Day 21 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

Part I: Initial Proceedings (1.1 to 1.26)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London Wednesday, 16th 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 TWENTY-ONE

Part II: Irving Cross-Examines Professor Richard John Evans (2.1-114.17)

Section 2.1 to 17.10

<Day 21 Wednesday, 16th February 2000 (10.30 a.m.) < Professor Evans, recalled. < Cross-Examined by Mr Irving, continued. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving? MR IRVING: May it please the court. My Lord, this morning I shall deal with the Reichskristallnacht, the Night of Broken Glass, and then, as a useful exercise, I will put before the witness a bundle of documents, which is the chain of documents referred to.

We will go through that and invite his opinion on that as an expert on the various documents. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Certainly. MR IRVING: My Lord, we left the operation yesterday, we left the battlefield, so to speak, I had advanced about 250 pages into the minefield. There were a number of smoke screens which had been laid by the witness and others and by the documents, and I am now going to proceed through the smoke screen into Reichskristallnacht.

But, first of all, I wanted to ask the witness briefly about page 210 of your expert report, which is a matter which will be covered by the documents later on, where you criticised the fact that —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I am sorry, I have not brought this with me. I thought we were going to start with Kristallnacht. Can I have a copy?

Q. [Mr Irving]: I will just read it out, it is just one sentence. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, I will have a copy, please. Q. [Mr Irving]: Let me put it to you. You say that my position on Hitler on all these issues is highly favourable to Hitler. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: You criticise me for adopting positions on Adolf Hitler and his decisions that are sometimes favourable.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Could you point me to where I do that, please? Q. [Mr Irving]: On page 210 you say: “Irving’s position on all these issues” — this is paragraph 4.1.10 — “is highly favourable to Hitler”. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I am commenting in this section on the allegation by Professor Lipstadt that you are, I think, “an admirer of Hitler”. I cannot exactly remember the precise words. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is one of them, yes.

MR IRVING: Which is why I am asking you to expand on this one sentence where you say that Irving adopts a position on all these issues, which we have been into before, which is highly favourable on Hitler, and I was asking you whether it is wrong for an historian at any time to say things that are favourable to Hitler. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: If that goes against the evidence, yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Does it not put me in precisely the same position as an historian like AJP Taylor, who, as you pointed out, is not a Professor, not an academic, but a very well-known perhaps even notorious writer before his death, and who

was also very well-known for adopting positions where he came under criticism for having adopted positions which were also favourable to Hitler on certain points? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, of course, AJP Taylor was an academic. He was a Fellow and tutor in modern history at Magdalen College, Oxford for many years. Indeed, he was a Professor towards the end of his life in another university. He was heavily criticized. There was a long debate about that.

He was not shown, to my knowledge, to have deliberately manipulated or falsified historical evidence in order to arrive at what was alleged to be. And what he denied to be. His position. Q. [Mr Irving]: But he did adopt positions that were on occasions favourable to Hitler, did he not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: If you can cite them to me? Q. [Mr Irving]: Here is a copy of AJP Taylor’s very well-known book, ‘Origins of the Second World War’.

Can you turn to page 7, for example? He says there, for example, does he not: “Historians often dislike what happened or wished it had happened differently. There is nothing they can do about it. They have to state the truth as they see it without worrying whether this shocks or confirms existing prejudices.” Is that a fair statement of the position of an historian? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: He should write what he finds, what happened and why?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Even if he is going to be accused of saying things that are favourable to Hitler or Stalin, or Churchill, or Roosevelt, he just should write what he finds. The fact that he writes something favourable to a great personality of history is not ipso facto perverse? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No. It depends how you arrive at that position, of course.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Then there is another position I am accused of in my books, is there not, that by my books or by my writings I give comfort to people on the extreme right. Is that one of the allegations against me? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: You would have to point that out. I do not think I comment on that in this section.

Q. [Mr Irving]: On pages 8 to 9, does he also write: “I have no sympathy with those in this country who complain that my book had been welcomed, mistakenly or not, by former supporters of Hitler. This seems to me a disgraceful argument to be used against a work of history. The historian must not hesitate, even if his books lend aid or comfort to the Queen’s enemies or even the common enemies of mankind”. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, you did leave out a little about there.

Let me read that last sentence again: “An historian must not hesitate, even if his books lend aid and comfort to the Queen’s enemies though mine did not, or even to the common enemies of mankind”. You did not indicate there to the

court that you were leaving out those four words, “though mine did not”. Q. [Mr Irving]: Then he continues: “It is not my fault that according to the record the Austrian crisis (that is 1938) was launched by Schuschnigg, not by Hitler, nor my fault that the British government, according to the record, and not Hitler took the lead in dismembering Czechoslovakia”, and so on. In other words, he is just writing what he finds, even though it comes out in favour of Hitler?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: He is writing what he has argued that he found, and of course there is a great deal of argument about this. But I do not think that he would have accepted, and it is very difficult, that he is favouring Hitler. “Destroying these legends is not a vindication of Hitler”, he says.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Then he also refers to specific episodes like the Reichstag fire and other controversial episodes in history where he claims the right to take a different line from that commonly or politically correctly adopted by historians up to that point. He says, if he does so, this is not necessarily to be taken as a vindication of Hitler, he is just doing his job as an historian. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is right.

Q. [Mr Irving]: In other words, I am not unique in my standpoint; there are other historians who accept, who on occasion find words of admiration for Adolf Hitler’s military capacities, is that right?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I really do not know. The point is, Mr Irving —- Q. [Mr Irving]: Professor Evans, you are holding yourself out to this court as an expert on the historiography of the Third Reich, and now you are saying you do not know if any historians—- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I imagine there are.

I am not a military historian, but I would accept that there are historians who have had words of praise for some of Hitler’s military interventions, most certainly, yes, but it is not really what is at issue here in this case. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that is right, Mr Irving, is it not? We are really not concerned with Hitler as a military figure.

I think I am right in saying that all the criticism of you relates to your writings about his, for want of a better word, political persona, not his military persona. MR IRVING: My Lord, I respectfully disagree. I think the allegation is that I have written a book that is an admiring work, a panogyric. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR IRVING: And this encompasses the whole Hitler, not just the bits that the Defendants may wish to seize upon.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think it is right that they say you have written a book which admires Hitler, but the criticism, as I understand it, is of the way in which you write about his political activities, not his military activities.

Mr Rampton, is that right as a very general summary, just so that we know where we stand? MR RAMPTON: It may or may not be thought a good thing to write a book which has elements, perhaps significant elements, which are favourable to Hitler, but that has nothing to do with this action.

What is said here is that this book is in large part an apology for Hitler, in particular those aspects of Hitler’s thinking and actions which reflect upon what happened to Jews in Europe during Hitler’s reign, if I can call it that. Allied to that, and indeed inseparable from it, is the criticism which is perhaps even more important, that this picture of Hitler which Mr Irving paints in his book is arrived at by bending and distorting the evidence.

MR IRVING: These are two separate issues. At present we are dealing solely with the issue with whether it is legitimate for a historian to write a book which is in part admiring of Adolf’s Hitler capabilities in whichever field, and this was the burden of my opening remarks to the court. I thought as a general matter I would deal with that first.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think anyone is suggesting that the historian is not entitled to express admiration, if the facts and the evidence justify it. I think that is a historian’s duty. I do not think anyone would doubt that. MR IRVING: But your Lordship is familiar with the fact that,

as soon as one utters the slightest positive word about “that man”, as he used to be called in Tommy Handley’s day, one then comes under the full guns of one’s enemies, who say, there he is saying that he did the right thing in the battle of France, or there he is saying that he did the right thing over Czechoslovakia. There are different opinions.

Some historians take this point of view, some historians take that point of view, and AJP Taylor is just one example I wanted to present because he is so well known. No-one has suggested that he did so for any perverse reasons, or at any rate they no longer do so, and whether the reasons were perverse, or whether I distorted or manipulated is the second part of the argument with which we are now occupying the court. We will now turn to the Reichskristallnacht, please.

I am going to ask you a few general questions, first, Professor, if I may. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Sorry, I am just trying to keep my desk a bit clear. Q. [Mr Irving]: Housekeeping, yes. Your researchers who were doing the research for you, and possibly even you yourself, made use of or looked into my files and the research that I had done when I wrote my various books from the 1970s onwards. Is that correct? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is correct, yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: You looked in my files, in my collection, the Irving collection, in the Institute of History in Munich, is that right?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Did you look in the equivalent collections which are in the Federal archives in Koblenz? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I believe we did, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Did you also look not just at the collections of documents which were in Munich but also at the collections of correspondence that I had donated to the Institute of History in Munich between myself and, for example, Adolf Hitler’s private staff?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I think we did, yes. We looked at as much as we could find in the time available. Q. [Mr Irving]: The time available was 18 months, is that right? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: To write the whole report, yes, of which this is only one chapter. Q. [Mr Irving]: You had a large number of people, or relatively large number of people, working on your staff? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Two. Q. [Mr Irving]: It was probably several man years.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Two. I had two people, Mr Irving. Q. [Mr Irving]: Again, it was several man years in the compilation of these particular aspects? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, not really, no, because everybody of course had other things to do at the same time. None of us was working full time on this. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Do you think that any documents in my collection would have eluded your attention, or your researchers’

attention? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I hope not, but it is always possible. Q. [Mr Irving]: It is always possible. So, although it is possible that some of my documents on which I base my book may have eluded your attention, you quite boldly used these very repugnant words about my writing, about having distorted, manipulated and had no possible evidence, and this kind of thing?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: If you can show me that there are important documents in your collections which run against what I have said, then obviously I will accept it. I said I hoped that important documents did not elude our attention, and I have based what I say here and what I write here on the most thorough possible research in the time available.

Q. [Mr Irving]: On balance, you disapprove of my method of relying to any great degree on the statements made either to me or to postwar investigators and historians and interrogators by the members of Adolf Hitler’s private staff, is that correct? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: We have been over this ground, Mr Irving. Q. [Mr Irving]: Well, let us go through it again.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: This is later testimony, sometimes given many years after the event, and therefore has to be treated with caution on those grounds alone. Other things being equal, as it were, one gives somewhat greater weight to contemporary evidence such as the Goebbels diaries. And, in addition

of course, we have already discussed this, members of Hitler’s entourage had good reason not to tell the whole truth. Q. [Mr Irving]: You say that you attach great importance to Goebbels’ diaries. Would you look at footnote 2 on page 233 of your report, please? You list there a number of these books that are on your shelves in your book lined cave where you do your writing, if I can put like that. Do any those books show any sign of having used the Goebbels diaries?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I do not think that is a very fair question, Mr Irving. The point here is simply that I am introducing the section on the Reichskristallnacht. I say in sentence to which that is a footnote: “The episode is well-known to historians. There have been many important and scholarly studies based on a painstaking examination of the original archival documentation.

These include two accounts by staff members of the Institut fur Zeitgeschichte in Munich and other detailed studies”, and so on. This is simply an indication to the court of the fact that this is a well-known episode about which historians are writing.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you accept that every single item you refer to on that page, including all the books and all the well-known studies, and the work of historians at the institute, all emerged before I brought back the Goebbels diaries from Moscow relating to precisely this episode? Therefore they are, to that degree, superseded, they are old hat?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I would not describe them as old hat, Mr Irving, and in any case the point I am making there is that this has been the subject of many studies over many years. This is not something that has suddenly emerged into our knowledge with the Goebbels diaries. Q. [Mr Irving]: Now, you have relied in your footnote 1 on Hermann Graml (who I know personally). He wrote that book in 1956, did he not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Indeed, yes, that is right.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you aware of the fact that I submitted my entire chapter on this Reichskristallnacht to Hermann Graml for his, not clearance, but for his edification and for him to comment on at the time I wrote the book? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, I am not, no. Q. [Mr Irving]: But would you have expected to find that in the correspondence put before you in the discovery process? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I did not, no. If it is there, it is there.

You can show it to me. Q. [Mr Irving]: Again the second source in footnote 1 is 1957 which is, what, 33 years old? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Indeed. I am trying to establish here, Mr Irving, the fact that this is a well-known episode in history which has been studied over many years by many historians. I am not saying that all these books are absolutely right or that they are the last word or that they are up-to-date. I am saying they are works by scholars which in their day,

if you like, were advances of knowledge. Q. [Mr Irving]: And these scholars have nothing to learn from us revisionists then? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It depends what you mean by “revisionists”. Q. [Mr Irving]: If somebody brought back from Moscow the Goebbels’ diaries, would that not be a contribution to the historical debate? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is something different. You do not have to be a revisionist to bring back the Goebbels diaries from Moscow.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I expect you will come shortly, will you not, to what it is in Goebbels diaries that you say casts important light on the events of Reichskristallnacht? MR IRVING: I am laying the groundwork for the cross-examination, my Lord. I am establishing what this expert’s credentials are for this particular matter. Professor Evans, you have worked for five years in Germany?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: On and off over a period of about 30 years, yes, if you totted up all the times I had been there, I have not done it, but it would come to, I do not know, five, six years. It is difficult to say. Q. [Mr Irving]: But do you think that your knowledge of German is sufficient to understand all the vernacular and all the slang phrases and all the nuances?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Mostly, yes. I would not say it was absolutely perfect. It is impossible for any foreigner to enter totally 100 per cent into the inside of a language. Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you say that I having worked in Germany for 39 years on and off would have possibly a better knowledge of German than yourself? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is possible and I do not dispute the fact you have a very good knowledge indeed of German, Mr Irving.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it right that the sources that you have relied upon by way of preference are largely war criminals who were properly convicted at Nuremberg and elsewhere for their activities, whereas not one of Adolf Hitler’s personal private staff was ever convicted as a war criminal? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, I do not think that is true. Q. [Mr Irving]: Which part is not true, that not one of Adolf Hitler’s staff —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, no.

The fact that I have relied on these sources and in any case that — I mean, relied, for example, on the Goebbels’ diaries. Q. [Mr Irving]: Was Karl Wolff a war criminal? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: He was sentenced in 1964. Q. [Mr Irving]: Was Max Jutner a war criminal?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Now, I am not sure, but in any case the point here —- Q. [Mr Irving]: I am just commenting on the odd feature that you rely on Nazi war criminals and —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: You will have to point out to me, Mr Irving, where I rely

on the testimony of Max Jutner, and so on. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think, if I may say so, that is an entirely fair observation. I quite understand the criticism. You are saying he has relied on convicted criminals for —- MR IRVING: In preference to people who have not got a criminal record. MR JUSTICE GRAY: — his contentions. But let us get to the nitty-gritty of it. I think that is what the witness is saying and I think it is a fair point, if I may say so, Mr Irving.

Where does he rely on Wolff? MR IRVING: It is a comment on the quality of sources, my Lord, and the quality of sources is very important, particularly in a matter like this. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I quite agree, but this point only has any impact if you show me where he relies on Wolff or whoever —- MR IRVING: It is where I rely on rather than where he relies on, my Lord, which we are now going to come to.

Would you look at the little bundle of documents which was handed to you this morning which begins with the word “Deckblatt”, “Sammlung Irving Deckblatt”, do you find that? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: If you would just briefly scan it you, would you agree that this appears to be the covering sheet of a file of documents relating to one Wilhelm Bruckner? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is right.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you know who Wilhelm Bruckner was? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: He was the head of Hitler’s, a sort of personal or adjutantur in the 1930s. Q. [Mr Irving]: He was dismissed in —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: ’40. Q. [Mr Irving]: — humiliating circumstances in December 1940, is that correct? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes.

He was also a senior officer of the SA, the brown shirts, and he was an old Nazi — he seems to have been already active before 1923.

Section 17.11 to 42.10

Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. So that he was Hitler’s chief person adjutant at the material time, namely the Reichskristallnacht? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is right. Q. [Mr Irving]: In November 1938? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: From this covering sheet, it is evidence that I collected a number of papers and manuscripts and affidavits and letters from him? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is right.

Q. [Mr Irving]: In fact, this collection was obtained by me from his son, Manfred, in March 1971 and, as was my way, I denoted all these documents to the Institute of History in Munich? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Did you find this file of documents? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Now, what we found was a summary of a statement by, I mean, you are referring here to page 252 of my report,

is that correct? Q. [Mr Irving]: I am asking you just about this one document in front of you at present about the Irving collection? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, yes, but Bruckner is dealt with on page 252 of my report, and I think we should really look at that to get the context. Q. [Mr Irving]: No, I am asking you to answer my questions first please which is —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I am trying to point out the context here.

Q. [Mr Irving]: — have you bothered to find the Bruckner papers on which I relied in writing this passage? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, now, we tried to chase up a reference of yours which was very difficult to find in the Institute for Contemporary History, and the only thing that we could find, because you did not point very carefully to it, was a summary statement of what Bruckner said.

Q. [Mr Irving]: So the answer to my question is, no, you did not find the file of Wilhelm Bruchner papers of which this was the covering sheet? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: This “Deckblatt” here. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but this covering sheet was actually brought to your attention, was it not? It was part of my discovery along with 500 other such covering sheets? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is just a covering sheet, Mr Irving.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but in the discovery there were 500 such covering sheets, there were 500 collections of documents that

I gave to the Institute of History, and this was one of them, and it was copied by the instructing solicitors so you were aware that this file on Wilhelm Bruckner existed in the Institute and yet you did not find it or use it? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, what does it say? Let us have a look at the description under No. 1: “Brief description” — I am translating here [German- documents not provided]. “Documents from the”… Q. [Mr Irving]: “Wilhelm Bruchner papers”?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: “Papers of Wilhelm Bruchner, herein [German] —- Q. [Mr Irving]: In other words —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: “Declaration on oath 3749 on [German] SA on Adolf Hitler. Notice notes on the [German] Putsch 1934. General religious considerations and” —- Q. [Mr Irving]: “Clemency” —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: — “clemency” —- Q. [Mr Irving]: — “application”?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: — “Application for clemency or pardon”. So there is no indication here that there is anything in here that has anything to do with the Reichskristallnacht. That is why it does not appear. Q. [Mr Irving]: So his manuscript on Adolf Hitler would not contain that matter than? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is not a manuscript from Adolf Hitler. Q. [Mr Irving]: It is a manuscript on Adolf Hitler.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is an essay on Adolf Hitler.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. If I reference that in my source notes of several books, then you would have normally gone to some trouble to find that particular file, as you obviously had privileged access to my papers which I no longer have, of course, but you had access to these papers? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Not privileged, no. Could you point out to me where you cite this document, please? Q. [Mr Irving]: It is referenced in several parts in the Goebbels’ biography, is it not?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Could you point out where you reference it, please? Q. [Mr Irving]: We are back to delaying tactics again, are we? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, I want to see where you reference it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is not a delaying tactic. I think it is a fair point, Mr Irving. I mean, if you want to spend a lot of time on this particular document, which I am not finding very helpful, then I think that is a fair observation for the witness to make.

MR IRVING: Can I draw your attention to page 252 of your expert report on line 5, which is line 3 of paragraph 3? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: “The evidence offered by Irving for the encounter between Eberstein and Hitler” which you will agree is quite a crucial encounter, is it not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: In your account, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: “The evidence offered by Irving for this is the testimony of Wilhelm Bruchner”.

My Lord, do you now understand why

I am zeroing in on this particular collection of documents which the witness has made no attempt to find? MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I have not the faintest idea, no. I really have not. MR IRVING: My Lord, your Lordship is familiar with the meeting between Hitler and the Police Chief of Munich in the middle of the night on the night in question? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I am.

MR IRVING: And one source for that meeting was the papers of Wilhelm Bruchner which is the papers which I donated —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: You cite that, do you, in Goebbels? MR IRVING: Which are the papers which I donated, well, the reference in Goebbels is page 277. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I am just looking at the footnotes at 277. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Could I have a copy, please —- Q. [Mr Irving]: Footnote 45 is what you are referring to, is it?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: — of what we are talking about here? MR JUSTICE GRAY: 630. MR RAMPTON: It says: “Testimony of Wilhelm Bruchner (IfZ, Irving collection)”. MR IRVING: That should be plain enough, should it not. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No. Q. [Mr Irving]: Is the IfZ the Institute of History in Munich? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: But is the Irving collection a well-known body of

documents there under the designation Ed200 or Ed100? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Sorry, let me please just check this. Page 277 at footnote 45. MR RAMPTON: Page 613. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: 613. MR IRVING: This is going to take a long time if we have to go into this. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, we started it back to front, if I may say so, Mr Irving. If we are going to go on this like this, I think I will make this observation to you.

There is a criticism made of your account, particularly in relation to Hitler’s knowledge of the pogrom that broke out during the course of whenever it was, 10th November, I think. It would be helpful to me if you went to the passage in Goebbels which is the subject of the criticism, then went to what you say is the source for what you write.

As it is, we plunged into an extremely obscure document called the Deckblatt without any indication of where you were going; the result was I was not following your cross-examination. MR IRVING: I apologise, my Lord —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do you see my point? MR IRVING: — if I am not making myself plain. The reason for this particular reason line of cross-examination is I am trying to establish the repugnant allegations made about me for having made statements in my books with no

kind of foundation is the result of these expert witnesses not having looked in the file which I actual reference in the book. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, but I do not think you are quite understanding what I am saying.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It would have been helpful I think if in your cross-examination you had gone to page 277 and shown me the passage that you are seeking to justify, namely sending for the police chief, Eberstein, and Eberstein finding Hitler livid with rage, and phoning Goebbels, saying what is going on, and then you can of course take me to what Bruckner says about it, what Eberstein says about it, and we can see where we go from there. Is that not the right way of doing it?

MR IRVING: In this case unfortunately not, because your Lordship will have caught the words that I used when I said that the expert witnesses have access to these papers of mine but I do not. I am disbarred from visiting my own archives, my own collection. I am drawing to their attention—- MR JUSTICE GRAY: You can give evidence.

All right, you are not able to produce in disclosure Bruckner’s account of these events, but you can put to Professor Evans what you say Bruckner’s account reveals, can you not? MR IRVING: That is the version sustained in my book, which is probably footnoted and referenced back to this document

which I had at the time I wrote the original manuscripts of Adolf Hitler and Hitler’s War, which I no longer have. It is quite plain that the Defence solicitors in this action were aware of the Bruckner collection in Munich and yet they did not use it. They are quite happy to allege that I have had no foundation for this statement of mine, and there are other documents to which I am going draw your Lordship’s attention. MR JUSTICE GRAY: This is all back to front.

It is not a question of whether the Defendants’ advisers have been diligent about it. It is a question of you showing, by your cross-examination of Professor Evans, that he is wrong to criticise you for what you write at page 277, because you have good reliable testimony to support it. That is what you should be putting in cross-examination.

I am sorry to sound as if I am lecturing you, but it is very important that you conduct the cross-examination in a way that conveys to me —- MR IRVING: I am doing the very best I can given the limited circumstances that the Defence have access to my documents which I do not have. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Are you suggesting that they are physically in court, these memoirs of Bruckner? MR RAMPTON: No. Can I help? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. Otherwise I am completely lost.

MR RAMPTON: I think the position is this. Mr Irving is rather

rushing his fences this morning. I understand what he is saying, I think. The position is this, that they are in the Munich archive. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I follow that. MR RAMPTON: He cannot go there. My people went there and could not find it. Professor Evans does not know that, I do not think, because he did not go himself. One of the researchers went. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I am sorry, I do know that. MR RAMPTON: He does know that? I must not give his evidence then.

I am sorry, it is there already. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But none of that invalidates what I was suggesting. I am not suggesting it, I think it must be done that way. Otherwise this is meaningless for me. MR IRVING: We have two more documents which will answer your Lordship’s question straightaway. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Let me say the footnote reference to testimony of Wilhelm Bruckner I have said Irving collection. It is really not very helpful in trying to locate a document.

When you look at Samlung Irving Deckblatt, it does not contain anything that is entitled testimony of Wilhelm Bruckner. It just contains the things that I read out. It does not indicate that there is anything in here giving his testimony about the events of the Reichskristallnacht. MR IRVING: Two follow up questions, however. The fact is that you did not look, or you did not find it, for the Bruckner

file, is that correct? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Those are two different things, Mr Irving. Q. [Mr Irving]: You did not find the Bruckner file, is that correct? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: We looked very very hard. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes or no? Did you find the Bruckner file? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: You mean this Samlung Irving with the Deckblatt and so on document? We could not locate the testimony which you refer to, no.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Should you not therefore have said in your report, it is quite possible that this document contained in this file would have borne out Mr Irving’s version but we cannot state, not having seen it? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well I will read the you the sentences: “Irving only provide an incomplete reference for Bruckner’s testimony, which could not be located in the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich”. That is very carefully phrased.

That not mean to say it is not there. It is just to say that we could not locate it there. It goes on to say: “The only document which could be located was a summary of a statement of Bruckner, written by a German historian. According to this summary, Bruckner claimed that Hitler ‘is said to have raged’ when he is informed of the burning Munich synagogue”. So that does appear to be the source which you are relying on.

If you can show me it is a different source you are relying on, I would be happy to see that.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Is that document that you just referred to a part of the Irving collection? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is. Q. [Mr Irving]: It is part of their ZS collection? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is in the Siegler — it is footnoted in footnote 39. Q. [Mr Irving]: Let us move on to another personality now? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I do not think it is. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am going to pursue this, if I may.

I am sorry to interrupt again but I think this is quite important. Professor Evans, you are in the difficulty you did not personally search the archive. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Exactly yes. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Can you help and say if this is any problem about doing so? Who was it who went to Munich? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It was my assistant Mr Vassman. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Tell me more about him. Is he in your department?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: He is a junior research fellow in Downing College, Cambridge. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Never having had to consult an archive in my entire life, I do not know how difficult it is to do a search. I have to form some sort of view about how easy the testimony of Bruckner should have been to find. I have no idea. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. This is getting very convoluted, my Lord.

Archives have file numbers, core numbers, so everything has a number and here we cite in footnote 39, that is the core number that I have said is in the Institute of

Contemporary History in Munich, Zs-243/I. Basically it is a kind of interview. They did a series of interviews in the Institute after the war. Footnote 38 gives a numbered film, which is an interview or interrogation really, of Wilhelm Bruckner in 1947, statement by Schaub, so they all have those core numbers.

It is normal practice by historians to put the core numbers in their footnotes, not just to have some vague reference to testimony, which makes it very difficult to locate what one is trying to find. Then archives have descriptions, both in what are called location aids or search aids, which are usually typed up and only available in the archive, and those have numbers of the files and rough descriptions of what is in then.

So you can see in this document here Samlung Irving Deckblatt, that is start a rough description, brief description, of what is in the file. These are all done by archivists. You can go on. It says who is the author and then who is allowed and who is not, whose permission has to be given to see the files.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you had been your researcher and you had seen the kurz Bezeichnung, which, if any, of those would you have gone to if you were looking for Bruckner’s account of these events? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It does not say the testimony of Wilhelm Bruckner, which is the tile the Mr Irving gives. There is nothing in

there indicating that there is anything about the 1938 Reichskristallnacht. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: So you say the answer is really none of them suggests that it would have any bearing? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No. In the limited time available, it might be interesting to see his views on religion, or his essay on Adolf Hitler, but there is nothing there to indicate that he has a testimony about 1938.

But there is an indication in there of his testimony about other specific events, the Hanfstaengel the Rowan Putsch 1934. Given the fact that those specific references are in there, one would expect there to be a specific reference in there to his testimony about 1938. MR JUSTICE GRAY: One more question and then I will keep quiet. Who compiles the kurz Bezeichnung? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is usually archivists, my Lord. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: It would not have been Mr Irving?

MR IRVING: No, my Lord. In fact, this particular cover sheet was compiled by me. I gave 500 collection of documents to this institute and for each one there was this sheet in the front of each file. The Bruckner file is about quarter of an inch thick. It would have taken possibly five minutes to flip through and find the appropriate passage. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We may need to hear from the person who actually searched the archive. Yes.

MR IRVING: The point I am making, my Lord, is that I am accused of not having had proper sources for the events of that night. The sources were there, they were referenced in my Goebbels biography in a manner in which any competent researcher would have found the file in a matter of minutes. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I cannot agree with that, Mr Irving. Q. [Mr Irving]: Can you tell the court now — I am moving on to another personality — who Julius Schaub was?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. He was sort of Hitler’s —- Q. [Mr Irving]: Factotum? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, side kick. It is difficult to find a precise way of describing him. He was a very close aid of Hitler’s for very many years. Q. [Mr Irving]: An amanuensis, one of the old guard, with him in the 1923 Putsch? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes.

He joined the party very early on in 1921 or 22, personal adjutant from the mid 20s on, and again he was given a senior office in the SS and possessed various decorations and so on. Q. [Mr Irving]: Look at page 257 of your report, please, where we are dealing with the Schaub as a source, the source which Irving gives for Schaub’s claims is: Schaub’s unpublished memoirs in the author’s collection in the Institute of History in Munich, file ED.100/202.

ED.100 is the Irving collection, is that right?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I think that is true, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Oblique stroke 202. They have now changed the reference, you say, to 203. Can I draw your attention to page 26 of the little bundle I gave you? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Indeed, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: This I think will put your Lordship’s mined at rest. This is the reason I am going through these documents. Is that a translation of a passage from these Julius Schaub papers?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I find myself in some difficulty here. I do not know, is the answer. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You made this translation, Mr Irving, did you? MR IRVING: I made it last night, my Lord, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have access then to Julius Schaub’s papers? I thought they were in the archive in Munich. MR IRVING: I am pretty certain that this comes from — yes, it comes from the discovery. There was one page in the discovery from these papers I think.

Off of the top of my head I have to say that, but this is a genuine translation. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: You have not supplied the original. Q. [Mr Irving]: It is in H 5? MR RAMPTON: I do not know what particular document Mr Irving is talking about or which it is that he has translated. There is a piece about Goebbels apparently headed Schaub

Nachlass, whatever that means, at page 4 of tab 5 of the file L2, the Reichskristallnacht. MR IRVING: Yes, my Lord, that is where it comes from. MR RAMPTON: Which is the reference given by Professor Evans at page 257. MR IRVING: It was quite late when I did this translation last night. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am sure. I am not forgetting that side of things. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, I have it. MR RAMPTON: Page 4 of tab 5 my Lord. It is leaded IfZ ED 100/203.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. MR IRVING: If I had provided just the German to your Lordship, you would have rightly reprimanded me. MR JUSTICE GRAY: The witness asked to see the German, which is fair enough. I am very happy with the translation. MR IRVING: If the witness wishes to challenge the translation, then of course he may. “Without doubt Goebbels had the biggest influence on AH”? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Can you direct me to where exactly it is?

MR RAMPTON: Page 5, last paragraph. MR IRVING: I have translated only the passage dealing with the events of that night. “Without doubt Goebbels had the biggest influence on AH, far more so than Bormann, he invented the concept Fuhrer for AH and he hammered the

Fuhrer principle into the people. Goebbels always discussed his propaganda with Hitler, even during the war”. The part I am relying on is a sentence or two later: “It is a certainty that Goebbels ordained the Reichskristallnacht Sunday”. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: You skipped a bit. All right, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: “It is a certainty that Goebbels ordained the Reichskristallnacht Sunday with the SA command”. Of course it was not a Sunday, was it?

It was another day of the week. Then comes no doubt Schaub’s own particular hobby horse. He says, “The SS was innocent of this, apart from a few lesser officers. When AH learned on that Sunday of the anti-Semitic outrages, he was furious with Goebbels. He made a frightful scene with Goebbels and told him that this kind of propaganda was just damaging”. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Now, this is a source that you would disqualify for some reason, or downgrade?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you disqualify it because of its content, because it does not agree with your own views, or because of something about Schaub, or something about the document? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is a number of different things. I think he is just making this up, basically. Q. [Mr Irving]: You think he is just making it up?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Indeed, yes. There is an enormous amount of other evidence, contemporary evidence, and not much later evidence such as this, that most of what he says here is not true, and that I go into in great length in my report.

Q. [Mr Irving]: First of all, you do accept that this document is genuine, that this is a collection of papers given to me by the son of Schaub Mr Roland Schaub, containing an odd collection of manuscripts and notes, articles, carbon copies and the like? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Indeed. I describe it on footnote 54 of my page 257. Q. [Mr Irving]: You have actually had a look at the heap of papers, have you? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes.

It is cited in the report on page 257. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, but the point I am looking at is of course that here we have a man who was on Adolf Hitler’s private staff, his chief adjutant, and factotum, who says he was an eyewitness, or he reports to us that, when Hitler learned of the outrages, he was furious with Goebbels, he made a frightful scene. Should I have disregarded that evidence completely? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No.

You weigh it up against other evidence and against Schaub’s possible motives in writing this, and the fact that, as you say repeatedly, eyewitness testimony after the war is less reliable than contemporary testimony. This is another example of your double standards, Mr Irving.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Double standards? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. You are determined to give credence to this report but you dismiss all reports of victims of the Holocaust as being fabrications due to mass hysteria, as we heard yesterday. Q. [Mr Irving]: Which of us has the double standard? The person who pretends that this report and the contents that it contains should be in some way played down for no reason other than you do not like it? You cannot give a real reason why.

You cannot say Schaub was a congenital liar? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: You have already said that he was wrong to say that it was on a Sunday, Mr Irving. Q. [Mr Irving]: He got the wrong day of the week but this is a mistake any of us can make. No doubt it stuck in his mind. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Not if he is an utterly reliable eyewitness who has total recall of what went on. That alone I think should alert one to the fact that his memory is not particularly good.

Then you yourself went on to discredit, or cast doubt over his statement that the SS was completely without any guilt. No doubt that is connected with the fact that Schaub himself was a senior officer in the SS. This is an extremely self serving document. One has to regard it with the deepest suspicion and compare it with other documents, preferably contemporary ones dealing with the same events. Q. [Mr Irving]: Do we have any contemporary records of what went on in

Adolf Hitler’s private residence, any contemporary records whatsoever of went on in his private residence? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Not directly, no. Q. [Mr Irving]: So we are really then on our uppers, are we not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: We are comparing a lost of post war reminiscences and we have to be very careful in treading through this particular minefield of documents.

Q. [Mr Irving]: So ideally we want to have more than just one source that says the same thing? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Whole range of sources, indeed. Q. [Mr Irving]: How many would you accept? Two sources? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I am not going to put a number on it, Mr Irving. Q. [Mr Irving]: But, if we have another source that says the same thing, then we are getting convergences of evidence beginning to kick in, are we?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, it is a problem with the evidence of Hitler’s entourage, that they of course had a major incentive after the war for trying to exculpate them for involvement in a number of crimes such as the Reichskristallnacht. They also seem to have been a fairly close knit group who had the opportunity to discuss their line, as it were, amongst themselves, so I think one has to be very cautious.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Any common sense historian would adopt that line, that is correct. But, if we ignore for a moment the main trend of these statements, and I am going to introduce another one to you in a moment, and we look for the little bits of