Day 18 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

Part I: Initial Proceedings (1.1 to 18.24)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London Thursday, 10th 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 EIGHTEEN

<Day 18 Thursday, 10th February 2000. (10.30 a.m.) MR JUSTICE GRAY: May it please the court. Two or three minor housekeeping matters. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR IRVING: Your Lordship requested yesterday or the day before yesterday, you expressed an interest in that remark by Hans Frank at the Nuremberg trial where he said that he had discussed it with the Fuhrer

on February 2nd 1944. Your Lordship said you would like to see the passage concerned. That is the top document in the heap which I have left your Lordship there. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you. MR IRVING: In order that your Lordship can see the passage concerned, I have put it into bold face, and it is about 10 pages in, I think. It is easier to find — it is three pages from the end, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, thank you. MR RAMPTON: Maybe your Lordship has something I have not.

MR IRVING: It is there. MR RAMPTON: Thank you very much. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is in bold. MR IRVING: I have put in bold, that particular passage. The entire document is of interest and it may well be that Mr Rampton will wish to ask questions about it. It is Hans Frank, who is the Governor General, which is not

where Auschwitz was situated, of course, the Governor General, but he is relating his own experiences and how he learned, first of all, of the rumours from radio broadcasts, which may seem extraordinary and how he then went to discuss them with Hitler. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, thank you. MR IRVING: The second point is —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Sorry to interrupt you, but where shall we put this? MR IRVING: Miss Rogers will, undoubtedly, have a suggestion to make of a proper nature.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. She is in charge. MR RAMPTON: Probably in the J file somewhere or other. At the back of tab 7 of L1(iv) for the present. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Hang on, this is, in effect, an Auschwitz document. MR IRVING: It is. MR RAMPTON: Is it? MR JUSTICE GRAY: So we do not want to put it in a —- MR RAMPTON: I do not think it is an Auschwitz document. MR IRVING: It is. It goes to Auschwitz and Hitler’s knowledge of Auschwitz. It is actually the question of the final link.

Your Lordship may read this document either way, of course. You may hold it against me, in fact, that Frank is discussing this with Hitler. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am not going to try to absorb it now

because it maybe you will want to pick this up with Professor Evans. MR RAMPTON: It is Hitler knowledge, really, because it reflects back on the suggestion that Frank was told by Hitler —- MR IRVING: I agree. MR RAMPTON: — or one of Hitler’s people on 12th December 1941. MR JUSTICE GRAY: So you stick with L as being the appropriate place? MR RAMPTON: Yes, I would stick with L for the moment. L1, tab 8, I am now told. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of 8, you are saying?

MR RAMPTON: If there is a tab 8. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I know we are taking time on this, but it is really important that one has the documents in some sort of order. Yes, Mr Irving. Next one?

MR IRVING: The next point is that yesterday evening at about 8.30 p.m. there was delivered to me by courier from the Defendants a very large bundle of papers once again for which Mr Rampton would say, I attach no blame whatsoever to the other parties; obviously, this is an action where that kind of thing happens. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I am not so sure about that, but I will guard my tongue at the moment. MR IRVING: Basically, it was answers to questions which I

had asked of today’s witness, Professor Evans, on January 2nd and January 3rd this year, around about that date, and here we are five weeks later; they have now delivered a response of probably 150, something like that, pages. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Sorry. You say you asked questions of Professor Evans on a previous occasion? MR RAMPTON: Written questions. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think I have seen that. MR RAMPTON: It is perfectly all right within the rules.

MR IRVING: Within the rules and with the aim of speeding things up. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think I have seen the product of your questions. MR IRVING: Well, the product was delivered to me last night. It covers really the first 200 pages of his expert report which means I cannot today address myself specifically to those pages of his report. It would be a nonsense. MR RAMPTON: That is perfectly reasonable. In fact, the answers run only to six pages, I think. MR IRVING: Yes.

MR RAMPTON: The rest is what you might call supporting documentation. MR IRVING: Very well. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But why has this come —- MR RAMPTON: Because Professor —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: — within hours of Professor Evans getting

into the witness box. MR RAMPTON: Because Professor Evans is a busy man and he has only just answered them. I cannot answer them for him. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, that, of course, I understand. MR IRVING: I make no criticism of that, my Lord. Obviously, we both have our professional lives to lead, but for this reason it would be pointless for me to cross-examine him on those pages as I certainly shall. MR RAMPTON: That I accept.

MR IRVING: Because he may very well have answered the matters in the meantime. But today I was going to discuss more general matters with him. We were going to set the scene as far as we possibly can. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, but may I just say something about your cross-examination? I have spent many hours, to put it no higher, on day 16 and day 17 which is, basically, your cross-examination of Professor Browning. MR IRVING: Yes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Your questions, if I may say so, are clear, almost always to the point, but what I would find helpful is if you would usually make a point of, if you can, directing me to the document that you are cross-examining on, or invite the Defendants to direct me to the document you are cross-examining on, because you probably understand when I go through the transcript (and I am much less knowledgeable than you and, indeed, than the

Defendants), I do not always find it very easy to follow the drift of the questioning unless I know what the document says. MR IRVING: My Lord, I will certainly do so in the written text of my summing up which I shall deliver to your Lordship as a written document as well as spoken.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: But, remember, I am trying to follow this and digest it as we go along from the transcript so that if you can —- MR IRVING: Your Lordship will have noticed a disparity —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: — accommodate? MR IRVING: — of effort between the man power on the Defence side and the man power on the Claimants’ side of this case, and I do what I can. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I know. I am really inviting the Defendants to come to my assistance during your cross-examination.

The trouble is — I have said it before, I will say it again — that the documents on certain aspects of this case are scattered amongst different files, mostly untranslated, and it does not make life any easier. I say that with some feeling. MR RAMPTON: I am not sure if I see that as a rebuke or not. It is a fact of life, however.

To make your Lordship’s task easier because, after all, at the end of the case your Lordship is going to have a write a judgment, we will perhaps, as it were, in conference in open court with your

Lordship try to put together — we have for some subjects already done it, we did it for Reichskristallnacht, we have done it for Dresden and some other things. MR JUSTICE GRAY: They are fine, those two topics.

MR RAMPTON: But there are, obviously, a number of key documents which your Lordship rightly says and, unsurprisingly, since the bundles have not been agreed in the usual way, but are simply the experts’ references, they are scattered all over the place, we need to draw them together. When we have done that, I think we need some help from your Lordship about which ones you would like us to translate. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

I agree with all of that, but just looking ahead, for example on Longerich — it is too late on Professor Evans and it may not be a problem with Evans — it would be helpful to perhaps, prepare, a little bundle in advance. MR RAMPTON: I agree, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It may be you have done all this already, but if you have not, do you think that could be considered? MR RAMPTON: My working is different.

I have taken all the documents already from different experts for use in cross-examination, which is a slightly different exercise. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I will have to leave it to you, but bear in mind I am not rebuking so much as just expressing a real problem.

MR RAMPTON: I understand it as a plea for help. MR JUSTICE GRAY: In a way, it is exactly that. MR RAMPTON: Which I fully understand. So what we will try to do, if we can, is get a Longerich bundle together, but it may well include some documents from other places. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. Mr Irving, there are some other documents here. Should I look at those now or are they for later? MR IRVING: No.

I will draw your attention to them when the time comes, but I am going to draw your attention or remind your Lordship of what we call the Kinna document, K-I-N-N-A, which was a late arrival. I am almost tempted to say it is a glamorous arrival. It arrived late from an anonymous source, your Lordship will remember, and your Lordship asked the Defence to take two weeks to find out where it came from. They have know provided that information to me last night.

It is a document which I regard as suspect inasmuch as it comes from a 1960’s Polish publication, what we would call a blue book and the Germans a white book an the Nazis a brown book, I suppose, or the East Germans. It is that kind of publication. I make no criticism of that. I am not going to attack the integrity of the document because I am not in position to. But they have also produced in support of the document the testimony of the man who signed it, as I understand it

taken in. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can we first of all go to this document? MR RAMPTON: Yes, my Lord. It was, I think produced —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: I remember it. MR RAMPTON: — during the course of — I am going to hand it up. MR IRVING: I am not going to deal with the contents of the document. I understand I will be cross-examined on it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, but if you are saying about it, I want to look at it so I know what you are talking about.

MR RAMPTON: There was a translation at some time. I do not know where that has got to. It is a report from a place called Zanosk which is in Poland of 16th December 1942 about the transport of some 644 Poles to Auschwitz. It has a real significance so far as, indeed, not just Auschwitz, but the Holocaust as a whole, in its second paragraph on page 2, which somebody, might be the source, has put a line beside, and the question was really this for the moment, what authenticity does it have?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I remember. MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving was worried about that. We now know that it was reprinted as a facsimile in a Polish book in 1960, which is produced by the Warsaw archive which is, no doubt, where it is, also again in 1979 and then the last document where it was translated from German into Polish, and in the last document is the testimony man Kinna

himself which I think he gave on 2nd July 1964. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is Kinna the signatory of the document? MR RAMPTON: He is the man who wrote the report, yes. Although I cannot possibly read it, I am your Lordship cannot either, maybe Mr Irving can, these are the handwritten notes of the hearing. What, in effect, we are told they do is to show that Kinna himself verified the contents of his report. MR JUSTICE GRAY: In what context? MR RAMPTON: He was a witness at a trial.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: He was a witness as a prosecution of a —- MR RAMPTON: Yes, so I understood, at Frankfurt. The last document in this little clip is, I think, not connected. It is a letter, I think, from Hans Frank to Heinrich Himmler dated 23rd June 1942. MR IRVING: It is from Viktor Brach. MR RAMPTON: You are quite right. It is in the top lefthand corner, but I do not know what it says because I have not read it yet. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Right.

MR IRVING: My Lord, can I revert to the submission I was making about the Kinna document? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, absolutely. That is what we are on now. MR IRVING: I am not going to challenge the integrity of the document because I am not in a position to do so, but I am going to deal with that handwritten document which your

Lordship was just looking at which was the 1963 trial where Kinna was asked about the document. I have deciphered the handwriting at the end I will translate it very rapidly: “Says the witness Kinna” —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Pause. I have not got there yet. MR IRVING: It has a number of numbers on it, and it has an upside down page 11 at the top left-hand side corner.

The final paragraph, the final two paragraphs, translate as follows: “The witness Kinna confirmed the accuracy of the report. He answered the questions put to him by the lawyer Professor Dr Kaul”. K-A-U-L. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am so sorry. MR RAMPTON: My Lord I am sorry, the clip has not been paginated which is annoying. It is the second of two —- MR IRVING: Two handwritten pages. MR RAMPTON: — handwritten page. It has a fax page 10 in the top righthand corner.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I have it. I cannot see the upside-down 11. MR RAMPTON: You do not have to struggle with that. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, sorry, Mr Irving? MR IRVING: I will repeat it. “The witness Kinna confirmed the accuracy of the report”. This is two paragraphs from the bottom, “The witness Kinna” —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: I see. MR IRVING: — “confirmed the accuracy of the report. He answered the questions put to him, the expanding

questions, the amplifying questions, put to him by the lawyer Professor Dr Kaul. To the correction of the witness, no further motions were put”, or it could be either “correction” or on the swearing of the witness, but that is unimportant. What concerns me is the final paragraph: “The witness was sworn in, and in agreement with both parties he was released”. I shall draw attention to that. I do not think this is a proper time to draw attention.

The significance is the fact that this witness, to what is obviously a criminal document, is questioned only as to the accuracy of the document and is then released by all the parties, including the public prosecutor. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I am not saying you are wrong about that. My reaction to it would be that that is simply what happens when a witness is finished giving his evidence.

MR IRVING: Yes, except that, since your Lordship has put it that way, I would comment on the remarkable fact that here is a man who has obviously been engaged in a criminal undertaking who could possibly have struck a bargain, shall I put it like that, that if he will testify to the accuracy of the document, then no further charges will be laid against him. MR JUSTICE GRAY: So your position on what we are calling the Kinna report is that, yes, it is an authentic document.

MR IRVING: For the purposes of this trial, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: But you query whether it was not the product of a plea bargain. MR IRVING: My Lord, I am not challenging the integrity of the document. I cannot because I do not have sufficient apparatus to challenge it. Having read the document, I do not think it seriously damages my position in this case. So, for the purpose of the case, I am going to ask questions on its contents as though it were genuine. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Again I ask where shall we put this?

MR RAMPTON: This is an Auschwitz document. I suggest it goes in tab 4 of K2. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much. MR RAMPTON: Chronologically, we will have declip it and sort it out. I suggest it goes as a lump in wherever the date is, 16.12.42. I cannot help on that because I have not got my K2 here. MR IRVING: The final problem, my Lord —- MR RAMPTON: Can I just finish? I am sorry, I am not trying to be discourteous. I do have a translation as well of the Kinna document.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much. MR RAMPTON: There is one for the judge and one for Mr Irving. He ought to see that in case he does not agree with it. (Same handed). MR IRVING: My Lord the fourth matter concerns the document which you are familiar with, which is August 1st 1941 from

Muller to the Einsatzgruppen chiefs about which we spent some discussion. MR JUSTICE GRAY: And about the authenticity of it. MR IRVING: A serious problem has arisen because I contacted the West German archives, your Lordship will see that the second page of that little bundle I gave you, the bundle beginning with the words “from Monday”, the second page of that is headed “translation”, does your Lordship have the page? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR IRVING: A letter from me

on February 7th this year to the German Federal Archives saying, this is a translation: There is a big trial in London. I need an original copy of the following document. I give the reference number which is given by our witnesses in their bundles. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR IRVING: I need it immediately. Crystal Brown is going to be for the next three days only in the witness box. Could you please fax the documents, we need them in facsimile.

I attach importance if possible to seeing the original documents rather than printed versions, as your Lordship appreciates. They replied to me yesterday, saying that document is not in the file. And to clarify any ambiguities as to what that letter meant, I spoke with Dr Lens yesterday of the German Federal Archives in Berlin and he said, yes, that means this document is not in the

file at all, it is full of completely different documents, which he then describes. There may be an innocent explanation for this but I would ask, before being questioned about this document as I understand the defence wish to, that I should be apprised as to where the original is and, if possible, shown a facsimile. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We have had evidence about that, but I am afraid it is not in my mind at the moment. I think it is been around for a long time, the Muller document, has it not?

MR RAMPTON: Yes. It is mentioned in a book, at least this I know, by Professor Gerald Fleming, called Hitler und die Entlosung. It is a German book which has also been translated. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, that is right. MR RAMPTON: It was published in 1982. I have Mr Irving’s copy which he kindly gave me. MR IRVING: Loaned you. MR RAMPTON: Yes, of course. I have no intention permanently to deprive Mr Irving.

The point is this, not what the authenticity of the document might be, but that it is in a book which Mr Irving has, and that is what I shall be cross-examining him about. I am not going back to history. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, but he can rely on this letter. MR RAMPTON: It does not seem that it is now in a particular

archive. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, the file where you would expect to find it does not contain it. MR RAMPTON: The reference may be wrong, I do not know. I will try and track it down. It is a different point. I am not going to cross-examine him about that. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is

all of this little clip connected with Muller? MR IRVING: No, my Lord. The final document in that little clip is actually a press report of 1983 in which Fleming refers to that very document. I include it purely because I found it by accident last night in my files. I would certainly rely on this little episode as being further proof of the negligence of the historians adduced as expert witnesses by the Defence in this case. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do we know where Fleming got the document from?

MR IRVING: No. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is he still —- MR IRVING: He is still extant. MR JUSTICE GRAY: — alive and well? MR IRVING: Yes. I spoke to him a few days ago. He never wrote about it in a letter to me in his considerable correspondence which I searched. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I will leave this clip on one side. MR IRVING: We will be coming back to it in the course of the

cross-examination of Professor Evans, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I have some photographs of Winnona Brown. MR IRVING: We do not need them until halfway down the cross-examination of Professor Evans when we get the little ditty. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Any more? MR IRVING: That is my only submission. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much. MR RAMPTON: Your Lordship again has probably got something I have not.

I knew what the first part of this exchange was about, because I know what the document is. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have not got any photographs? MR RAMPTON: I have no photographs. MR IRVING: Miss Rogers is sitting on everything. MR RAMPTON: May I enquire through your Lordship where the correspondence is with the Bundesarchives, or whatever it is? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I have a clip which I think you have headed “from Monday August 23rd”. MR RAMPTON: We will sort it out later.

I do not want to waste time. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Good. Now shall we have Professor Evans? MR RAMPTON: Yes.

Part II: Introduction of Professor Richard John Evans (18.25 to 110.4)

Section 18.25 to 41.7

< Professor Evans, sworn. < Examined by Mr Rampton QC.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Professor Evans, first of all, your full names please? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Richard John Evans. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Have you made a report, a long report, for these proceedings? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I have. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Have you made some corrections to it? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, I have. Q. [Mr Rampton]: More recently, have you answered some questions in writing from Mr Irving? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I have, yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: So far as those documents contain statements of fact, are you as satisfied as you can be that they are accurate? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I am, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: In so far as they contain expressions of opinion, are you satisfied that those opinions are fair? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Thank you. Would you remain there to be cross-examined. < Cross-examined by Mr Irving. Q. [Mr Irving]: Good morning, Professor Evans.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Good morning. Q. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I intend this morning to try and deal with matters generally, particularly some of the matters that are large in recent public coverage of this case and try and dispose of them, and then go seriatim through particular points which are contained in his expert report. I shall also try to bring in the reports of those

witnesses who are not going to be cross-examined or presenting themselves for cross-examination and test your Lordship’s patience in that respect, and have to use this cross-examination or the cross-examination of Professor Longerich as a vehicle for introducing certain documents? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. We have discussed that already and that is something that you are perfectly entitled to do.

But do bear in mind, if I may say it again, that it is important that I can follow it, preferably by reference to the documents. MR IRVING: By reference to the documents, yes. Professor Evans, first of all, we learned yesterday from Professor Browning, rather to my surprise that he is effectively in the pay of the Yad Vashim Institute, that he received 35,000 dollars from them for a task which he has not completed, so he is in their debt.

Can you assure the court that you are not also in some way indebted to the Yad Vashim Institute or to any similar body? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It depends rather what you mean by “any similar body”. I am certainly not in debt to anybody, as far as I know. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, the significance being of course that Yad Vashim was the body which commissioned the work which is complained of in this action.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I have never had any dealings with the Yad Vashim Institute of any description.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Where would you position yourself in the political spectrum? I think it is important that we know, when you are describing somebody as being an extremist of either left or right, where you position yourself, your own vantage point from which you view them? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I am a member of the Labour Party. I do not suppose that means that one is left wing these days. Q. [Mr Irving]: No. Never mind the Labour Party’s politics.

What is your own personal political standpoint from which you view people like myself, or Margaret Thatcher, or John Major? Would you regard Margaret Thatcher as being moderately right-wing or extreme right wing? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: As I said, I am a member of the Labour party and, broadly speaking, I take the Labour Party’s point of view on current affairs in so far as I interest myself in them. I would not describe myself as an expert.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you allow the Labour Party to dictate your politics to you or do you have any ideas of your own in this respect? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It depends what you mean by politics. Of course I make up my own mind about things. Q. [Mr Irving]: Your writings appear to be left of centre, if I may put it that way. You would not expect David Irving to write a book, for example, about feminism or the women’s movement or something like that.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, though I have to point out that my work on feminism has been heavily sharply criticised by a number of

feminists. Q. [Mr Irving]: Well, maybe feminists are the kind of people who will never be satisfied. Would that be correct? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I cannot really comment on that. It depends what kind of feminists you are talking about. Q. [Mr Irving]: You have written about 15 books have you, about 15 titles so far? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: 16, I think. Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: They have been published widely around the world?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: They have, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: How would you describe yourself? None of your books have been on a best seller list, have they? They are academic works, are they not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: They are academic works, though some of are written — I always try to write for a wider audience. That is to say I always try and write in a readable manner, and some of my books have sold I think quite well for works that are scholarly.

My book “In Defence of History”, which came out two and a half years ago, has I think sold about 20,000 copies. Q. [Mr Irving]: You are referring to this book, is that correct? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Indeed. That is the American edition. I have no idea what that sold. Q. [Mr Irving]: It spells “defence” differently. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Indeed. That is why they had to reprint it. It is also appearing in Turkish, Japanese, German, Korean and a

number of other languages. My book “Death in Hamburg” I think sold about 20,000 copies in English and German. Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you talking about hard book copies or paper back copies? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Both. Q. [Mr Irving]: Altogether? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes.

I should also say that I have one won a literary prize for history and I have recently been elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature so it seems that my books are regarded as being literary in some sense. Q. [Mr Irving]: It is quite difficult to write literary history, is it not, especially when you are quoting from document? Would you agree? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is difficult.

One has maintain a balance between accuracy, which is of course one’s first duty, and readability. Q. [Mr Irving]: If you are translating a document from Chaucer in English, then you would not use the old language, you would use modern English, would you not? You would put it into modern English and this would not be considered in any way distorting the original. Is that right? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It depends. There are different versions of Chaucer.

I cannot say I am an expert on Chaucer in any shape or form. Q. [Mr Irving]: Obviously, if I am referring to translating from French or from German, it is sometimes very difficult to get an

exact shade of sense on a word. Frequently there is no exact comparison between the two words, between the English and the German? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: This is, well, I think what I would say is that, of course, you cannot do an absolutely literal translation because the word order is different and words have slightly different meanings, but the first duty of an historian is to translate from a foreign language in terms that render faithfully the meaning of the original.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: And I think that any literary pretensions that one has must surely take second place to that aim. Q. [Mr Irving]: How would you decide what is the faithful rendering of a particular word in translation? Would you look just at that word or would you take into account your own general knowledge of what is going on or would you look at the surrounding countryside, so to speak, of the paragraphs before and after?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I think you have to do all of these things and reach your own judgment as to what is an accurate translation. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but the fact that you have used a word that is not a mirror image from one language to the other of a word in a translation is not necessarily evidence of a distortion or an intent to distort? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It depends on how you do it. I mean, as you know, dictionaries give a number of different alternative

English equivalents for German words and you have to decide which one is the most accurate in the circumstances. Q. [Mr Irving]: Well, I will be dealing with this probably next week with you when you come back, Professor, but you will accept that, for example, a 1936 dictionary in German will probably give a different meaning of a word from a 1999 dictionary?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: In some cases, most certainly, in some cases, not, and of course they give range of meanings which one has to use in different circumstances. It may well be, for example, that in 1942 or 1943 in some circumstances a word is used somewhat differently from the way it is used in 1936. So I would not take a 1936 dictionary as being absolute gospel for the usage of words in some circumstances in 1942 to 3.

As I said, you have to look, as you said indeed, at the document itself and the surrounding documents, at the meanings, at the time, the people who wrote it. Q. [Mr Irving]: And take your own expertise into account, is that correct? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: You have to use your judgment which is based on your reading of other documents, most certainly, yes, and, indeed, other people’s of course.

Other people will have worked —- Q. [Mr Irving]: Sometimes the document itself will give you a clue. We looked at a document with Professor Browning, October

1942, relating to the Umsiedlung of 20,000 Jews from Reslatosk. Just from that sentence, it was not plain what the word “Umsiedlung” meant, but two pages later, as Professor Browning correctly pointed out, the 20,000 are referred as anschossen, shot. So there is no question there, is there? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I would not really want to comment on it without actually having the document in front of me.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Later on in the same paragraph we have the sentence that half the inhabitants of the village of X were shot and the after were umgesiedelt to a neighbouring village in which case the word quite clearly has a different meaning, does it not, in the same paragraph? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Again I really do not want to comment without having the document in front of me. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Take it from me it is right. We went through it and it is obviously right.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I am afraid have not read the transcripts for that particular day. MR IRVING: So it seems it is possible to have the most glaring inconsistencies even within the same document as to what the meaning of a word is? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Words may be used in different senses, yes, and certainly as euphemisms in some senses and not as in others.

If you use an euphemism, well, almost by definition, in other circumstances it going to have its actual real meaning.

Q. [Mr Irving]: So it is a minefield then, the translation of documents, or it is either a minefield or a sweet shop, a candy store, depending on which way you are looking at it. If you want to go into those documents with an evil intent or with a perverse intent, then you can fix a meaning which just fits the meaning you want, is that correct? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, if you are referring to yourself, yes. I mean, I would not do that.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Well, I am —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: What is sauce for the goose is source for the gander. In a way, I understand why you are asking these questions. I understand the point you are making.

MR IRVING: I am just rubbing it in, my Lord, the fact that, as Professor Evans rightly said, if this applies to myself, I could distort the document one way, but, of course, if it applies to a left wing historian or a Marxist, they could distort exactly the same document the other way, and he was quite right to point this out.

(To the witness): We will leave the matter of meanings of words because we cannot do that really at this point without having a little bundle of documents to look at which I shall bring on Tuesday, I think, which will be a bundle of documents about the “Ausrotten”, so you might like to prepare yourself intellectually for the word ausrotten and what it means. Professor, you are in charge of this magnificent

team of stallions who have been preparing the defence, is that correct? You were the leading, the chief expert witness, am I right? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, I some research assistants. I have helped the defence in suggestion as to whom should be called as expert witnesses, but not all the expert the witness have been called at my suggestion. I certainly have not been in charge of them in the sense that I have directed them what to write.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Of course, you would not dictate to them what to write, but have you dictated what field of research they should apply their minds to in connection with this defence? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Not dictated, no. I suggested to the defence that certain witnesses might be called to cover certain fields and then, of course, there were lengthy discussions as to how this should be made more precise and exactly what areas should be covered and by whom and so on.

Not all of my suggestions were accepted, of course. MR RAMPTON: Can I just sound a warning note? We are getting towards forbidden territory. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We are on privilege. MR IRVING: I certainly would not have asked him privileged questions. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, you are the right side of the boundary, but Mr Rampton was putting down a marker. MR IRVING: I was going to ask here, did you look specifically

for left orientated experts or right-wing orientated experts? I mean, you did not ask Professor Faurisson, for example, did you, to give evidence? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I would not consider him an expert. Q. [Mr Irving]: You would not consider him an expert? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, I think he is a charlatan. Q. [Mr Irving]: You are right; he was stripped of his Professorship, was he not, by the University of Lyons or Lille, one of the two?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is more his work that I am concerned with and I do not think it is reputable work. My only concern in suggesting the names of expert witnesses was that they should be experts in their particular fields. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. So a right winger is a charlatan and a left winger is acceptable. Would that have been your standard? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Not at all, no.

Had, for example, Professor Hilgrubber still been alive, he was a decidedly right-wing historian, but I consider him a reputable expert in certain fields of Second World War. Q. [Mr Irving]: What about Professor Hans Monson? Might he have come up with the wrong answers, perhaps? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I really do not want to get into discussions of whom we might have called, and we did not.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I do not think you are actually being asked the question in that way, and I think it is a legitimate question. What is the answer?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: What was the question? MR IRVING: Might you have called Professor Dr Hans Monson of the University of Fulkum(?) who is an acknowledged expert on this field? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: But — in the end, he has not been called. Q. [Mr Irving]: But you would not have considered calling him? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is such a hypothetical question; I mean, I would have considered calling him.

There are many people whom I would have considered calling but we did not in the end consider calling them. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can I ask you the question this way which I do not think infringes any privilege. Have you gone out of your way to recommend historians who have a particular point of view which happens to coincide with your own? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No. MR IRVING: But you have had your knives out in the past for right wing historians or Nazi historians, have you not?

In your book “In Defence of History” you make minced meat of some historians? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I think it is also right to point out that I have very heavily criticised some left wing historians as well. If you take my book “In Defence of History”, for example, there is some very sharp criticism of the Marxist historian, David Abraham, there; there is some sharp criticism of the Marxist historian, Christopher Hill.

So I do not think I direct my criticisms only at historians

who might be identified as right-wing. Q. [Mr Irving]: You have stepped into the shoes of Sir Geoffrey Elton at Cambridge, have you not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No. Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you not hold the Chair of Modern History at Cambridge? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, but he held the Reader’s Chair. Q. [Mr Irving]: Is he still there? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: He is dead, I am afraid. Q. [Mr Irving]: Well, he is not still there, is he?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No. Q. [Mr Irving]: How would we position him on the political spectrum? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Very difficult. I mean, I think in some ways he was an unconventional character. I did not know him very well, I have to say, but, on the whole, I think you could say he was right-wing. Q. [Mr Irving]: What is the difference between “unconventional” in your vocabulary and “extremist”?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I meant more in terms of his rather unpredictable views on some subjects. Q. [Mr Irving]: A bit of a loose cannon? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, I would say that. Q. [Mr Irving]: Not politically correct? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I think that is a very slippery term. I mean, it depends exactly what you mean by “politically correct”.

I am not sure that the term political correctness was very much in vogue at the time when he held the chair.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Let me assure you, I am not trying to lay any traps this morning or, indeed, for the rest of today. We are just generally exploring the terrain. So you do not have to have any sense of reserve in answering the questions I am putting to you because —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well —- Q. [Mr Irving]: — there are no traps.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, I am not an expert on Sir Geoffrey Elton whom I only knew very slightly and I did not read, by any means, all of his work. I admired, what I did read, I admired it greatly. I thought he was a tremendous historian and also a very interesting man with pungent, strongly held views, some of which invited disagreement, some of which did not.

But I thought, as an historian, he was in his own chosen field of Tudor Constitutional History, he was a very good historian. Q. [Mr Irving]: Pungently held views or pungently expressed views. Is an historian entitled to express views pungently which are different from those of the common place? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Most certainly, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: So what makes an acceptable pungently held view and an unacceptable pungently held view, in your view?

Is it the supposed political leanings of the person who does the expression? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No. I think that historians, what makes it, as it were, debatable within conventional academic, scholarly terms is

whether historians’ views are accepted — I am trying to think of an accurate way of putting this — whether historians views are put forward on the basis of documents which are available and on a —- Q. [Mr Irving]: The objective sources? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: — reasonable interpretation of those. Q. [Mr Irving]: You attach great importance to the objective use of sources, is that right? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I do, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I think the sources, as it were, have a right of veto on what one can and what one cannot say. Q. [Mr Irving]: Express. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: But within the area that is covered by the sources that you use, there is, of course, scope for some disagreement. Q. [Mr Irving]: You have done a certain amount of research into the Nazi period, have you not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: This was not originally your speciality, was it? Originally, you came from a different era of history? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, I have researched on eras of the 19th and 20th centuries. Q. [Mr Irving]: For some reason the Nazi era is a profitable era of research if one writes books? I do not mean this in any sense as a criticism. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, I have to say the only book that I have done that is

based on archival research on the Nazi period, a book called “Rituals of Retribution” on the issue of capital punishment in Germany since the 17th century, has sold very badly. It is far too long and I am told that Penguin regard it as something of an albatross. Q. [Mr Irving]: It contains acres of sludge, does it? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I would not describe it as sludge myself, no. Q. [Mr Irving]: But I know the temptation.

Is it true one finds documents that oneself finds fascinating, but the readers probably do not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, I think its length has daunted an English language readership. It is about to appear in German and I think Germans are less daunted by very lengthy books. But it does cover 300 years of history in a major area and not a handful of years. It does cover a large subject. Q. [Mr Irving]: I have a confession to make, Professor Evans.

I had not heard of you before you were actually nominated as a witness in this case. This is not a criticism in any sense at all, and I wondered where on earth I could get a copy of your book. Then I found a copy of your book actually on my desk. Somebody actually sent it to me months earlier.

I looked through it, and probably rather the same as you looked through my book “Hitler’s War”, you have never read my book “Hitler’s War” from cover to cover except when this trial began, is that right? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is true, yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: You state in your expert report that you picked it up once and leafed through it, is that right? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is right, yes. It was not really essentially on areas with which I was concerned. Q. [Mr Irving]: At that time you were not dealing with the Third Reich or with Adolf Hitler or with the decision-making processes? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Only in terms of teaching. I have been teaching courses on the Third Reich for some years.

Q. [Mr Irving]: And it would never have occurred to you to put my book on the list of recommended works? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Not really. I think it is more concerned with military history than anything else. I do not know if you would accept that. Q. [Mr Irving]: And the courses that are taught in universities and colleges do not cover military history, is that correct? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Some do, but not the courses that I teach.

Q. [Mr Irving]: In looking at the book, did it occur to you that I had had access to sources that no other historians had had, and that this might, therefore, have made it valuable for teaching courses?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: As I have said, I mean, the sources — of course, it occurred, of course, it was clear to me that you had a justified reputation for obtaining sources which other historians had not had access to, but these sources and your treatment of them were not, I felt, really useful for the kind of teaching that I was doing on the Third Reich.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I ask the witness to be given one of these little bundles, please, Miss Rogers? I am purely using you, Professor Evans, now as a means of getting this document before his Lordship. Are you familiar with the Internet? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you ever use the Internet? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Occasionally, yes. I have to say not very extensively.

Q. [Mr Irving]: I am going to ask you at this stage to look at the first document, but you can leaf through if you wish. Are you familiar with the H Net which is an aspect of the Internet, a kind of communication between experts? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Not very, I have to say. Q. [Mr Irving]: And that there are various H Nets. There is H Net, Anti-Semitism and so on? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: H German, and so on, yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar, Professor, with a Dr David Aaron Meyer, who is the Associate Professor of History and who runs the particular discussion group on the Internet called H Anti-Semitism? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: At Dickinson State University? Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I am not, no.

Q. [Mr Irving]: He expresses an opinion in his e-mail to me dated August 23rd last year in which he says, “I have been familiar with your works for a very long time”, meaning my works, “and find them exceptionally well written and

researched”. Would you share his opinion? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No. Q. [Mr Irving]: He is familiar with my works and he finds them exceptionally well written and researched. Never mind the “well written”, but he finds them well researched. And you do not accept his opinion? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It depends what you mean by “well researched”.

I mean, I do not dispute the fact that you have very wide and deep knowledge of the source material for the Third Reich, particularly during the Second World War, above all, and of course it is quite right, as countless historians have pointed out, that you discovered many new sources. Q. [Mr Irving]: What have I done with these sources? Have I made them available immediately to the community?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I was about to go on to say that the problem for me is what you do with the sources when you then start to interpret them and write them up. Q. [Mr Irving]: But do I do two things with these sources, is this correct?

On the one hand, I write my books based on them, on the other hand, I automatically placed the entire collection of these new sources in various institutes where people like yourself and your researchers and other historians around the world can immediately go and see them; is that correct? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Some of them you have placed, you have made available, and the others you have not.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar with any collections that I have not immediately made available? Can you identify any? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, the interrogations of Hans Aumeier, which have already been discussed in this courtroom, it took you four or five years to make those or six years to make those available.

Q. [Mr Irving]: We have actually discussed them at some length in this courtroom, and it is true that I did not make the actual bundle of documents available to other historians after I discovered them. This is true. Can you suggest there may be a reason why I, having discovered that little scoop, did not make them immediately available to others? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes.

It seemed to me that they were somewhat embarrassing for your position on the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar with the letter that I wrote to Professor Robert Jan van Pelt in May 1996 drawing his attention to this bundle of documents? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is four years after you discovered the documents and a letter to one person. That is not the same as making them generally available immediately.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you agree that Professor Robert Jan van Pelt was the world’s acknowledged expert on Auschwitz and he was the appropriate person to have his attention drawn to this file? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, but I repeat, that is not the same as making them