Day 23 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

Part I: Initial Proceedings (1.1 to 12.20)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London Monday, 21st 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-THREE

< Day 23 Monday, 21st February 2000. (10.30 a.m.) MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I just want to say something to Mr Rampton, if I may, first off. Do you think it would be possible, Mr Rampton, to get an index prepared for these files that have come into existence during the course of the trial? I mean J. MR RAMPTON: In hand —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Good. MR RAMPTON: — already.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Because I am finding with the transcript so often you cannot actually discover where it is from the transcript and then you have to wade through. MR RAMPTON: Yes, I quite agree, but that is in hand. Slowly a process is happening whereby each topic will have a separate distilled file. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am glad it is in hand. Thank you very much. MR RAMPTON: I have nearly finished the one on history and then there will be others. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, Mr Irving.

MR IRVING: May it please the court. My Lord, three minor points to deal with before I resume the cross-examination of Professor Evans. First of all, the Defendants provided to me, or served on me at about 6.30, in other words after close of business on Friday, a 24-page glossary of

meanings of German words prepared by a Dr Longerich, who is going to be the next expert witness. I am not very happy about this way of doing things. They have been working on this case now for 18 months or more, and to have quite an important document like that provided to me at literally the last moment is awkward.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I sympathise with that because you have quite a lot on your plate already but, having said that, I think I would probably be able to guess at the contents of a good deal of it because we have been through a lot in the evidence, have we not, like Ausrotten and so on.

MR IRVING: It is perfectly proper that they should served such a glossary as that because experts are allowed to give evidence on the meaning of foreign words, as I understand it, and that is what this largely is. It is looking at various words in various documents partly pre-empting what I was about to say anyway. I am unhappy about the document being put to your Lordship in that form without your Lordship realising that it has only just been put to me.

It is rather like the catalogue of extracts, a very handy reference form for your Lordship, rather like a printed index. I am just unhappy that it has been done at this very late moment. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I will certainly bear that in mind. MR RAMPTON: Your Lordship has not got one, so can I pass one up. It is really a most helpful document, I find. That

is in English. The original was in German. It is relatively uncontroversial, I would have thought. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It may be controversial, but nothing new? MR RAMPTON: There is nothing new in it. It is a review of the usage of certain key words. That is all it is.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: As I understand it really, there is pretty much agreement that a lot of these words are either in themselves equivocal, they can mean something sinister or not, or in many cases the words are innocent, ostensibly innocent words are used to camouflage a sinister meaning. So in the end maybe not a great deal turns on it. MR IRVING: It may be helpful in some respects, it may be contentious in others, my Lord.

That is all I want to say before I actually start the cross-examination on that. It is neither fish nor fowl again. Like so much that has been done in this case, it is neither the expert report which should have been served last August, nor is it something being put to the witness in the witness box. It is kind of halfway in between. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can I tell you, I will bear that in mind when we get to it. Mr Rampton, shall I put this into Longerich?

MR RAMPTON: Yes, would your Lordship put it in the front of Longerich, I would recommend. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR IRVING: My Lord, the next point is of rather more

substance. This concerns the matter of the expert reports which have been withdrawn. I am sorry, they have not been withdrawn, but on which no cross-examination will be possible. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR IRVING: Your Lordship and I have both raised our eyebrows over the possibility of putting in reports without the witnesses to back them up as far as expert reports are concerned.

I am going to invite your Lordship to direct that the Defendants should produce a skeleton, in effect, setting out the authorities and statutes on which they rely, if they intend to put in the reports without the experts. I think that would be perfectly proper to enable me to argue the matter at a later date. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

I think I said, when Mr Rampton indicated that that was what they were intending to do, that it was the first time I had come across this being done in relation to experts’ reports. I think it is reasonable that, subject to what Mr Rampt

on may wish to say, you should have chapter and verse presented to you for an entitlement to take that course with an expert, but I will hear what Mr Rampton says obviously. MR IRVING: Obviously, if I am not going to be required to present evidence or to impugn those experts reports, I should be told as early as possible because that will halt a major amount of the work that is still ahead of me.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think anyone is suggesting you are not entitled to impugn their reports by evidence or in other ways. The question you are really on is whether they are entitled to adduce the experts’ reports under the Civil Evidence Act or not. MR RAMPTON: I have to say, I do not think it is an enormous point.

If we think we want to rely to any extent on the actual contents of the reports of the witnesses that we are not calling in person, then naturally we will have to persuade your Lordship that we are entitled to do that. Presently, my view is that almost everything that I need for cross-examination of this subject and for proof is to be found in Mr Irving’s own words and in documents sent to him.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, but if you are going to rely on the uncalled experts, then it may not take very long because I suspect the answer is that the language of the Act does not distinguish between expert and lay witnesses. MR RAMPTON: I am almost certain it does not, but I am not going to commit myself. MR JUSTICE GRAY: There may be some authority on it. It does strike me as slightly unusual. MR RAMPTON: I have not come across it before but that does not mean it cannot be done .

MR IRVING: It does certainly put me at a disadvantage, not knowing precisely what they are intending to do.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think we know what they are intending to do. There is a question whether they are entitled to do it. MR IRVING: Mr Rampton, as I understood, has just said that he might rely on parts and he might not, which leaves us precisely where we were when I into court this morning. What I am really asking is that your Lordship should direct them, if they intend to rely on part, they must indicate what statutes and authorities they are going to rely on to open that particular door.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think I will be a bit more specific about it. I think it would be helpful to have it in writing briefly. MR RAMPTON: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think there must be a brief written submission lodged by — are we going to finish Professor Evans today? MR RAMPTON: Professor Evans today — can I say a little bit about how I see things going? Your Lordship may or may not agree with me, I do not know. Professor Evans I hope will finish today.

Then there will be Dr Longerich tomorrow. I hope that he will finish either tomorrow or Wednesday. Then comes the question what happens next. There is a vast amount of material in part generated by what one might call the history of Mr Irving’s own activities in these areas.

What Miss Rogers and I and others have been doing is to try and reduce all that vast amount of material to two files. Those files themselves are quite fat. First, I would not want to cross-examine Mr Irving on those files without his having seen them, and I do believe that the more time he could have to absorb — it is all material which is in the wider range of files already. There is nothing new in it, but it has all been pulled together.

In front of each section the intention is to have a little summary of what each section contains, which Miss Rogers has been doing with help. MR JUSTICE GRAY: These are the people he has associated with, is that right? MR RAMPTON: Yes, the people he has associated with, organizations and individuals. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR RAMPTON: I began to read it over the weekend and it will be an extremely valuable set of documents. In the end, it will cut things down.

My tentative proposal would be that, when Dr Longerich has finished, I would have some questions of Mr Irving in cross-examination on history, but I would leave that association cross-examination until the following Monday. Then, when that was finished, which would take maybe half a day or a day, I would then call Professor Funke. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You are, effectively, suggesting that

Wednesday onwards should be time for Mr Irving to digest these files? MR RAMPTON: Probably Thursday onwards because I will have some cross-examination. A combination of Dr Longerich and my further cross-examination on history should get us probably through all or most of Wednesday. Then what I am proposing is we should take the last two days of this week off so that Mr Irving can read these files, which he should get by, I hope, tomorrow night. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

MR RAMPTON: If he says he cannot do it in the time, then he will say so and your Lordship will hear what he has to say. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can we just revert to the written submissions? I think close of business tomorrow for the written submissions on entitlement not to call the experts but to rely on their evidence. MR RAMPTON: I do not think it will take very long, I may be wrong. The new edition of Phippson has just come out, so I can have a look in that.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Say close of business tomorrow for a short note of the submissions. MR RAMPTON: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: So you will get it hopefully sometime towards the end of tomorrow. Mr Irving what about the suggestion Mr Rampton has just made about the way in which we deal

with the rest of the evidence? I am not going to do anything if you have sensible objections to it. MR IRVING: I have no objection to that, my Lord. The timetable sounds very sound.

If I was to utter a wish and I know my wishes count for very little in this court room, it would be that one of the spare days should be put before Dr Longerich rather than after, to able me to take Longerich probably advised, although I am prepared for him and, of course, I have read his entire report and have prepared a large bundle of material, which would in effect being tomorrow being free and Longerich being called on the following day.

MR RAMPTON: I embrace that enthusiasm, if I may say so. It would make our task in completing these files a lot easier if we did it that way. I do not any longer have to do any preparation for Dr Longerich, except that that will also give me the opportunity to finish the history file. Mr Irving certainly will need that and, if he can get it by close of play tonight, or even lunch time tomorrow, that will help.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I am happy to do that, providing that we have the bundles available so that tomorrow can be used looking through your new material. I can use tomorrow. MR RAMPTON: The history file he should have tomorrow, because that helps his cross-examination of Dr Longerich. I will tell your Lordship how it is proposed to compose it. On

one side would be in chronological order the German documents. So far as they are available, on the facing page will be an English translation of the key part. For the most part, that can be done just by removing. What I have done is to remove the page from the expert report and put it facing the German text. MR JUSTICE GRAY: As long as that is going to be available by tonight.

MR RAMPTON: I will finish that tonight, it will be copied tomorrow morning and then distributed as soon as possible. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can than be accelerated? I think Mr Irving will want to use the whole of tomorrow, and indeed so will I. MR RAMPTON: I have about another 30 pages to get through. When I have done that, it will go off and be copied. Whether late tonight or early tomorrow morning, Mr Irving will get a copy. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Early tomorrow, yes. That is what we will do then.

MR IRVING: I am very pleased to hear that, my Lord. There is one very minor point which then remains. I might either put it just as a factual point or put it to the witness in cross-examination. This is the fact that, very minor point, the 10 a.m. broadcast by Dr Goebbels as opposed to 4 p.m., I have been informed by Mrs Weckert, who heard it, that she heard it at her school. It was repeatedly

broadcast during the day. She heard it as a school child and the German school only operated from 8.00 am until midday. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you are going to say that, you can certainly put it. There is a technical objection to be taken that you cannot really put it unless you have Mrs Weckert available. She is alive obviously because you have spoken to her recently. MR IRVING: A few days ago.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: You could probably correct it by means of a Civil Evidence Act notice but, Mr Rampton, I think it is reasonable to put this. MR RAMPTON: If Mr Irving says it, Mr Irving says it. Whether Mrs Weckert is to be believed is quite another question. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Or indeed whether she can remember. I think that is a question in cross-examination and not a submission. MR IRVING: Very well. Professor Evans? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Professor Evans, you have been waiting patiently.

Would you like to resume, now?

Part II: Evans Cross-Examined by Irving (12.21 to 124.8)

Section 12.21 to 19.7

< PROFESSOR EVANS, Continued Cross-examination by Mr Irving, continued. MR IRVING: Good morning, Professor Evans. Are you aware of what time German schools operated during the war years? Was it on an all day basis? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: To my knowledge, German schools have never operated on an

all day basis. They still do not. Q. [Mr Irving]: Am I right in saying they start very early and end about lunch time? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is right, about 1 o’clock. MR IRVING: That is the only question that I can usefully ask. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have not put the thrust of it yet. You should. MR IRVING: I will have to then.

In that case, if a Mrs Ingrid Weckert was to say that, as a school child, she heard the Goebbels broadcast as a school child, when it was broadcast to all the school children, on the morning of November 10th 1938, would you agree that in that case this would mean that she had heard it during the morning?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: The question is whether one believe her 62 years after the event, and given the fact that she is not to be believed in almost anything thing that she writes or says about these events. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is she the amateur — perhaps amateur is wrong. MR IRVING: An amateur historian who is a right winger. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Who is accused of being anti-semitic by the Defendants?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Whose book has been placed on the black list by the German government, my Lord, as anti-semitic and liable to stir up racial hatred in its account of the events of 9th and 10th November 1938.

MR IRVING: Professor Evans, you rely quite heavily in your expert report on a book by a man called Dr Kogon. Is that right? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Not very heavily, no. I do cite it in a number of places. It is not solely by him. It is written by him in collaboration with others. Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I ask you to have a look at this little bundle of documents? Your Lordship also has this bundle, I believe.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I have not seen this before, have I, Mr Irving? Q. [Mr Irving]: No. It is a new bundle? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Thank you. I have to say it is rather difficult being handed substantial bundles of material every morning by Mr Irving without any prior warning. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am sure you are going to be able to cope, Professor Evans. MR IRVING: This is the way it works, Professor Evans.

I submit documents to you and invite you to comment on them. Is page 1 an extract from a report in the New York Times of December 26th 1987? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It appears to be. It is not a photocopy though it is not an original. Q. [Mr Irving]: Does it refer to the fact that a well-known renowned anti-Nazi writer and Resistance figure, Eugene Kogon has been listed by the United Nations as wanted for mass murder on the same list as lists Kurt Valtheim and various other Nazis?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It does. It goes on to say, “Hermann Langbann, the co-author and long time associate of Dr Kogon said from Vienna this week that Dr Kogon had saved many prisoners at Buchenwald at great personal risk, and that the Commission’s listing was a tragic error.” Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: The New York Times story starts with a reference to inaccuracies and untested allegations in the files on which such listings appear to rest.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. My Lord, just so you can know where we are going today, your Lordship might wish to know that I will certainly complete cross-examining the witness on the whole of the report up to but not including the Adjutants. Quite simply, I am still not certain whether the Adjutants are being relied on by the Defence or not in this matter. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that is fair because they disappeared from the picture at one stage and I think they have partially come back in.

MR RAMPTON: No, not really. Can I say I rely on the Adjutants this far and I have already made the point in cross-examination. Professor Evans has already made it from the witness box. I rely on the Adjutants to show what one might call an uncritical credulity where they are concerned as contrasted with what one might call a critical incredulity where witnesses say things that Mr

Irving does not like. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Particularly in Kristallnacht. MR RAMPTON: Exactly, and on Auschwitz. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. So, in other words, you are not really going to put your case in any greater detail than already has been done? MR RAMPTON: No. MR IRVING: In that case, I do not propose to waste much time on him.

It is very interesting what the Professor has written, but we do want to press ahead. (To the witness): Professor Evans, will you go to page 397 of your report, please? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: You touch there briefly on the gassings at Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor, and you say that these events are not disputed by serious historians. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I do not see that. Q. [Mr Irving]: 397? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: 399.

I say that in 399, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes on 399? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: I am sorry, paragraph 8. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, that is a very brief summary of what I take to be the existing state of knowledge as a background to what I say in this section of my report. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. I am not going to question you in any great detail

on those camps because, of course, for the purposes of this trial, we are accepting that gassings did occur in those camps. But again just going to the quality of your knowledge, are you saying that there is a broad consensus on these camps? This is another example of the broad consensus that you use sometimes as your guiding star? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is really for the orientation for the court. It is not just on the camps.

I describe in the paragraphs as rapidly and economically as I can —- Q. [Mr Irving]: Did you form an opinion about what —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: — Nazi policy in occupied Poland in a general sense. Q. [Mr Irving]: Did you form an opinion about what kind of gas was used in those camps in your reading on the matter? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is not — yes, on the top I do mention this in relation to Belzec on line 3 of page 398, carbon monoxide.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you aware that there has been dispute over that particular detail, whether it was carbon oxide or whether it was diesel engines or petrol engines or even steam being used? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I have not heard steam, I have to say, but in any case it does not really make a great deal of difference as to whether the gas was poisonous or not. The point is, of course, that if it was not poisonous, then asphyxiation was the cause of death.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Has the position of the mass graves been fixed? There must be enormous mass graves of these, what, 1 million

people were killed in these three camps. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: This is really just painting in the background. If you want to present me with documentation on this, Mr Irving, I will be happy to comment on it. Q. [Mr Irving]: I am just asking the state of your knowledge. Are you aware if there has been any kind of archeological investigation of the sites because there are no remains on any of those sites, are there?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: You would have to present me with documentation to show that there were no remains before I agreed with you. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I am a bit puzzled by this in a way because you have accepted that I think hundreds of thousands of Jews were gassed in those three camps, so, in a sense, there is not much to be gained by asking about archeological investigation.

MR IRVING: I was using that as an example really of exposing to your Lordship the rather shallow nature of the investigation made by this expert witness on matters of some moment, that I asked three or four questions, to each of which I got replies I can only describe as evasive. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, but if there is no issue about it, really it is beside the point. MR IRVING: It is not about the fact, but about the scale, my Lord, really, and that is how I would leave it.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I think hundreds of thousands you have accepted?

MR IRVING: Yes, of that order of magnitude. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: The problem is, Mr Irving, I am not prepared to accept statements of your about archeological remains and so on unless you can present me with documentation. Q. [Mr Irving]: The question I asked you was were you aware of any archeological investigations. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well….

Section 19.8 to 27.20

Q. [Mr Irving]: And I was asking purely about the state of your enquiries. We will now proceed, my Lord. We will make very rapid progress today. We are going to go to the Goebbels diary entry of March 27th 1942 which begins on that same page, 399, of your report, Professor Evans. I am going to ask you to look at page 400 of your report, Professor Evans, line 3. This is the part that matters.

I am going to read out the translation that you have offered to the court of these three or four lines: “The Jews are now being pushed out of the General Government”. What is happening here? Has Dr Goebbels received —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: The top line, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Has Dr Goebbels received a report from the SD or from some Nazi authority which he is summarising here, is this what has happened?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I am not saying — he certainly has been informed about these events and he is putting down a summary of them. Q. [Mr Irving]: A summary of them. Is there any indication known to you that that particular report went to Adolph Hitler? I have

to ask that because that is an element of this trial. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Then you would have to provide me with a copy of the report and we would have to look at it in detail. Q. [Mr Irving]: If there had been an indication that it had gone to Adolf Hitler in the diary, then you would have referred to it, would you not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, indeed, yes.

I mean, if, or, rather, if Goebbels thought it worth mentioning that a report had been the basis of what he is saying here and that it had gone to Hitler and he had mentioned it, then I would have mentioned that too, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: You rely on this diary entry quite heavily as evidence that Goebbels was what, 100 per cent aware of the killings in the East, the killing of the Jews being pushed out of the General Government, that Goebbels was aware that this was going on?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: “The Jews are now being pushed out of the General Government, beginning near Lublin, to the East”, he writes. “A pretty barbaric procedure is being applied here, and it is not to be described in any more detail, and not much is left to the Jews themselves”. I have no quarrel with that translation. You then continue: “In general one may conclude that 60 per cent of them must be liquidated, while only 40 per cent can be put to work”.

This is the sentence on

which you really rely, is it not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Among others. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I mean, I quote a very lengthy chunk of this because you used this — you suppressed a great deal of this in your own, in your own work. Q. [Mr Irving]: Now, Dr Goebbles is not stating this as a fact, is he? He is speculating. You have left a word out, have you not, in your translation? You left out the word “wohl.

I draw your attention to line 3 of the footnote. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, I am sorry. I have not. I have translated that as “In general one may conclude”, not that “one must conclude” —- Q. [Mr Irving]: I draw attention to —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: And that, if I may finish, that formulation is intended to convey the sense of strong probability that the word “wohl” indicates. Q. [Mr Irving]: Does not “wohl” mean “perhaps”?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, it does not. It means “probably”. Q. [Mr Irving]: Even if it meant “probably” which I would participate —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: If he wanted to say “perhaps” he would have said “vielleicht”. Q. [Mr Irving]: You have left the word out, have you not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, I have not left it out, Mr Irving.

Q. [Mr Irving]: “In general one may probably conclude” or “one may perhaps conclude” indicates speculation on his part and not

knowledge. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, I am sorry, Mr Irving. “Im grossen kann man wohl festellen”, “in general, large scale”, “kann” is “can”, right, not “may”, “man”, “one can”, “wohl festellen”, very well, and it is “very well conclude”. MR JUSTICE GRAY: “Wohl” can be translated just as “well” here, can it not, “one can well” —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: “Conclude”, yes. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — “suppose”?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I tried to render that slightly better, less awkward English by saying “one may conclude”; the “may” conveying the element of slight uncertainty in that use of the word “wohl”. MR IRVING: The meanings are, my Lord —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I have not left the word out.

Q. [Mr Irving]: — “well” “indeed” “possibly” and “probably” in that order or “I dare say” which is a very nice one in this connection. “I dare say”. “I dare say one can conclude that 60 per cent of them must be liquidated”. Does this indicate and element of certainty? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is probably. “Wohl” is stronger than “vielleicht”. It indicates —- Q. [Mr Irving]: But you have left a word out, have you not?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, I have not left a word out, Mr Irving. I have conveyed this, I think, accurately by indicating the element of slight uncertainty in the sentence by saying

“one may conclude” instead of “one can well conclude”. Q. [Mr Irving]: He is not stating it as a matter fact; he is saying, “this is probably or possibly or I dare say one can say that this happening”? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: He is saying,”This is probably happening”. Q. [Mr Irving]: Is this not a very weak and rusty hook on which to hang page after page after page of what now follows?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is not the only statement here and it does, I think, reflect the policy accurately even if the percentages can be argued about in the way they were put into practice. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do you read Goebbels as talking about percentages in that sentence or about the fact of what is happening to the Jews?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, he says, “In general one may conclude that 60 per cent of them may be liquidated, while only 40 per cent can be put to work. It is those percentages, I mean, that is obviously again very rough and that again may well indicate the element of uncertainty that he is talking about. I mean, I think the “wohl feststellen” expresses his slight vagueness about these percentages.

It might have been 70/30 or 80/20 or some other percentages, but he is saying that the probability is it is about 60/40. 60 will die, be killed, and 40 will be put to work. MR IRVING: In other words, these figures are not contained in the report, are they, these percentages? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: You would have to show me the report, Mr Irving, before I

could comment on that. Q. [Mr Irving]: But you have seen the diary that you are seeking to draw major conclusions from it of the state of people’s knowledge, and I am drawing your attention to the fact that it is not knowledge at all, it is speculation. He is saying, “I dare say one can conclude” or even in the bare, stripped down version you have put, “one can conclude”. He is making conclusions. In other words, he is speculating on what is behind it.

He may very well be right, but I am looking at the fact that you have made no attempt to appreciate the meaning of that word “wohl”. “Im grossen kann man wohl feststellen” does not mean any degree of certainty at all on his part —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I do not put that. Q. [Mr Irving]: — he is saying, “By and large I dare say one can conclude”, is he not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I do not say that, Mr Irving.

I say “in general one may conclude” not “one must conclude” or “the fact is”. I say “one may conclude”. That is to say, the word “may” is permissive. It means you may conclude 60/40 or you may conclude something else. The probability is 60/40. It is what I would regard as a well informed estimate. Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you now regret not having put in the word “perhaps” or “possible” or “dare say” in that sentence? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Certainly not, I do not.

I think my translation is perfectly all right there.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Well, notwithstanding that you raise your voice and interrupt me, do you agree —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, it makes a change from you raising your voice and interrupting me, Mr Irving. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Don’t let us have you both… MR IRVING: Do you agree that it would have been better to include a proper translation of the word “wohl” in that sentence? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is a proper translation of that sentence.

It is about the 15th time I have said that, Mr Irving. Q. [Mr Irving]: I have to say this because — I am not going to move on — of course, you do rely on that, you agree that you rely on that sentence and the burden of that sentence quite heavily, in refuting me and suggesting that I have manipulated, suppressed and omitted words myself, is that right? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, where is that in your description of these events which I deal with on the previous page?

Q. [Mr Irving]: Over the next 27 pages you repeatedly hark back to this one sentence. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Can you direct me to where I repeatedly hark back to it? Q. [Mr Irving]: I have just said, over the next 27 pages. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Can you direct me to the exact pages and line numbers in which I refer to it? Q. [Mr Irving]: We are going to come to them bit by bit. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Then I cannot accept that statement of yours until you

actually do point me to the precise points where I rely and refer to that sentence. Q. [Mr Irving]: Do you agree that even in the stripped down version or truncated version of that sentence as presented by you —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, I do not agree that it is stripped down or truncated. It is an accurate translation, Mr Irving. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think you interrupted the question, Professor Evans. MR IRVING: Thank you very much.

THE WITNESS: I have to dispute the premise, my Lord. MR IRVING: Do you agree that in the version of the sentence as presented by you, you are, even in that version it can be relied upon only as evidence against Goebbels and not as evidence against Adolf Hitler? It is the state of mind of Goebbels, not the state of mind of Adolf Hitler or the state of his knowledge or speculation. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: This is the state, this is the state of knowledge of Goebbels, yes.

Who has said that it is anything else? Q. [Mr Irving]: Is this purporting to be a conversation between Hitler and Goebbels —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No. Nobody says that. Q. [Mr Irving]: This is Goebbels in Berlin reading a report that has been put on to his desk in Berlin, is that not right? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: He appears to be reading a report from which he arrives at this estimate that one may conclude that 60 per cent of

the Jews pushed out to the East may be liquidated and 40 per cent put to work, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Why do you say he has been reading a report? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, he says it seems to be that someone has informed about him about this, and maybe somebody has informed him verbally. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I see. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I am sorry, I should not have said “reading”.

MR IRVING: My version of Goebbels diary has vanished, my Lord, but I believe I am right in saying that the preceding sentence, that precedes the part quoted, said something like “I have received an SD report”, or something like that. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: If I could see a copy, I could comment on that, if it is important. Certainly somebody has informed him that he has gained some information from somewhere and he is writing down what he has heard.

Section 27.21 to 53.9

MR IRVING: There is no indication in that diary because, as we said earlier, if there had been, he would have mentioned it, that Adolf Hitler had also received this report? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, there is not.

There is a statement here in which he goes on to link it to Hitler’s views, by referring, as he so frequently does, and indeed as Hitler himself does, to the prophecy that Hitler issued on 30th January 1933, that, if the Jews, as he put it, started a new world war, they would be annihilated. He goes on to use the language

that indeed is Hitler’s favourite language in referring to the extermination of the Jews —- Q. [Mr Irving]: You mean 1939, do you not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Did I not say 39? I meant 39 — a struggle for life and death between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. This idea of a bacillus is a very common Hitler terminology. Goebbels is taking it over here.

Then he goes on and says, “No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution to the question”. “Here too”, says Goebbels, “the Fuhrer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a radical solution which is demanded by the way things are and thus appears to be unavoidable”. I take that to be the same kind of statement as is made about Lammers in what we have called the Schlegelberger memorandum.

That is to say —- MR IRVING: Please, can we keep very much to the questions? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do not interrupt. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is to say, it is a statement about a number of occasions on which Hitler has said this thing, or revealed himself to be the persistent pioneer. So it is clearly talking about a number of occasions. It is not talking about a specific occasion on which he is shown a report to, or talked about it to, Hitler.

That is what I would describe as the link between this diary entry and Hitler. MR IRVING: You do admit of course that there are other passages in these same diaries which show Hitler in

anything but a homicidal mood towards the Jews? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Point them to me, please. Q. [Mr Irving]: I am not going to keep on falling for this game throughout the day, Professor Evans, because we have to get through a great deal today. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Mr Irving, I cannot accept what you are saying without seeing the documentation, I am afraid. I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am afraid it is.

It does slow things down but I think, if you put a proposition to the witness, he is not inclined to agree to it unless he see the document you rely on, then he is entitled to ask you to look at it. MR IRVING: Turn to page 404 of your report, please. You will see several such passages referred to by you yourself. Goebbels diary April 26th, May 29th, 1942, Hitler’s table talk May 15th, July 24th, 1942. Are those non-homicidal passages, if I can put them like that?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: What I say is that you rely on them to show that Hitler did not know about the extermination of the Jews while Goebbels himself did. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. We are going to come to that in sequence, but you asked me to point you to those passages. I have now pointed you to them. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I am pointing to the use you make of them, which is a slightly different thing. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If we are coming to them in due course, then

let us wait until we do. MR IRVING: You are not claiming to be an expert on Goebbels and his relationship with Hitler, are you? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: We have been through the nature of my expertise right at the very beginning, Mr Irving. Q. [Mr Irving]: You are not claiming to be an expert on Goebbels and his relationship with Hitler, are you? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think in these pages he necessarily is claiming that. MR IRVING: Very well.

Are you aware of how often Dr Goebbels was with Hitler each year around this time? Would it be five or ten or 20 times a year? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I have not counted, Mr Irving. You tell me. Q. [Mr Irving]: The answer is you have not any idea, have you? MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is gratuitous. Put the number of times. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It seems from the diary entries that I have read to have been fairly frequent over the years. MR IRVING: Fairly frequent.

What do you mean by fairly frequent? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Would you like to put to me a number? I have not counted, Mr Irving. What I am doing here is writing not so much about Goebbels and Hitler but about your account of Goebbels and Hitler. That is the purpose of my report. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, if it is your case that Goebbels was hardly ever seeing Hitler at this time, then I think

you ought to say so and, if necessary, give the number of times they would have net, or presumably spoken on the telephone, I do not know. MR IRVING: Can you accept that Dr Goebbels, in the year 1942, saw Adolf Hitler about ten times all told? I mean in private. A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Ah, that is a different matter. Q. [Mr Irving]: As opposed to at mass meetings or something like that?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I do find it difficult to accept anything you say, Mr Irving, without looking at the documentary basis for it. Q. [Mr Irving]: That makes life easier for you, does it not, but can you just answer the question? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It does not. It makes life a lot more difficult, actually.

Q. [Mr Irving]: You do accept that I worked for 35 years on the Adolf Hitler book and I worked for nine years on the Goebbels biography, so that I am something of an expert on both people? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: The question is how you worked, Mr Irving. Q. [Mr Irving]: Well, I am asking you a simple question. How many times do you think Goebbels actually visited Hitler in 1941 and in 42? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I have and I am giving the answer. I have not counted.

My purpose here is to look at your account and your manipulation of this entry of 27th March to support your

argument that Goebbels was concealing information about the extermination of the Jews from Hitler. That is my purpose here. Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it not the fact that, from 1939 onwards until 1944, after the bomb attempt on Hitler’s life, their relationship can at best be described as distant? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No. I do not really think that is true.

Q. [Mr Irving]: In view of the fact that Dr Goebbels as the Minister of Propaganda visited Hitler only about ten times per year during those years, is not that a distant relationship? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: We do not know how many times they spoke on the phone. Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you seen any references in the Goebbels diaries to telephone calls from Adolf? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Or to Adolf, no.

I think Goebbels had a good knowledge of what Hitler knew and talked about. It occurs frequently in his diaries. Q. [Mr Irving]: If you express that opinion, you must have a pretty profound knowledge of Dr Goebbels, is that right? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Not necessarily, no. I have read plenty of diary entries in which account — these are the diaries entries I read in order to check up on the use you make of them. That is what I have done here.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you and your researchers read the entire entries of Dr Goebbels’ diaries? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Of course not. That would have been absolutely impossible. It is an enormously long collection of stuff

and that is not what we had to do. Our task was to look at the use you make of certain specific diary entries.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you familiar from the correspondence that has been shown you in discovery that I invited various Goebbels experts, including Dr Frohlich and Dr Friedrich Karbermann and others who have worked on the Goebbels diaries like myself, whether they have come across one single entry which explicitly shows that Adolf Hitler was aware of the homicidal killings of the Jews in the Goebbels diaries? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: The answer is no, there is no such entry? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: I do not accept that. Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you not seen this correspondence? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, sorry. The correspondence yes, but I do not accept the conclusion that you make of it. Q. [Mr Irving]: You accept that they have read the diaries, unlike you, in their totality, but you do not accept what they say? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Ah, sorry.

I thought you were saying that is what you said. Then in that case you have to show me a letter in Dr. Frohlich says that he has never seen such a—- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us short circuit this. Are you aware of any explicit acceptance, or document which shows explicit knowledge on Hitler’s part of the extermination programme? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, I think there is evidence in the diaries that he did know.

In this particular entry, when Goebbels says, “The Fuhrer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a

radical solution”, what else can he mean, except some degree of extermination, 60 per cent extermination, or more? He cannot mean at this stage, March 1942, that a radical solution is simply deporting them to the East. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You read that entry, just to summarize it, as Goebbels saying that what Globocnik is up to is in accordance with what the Fuhrer wants done? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Hitler indeed has been a pioneer, persistent pioneer, of this radical solution.

MR IRVING: Do you agree —- A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: One can also look at the entry of 30th May 1942, which I cite at length in the letter of revision to my report that I sent on 10th January this year.

Here again, I think there is a clear indication that this is recording a meeting of Hitler with Goebbels, a meeting between Hitler and Goebbels, where at the first paragraph Goebbels says that he presents the Fuhrer with his plan to evacuate the Jews out of Berlin with none remaining, Hitler is completely of his view, says Goebbels, and goes on to give orders and so on.

“I plead once again for a more radical Jewish policy”, this is on 30th May 1942, “whereby I am just pushing at an open door with the Fuhrer”. Q. [Mr Irving]: You have left out quite bit, have you not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Well, I will read the whole passage if you really want me to. I am trying to short things a bit. He goes on in the next paragraph to then say, “An extermination of criminals

is also a necessity of state policy”, thus implying quite clearly in the previous paragraph that he has been talking about the extermination of Jews. So that is another indication to my mind. Q. [Mr Irving]: As you have raised this particular entry, will you go to the bundle I gave you this morning and turn to page 2? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: It is sometimes quite helpful that you go off on these excursions. Is that pages of the Goebbels diary?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, do you have this particular document? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do, yes. Thank you very much. MR IRVING: Is this diary a typescript diary on the large Adolf Hitler typewriter, or the large face typewriter? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: It is certainly large, unless it has been enlarged. Q. [Mr Irving]: So this time Dr Goebbels was dictating the diary to his private secretary, Richard Otty, is that right, the stenographer?

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, I think so. Q. [Mr Irving]: He did so since July 1941, did he not? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: That is right, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: So this is not in any sense a private diary any more full of top secrets. It is an official diary he is keeping? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: No, I do not think it is an official diary. I think it is a private diary. There are certain things that he might feel he cannot say in it, which he could say when he was

writing it down in his own hand, but it is still a private diary. Q. [Mr Irving]: Was the Final Solution in its homicidal sense something that was top state secret, and not to be written down in private diaries or official diaries? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Which do you mean? Official diaries or private diaries? Q. [Mr Irving]: Look at the first page, page 2 in my little bundle. You will see that it starts off with, “Yesterday the military situation:”.

A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, he always start off like that. Q. [Mr Irving]: It does not look like a private diary, does it? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: He always starts off with the military situation. It is a private diary. He keeps tabs on the military situation. Q. [Mr Irving]: On page 3, the last three lines, “The Fuhrer has returned from his headquarters to Berlin to speak to an officers’ course in the Sport Palace”.

So Hitler has come to Berlin and Goebbels grabs the opportunity to have one of his rare meetings with him? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes, that is right. Q. [Mr Irving]: The next page is the part you then began reading? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Page 4, line 3? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: “I briefed the Fuhrer once more on my plan, to evacuate the Jews completely from Berlin”? A. [Professor Richard John Evans]: Yes.