Day 14 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

Part I: Expert Witness Professor van Pelt (1.1 to 24.26)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London Wednesday, 2nd 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 FOURTEEN

<Day 14 Wednesday, 2nd February 2000. (10.30 a.m.) MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes? MR IRVING: My Lord, may it please the court. Mr Rampton wishes to put the witness van Pelt back in the witness box (and I have no objections) to take further submissions in connection with the challenged document. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Right. MR RAMPTON: My Lord —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: The incineration capacity?

MR RAMPTON: Yes, he has done his homework and I am just going to let him tell your Lordship —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Whilst we remember what the point is, it is a good idea. MR RAMPTON: Can I, first of all, pass up to your Lordship, as requested, he has given your Lordship a nomenclature guide for Auschwitz and also he has done a hand drawn sketch plan of the whole site. I suggest your Lordship puts that in the front of the Auschwitz file, probably the second Auschwitz file.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: K2? MR RAMPTON: Yes, K2. The documents which he will produce in a moment will go in tab 4 of K2, I suggest. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have had these documents, Mr Irving, have you? MR IRVING: Yes, my Lord, I have just received them.

MR RAMPTON: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I see, this is what I asked for. MR RAMPTON: It is, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much. I had not realized what it was. < PROFESSOR VAN PELT, recalled. < Further re-examined by MR RAMPTON, QC. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Professor, thank you very much for doing that. Yes, Mr Rampton? MR RAMPTON: Professor van Pelt, just one question.

Have you taken up his Lordship’s request or invitation to study this document, which is the one we had which is the document of 28th June 1943, which relates to incineration capacity, to study the question whether or not it is authentic —- A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, I have. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Its having been challenged. Will you then please tell his Lordship what conclusions you have reached by reference to this document and any others in this little clip? Can you give that to the judge?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I have last night with what was still available to me, because I only carry a small bundle of documents I carried with me to London and even some already had been packed I did not want to open the box, but whatever I had, I was going to look at a couple of the challenges which had been made yesterday by Mr Irving.

Before I go into that, I would like to present, first of all, my copy, my marked copy, which is No. 1 of the document which comes from Moscow. There are some calculations on the back, on the side, which are irrelevant. I have indicated on this, this is page No. 1, on what were the particular issues Mr Irving found important which is the way the date was typed in as 28th June 1943 without a location, without Auschwitz, Achtundzwanzigte Juni Neunhundertdreiundvierzig.

The second thing which was challenged yesterday was the code which indicates the Brieftage Buchnumber which is 31550, and then Jahrling, or Jahrling, and then the secretary. The third one was the title of SS Brigadefuhrer Generalmayor der Waffen SS Kammler. On the last point, I did not have find any document where the same mistake had happened.

So I cannot explain that or I cannot give any second document, but then I only had one other document with me which was the Vergasungskeller letter of 29th June 1943 where Kammler has got on the right and the correct title. The first document I would like to present which is a new document is No. 2, which is the copy which is in the Domburg archive in the DDR — the former DDR now — and which was made available to the Auswenzin archive. This was the document, the copy which actually has been

published in the 50s, and I have here the original. I have given you a copy of my copy, but I have here the original copy from the Auschwitz archive with the original stamp on it, so I do not know. MR RAMPTON: I do believe his Lordship ought to see that partly because our copy —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is not a very good copy. MR RAMPTON: It is not a very good copy. There are some colour on that, original colour on that.

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: This copy is not much better, but at least it shows the original stamp of the archive. MR IRVING: Just so we can be plain, this one went, in other words, to East Germany and Auschwitz, not the other way round? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, probably. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Where it was stamped? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Just to make sure I am following, the one that we have previously been looking at, I thought you said came originally from the Moscow archives?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: That is the Moscow copy, yes. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: This is DDR? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Domburg, yes, the Domburg archive, which has been available in Poland since at least — this was published in the 50s and this is also the document which went to Vienna, this particular copy. A copy of that was made available to Vienna.

Now, what is important in this second copy, and it is not a very clear copy, but I think the essential information is the same. I mean, the information is the same but the formatting is different. We see when we look at this particular copy, we see at the top it says “Abschrift” which means this is a typed copy. There was no photocopy machine in it.

So while the original, the Moscow copy No. 1 is a carbon copy of the original, the second one is actually a newly typed copy, and with all these newly typed copies there would always have been a note at the bottom. It should be signed. It says: “Fur Die Richtigkeit der Abschrift which means for the correct —- Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Accuracy? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: — the correctness of this copy and then there is an initial there.

It is very difficult even in my copy to see who actually signed this. The reason that I think this is quite important is that this is a different copy of the Moscow one which is in a different archive. So we have now two different objects, both talking about an incineration capacity of 4,756 persons in the camp.

If, indeed, the Moscow — I mean, I think it is very, very unlikely that somebody who would have falsified this document, made it up afterwards, would have created both a carbon copy of one and then have made a new kind of Abschrift of that same

document, and then placed it into two different archives. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Well, on the contrary, I thought that might have been what a determined forger might have done. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: So that he actually make two different versions of the same copy? Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I understand your point. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I disagree with your Lordship on that, but your opinion in the end is more important than mine on this, I think.

Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Your are rather better informed than me. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: This very much takes the format of a typed copy as you find in the Auschwitz archive. So I think that in this case there is a convergence of two different objects, showing in two different archives, that, indeed, we have here, you know, as far as I say with absolute certainty in the original document.

But there were other challenges made and, in order to deal with the other challenges, I would like to go to a very short review of the way documents in the Auschwitz archive, both letters and also copies, are dated, and the way the code which shows which file it has to go in is done.

So when I go to No. 3, which is a letter from Bischoff, the chief architect to the chief doctor in Auschwitz, of 30th June 1944, about the building of small morgues in Birkenhau, they were built in the existing barracks — every camp in Birkenhau would get one morgue — we see basically that the heading says Auschwitz, 30th

June, “den 30.Juni 1944”. It would be the normal accepted way of dating a letter, and then we see the brief type of book number. We see there two numbers and then we see “Jo” which is for Jotam who was at that moment the chief architect, and “Go” without dots, without periods. If we go to No. 4, this is a record of a meeting. We see that the date is again Auschwitz, 30th January 1943, but we see that the secretary who typed this letter in this case has a period behind the initial.

If we go to No. 5, which is a letter to Topf u. Sohne, a carbon copy of a letter to Topf u. Sohne, which was done on letter head, we see that there is no place. It says simply 28th February 1943. In this case there are no periods behind the initials of both Jahrling and the secretary. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: When you say “no place” do you mean no “den” —- A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No period. It does not say Auschwitz den 28th February.

Mr Irving yesterday challenged the authenticity of the Moscow document because there was no place. So this one does not have a place given. Then we have No. 6 which is one of these typed copies, Abschrift, which does not have a place which probably would be, you know, probably would also not have been in the original. But what we see here is that the secretary has again a period behind her name, but the Jahrling thing, we see in this case Jahrling is typed JA

umlaut H, while in other ones he is only typed as JAH, umlaut, which means now they have added an H. So there seemed to be at least also the way the name has been shortened, there seems to be no kind of agreement on it. Then we go to No. 8 because No. 7 is the —- Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Second page? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: — the second page of that letter. We see that again the secretary has a period and then Dr E has a period. He is one of the doctors in the camp.

No. 9 we see again, no place. This is a letter to Hoess from Bischoff and one would have expected this to be probably correct, following the correct format. We see that there is no place indicated. It says 12th February 1943. Again, the secretary has a period but not the Sturmbannfuhrer Pollok, who dictated the letter. But, when we go to No. 10 and No. 11 —- Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: There is a point on 6. I just wonder whether it is a good point or a bad point? Tell me.

The tagebuch number is in typescript, not manuscript. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Sometimes it is typescript, sometimes manuscript. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: That was another point Mr Irving made, I think. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, I am sorry, I had forgotten that. We see again that sometimes it is handwritten and sometimes it is typed. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes. Sorry, that was taking you back. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes.

Now we come to No. 10 and there we see that in fact both the person who dictated the letter and the person who

typed the letter in this case have a period behind their initials, and in fact behind the person who typed it there is even a dash. No. 11, the letter of 19th July 1944, we see that this is a letter dictated by Steilv.Bauleiter Teichmann. We see there is a period behind the shortened form of his name and a period behind the letter indicating the secretary. So I think that the only conclusion one can draw out of this is that there was no standard procedure in the Zentralbauleitung.

I have added two other documents and this has to do really with a challenge Mr Irving gave in his letter to me which was posted on the web. I do not know if I can address that, but it is an alternative way of dating a letter, which says “am” instead of “den”. So sometimes it says “Auschwitz den” and then the date comes, but sometimes it also says “Auschwitz am” 14th May 1943. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I do not think that was Mr Irving’s, if he will forgive me, best point.

They are both used, are they not? MR IRVING: I accept his point on that. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think you did. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Then there was one other thing which came up yesterday and I do not know if I am allowed to give testimony on that, which was the number of 2.5 million and 1.1 million which were given by Hoess.

MR IRVING: Yes. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I have re-read that passage. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You do not object to this? You introduced it Mr Irving, so I think it is right. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I would like to go back to the point in my report which is at page 306 where the actual quotation is. I have repeated it in a few other places but I think 306 is a good point to do that. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: It starts in the second paragraph: “On the basis of the figure of 2.5 million”, and I do not know if you want me to read it? Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Shall I just cast my eye down it? (Pause for reading) Yes, I have looked at quickly. I have read it before. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: OK. So the point is that what Hoess says — I will summarize it — is that there is this figure of two and a half million which is mentioned by Eichmann.

This is the only figure we have because Eichmann mentions it. But then he says that I have only kept to this figure because Eichmann has given it, but I myself think it is too high. Then he makes his own calculation on the basis of transports coming into Auschwitz. So he actually challenges that figure. After he has first mentioned it he challenges this figure and he comes then to a total number of deportations of 1,125,000 Jews going to Auschwitz at the bottom of that paragraph.

So that I think will in some way resolve the confusion about these two numbers. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you. That is helpful. MR RAMPTON: My Lord, there are a couple of other points — I have seen these documents for the first time myself — which I just draw attention to, perhaps through the witness. Can we go back to page 10, Professor van Pelt? I do not know that you did draw attention to this, it really is obvious. There is underneath the Kommandantur KL there is an AZ and a colon.

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: And then a number. Do you see that that number is somewhat typed? It may have been altered in hand, I cannot see. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You notice also that the reference is underlined? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: If you turn over the page,, this one is coming from Birkenhau apparently and, unlike the previous one, the reference is handwritten and there is no underline.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: What is the significance of the underlining, do you suggest? MR RAMPTON: I am not suggesting any significance at all. All I am suggesting is that this is a medley. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Another variation? MR RAMPTON: It depends who is typing it, it depends how fussy

the boss is, all that kind of thing. There is nothing to be told from these documents except that, like all offices, they vary in their practices. Look, will you please, Professor, at page 12, again at the reference, there is no underline. We see that it is apparently typed by a secretary called Lm, whatever gender that may have been. If you turn over to the last page, again we find the reference both typed and underlined. And we find that Lm is typing for somebody else called Eg.

Do you see that? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You do not happen to know who Eg was, do you? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Egelich. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It does not particularly arise out of this, I think, or indirectly — do you happen to know how many secretaries there were at any one time? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: That changed. There are documents which have actually been signed by people who also had other functions.

Normally I think there were one or two German secretaries and there were a number of Polish secretaries also. For example, P is a Polish worker named Pluskurer. It seems to be that there was no regular typing pool in the Zentralbauleitung. Also the Zentralbauleitung, if you look at the personnel lists, changes very rapidly, with people moving in and people moving out. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Thank you.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, if the authenticity of the incineration capacity is still in issue, you might want to cross-examine further? I do not know. MR IRVING: I think I am entitled on the points he has made, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You are certainly entitled to, yes. MR IRVING: I will be as brief as I possibly can. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do not hurry < Further cross-examined by Mr Irving MR IRVING: Firstly, I will abandon relying on the full stops.

That will probably ease your Lordship’s task in assessing the matter, but the other matters, I am afraid, are just reinforced by what I have seen here. First of all, reverting to what you said about the witness Hoess, the Kommandant of Auschwitz, have you seen a handwritten confession by Hoess made in British captivity at the request of Colonel Draper, the British public prosecutor? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No, I have not seen that.

Q. [Mr Irving]: It was one of the very first statements he made, in which he admitted — it is just five or six lines long — having killed 2.8 million people in Auschwitz. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No, I have not seen that one. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Killing by gas? MR IRVING: Just killing, my Lord. He does not actually say. I rely on that purely to indicate the vacillating nature

of the figures that the witness Hoess gave. Reverting now to these documents that you very kindly produce for the court, I will take up first of all the point that his Lordship very astutely made about page 6, where you pointed out that the letter book number was typed. Witness, what does the first word on that page mean, “Abschrift”? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: That means it is a copy. Q. [Mr Irving]: In other words, it has been copied from the original? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Would there have been any reason why somebody copying an original document would have then left a space there and handwritten in the letter book number, which was presumably handwritten in on the original? He would have typed a copy of the whole document, would he not? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I presume so, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: So it would be wrong to draw any significance from the fact that that one is typed.

Stepping through the documents, I would just ask in general, have you seen, in all the documents that you have worked on in the Auschwitz archives, any other document in which the year 43 or 44 is missing from the letter register line? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Are we referring back to the original Moscow document? Q. [Mr Irving]: Any document at all. Have you seen any document at all? I am not referring to the date of the document. I am referring to the letter register line.

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: The 31550 and no year. Q. [Mr Irving]: That is correct, which has no year. Have you seen any document at all which omits the year? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I do not remember. Q. [Mr Irving]: Very well. Have you seen any document at all which has a secretary with the initials Ne? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: As I said, I do not remember. I could reconstruct who the secretary was, but that is at the moment not available to me.

The point I thought I made was that many different people are typing these letters. We have seen, I think, not one time the same person typing any of these letters in this very small collection. Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it correct that there are about 50,000 such letters now extant, now in the archives, in Moscow and in Auschwitz? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Something like that, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Would it surprise you that other researchers investigating specifically this document have looked for any other letter at all in all the thousands of letters available signed by a secretary Ne, or with the secretary’s initials Ne on them, and there is no such letter? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: This is a big problem, of course, how to make a proof, how to make a negative proof. I can imagine that people have been looking for this.

What I can say is that I have not investigated the secretary who wrote this letter. The only thing I can say is that there seems to have been no

consistent policy. I must also remark that, if I were to be a forger —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: This is not really a policy point, is it? MR IRVING: It is the only way I can phrase the question. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: OK. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is not a policy point. It is was there a secretary whose name started ne? It is nothing to do with policy.

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: When I am back in Canada I can look that up, but I think the important point is, if I were to be forger, I would of course not invent a new name. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is a different point. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I would take one of the existing initials. MR IRVING: This is clear. So you would not be surprised if we found another letter with the secretary’s initials Ne on it? I am afraid I cannot give evidence in my questioning.

I can only say would you be surprised to hear that there is not one? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: If this were to be a forgery, the forger would have been a very, very dumb person. Q. [Mr Irving]: In all the letters that you have seen, Professor van Pelt, including these ten you provided this morning, have you seen any in which the rank of the Brigadier General Kammler is wrong? They have left out the words “Generalmayor der Waffen SS”.

My Lord, I will draw your attention to the way it should have been.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I have noticed Kammler is the recipient of one of the other documents. MR IRVING: It is, on page 13, my Lord. That is the correct way it should have been written. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have the answer, that this is the only occasion on which the Professor has seen that happen. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: There is one final point, my Lord, which is a fourth question, which is possibly new and I would certainly be willing to let Mr Rampton come back on this one. The serial number of the document 31550, is that in sequence with the other documents of those days? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: In the file, you mean? Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I do not remember.

I looked at the document in the file originally in relationship to the contents and not in relationship to the serial number. I am happy to go back, when I am back in North America, and have the whole file printed out, and then this thing could be reconsidered. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Again, I have to ask the question this way. Would it surprise you to hear that the number is way out of sequence by several weeks?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: In general, if you look at the files — I am not completely surprised but the thing is, the way the files were created, the files quite often have things not in sequence, even in the Auschwitz archive. So it is very

difficult sometimes to see. Normally what happens is a file is built up, that the earliest documents are at the back and then, of course, as new documents come in, the documents ultimately get their final order. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: But you agree that all the other documents, in these ten you have provided, the numbers are in serial sequence? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: In serial sequence? Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I have just checked them and they are, in so far as they are part of the same series?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: They are put together for the purposes of this clip. MR IRVING: I appreciate that, my Lord. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I just picked up some things from a pack I had last night. I just was going through what I had in my hand. Q. [Mr Irving]: The very last question is this. Was Jahrling an SS Sturmbannfuhrer? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I think Jahrling was actually a Zivilarbeiter.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Why is he on the second page of this document signing as an SS Sturmbannfuhrer, the one that has been provided? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: It seems that the original document was obviously meant to be signed by Jahrling, but this is an abschrift and he initialled this thing. Whatever the abschrift was made of, whatever copy the abschrift was made of, had his initials on it and this happens quite often.

Since the original signed copy went to Kammler, which was signed by Bischoff, then quite often there would be a little — one

of the other people would just —- Q. [Mr Irving]: Professor van Pelt, I think you have misunderstood my question. Would you look at page 2, please? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. I see Jahrling, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: It appears to have been signed three lines from the bottom Gezeichnet Jahrling SS Sturmbannfuhrer.

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: It says “Zentralbauleitung der Waffen SS und Polizei” on the top, which means this is signed by the leader, the chief architect which was SS Sturmbannfuhrer Bischoff at the time, but the copy which was available to the person who wrote the Asbchrift must have had Jahrling’s signature on it, which is something which happens quite often, that you see another signature than Bischoff’s in actually the copies which are in the archive.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Does “gezeichnet” actually mean “signed”. MR IRVING: Yes. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: If means “signed” here, but I presume that this person who was writing this Asbchrift had in some way —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: I follow what you are saying. MR IRVING: Is it not correct civil service procedure to put the letters “iA” if you are signing on behalf of someone? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, bit I do not think we are here in a kind of typical Civil Service condition.

We have seen that people are all over the place in the way they are actually formatting these documents. MR IRVING: My Lord, I have no further questions.

MR RAMPTON: Well, sorry, I do have some by way of re-examination. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You may want some re-examination. < Re-examined by MR RAMPTON, QC Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can we take that last point first? Can you take page 1, please? In the bottom left-hand corner of the page is a column what looks a bit like names? MR IRVING: It is a distribution list. MR RAMPTON: Thank you, Mr Irving, but I am asking the witness questions. “Verteiler”, do you see that? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: And the last name on that might be “Jahrling”, might it? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, that is Jahrling. So Jahrling got a copy of this letter. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is the point you have made, that is the only indication of who signed it available to the person who did the Auschwitz. So they put “gezeichnet” by Jahrling? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. MR RAMPTON: Yes. Do you notice, please on page 4 a signature over a Sturmbannfuhrer? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Whose signature is that? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: That is Bischoff’s signature. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What about page 7 over the same word Sturmbannfuhrer? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: That is not Bischoff’s signature, but it was —-

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Somebody has written “signed Bischoff”? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, what we see here is we see that there is a little note on the lower corner, the lower on page 7, it says Fur die Richtigkeit der Asbchrift, which says, this is Pollock, I think it is Pollock, SS Untersturmfuhrer, and so Pollock now has put the name of Bischoff, signed in his own handwriting Bischoff’s name, since we are dealing here with an Asbchrift.

So in some way Pollock has done by hand what in some way occurred in page No. 2 which is typed. Q. [Mr Rampton]: There is only one other thing I need to ask you about and it is this. Mr Irving seems to take the point, if I have understood it, that if the reference number is typed rather than handwritten, one must expect to find the word “Abschrift” on top of the document. Can you look at page 3? Is there “Abschrift” on top of the document?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No, that not Abschrift. Q. [Mr Rampton]: And is the reference number typed or handwritten? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: The reference number is typed. Q. [Mr Rampton]: And at page 6 we see Abschrift and a typed reference number, but what about page 10? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Page 10, it was typed and it was corrected by hand. Q. [Mr Rampton]: And there is no Abschrift on top of it? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No, there is no Abschrift.

MR IRVING: It is not actually a letter register number there; it is the file number.

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: [German]. MR RAMPTON: Well, this is the third or fourth example so perhaps the point is made. What about page 13? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Page 13, it is typed. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is typed and there is no “Abschrift” on top of it? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. MR RAMPTON: Yes, thank you.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can I ask you the same question, Professor, that I asked you when you gave evidence yesterday which is whether the points that have been put to you this morning raise something of a doubt in your mind about the authenticity of this document? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No, it does not. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: The point about the year not being included, is there anything in that?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I think it is a good observation, but what we see also here, you see if we look at this Moscow, this Moscow document, what we see that the numbers were actually typed in later. It seems to be that there is a — it is a slightly different – also when we look at the persons, it seems they may made up first the letter and that ultimately they were — this letter was drafted and the numbers were put in after some kind of final consultation.

It is a very marked difference with the second copy with Domburg. It seems to be that the final numbering, the number, was brought in later and I can

quite imagine that there was a slip occurred at that moment. MR IRVING: May I enquire on what basis you say that the numbers were typed in later? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: It seems that if we look at the way, if we look at, for example, No. 340 personen, the 340 seems to be almost done slightly sharper than “persona”.

If we can compare that to 1943 on top, I do not know, I mean, but it seems to be that it is — that my sense would be that they were added later, that there was a first draft made, and especially if we look at the “31550/” in the brieftagebuch number, again the slash seems to come very close to the zero, almost as if they put it back in the typewriter and put in the numbers. Now, it is also possible, of course, that they had cleaned their numbers.

You know, these typewriters, these manual typewriters, they would get very messy at a certain moment and especially as in Auschwitz they were reusing the same, how do you call it, ribbon constantly because there was a great lack of it. They get very smudgy at a certain moment, and also the letters get very smudgy, so maybe they had cleaned the numbers to be absolutely certain that these numbers would be clear. I cannot say.

But my sense would be, if you look at the brieftagebuch number, that it is possible that they were, that it was added later, also because it goes left of the

original, how do you call it —- MR IRVING: The margin. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: The margin, and in the other things it seems to be in generally on the margin. So that also indicates that it was generally added later. So, you know, you cannot be absolutely sure about it. But, it seems to be that it was not regular that the person was typing that heading and at that moment was actually putting on all the information.

So since the information was put in later, maybe it is simply the 43 slipped. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: But it is speculation. We cannot be certain about it. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Thank you very much. Can I give you back your original? I am ashamed to say I have made a slight mark on it, not realising. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: You can keep it if you want because I have a copy now. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: But this is the original?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: This is the original copy from Auschwitz. That is why it is stamped. If you want to keep it, since it has a stamp on it? Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: All right. Thank you. Can I say one or more thing? On the back of it, of that copy you have, actually has the actual file in which it is. It says BW34. It is on the back, so that is the actual file in which that document can be found. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much.

< (The witness stood down)

Part II: Rampton examines Irving on Almeyer notes and Muller letter (26.1-78.2)

Section 26.1-54.26

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton, where shall I put this clip? MR RAMPTON: In tab 4 of K2, the second Auschwitz file. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Immediately after page 49? MR RAMPTON: I would think so. In due course I am going to sort mine into chronological order. MR JUSTICE GRAY: So further cross-examination of Mr Irving now? MR RAMPTON: Yes. < MR DAVID IRVING, recalled. Cross-Examined by MR RAMPTON, QC, continued.

A. [Mr Irving]: I have two things which I wish to say here from the box, my Lord, if I may? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. A. [Mr Irving]: One goes to yesterday, the letter, you remember, from the man who had been in an Aufraumungs Kommando, do you remember, and who had had knowledge of 30,000 records of 30,000 in Dresden. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Dresden, yes? A. [Mr Irving]: Back on Dresden.

I just want to draw attention to the fact that the letter was dated sometime in 1965, four years after the book was written. That is a reference to page 538 of the Evans report. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, thank you. A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I provided to your Lordship a copy of the actual order of the day which was missing from the bundle,

and —- Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: The Tagesbefehl? A. [Mr Irving]: That is right, and I have provided you with an English translation of it. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Thank you very much. A. [Mr Irving]: And in view of the fact that the Defence, at least in their catalogue, relied on a letter that Mr Kimber wrote to me, which I complained of as being prejudicial, I have put in the clip for your Lordship the reply that I sent to him. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Just pause a moment.

The Tagesbefehl we ought to put into… A. [Mr Irving]: It does not really add or subtract anything from the case, but your Lordship should really have a copy of the document we spent most of yesterday talking about. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: I quite agree. Mr Rampton, where would it go? MR RAMPTON: This … MR JUSTICE GRAY: This is the genuine one? A. [Mr Irving]: No, my Lord. This was the fake one.

MR RAMPTON: If you look on the second page, my Lord, you will see it has the —- A. [Mr Irving]: I do not know whether there actually ever was a genuine one. I telephoned with Mr Bergander in Berlin this morning, and he said that the man who gave him the so-called genuine one had copies of both. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think page 14A, is that right?

A. [Mr Irving]: The other only little bundle I have gave your Lordship this morning was —- Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Just pause a moment, and let us get this into the right place. Is that right? It is a question of where it goes in the chronological sequence otherwise it gets lost. Come on, we are wasting time. MR RAMPTON: My Lord, I have not got my Dresden file here so I am afraid I cannot help. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, can Miss Rogers find out where it should go? MR RAMPTON: Can we sort it out?

A. [Mr Irving]: The only other thing I gave your Lordship was just five photographs of the Goebbels diary so you know what we are talking about when we come on to the Goebbels matter. That is the boxes and so on that they came in. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much. MR RAMPTON: (To the witness): Mr Irving, Hans Almeyer, I think you first discovered him in June 1992? A. [Mr Irving]: I think it was June 2nd 1992, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Your diary entry —- A. [Mr Irving]: June 3rd.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: — is 3rd, so it would be yesterday, would it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Your diary entry reads — you can see it if you like, we have it here — “Later at PRO all day”. This is what happened on 2nd. “Finished reading file of interrogations

and MS manuscript by one SS officer, Hans Almeyer, a high Auschwitz official. Once again, like Gerstein, his reports grow more lurid as the months progress. I wonder why? Beaten like Hoess or was he finally telling the truth? A disturbing two hours anyway.” Do you remember that entry? A. [Mr Irving]: Very clearly, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Then I think there is a document you should look at. I am afraid, my Lord, I have no idea which file it comes from.

It is a letter written by Mr Irving on 4th June to Mr Marcellus? A. [Mr Irving]: “Dear Tom”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: The whole clump should go into L1 at tab 5, if it is empty which it should be. MR JUSTICE GRAY: L1, this is nothing to do with Dresden, is it? MR RAMPTON: No, this is to do with Auschwitz actually, but it has much more to do — I mean, it is indirectly to do with Auschwitz because Almeyer was there for a time.

I do not remember how long, about nine months, I think, perhaps a bit longer. No, it is the way in which Mr Irving handles this information that may be of importance. So that is why L1 is a what file? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Dresden. MR RAMPTON: It has “Hungary” in front, so it can have Almeyer at the back. So long as they go where Miss Rogers says,

my Lord, then the index will be of use, otherwise it will not. (To the witness): Have you got that letter you wrote on 4th June 1992 to Mr Marcellus and Mr Weber? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, I was looking at them last night. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Oh good. That is all right. It is a fax, in fact. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: They both would have received the whole text, is that right, although the first part is addressed to Mr Marcellus and the second part to —- A. [Mr Irving]: I think they worked in same warehouse, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am only going to read the part that is addressed to Mark Weber or does he calls himself “Weber”? A. [Mr Irving]: “Weber”, I think. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Who as Marcellus? A. [Mr Irving]: He was the Director of the Institute.

Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: So he is IHR as well? A. [Mr Irving]: IHR, yes and Mark Weber was some functionary there. MR RAMPTON: You write to Mark Weber: “Working in the Public Record Office yesterday, I came across the 200 page handwritten memoirs, very similar in sequence to the Gurstein report versions of an SS officer, Almeyer, who was virtually Hoess’s deputy. They have just been opened for research.

He was held in a most brutal British prison camp, the London Cave (the notorious Lieutenant Colonel A Scotland)”. Then you write: “These manuscripts are going

to be a problem for revisionists and need analysing now in advance of our enemies and answering. I attach my transcript of a few pages and you will see why. It becomes more lurid with each subsequent version. At first no gassings, then 50, then 15,000 total. Brute force by interrogators perhaps”. Now, I have a number of questions about that little message, Mr Irving. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Why are the manuscript notes, or whatever they are, memoirs of Almeyer going to be a problem for revisionists? A. [Mr Irving]: I think because they refute a number of the tenets of the revisionist Bible, if I can put it like that. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What is the revisionist Bible? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, the revisionist credo. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Which is?

A. [Mr Irving]: Oh, at its most extreme, it is that not a hair was harmed on the head of the Jews which was the most extreme and indefensible position. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Does that include Mr Marcellus and Mr Weber? A. [Mr Irving]: Obviously not, otherwise I would not be writing this kind of letter to them, but the Almeyer manuscript, as I would call them, just like the Adolf Eichmann manuscripts that I had found the previous October in Argentina, raised serious questions.

They helped to do somewhat more than dot i’s and cross t’s.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: “… and need analysing now in advance of our enemies”? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Who is the “our” referred to there? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, the enemies of myself and Mr Weber and, presumably, Tom Marcellus. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Who are those enemies? A. [Mr Irving]: Irresponsible historians who will leap on any document and use it to inflate the untenable position at the other end of the spectrum.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: What you were worried about, Almeyer tells a tale, accurate in parts, inaccurate in other parts, according to the traditional or the orthodox view of these matters, about his time at Auschwitz, does he not? A. [Mr Irving]: It is a very inaccurate tale which is, presumably, one reason why — which is, presumably, one reason why the Defence has not relied on him so far. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You will find him in extenso in Professor van Pelt’s report.

You will also find precise observations about what is accurate and what is not. A. [Mr Irving]: Well, you remember when we asked the witness van Pelt who his important eyewitnesses were, there was no mention of Almeyer. Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, there is not because Almeyer is, in certain respects, plainly wrong. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, exactly what I said. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, it may be what you said. What I am wondering about,

Mr Irving, is why you were so frightened of Hans Almeyer’s handwritten notes? A. [Mr Irving]: I do not think I am frightened about him. I am just concerned for several reasons. Let me explain. As an independent historian, with no tenure Professorship to fall back on and, as I explained in my opening statement to this court, no pension to rely on, I have to rely on what find in the archives to sustain myself and my young family.

In order to do that, I rely on finding what might be commonly called scoops, and when you have found a scoop, it would be very foolish if you put it straight in the shop window and say, “Come on and help yourself”. This was clearly a scoop. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, that is not what you mean by the little phrase “our enemies”, is it? What you are frightened of is that somebody will find it or see it and will say: “Well, here is another little piece of information.

It does not fit in every respect, but the bits which are consistent with what we have already got fit neatly into the Auschwitz jigsaw”. That is what you are afraid of, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: They do not fit neatly into Auschwitz jigsaw. It is quite plain. If he only refers to 15,000 dead or 15,000 gassed, then that fitted more into our jigsaw than into the jigsaw of our opponents. MR RAMPTON: I will not ask you to look at it now, my Lord.

I give in the reference a very full account of Almeyer,

warts and all —- A. [Mr Irving]: Well, let me just draw your attention to that letter. MR RAMPTON: I am sorry, I am speaking to his Lordship. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let Mr Rampton finish. Then you say what you want to say. Mr Rampton, yes, where do we find it? MR RAMPTON: May I finish what I am saying to his Lordship? A. [Mr Irving]: His Lordship has just said the same. MR RAMPTON: On pages 260 to 266. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of Professor van Pelt?

MR RAMPTON: Not the whole of it, I am sure it is not the whole of it, but a good deal of what he said is set out there. At various points in the footnotes, my Lord, Professor van Pelt, and probably also in the text, though I do not have the whole of it here, Professor van Pelt draws attention to passages in Almeyer which cannot be right.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: But the point on Almeyer was not really so much the number of Jewish prisoners who were gassed, but, rather, the detailed nature of the description of the gas chambers. MR RAMPTON: Precisely, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is that fair? MR RAMPTON: Absolutely right. A. [Mr Irving]: Right. Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is what you and your revisionist friends were afraid of, was it not, Mr Irving? A. [Mr Irving]: Let me explain. I saw the Almeyer file on three

occasions, as you now know, because I went to the Public Record Office and asked if they would give me a print out of all the occasions on which I saw the file. I saw it once for afternoon on June 3rd 1992, and I saw it subsequently four years later — I have the actual print out here which will tell you the precise days when I saw it —

on May 29th 1996, and again probably in connection with preparation of this action on 6th September 1997. So I have seen it three times. I am not a Holocaust historian. My time in the archives is limited. If I am not writing about the Holocaust in 1992, I am not going to spend the entire afternoon analysing a file of what looks like 200 pages.

I skimmed through it, looked at the various versions, spotted the obvious discrepancies and immediately sent this, what you quite rightly described, I suppose, as an alarm signal to other people saying, “There is this report in the archives which is going to cause problems, and we are going to have to face up to it and it is better that we are the ones who publish it, rather than the people at the other end of the extreme, of either end of the two extremes, who will put spins on it which are

quite unacceptable. Q. [Mr Rampton]: But, you see, Mr Irving, before ever having analysed it, thought about it, compared it with the rest of the great corpus of evidence about Auschwitz, you are already

suggesting in this letter that Almeyer’s account was beaten out of him by the British under the charge of the notorious Lieutenant Colonel Scotland, are you not? A. [Mr Irving]: I take it you have never heard of Lieutenant Colonel Scotland. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, will you answer my question? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, I have. I know who Lieutenant Colonel Scotland is and I know all about the Kensington Cage in which the prisoners were tortured.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, I dare say you have. I am not the least bit interested in Colonel Scotland. Please answer my question. Before you have analysed these notes or compared them with the corpus of evidence on Auschwitz, you have already begun to suggest that they were beaten out of it? A. [Mr Irving]: The papers are found in the files of Lieutenant Colonel A Scotland which were seized from him by the British Government after the war.

Almeyer was held finally in the London prison cage, which was Colonel Scotland’s outfit, before he was turned over to the Nuremberg authorities. As his questioning proceeded, starting in Norway and then ending up in England because he was captured in Norway, his accounts became more lurid. The final accounts in his file are written in British Army style with all place names and proper nouns written in capital letters with all that that implies, in handwriting, in pencil.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: But Mr Rampton’s question, I think, was suggesting this to you — I am just going to ask it, if I may — that in a way you are putting the cart before the horse jumping to the conclusion — this is the question —- A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — that because the Almeyer account was found in what you describe as the London Cage, it, therefore, followed that the account that he gives is worthless? A. [Mr Irving]: No, my Lord.

What I am saying is because it gets progressively more lurid, because the numbers increase from report to report, and because it ends up written in traditional British Army style on British Army notepaper, in pencil with all the place names and proper nouns written in capital letters, one is entitled to draw certain conclusions from the physical appearance of this file, particularly when one associates it with the name of the notorious Colonel Scotland.

MR RAMPTON: Have you ever seen a police interview with a witness, Mr Irving — a record, a handwritten record, of a police interview with a witness, Mr Irving? A. [Mr Irving]: I think there have been references to them in various Courts of Appeal, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, Mr Irving. Have you ever actually seen the record of a police interview? I am talking about the days before they were tape recorded and later typed, transcribed.

Have you ever seen a record of an interview in a Police Station? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You know perfectly well it is common form that poor old officer Bobby laboriously writes out what the witness is saying, and then when he comes to a name he always puts it in capital letters? A. [Mr Irving]: But is he writing out what the witness is saying or is he writing down something and saying to the witness, “No sign here, please. This is what you said”?

Q. [Mr Rampton]: So it is not just the notorious Colonel Scotland, it is the notorious Scotland Yard, is it? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, you dragged them in. I did not mention them. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Come on, Mr Irving, the fact that it is written in pencil with the names in capitals tells us nothing.

A. [Mr Irving]: On the contrary, it indicates clearly that he is doing precisely what he is told to at the dictate of the British Army officers who, undoubtedly, had ways of doing their job, they had ways of making people talk, and I have no criticism whatsoever of that. We won the war and these are the methods we used to win the war. But to use these same documents that we won the war with to write history from is, I think, indicative of the problems that we are having in the courtroom today.

Because you yourself have admitted, your expert witnesses have admitted, that Almeyer frequently made wrong statements in his report.