like that went out, by the time he has got back to police headquarters. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You say he “hurried up to Himmler’s room”? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but they would not have had a telex machine in Himmler’s hotel room, my Lord. He would have had to go to the local Gestapo headquarters or telephone instruction for local headquarters and tell them to type a telex and get this kind of thing out.

Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: So your suggestion is there is another telex from Heydrich? A. [Mr Irving]: Another source. I am not suggesting it is another telex. I am suggesting it is another source and I have referenced there Karl Wolff. MR RAMPTON: Let us suppose for a moment that a three year-old child will not buy that story, Mr Irving, and compare what 301 says of what you wrote in the text, may we? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, shall we do that?

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, let us look at the top of 263 of Professor Evans’ report. The German is printed at the bottom. So if you want to read the German first, please do. A. [Mr Irving]: “On Himmler’s instructions, they were to be sure some restrictions placed on the action”, is that correct on the foot of page 262? Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. That is absolutely right. Now you see what they are on page 263. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, I have read that.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Now tell me what foundation that provides for your assertion that Heydrich’s telex was “to protect Jews and Jewish property and halt any ongoing incidents”. A. [Mr Irving]: Well, clearly, this is a different message I am referring to. Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, Mr Irving. Clearly, you have deliberately misrepresented the effect of this telex from Heydrich. A. [Mr Irving]: No, Mr Rampton.

You are looking at a different message, and you are saying, “This does not look like the one you are quoting” which is just what I am saying. You are right. It is not the one I am quoting. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Where is what you call 3052? Where physically is it? A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, they have had complete access to all my files and we do not know which signals they have put in and which they have not put in. MR RAMPTON: It does not exist, Mr Irving?

A. [Mr Irving]: It may not be a signal. It may be what Karl Wolff reported. Karl Wolff was with him at that time. I have referenced Karl Wolff in footnote 43 which your Professor Evans has overlooked. Q. [Mr Rampton]: The first reference you give — I am only going to ask this once more — is 3052, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: The reader will suppose that that is a reference to the text of the Heydrich telex?

A. [Mr Irving]: Well, no. The 43 refers to everything from the beginning of that paragraph, “What of Himmler and Hitler?” onwards. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, the reference you give for the Heydrich telex is 3052, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: One of the two references, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. It so happens that the true Heydrich telex is 3051? A. [Mr Irving]: It so happens that a Heydrich telex is 3051.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: It so happens that 30512 has nothing whatever to do with Reichskristallnacht at all? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What do you think is the probability — that had you some other document which has disappeared which had the No. 3052 on it? A. [Mr Irving]: My documents have not disappeared. As you are familiar, I have given all my documents to the German archives. I have provided to you what relics I have, what remnants I have, of my document collection.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, now I would offer you the same opportunity, Mr Irving, as you kindly offered to us. You find 3052 and the text of a Heydrich telex which carries the information which you have put in the book. A. [Mr Irving]: Well, perhaps if you have the Karl Wolff’s statement from the Institute files No. 317, then you will find precisely the content that I referred to. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can we move on now, please? A. [Mr Irving]: If you thought I was wrong, you would have actually

produced to the court 317, the Karl Wolff statement, and said, “Mr Irving, can you find that in 317?” MR JUSTICE GRAY: You are perfectly entitled to do that yourself, but it does not, I think it is fair to say, meet Mr Rampton’s point which is that one of your references is 3052. A. [Mr Irving]: One of the references has a digit wrong, this is correct. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: And the ball, if I may say so, is in your court to produce the document that you say is 3052.

A. [Mr Irving]: If I can do so, having given all my records away, this is true, but I shall certainly attempt to do so. MR RAMPTON: Now, Mr Irving, I want to come to the aftermath of Reichskristallnacht. I want to move on now to the aftermath, the next day, starting with Mr Goebbels — Dr Goebbels, I do beg his pardon. Can we start, please, and I promised I would stick Professor Evans and that is what I am going to, at page 281 of Professor Evans’ report, please.

A. [Mr Irving]: What does he mean by “the inevitable Goebbels diary”? Does that not suggest a mind cast on the part of your expert in paragraph 1? Q. [Mr Rampton]: If you look at paragraph 2, please, Mr Irving — you can ask Professor Evans any number of questions you like subject to his Lordship’s control, but I am not going to answer your questions, I am afraid. Paragraph 2 on page 281.

A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: “In his account of the events of 10th November 1938, Goebbels wrote: ‘New reports rain down the whole morning. I consider with the Fuhrer what measures should be taken now. Let the beatings continue or stop them? That is now the question’.” You, when you wrote about this in your Goebbels book, said: “Goebbels went to see Hitler to discuss what to do next. There is surely an involuntary hint of apprehension in the phrase”.

Why did you write that? A. [Mr Irving]: I am, first of all, checking to see the original German text because he has not provided it to us, has he, or has he? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Check it by all means. If we have to go through it, we will have to go through it, but we are trying to avoid doing that. A. [Mr Irving]: Well, the reason for that is the translation of the word “now”. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You can tell us.

A. [Mr Irving]: Can you confirm that the word he has used for “now” is not “nun” but “nunmehr”? MR RAMPTON: I have no idea. A. [Mr Irving]: I am telling you — I have a pretty good memory of these things. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Why does it matter? A. [Mr Irving]: Why does it matter? Indeed. So what? “Nunmehr” conveys

the hint of apprehension. “What do we do now?” Q. [Mr Rampton]: You translate it in your book — what you write is 277 of Goebbels: “As more ugly bulletins rained down on him the next morning, November 10th 1938, Goebbels went to see Hitler to discuss ‘what to do next’”? A. [Mr Irving]: Indeed, “nunmehr”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What is the apprehension in that?

A. [Mr Irving]: Well, if you understood German and you knew the nuances of the German language, and any German sitting in this room would know there is a difference between the words “nun” nad “nunmehr”. Am I correct? Is that the word used? Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr irving, will you answer my question? Did you write, “He went to discuss with Hitler what to do next”? A. [Mr Irving]: “What to do now” and “what to do next”, what is the difference? You explain to the court.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: It might be right if the phraseology were apt to convey the impression, “Oh, dear. Whatever shall we do now?” but that is not what you translated it as? A. [Mr Irving]: I am trying to give the difference between “now”, between “nun” and “nunmehr”, and any German in this courtroom will know there is a strong difference. “Nunmehr” means “now more than ever” and this, I suspect, is why Professor Evans has not provided the original German here.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: As a matter of fact, he has. Note 104, page 282, he says the original German is “nunmehrige” which I think is the same as “nunmehr”, in fact?

A. [Mr Irving]: Well, I wish we had had the entire text, but he has —- Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You are only quarrelling with that one word, as I understand it? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, indeed, but there is big difference, of course, between “nun” and “nunmehr”, and I can only confirm that any German will confirm this. MR RAMPTON: The German is, Mr Irving — excuse my pronunciation once again, but I will read it slowly.. A. [Mr Irving]: What page is the German?

Q. [Mr Rampton]: “Den ganzen Morgen regnet es neue Meldungen”. End of line. The next line: “Ich uberlege mit dem Fuhrer unsere nunmehrigen Masnahmen”. That is “our next measures”, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: I am looking at the original translation in bundle L2 on page 3, the original German. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is on page 2, I think. A. [Mr Irving]: “Den ganzen Morgen regnet es neue Meldungen … unsere nunmehrigen Masnahmen”. There you are, “nunmehr”.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, “our next steps”? A. [Mr Irving]: But I have to try to explain once again, because you do not hesitate also to keep repeating yourself, that “nun” and “nunmehr” have two totally different nuances. “Nunmehr” in German means “now more than ever”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What does it mean, “I discussed with the Fuhrer our next steps”? A. [Mr Irving]: “… unsere nunmehrigen Masnahmen”.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, “our next steps”? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, “what steps we should now take more than ever”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What is apprehensive about that? A. [Mr Irving]: The adding of the word “mehr” to “nun”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Then he goes on: “Weiterschlagen lassen oder abstoppen”. “Shall we go on thrshing them or stop” or “Shall we let the thrashing go on or stop it”, yes? “That is now the question”?

A. [Mr Irving]: “Weiterschlagen lasen oder abstoppen”, that is right. Q. [Mr Rampton]: “Das ist nun die Frage”? A. [Mr Irving]: “That is now the question”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Exactly. What is apprehensive about that? A. [Mr Irving]: Because he has been summoned to see the Hitler because the whole of Germany is in flames, messages coming in from diplomatic missions all around the world about it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But they are contemplating letting it go on?

A. [Mr Irving]: Goebbels is contemplating letting it gone on, “What are we going to do now?” This is Goebbels’ diary, my Lord, not Hitler. Goebbels has been summoned before Hitler like a schoolboy who has painted something on the wall. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Well, who is meant to be being apprehensive? I took it to be Goebbels. A. [Mr Irving]: Goebbels is apprehensive, yes. MR RAMPTON: About what? A. [Mr Irving]: That he had been summoned to see Hitler.

Perhaps I should sketch in in two lines the background? Goebbels has been

a very bad for the last six months. He has been caught red handed in an appalling matrimonial scandal. He has been threatened with this missile. He has contemplated suicide. He thought he was doing Hitler a favour with this little outrage and, to his horror, he has found out he has done the exact opposite. He has been summoned before Hitler and Hitler is now showing him the diplomatic messages that have come in.

Within a matter of an hour or two, Goebbels has had to issue a telegram which is on the very next page, or page 279 of my book produces a facsimile: “Everything is to be stopped immediately. All the orders I issued yesterday are cancelled”. Am the I right? Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, you are not right, Mr Irving. You are not right in your thesis. You are right in what that document says and it is sent to the propaganda chiefs.

All that has been decided is, well, for the sake of foreign opinion and public opinion, we had better stop smashing up Jewish shops and killing Jewish people? A. [Mr Irving]: On the contrary, this document which I reproduce in a facsimile is sent to precisely the people he ordered the day before to start all the pogrom. Q. [Mr Rampton]: So you say. We had that argument yesterday —- A. [Mr Irving]: Well, you keep saying “so I say”, but I am the one who wrote the book.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, I do say and I do not accept it, Mr Irving. We went

through it yesterday. It is quite obvious that I do not accept it. It is no good repeating it. We have been through it. The judge will decide the question and then see what happened in the next day’s diary entry. If you pass over to paragraph 4 on the same page, 282 of Evans — the German, if you want it, is on tab 3 of the Reichskristallnacht file.

It is the beginning of the diary entry, as I expect you know. “Following this first conversation with Hitler on morning of 10th, Goebbels drafted an order to bring the pogrom to a halt. ‘Yesterday’, he wrote on the 11th in his diary, ‘Berlin. There, all proceeded fantastically. One fire after another. It is good that way. I prepare an order to put an amend the actions’”.

That is the one you have just told us about, Mr Irving. “‘It is now just enough … In whole country the synagogues have burned them. I report to the Fuhrer at the Osteria’.” The German is printed at the bottom of the page if you want to look at it. The “Osteria” was a restaurant in Munich, I think, was it not? A. [Mr Irving]: It is still there, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I do not mind. It was, was it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: And if we turn over the page, we can see what Goebbels reports of his meeting with Hitler at the Osteria sometime, presumably, on the 10th, in paragraph 5 on page

283: “At the Osteria, Goebbels presented Hitler with his draft order to stop the pogram. His diary entry continued: ‘I report to the Fuhrer in the Osteria. He agrees with everything. His views are totally radical and aggressive. The action itself has taken place without any problems. 17 dead. But no German property damaged. The Fuhrer approves my decree concerning the ending of the actions, with small amendments. I announce it via the press and raid.

The Fuhrer wants to take very sharp measures against the Jews. They must themselves put their businesses in order again. The insurance companies will not pay them a thing. Then the Fuhrer wants a gradual expropriation of Jewish businesses”? A. [Mr Irving]: Now, what holes can you pick in my account of that? Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am coming to that in a moment, Mr Irving. Let us look at how you dealt with that entry, shall we, in a minute? That starts at paragraph 8.

But, first, I want to draw your attention to what Goebbels did next, sorry, or before which is in paragraph 7: “On the afternoon of 10th November”, that is after the meeting with Hitler at the Osteria, “Goebbels informed the Nazi Party chief of Munich-Upper Bavaria that the pogram was to be terminated, and added: ‘The Fuhrer sanctions the measures taken so far and declares that he does not disapprove’”. It is entirely consistent with the diary entry, is it not? Is it not, Mr Irving?