Day 24 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

Part I: Initial Proceedings (1.1 to 7.5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London Wednesday, 23rd 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-FOUR

<Day 24. (10.30 a.m.) 3 MR RAMPTON: My Lord, before I call Dr Longerich, there are three things I think I would like to mention. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I want to mention two things to you too. 6 MR RAMPTON: Then judge before counsel. MR JUSTICE GRAY: All right.

One I think I have actually discovered the answer to, but can you just confirm that the statements which you rely on for saying that Mr Irving is a Holocaust denier, are they now collective in K3 and, if so, are they going to be refined down, as it were, any more or do I take it that K3 is the selection upon which you rely. 14 MR RAMPTON: My belief is there was an abstract rather like the anti-Semitic abstract. It is on Word disk. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I actually heard that.

If, in due course, Mr Irving and I can be supplied with a copy of it, that will help a great deal. The other thing is, looking ahead a little more, and this is for you, Mr Irving, as well is really looking ahead to final speeches, it seems obvious that you must both take matters in whatever order you think is appropriate, but it seemed to me in this particular case it would be quite helpful to have a discussion at some stage about a possibly agreed order of topics to be covered, because it

would help me if I knew what you were moving to. If you were to take things in

the same order, you do not have to obviously, but do you follow what I am getting at? 3 MR RAMPTON: I do. MR JUSTICE GRAY: This is quite a difficult case in the sense of you cannot take it chronologically and it is quite difficult to interrelate some of the issues. MR IRVING: Your Lordship is aware that I propose not addressing certain issues in my closing speech. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is a matter for you. MR IRVING: But I certainly agree that there should be an agreed order.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think so. That makes it sound a bit more formal than I was really intending, but if we can set aside maybe half an hour some time early next week. 15 MR RAMPTON: May I say straightaway my present format is to do what I call historical falsification first, then because it goes with Holocaust denial, Auschwitz, and then what I call racism and then finally political associations.

I will try to order the historical distortions as I did in cross-examination, and my witnesses have done more or less in the witness box, to do that chronologically. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If I can just indicate the problem I have had is that the issue of Hitler’s knowledge of what was going on is quite difficult to accommodate within the structure you have just outlined. That is, I think, the area that is quite difficult to slot in.

1 MR RAMPTON: Except to this extent, it does not find a place, or not a significant place, in my format because I do not believe that it has any relevance except in so far as it is on the back of that topic that most of the historical distortions ride.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Quite, but if you limit — I am sorry to go on about this point; it is quite important to thrash it out — what one might call the historiographical criticisms of Mr Irving to the points that are made, effectively, by Professor Evans, you slightly miss the whole gamut of the continuum, to use a word we have been using, of the evidence in relation to that issue.

So I will just mention that as being a possible difficulty. 14 MR RAMPTON: It will have a place in the file which — your Lordship I hope now has, which we have finished, I am afraid — that was the other thing I was going to say and apologise — a bit late yesterday. It contains what we think are the core history documents and that, obviously, bears on the Hitler knowledge question.

There will be in what I have to say a certain amount relating to Hitler’s knowledge, Hitler’s authority, Hitler’s orders, if you like, but only in so far as the evidence leads to the conclusion reached by Sir John Keegan, for example, that the idea that he did not know defies reason. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We will spend a bit more time on perhaps

discussing that. 2 MR RAMPTON: One other thing: as to that Hitler knowledge question, what Miss Rogers has done is to prepare a reference, chronological reference document, for what are the most important — it is not exhaustive — Hitler statements, in our submission. Can I pass that up? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Where do you want me to put it? Have you had this, Mr Irving? MR IRVING: No, I have not. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is there a copy for Mr Irving? 11 MR RAMPTON: N1, I think it is.

It is the new file anyway and it is —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is called N1, thank you. 14 MR RAMPTON: There is one other thing I should say. Your Lordship asked for a note on the admissibility of expert evidence in written form. I have done a note on that. It will be ready by 2 o’clock. It is being typed.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Obviously, Mr Irving should have a chance to look at it before we have any submissions there are going to be about it. 21 MR RAMPTON: I will attach to it, there are some pieces of paper showing what the statutes and the rules say. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much. Mr Irving? MR IRVING: My Lord, the only thing I would wish to add to that is a request that there should be one clear day before the submission of closing speeches.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: There will be more than that, I think. 2 MR RAMPTON: I need much more than one day. MR IRVING: The words “at least” was in square brackets before “one clear”.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I do not think we want to have too long because I am not sure that speeches are necessarily going to need to go through everything, as it were, in detail; it is more a question of references, I think, in a way. 9 MR RAMPTON: I thought what I would do is a shortish sort of summary to read out in court with a file, which I would not read in court, of where necessary detailed reasoning and references just for your Lordship and, of course, eventually the public too.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: My feeling is it will be three plus days. Does that sound sensible to you? MR IRVING: That will suit my needs, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is everything you want to say? MR IRVING: I think so, yes, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: So it is Dr Longerich, gentlemen?

Mr Rampton, I have just been told there is an interpreter as well which rather surprises me because I thought Dr Longerich was giving expert evidence about the translation of German words into English. 24 MR RAMPTON: Yes. His English is very good, but there are times when his thought processes on a sophisticated or difficult question are in German, and when he feels

uncertain that he may get quite the right nuance or emphasis in English, and it is only for that. It is not going to be a continuous process. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Good,

Part II: Introduction of Dr. Heinz Peter Longerich (7.6 to 114.17)

Section 7.6 to 25.6

(Interpreter sworn) < DR PETER LONGERICH, sworn. < Examined by MR RAMPTON, QC. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Dr Longerich, do sit down if you would rather? 10 MR RAMPTON: Dr Longerich, are your full names Heinz Peter Longerich? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Peter Longerich, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Peter Longerich, sorry. Have you written a report in two parts for the purposes of this case? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Are you satisfied, so far as can you be, that the statements of fact contained in those reports are true? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: And that, so far as those reports contain expressions of opinion, those opinions are fair and accurate? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: That is correct. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You speak quite softly. I am a long way away at least. Can you try to speak up? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I will do my best.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Thank you very much. Please remain there to be cross-examined.

< Cross-examined by MR IRVING. Q. [Mr Irving]: Good morning, Dr Longerich. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Good morning. Q. [Mr Irving]: Just to clarify one matter. Should I address you as “Professor” or a “Doctor”? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Dr Longerich. Q. [Mr Irving]: Thank you very much. My Lord, just by way of diversion, I provided your Lordship the two documents of which you asked translations.

This is nothing to do with Dr Longerich, but you asked this and I should have drawn your attention to this. There is the translation of the Party court in 1939. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I remember, the Bericht. MR IRVING: It is the final paragraph which is in endless lawyer language. That is the official American translation of it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I will tell you what, let us come back to this and then we will at the same time work out where to put these documents.

MR IRVING: Precisely, my Lord, and also there is a small bundle of documents which look like this beginning with some Gothic script on the front cover. MR JUSTICE GRAY: With “ausrotten”. MR IRVING: With “ausrotten”, yes. My Lord, just so you know where we are going today, I will advise your Lordship that I intend to deal

today largely, and certainly this morning, with this witness’s statement on the meaning of words, this late arrival, which I thought would be a useful way to kick off and then we will turn to this formal reports. Before we do that, I just want to address one or two matters concerning, through the witness, conduct of the case and his credentials. Professor Longerich —- A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Dr Longerich. Q. [Mr Irving]: — Dr Longerich, I am sorry.

You work for a number of years at the Institut fur Zeitgeschichte in Munich, did you not? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: This is correct, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: You have to say yes clearly. A nodding will not do. You have to say yes otherwise —- A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: — the microphone does not hear it. How many years did you work at the Institute of History in Munich? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: From 1983 to 1989. Q. [Mr Irving]: 1983 to 1989.

That was, what, five years then? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: About five years — a little bit more. Q. [Mr Irving]: About five or six years. Did you have a special subject you were working on there? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I worked on a project called condition of the files of the Party Chancellory. Q. [Mr Irving]: The Martin Bormann files, the files of the Party Chancellory?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes I edited the second part of this edition. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. The Party Chancellory files no longer existed and they were reconstituted, is that right? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: It is an attempt to reconstruct the lost files of the Party Chancellory, so I edited about 80,000 pages of these documents. Q. [Mr Irving]: A spectacular task. So that gives you a very good overview over the whole of the domestic life of Nazi Germany?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think it gave me a good insight into the day to day operation of the bureaucracy in the Nazi State. Q. [Mr Irving]: And into the kind of language they used? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, of course. Q. [Mr Irving]: And into the hierarchy and the various rivalries and disputes? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Exactly. Q. [Mr Irving]: Was friction between the top Nazis a major element of the Third Reich? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Absolutely.

Q. [Mr Irving]: [German] — in other words —- A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: — jealousies between the different ministries and agencies? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: In-fighting and these things, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you, from your knowledge of other governments, think it was more or less than other governments around that

time, British government or the American government, or was it something extraordinary, the degree of —- A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I made point in the book I wrote on the Party Chancellery that I think this exceeded the normal of in-fighting you find in all governments. It is a special case here. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. When you worked in the Institute of History, who was the director at that time? Was it still Martin Broszat?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: At this time it was Martin Broszat until his death in 1989. Q. [Mr Irving]: He had a very great reputation, did he not, and he is still greatly admired by German historians? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, I think so. Q. [Mr Irving]: Were you familiar with all the collections of documents in the Institute files? Did you work in the archives at all? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Not all the files.

I mean, the Institute has an enormous collection of files, but I know some of them. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Was Dr Hoff still there, Anton Hoff, the archivist? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: No, I think he died in 1883. Q. [Mr Irving]: 1983? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: 1983, sorry. Q. [Mr Irving]: Just before you came? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: It is a very friendly atmosphere there at the archives, at the institute?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think they were friendly to me. I do not know —- Q. [Mr Irving]: They are very co-operative, are they not? They do not

hold things back very much apart from own private collections? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I cannot make such a general statement. Q. [Mr Irving]: In fact, you probably had quite a lowly position there, did you not? You were a newcomer and you were working in the Institute? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I have no difficulties in actually getting access to the collection but I cannot make a general statement on that.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Did you ever take the opportunity to look at what is now ED 100, the collection of my documents which is in the Institute? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think I have seen some of the ED 100 files, but I cannot say that I have a complete overview. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I have seen some of them yes, but at the moment I cannot recall every document I have seen in the Institute.

Q. [Mr Irving]: I am just going to give you a list of names of collections of diaries. I am sorry, you have a copy of this already. I ought to give a copy to his Lordship, perhaps. (Same handed) just on the back of that there is a blue column called Hitler’s People. Do you have that if you turn it over? There is a list of names of diaries that I used when I wrote my book Hitler’s War, which are now in the archives. I have added to those since then but I just pick out a few names.

Canaris: Would that be a valuable source?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: At the moment I cannot recall the Canaris diaries. I am not able to comment on every item, but I think some of them are of course important. Q. [Mr Irving]: Some are more important and some are less important? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Dr Longerich, I am not trying to trick you. I am just at this stage trying establish — I will give a little warning if I am going to try and trick you.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, do I get anything more from than that — is this the new edition that is coming out shortly. MR IRVING: No, this is the second edition, my Lord, but I just wanted to comment on the fact I wondered whether he had taken the trouble to look at these very important collections of diaries that are in my collection, either for his own work or in the expert report. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can you put it as a single question rather than the whole lot? MR IRVING: Yes.

Did you use the diary of Walter Havel? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I looked at the transcripts. I think it is in England, is it not, the original? I looked at the transcripts at one stage but not for the Party Chancellery. I think I looked at the Bormann, it is more a calendar. Q. [Mr Irving]: The calendar? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Which I have now provided to the Defendants. The Walter

Havel diary does contain one of these episodes July 1941, does it not, where Hitler describes the Jews as a bacillus? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I cannot recall this particular passage, I am afraid. Q. [Mr Irving]: When you drew up this glossary of meanings of words, which, I must say, I find very useful indeed, and this goes purely to the conduct of the case, when did you start writing that approximately? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think it was in December last year.

Q. [Mr Irving]: In December last year? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, I tried to use the Christmas holiday to do it. Q. [Mr Irving]: When did you complete it? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think it was actually in January think. Q. [Mr Irving]: You completed it in January? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, January I think. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. When were you asked to do it by the instructing solicitors in this case? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think they wrote me an e-mail.

I think it was in November, but I could not start immediately to work on it because I had other obligations. So I am sure I started to work on it at the end of the Christmas holidays. Q. [Mr Irving]: You got a letter of instruction? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think, as far as I recall this, I got an e-mail. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. So you got an e-mail sometime in November, you began writing in December and you completed it in January? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, that is right.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Any idea when in January you completed it? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think it was more through the end of January, probably on the first days of February, I cannot recall. 4 MR RAMPTON: I can help, I think, because now it comes out of Dr Longerich’s hands, as it were. It came in its first version in German, which, since I was the person who requested it, I think in November is right, maybe even October, and was useless to me. So it had to be translated.

It came back and the translation was, to say the least, unsatisfactory. Then it had it go back again, and what we now have emerged in the course of the last few days. MR IRVING: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving I am not unsympathetic to the fact that you are having to deal with this at pretty short notice because it came to you very, very late in the day.

MR IRVING: Of course I accept Mr Rampton’s explanation but it was delivered to me on Friday evening and, if it turns out he completed it in January, I would have wanted to know what the reason for the delay was. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you want to say you want Dr Longerich to come back at some later stage because you want to ask some further questions, you would be pushing at an open door. MR IRVING: I fully accept Mr Rampton’s explanation about translation difficulties.

During your professional career, Dr Longerich,

as you say in your curriculum vitae on page 3 of your report, you have received research grants from the German Historical Institute in London, and from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and also from Yad Vashem? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, that is true. Q. [Mr Irving]: Are you still in debt to Yad Vashem in any way? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I started to work on the project. The project has not yet been completed.

The relationship, there is no contract between us and in this sense, it is not a book contract or something like that, but I still have to complete this project we started a couple of years ago. Q. [Mr Irving]: I do not want to know any figures or quantum. Does this mean to say they paid you in advance for something and you are still working on it? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: No. They paid me for ten months actually. It enabled me to live in Israel for ten months.

Q. [Mr Irving]: As you say in this —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: What will you be doing for them? What will you be researching? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: We started to work on a project, a documentation about the deportation of the Jews from Germany to Minsk and Riga and I had a partner there. We started to collect the documents, but unfortunately the work has not been completed yet. It is actually a major project and has not been completed yet.

MR IRVING: The Eastern European archives have turned out to be

particularly fruitful, is that right? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Absolutely, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it to be regarded as a great tragedy they have only recently in the last ten or 15 years become available to historians? Is that right? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I cannot comment whether it is a tragedy. It is a fact that it has become available in the last years. Q. [Mr Irving]: They were not available at the time I wrote my first edition of the Hitler biography in the 1960s?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: With some exceptions. It was always possible to get some of the documents out of the archives. For instance, there is a large collection of documents in the German Central Agency for the Prosecution of Nazi Crimes. They actually managed to get a large collection from this material in the 1960s. There is also a large collection in the Bundesarchives archive and individual researchers had the chance to see not the whole archives but some of the documents.

Q. [Mr Irving]: If I can just dwell briefly on the files in the Zentralestelle, which is presumably the ZST source? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Absolutely, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: You did not identify that in your report, did you? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think there is a list of abbreviations and it should be there. Q. [Mr Irving]: The documents provided by the Eastern European archives to the German Zentralestelle, which is a prosecuting archive

— could I put it like that? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: It is the house archive of this agency. They have their own library and their own archival collection. Q. [Mr Irving]: At Ludwigsburg? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it specifically collected for the purpose of carrying out prosecutions of German and other citizens for war crimes? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: That is the main purpose of the whole institution and of course mainly some historical background.

Q. [Mr Irving]: They have very valuable collections of documents there, do they not? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: They have a very good collection, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: That is where Dr Goldhart worked, for example? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, do you think we should move on from the archives? MR IRVING: I just want to ask one question which makes the point clear, my Lord.

Is it apparent to you that, if an archive has been collected for the purposes of prosecution, it is less likely to include defence material, if I can put it like that? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Well, you can use this material in different ways. I do not say that they had a complete set of documents from the Russian archives. It is certainly a selection. I did not select it. I do not know who selected it and who made the decision about this, so I should be very careful to make a

comment on that. Q. [Mr Irving]: You would always bear in mind using such archives that you are only seeing one side of the picture and not necessarily the other side? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think it is difficult to say because they were interested. They did a lot of work in this Zentralestelle during the 1950s and 60s, and they actually had historical expertise there because they actually worked on the historical background.

I would not say that they were only interested in this aspect of prosecution. I think they had to collect the historical expertise which was not available at this time and could not be provided by historians. So I would be cautious to make such a statement about this collection. Q. [Mr Irving]: I see on page 5 of your report that you are an expert, or you have written about the Wannsee conference?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, I gave the annual lecture in 1998 at the Haus of the Wannsee conference and this published as a booklet. Q. [Mr Irving]: I do not want a lengthy answer at this time. I just want a brief overview. Is it right that opinions differ as to the importance of the Wannsee conference in the history of the Final Solution?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I do not think, generally speaking, the short answer, I would not say that there is so much difference about the significance of the Wannsee conference. It was basically a conference on the implementation of what is called the

Final Solution. I think a statement like this could be accepted by most of the historians. Of course, if you go into the interpretation of the text, you will find differences. Q. [Mr Irving]: Opinions differ? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Opinions differ among historians. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yehuda Bauer has said one thing, Eberhard Jaeckel has said another, and so on? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I would be very careful to make a general comment.

One could look at the writings of Yehuda Bauer and Eberhard Jaeckel and then I am prepared to comment on it. Q. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, the next question is purely pre-emptive in case another matter comes up. This is still on that page, three paragraphs from the bottom. You edited something called “Was ist des Deutschen Vaterland”, a book on German unity? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. That is a collection of documents.

Actually I issued this in 1990 when this was actually called, as you see here, documents about the question of German unity so that, when the book came out, the question was solved. Q. [Mr Irving]: Would you tell the court please, during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, or certainly during the 1960s and 1970s, what was the official designation in west German circles of the Soviet zone or the German Democratic Republic? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: The official name?

Q. [Mr Irving]: The official name, Sprachledlung.

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I do not think there was a Sprachledlung but I think in the 1950s the generally preferred term was Soviet zone of Occupation. This changed, then in the 1960s, at the end of the 1960s, when it became more common to speak of the German Democratic Republic, but I am certainly not an expert on, you know, on this issue —- Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you ever heard of the word Middle Deutschland. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, of course.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Was that also an official designation? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: This was also common, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: No kind of revanches sentiment was attached to that word? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I would be very careful to make such a general statement. It is a complex issue. Q. [Mr Irving]: Professor Longerich, I think I can say quite evidently that you harbour no personal dislike or animosity towards me at this stage? MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I am sure not.

Mr Irving, shall we move towards one of the substantive questions that you are going to have to ask about? Let us move on, in other words. MR IRVING: On page 8, three paragraphs from the bottom, you lecture the German Historical Institute —- A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: — on the policy of destruction, vernichtung? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, that is the title you prefer. I cannot recall the exact English title of this lecture.

Q. [Mr Irving]: Politik der Vernichtung. Was I present in the audience on that occasion? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think I remember you, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Did you invite questions at the end of that function? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: The Director of the Institute invited question, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Did I ask a question? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, you asked a question. Q. [Mr Irving]: What did the Director of the Institute say?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: The Director said, “Dr Longerich does not want to answer your question”. Q. [Mr Irving]: He said, “Dr Longerich has informed me in advance he will not answer any questions from Mr David Irving”? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: That is correct, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Thank you very much. Was there any specific reason for your refusal?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think there was a discussion in the Institute whether you should be actually asked to leave the building, and, well, at this stage I actually know, I actually knew that I would be called into the witness stand here, and I thought it was better not to answer this question, not to have a kind rehearsal of this. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Sorry, you did or you did not know you were going to be a witness?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I was quite aware, I think, that I would be. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Oh, you were, even back in 1988? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes.

MR IRVING: Did you state that at the time? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Pardon? Q. [Mr Irving]: Did you state that to the Chairman at the time as the reason why? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: No. I did not give a reason. Q. [Mr Irving]: What was the question I asked? Do you remember? What document was I asking about? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think you were asking about the Schlegelberger, what you called the Schlegelberger document.

Q. [Mr Irving]: I read out the Schlegelberger document and invited you to reconcile it with what you had said in your lecture? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think this was the moment when you called me a “coward”? Isn’t this this incident? Q. [Mr Irving]: That is right, yes. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. I can recall this, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Just a brief answer this time, do you consider the Schlegelberger document to be a key document in the history of the Final Solution?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: No, absolutely not. Q. [Mr Irving]: Totally unimportant? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: It is unimportant, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Have you mentioned it in any of your books? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: No, I do not think so. Q. [Mr Irving]: A book, in other words, a document which says the Fuhrer has asked repeatedly for the solution of the Jewish problem postponed until the war is over, in your view, was

unimportant? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Well, that is your interpretation of the document. Q. [Mr Irving]: I am saying what it says. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, it is third-hand evidence. It is an undated document. We do not know who actually wrote the document. It is third-hand evidence. It is about Lammers who said that somewhere in the past Hitler had said something to him about the solution, not the Final Solution, of the Jewish question.

I think we will come to the document later in more detail, but I think I could not see this and I cannot see this as a major document, let us say, for the interpretation of the Holocaust. Q. [Mr Irving]: What would have prevented you saying this to what was obviously a friendly audience at the German Institute on —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: He has given his answer. You may not accept it, but he felt inhibited by the fact he had been asked to give expert evidence.

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I should mention that I do not want to find myself on Mr Irving’s website with my answer. I felt myself ten with the full comment, you know, of my behaviour and I know that Mr Irving was doing these things, and I do not want to get engaged in this kind of argument or debate, so I prefer to be silent. Q. [Mr Irving]: You prefer there not to be a debate, is that right? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Pardon?

Q. [Mr Irving]: You prefer there not to be any debate on things like this? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: No, I do not prefer to be involved in this kind of debate that you, you know, should be more specific, not to be with my comment. I do not want to find me on your web page which is what I said during this discussion or during this lecture. This was the second reason.

Section 25.7 to 41.5

Q. [Mr Irving]: We are now going to go to the meaning of words, Professor Longerich. Again this is perfectly straightforward questioning and answering. There are no concealed tricks involved here. Would you agree that a lot of the words that you have put in your list quite clearly show an intention, a homicidal intent, if I can put it like that? A lot of the euphemisms used by the Nazis? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, I think that is true. Q. [Mr Irving]: A lot of them are ambiguous?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: They are in the way they were used they are. They are sometimes ambiguous, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: It is really a bit of a minefield, is it not? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Well, I think, I cannot speak about minefields. I think what an historian has to do, he has to look at each document and has to look at the context and then try to reconstruct from the context what actually the meaning of this, of this passage might be.

Q. [Mr Irving]: But is not the danger there that you then come back using our pre-Ori methods, that you extrapolate backwards from your knowledge and assign a meaning to the word rather

than using the word to help you itself? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: That is the problem with all interpretations. You have to come back. Of course, you cannot analyse the word completely, you know, outside. You have to look at the meaning of the word, but always in a historical context.

I am not a linguist, so I prefer to actually, as I said, to look at the context and to —- Q. [Mr Irving]: You speak English very well, Dr Longerich, if I may say so, and I think we are all very impressed by that and I am certainly impressed by the arguments you have put forward in your glossary. Would you agree also that the same word can have different meanings when uttered by different people? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes.

That is exactly why I think it is important always to look at the context because, as you rightly said, the same word could have different meanings in different contexts. Q. [Mr Irving]: The same word can also have a different meaning depending on when it is uttered? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Exactly. Q. [Mr Irving]: Even by the same person? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Exactly. Q. [Mr Irving]: Or in what circumstances it is uttered?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: That is what I call the context. Q. [Mr Irving]: The only two words I am really concerned with (but we will certainly look at the other words in your glossary) are

the words “vernichtung” which is destruction or annihilation? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I said, I translate it as, I could accept this translation, but I also think in our context, I said probably the translation “extermination” is the better one or the more appropriate one. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, well, “extermination” is a possible one, but you will appreciate it is not always proper to go for the third or fourth meaning of a word?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I do not know what you mean by “the third or fourth meaning”. If you mean the use of dictionaries, I think that is a rather mechanical way, you know, at looking at dictionaries. Of course, a dictionary offers various meanings and you have to probably go to the third or fourth meaning if the context suggested that, the context in which the document stands.

So I do not think a translator or an historian would always in a mechanical way take the first meaning in the dictionary. Q. [Mr Irving]: Here is a 1935 dictionary that says — I will just check it — “vernichtung” has only two meanings and that is “annihilate; destroy”? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: This looks rather small, your dictionary, if I may say so, and you find other dictionaries — actually, I do not think that.

Q. [Mr Irving]: I have any number of other dictionaries going back over the years.

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: We can go, if you want, to the dictionaries. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think what the witness is saying is you can swap dictionary definitions until the cows come home and no-one is at the end of it any the wiser. MR IRVING: The other word I want to look at is “ausrotten” and I am going to ask you very quickly, Dr Longerich, to take this little bundle of documents which is on the left-hand side there which I just gave you.

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I just see this for the first time, I have to say. Q. [Mr Irving]: Is that the little bundle there? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. I have given it to you for the first time because perhaps I can ask an interim question. When you compiled your glossary, Dr Longerich, did you have before you a number of documents from a dossier on the word “ausrotten” that had been provided by the Defence solicitors?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Sorry, a glossary of terms of what the word —- Q. [Mr Irving]: When you wrote your glossary —- A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: — did you before you a number of documents provided to you by the Defence solicitors? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: No, I cannot actually — I cannot recall this. I wrote this in Munich but, of course, it was holidays and when I did this, I did not have anything in front of me. Q. [Mr Irving]: Very well.

The first page, page 1 — I am looking at the big numbers at the bottom — the ausrottung des Prostesten

tismus? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Your bundle, yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: It is my little bundle, yes. This is 1900 —- A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: — published by some church body, and it is about the ausrotten des Prostesten tismus in Salzburg? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Obviously, they are not talking about liquidating all the Protestants, are they?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I do not know, I mean, you know, in Germany in the 17th century, for instance, they had what they called religious wars and many people were actually ausgerot for religious reasons. So if you give me a chance to find out whether this is about the 30 year war. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It appears to be dated 1900. I do not know whether the Gothic script means it is older than that. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: It is written 1900, but is it not historical subject?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, if I may say so, I do not think we will get very much help out of that. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I see. It is about the church history of the 18th century. Q. [Mr Irving]: I am looking just at the use of the word, my Lord, and suggesting strongly that at this time they were not — it is in close parallel to the phrase the ausrotten des Judentums? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I follow the point you are making, but

can one not put it this way? Do you accept or not, I do not know, Dr Longerich, that you can use “ausrotten” to mean “rooting out”. It depends on the context? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I am not sure about “rooting out”. I think the meaning here of “ausrotten” is to wipe out, to get completely rid of. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: All right, wipe out?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: This applies not to — I do not know, I mean, I am not familiar with the — I mean, if you give me the time I will try to do my best to get familiar with the history of the churches, of a church in Salzburg in the 19th century, I am not sure whether they kill anybody or so. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us forget about —- A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think the term “ausrotten” applies to an organization which probably Protestentismus is here.

It does not necessarily mean that everybody who belongs to this organization is going to be killed. You can also speak, I mean, today about “ausrotten” of criminality, for instance, if you mean, you know, that you get rid of this problem. But I think what is more important is that, you know, it is more tricky when it comes actually to the ausrotten of human beings, then I think the meaning is quite clear, as far I see it.

MR IRVING: Can we now go to page 2 which is a 1935 Nazi reference to it, one which you have not adduced in your glossary. This is a speech by Rudolf Hess on May 14th. My

Lord, the translation is the final paragraph on that page. “National socialist legislation”, the actual phrase which I am going to look at is “National Sozialische Deutschland des Judentums etwa richtiglos ausgerottet wurde”. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Where is that? Q. [Mr Irving]: So there is a specific reference here to —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Fourth line? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. MR IRVING: — the fourth line of the German.

Here you have: “National Socialist legislation has now introduced corrective measures against this overalienisation. I say ‘corrective’ because the proof that the Jews are not being ruthlessly ausgerottet”, which I say is rooted out, “in National Socialist Germany, is that in Prussian alone 33,500 Jews were working in the manufacturing industry, 89,800 are engaged…”, and so on.

So he is talking clearly there about rooting out, is he not, not about liquidating because this is 1935, no one is killing Jews at that time, are they? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I take your word that this is the authentical texts. I have not seen this document myself. I do not know the context. He is saying that the Judentum, which is probably the Jewry in this context, is not ausgerottet in 1935, which is perfectly true, I think.

It is a preHolocaust document, I cannot see —- Q. [Mr Irving]: It is a Nuremberg document, is it not, if you look —-

MR JUSTICE GRAY: But the point that is being put, Dr Longerich, is that “ausrotten” is being used there in a context which has nothing to do with extermination. That is the only point that is being put. MR IRVING: By a Nazi, in connection with the Jews? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, so it is not the Jews, it is the Judentum, the term “Judentum” means here, let us say —- MR IRVING: The Jewish community?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: — the Jewish community, the alleged social position of the Jews in Germany, their property, their wealth and so on. So I think that, and so far the term means not only human beings, a collective, but it also means more than that, and in this sense the Judentum was not ausgerottet, so that is…. Q. [Mr Irving]: The next page, Dr Longerich, on page 3 is the English translation, but you can look at the German, if you wish, which is on page 5.

This is on item that you yourself have adduced. This is Adolf Hitler’s use of the word “ausrottung” in 1936. He is not talking about Jews, but it is the same word. He is talking about the need for an economic four-year plan. On page 3 he puts in this sentence: “A victory of Bolshevism over Germany would not lead to a Versaille Treaty, but to a final destruction, indeed the ausrottung of the German nation”, “volk”.

Is Hitler saying that if the Bolsheviks succeed in war against Germany, they are going to exterminate the German

nation? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I am sorry. Normally, I have more time to interpret documents than this one or two minutes. Q. [Mr Irving]: This is one referred that you yourself have referred to though, is it not, in your glossary? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: So I just have to look at it because I quoted it myself in my own document, he goes then on and says after you stop here, “And if the ausrottung”, he tries to explain what “ausrotten” means.

In English, it says here that: “After a Bolshevik victory, the European states, including Germany, would experience the most terrible catastrophe for its people since humanity was affected by the extinguishing of the states of classical antiquity”. So I think if you say, “Well, this will be worse than the end of the Roman Empire”, this statement involves clearly that this will be done in a very, that this ausrottung will be done in very cruel manner, it will cost a lot of lives.

I think this is implicit here in Hitler’s words. Q. [Mr Irving]: But “ausrottung” here cannot be equated to the word “extermination”, can it? He is not saying, “If the Bolsheviks win in a future war, it will lead to the extermination of the German people”, he is saying, “It will lead to the emasculation of the German people or the end of them as an important power in Europe”?

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I would not agree because when he makes this reference, “It is more terrible than the end of the Roman Empire,

the states”, he says. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Then it is quite something. I mean, this is not just, you the Versaille Treaty, as he said. It is not just the collapse of the German Empire; it is much, much more. Q. [Mr Irving]: Hunger, starvation and pestilence. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: In a way, I am trying not to speculate what Hitler thought in 1936 what is actually more terrible than the end of the Roman Empire.

I think it is quite reasonable to assume that this kind of “ausrottung” would, as the end of the Roman Empire did, involve the killing of many, many people. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can you just for my benefit translate quickly, if you would not mind, the immediately following words, where he talks about what a catastrophe that would be? MR IRVING: “The extent of such a catastrophe cannot be really imagined”. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Next sentence?

MR IRVING: “How the densely populated west of Europe, including German, would survive after a Bolshevik collapse, it would experience probably the most awful national catastrophe since the extinction of the antique states — since the” — it is a complicated sentence. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is a complicated sentence, but, Dr Longerich, it is all pretty apocalyptic stuff, is it

not, that he is —- A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Exactly, and I think I translate it a little bit more, I said, “The most terrible catastrophe”, “grauenhaft”, I think is the word “terror” in it, and so it is —- MR IRVING: “Awesome”? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I think it is more than that. Q. [Mr Irving]: Can I just ask you briefly about this document. This is, of course, a document dictated by Adolf Hitler to his private secretary, is it not? It is not a speech.

He is choosing his words carefully. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. I do not know whether he dictated this to his private secretary. It is a document he provided for Goring. It is an instruction for Goring to carry on with —- Q. [Mr Irving]: Well, I know because Christa Schroeder told me he dictated it to her. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I am trying to explain this to the court. It is the document which actually says that Germany should be able within four years to fight the next war.

So it is an instruction for Goring. But I think if we go — no, I cannot read more than that in this document. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We have your answer about that document anyway. MR IRVING: Yes. Page 6, again we are still in 1936, but collection of documents published obviously by anti-Nazis

now about the expropriation, the humiliation and the vernichtung of the Jews in Germany —- A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: — since the government of Adolf Hitler. This time it is the word “vernichtung”. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: 1936, of course, the Jews as such had not been vernichtet, had they, and yet this is a history of the destruction of the Jews? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: I have to make here a general observation.

I just have to trust that this is all, you know, this is original. Q. [Mr Irving]: I have the original documents here.

A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: And I always prefer to look at documents in the appropriate context, but, of course, it is possible that somebody in ’36, and I think these are the Jews who emigrated from Germany, would use the term “vernichtung” in a sense that, you know, “vernichtung” there, you would use it in the sense that he would not refer to the actual killing of the Jews because the actual killing, as we know, did happen later on.

So I do not think how this document can help us to interpret or to put the Nazi terminology into the historical context. Q. [Mr Irving]: Yes, I agree. It is a low grade document. It is outside Germany but there is the phrase “vernichtung der Juden” in 1936. A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes, and who actually published it, do you know that?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us move on. It is a low grade document. MR IRVING: The next one is high grade. It is page 7, Walter Hewel? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: Walter Hewel was a diplomat on Hitler’s staff. He was the liaison officer, von Ribbentrop, was he not? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: H-E-W-E-L? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Irving]: And he wrote a memorandum on the conference between Hitler and this Czech State president Hacha — H-A-C-H-A —

on March 15th 1939, which is in the official published volumes, is it not, ADAP? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Well, again I cannot recall the document. I just trust that this is correct what you are saying. I do not have the ADAP with me and I do not have —- Q. [Mr Irving]: Well, if this is a fig quotation, no doubt, I will be shot down in due course by the Defence.

The phrase in German is [German – document not provided] which I will translate as “If in the a autumn of the last year, 1938, Czechoslovakia had not given in, then the Czech volk would have been ausgerottet? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Yes. Q. [Mr Irving]: What is Hitler saying there? A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]: Well… Q. [Mr Irving]: Is it important, do you think, this use of the word here?