Day 3 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

Part I: Initial Proceedings (1.1 to 27.8)

Section 1.1 to 13.3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London Thursday, 13th January 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) PROCEEDINGS – DAY THREE

< DAY 3 Thursday, 13th January 2000 MR DAVID IRVING, Recalled. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, Mr Irving? MR IRVING: May it please the court, with your Lordship’s permission, I have brought the bundle of the documents that we were referring to last night. Unless your Lordship would see any reason against, I propose rapidly stepping through these documents, pausing at the ones which are significant as far as we can determine so far from the direction and thrust of the cross-examination.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. You are in the middle of your cross-examination. So, in the ordinary way, we will wait and see when the documents became relevant to Mr Rampton’s questions. MR IRVING: They have been in discovery throughout, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I follow that. But I suspect most of them are going to become relevant to the answers you are going to be giving to some of the questions Mr Rampton is asking.

MR IRVING: I do apprehend it will be useful to the court, I appreciate that it is your Lordship’s court, but I believe it will be useful. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You may well be right. I cannot really tell, I have only glanced at it. Shall I ask Mr Rampton — because he is cross-examining, so, on the face of it, he has the right to continue to cross-examine.

MR RAMPTON: I have no objection. In a sense, it is either evidence-in-chief in anticipation of cross-examination, or it is what one might call “premature re-examination”. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR RAMPTON: One way or the other it is going to make no difference. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you are happy I will not stand in the way. Before that happens I wonder if I could mention one or two administrative points?

The first is, I think we are all agreed through nobody’s fault, this is not a very suitable court and I am very concerned that there are members of the public who, I think, are not able to get in and listen and want to. Having made enquiries, as I said I would, I think there are two possible courts to which we could move which were not available or were not thought to be available when we started.

One is court 73, which I have looked at and looks to me to be much better than this in almost every respect. There is, apparently, another one, which is in Chichester Rents in Chancery Lane, which is even bigger. I think I would have some slight personal preference for 73, but what I wanted to ask you is that I think we should move anyway, because this is not satisfactory and it seems to me, unless you are going to tell me there are insuperable problems, tomorrow is the day to do the move.

Are you in agreement that that is the right thing to do?

MR IRVING: I would have suggested doing it over the weekend although I have no logistical problems myself — MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I think they have a lot of problems ahead of them, but I think it is better to do it now than to struggle on and regret it every day from hereon. MR RAMPTON: That would suit us awfully well, if we could make a fresh start in what I call a “proper big court” on Monday morning. MR IRVING: Not a fresh start. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We will decide — not a fresh start.

MR RAMPTON: No, thank you. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We will decide during the course of today which it is going to be and, obviously, let you know. We will take it that on Monday we will be in a different court. MR RAMPTON: May I ask where exactly 73 is? MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is where all those new Court of Appeals are. MR RAMPTON: In the East Building. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR RAMPTON: In the end I would have to say, my Lord, it is a matter for you.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think it is, if you have strong feelings. MR RAMPTON: No, I do not know Chancery Lane much at all anyway. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is point one.

The next relates to the TA Law Transcripts which are being done. Really, I think I am saying this on behalf of the lady who is doing the transcribing. She is having the most appalling task. She is here all day, and she is by herself, as it were. It would help her if we could slightly slow down. Mr Irving, you speak fairly rapidly anyway. That is not a criticism at all. MR IRVING: I thought I was speaking slowly.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you can bear in mind there is somebody trying to take down what you say, if we can try to remember to spell out the German names when they crop up for the first time. That is going to make everybody’s life much easier. There is one other point on the transcripts. The Day 2 transcript starts at page 104. My own feeling (and I do not know whether you share it, Mr Rampton) is that it would be better if every day started at 1, so you have Day 2, page 1, rather than page 104.

I am told that is physically possible. So that is what I think we will have in the future. That is all that I wanted to raise except that, Mr Irving, I have seen (and I do not know whether Mr Rampton has) your letter about the letter to me about the article in the Stuttgart press. Do you know about it? MR RAMPTON: No.

MR IRVING: I was going to ask, my Lord, I might, having given the Defendants time to consider it, if I might address the court briefly on the matter after the lunch adjournment? MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you would like to do that, that is fine. Mr Rampton? MR RAMPTON: I have no comment until I have seen it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not suppose you will, even when you have. MR RAMPTON: I see. My Lord, the only thing I would mention about the transcript, I do not know what the cure is.

Is that, normally speaking, of course, one can deduce what it was, but here and there — this is not a criticism of the transcriber, far from it — one sees in square brackets the word “German” which represents something that has been said in German. That is going to repeat itself indefinitely in that case. I do not know what cure is. Whether the word should be spelt out each time.

It is a terribly laborious way of dealing it, or whether we supply at some stage when it is important a list of what we suppose was the word used. As I say, most of the time one can deduce it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is it actually going to be all that much of a burden to spell it out or, at any rate, spell out the key words in the document? I am thinking yesterday “liquidierung”. One can spell that out. MR RAMPTON: There is going to be more of that today.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I follow. MR RAMPTON: Perhaps spell it out? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am inclined to think so. I think that is the best way. It is going to slow things down. Would you prefer it, both of you? MR RAMPTON: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is going to slow things down, but it needs to be done that way.

So, Mr Irving, would you like to take me through the… MR IRVING: Page 1, my Lord, this is a letter — the sole purpose of this letter is that it indicates the date when I really made use of the Himmler telephone notes, being 1974; some 25 years ago, 26 years ago. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can I just ask you this? You there transcribe judentransport, J-U-D-E-N-T-R-A-N-S-P-O-R-T, in the singular, and that is in 1974. MR IRVING: We have check the original in the German.

You are absolutely right, my Lord. You are absolutely right. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Right. MR IRVING: In a very vague, and, of course, I am still considering myself to be under oath as I make these remarks, in a very vague way my recollection is that time I regarded the word “transport” as not just meaning like a transport train or one consignment, or a transport ship in the way that you would talk about a convoy of 26 transports but also in the sense that transportation.

I consider that the words judenstransport meant “transportation of Jews”. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I note that you make that point. MR IRVING: This is an alternative inference but now I am quite happy to accept that this particular discussion from external evidence only referred to one particular transport of Jews, and I am indebted to your Lordship for having reminded, or took me back into the mind set of 26 years ago. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

MR IRVING: As you know, my presumption is, I will just read the middle paragraph that Hitler had become an active knowledge bearer or accomplice in the destruction of the Jews only in 1943. This is of course a translation of the following page, my Lord. From the attached page, which is a facsimile, which we will see in a minute, it is evident that Himmler, arriving at midday

on November 30th, 1941, in the Wolf’s Lair, which I explain was Hitler’s headquarters in East Prussia, after a brief conversation with Hitler immediately had to telephone Heydrich in Prague, and then comes the phrase, “judentransportest aust Berlin keine liquidierung”, which I believe the shorthand writer already had from us. If you take this in conjunction with various other entries, e.g. that of 17th November 1941, in which Heydrich informs the Reich Fuhrer, that is Himmler, on

conditions in the general Uberman, Poland. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is SS Reich Fuhrer. MR IRVING: Well, Reich Fuhrer SS would be the full title. There was only one Reich Fuhrer in German — conditions in the general government Poland-geting rid of the Jews, Beseitigung, this can only indicate that Himmler has been rapped across the knuckles by Hitler. This conversation note has until now evidently slipped through the fingers of the historical research community, as you might call it.

Then the other two lines at the bottom are not without interest in the chain of documents I refer to, my Lord. Himmler had to issue a similar “holt” order in April 1942 on account of the liquidation of the gypsies, again after a brief visit to Hitler. “I thought this might be of interest to you.” You will see that document too, my Lord, in this bundle. Because it is false to try and draw inferences from one document without looking at other documents in the series.

I appreciate in court it is difficult to do this. My Lord, the next document I am going to draw your Lordship’s attention to is 03 at the foot of the page. This is another document that was in discovery. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I have read that. That is you asking Professor Hinsley whether he has any more information. MR IRVING: Yes, my Lord, except that at that time it does

indicate at that time he did not have the German originals. MR RAMPTON: I am sorry, Mr Irving. I beg your pardon. May I intervene to ask your Lordship to insert it in that bundle? It comes from Mr Irving’s discovery. There is no mystery about it. Professor Hinsley’s reply. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It was not there. MR RAMPTON: Yes, we have it now. MR IRVING: I could not find it last night, my Lord.

In is Professor Hinsley indicates that he has obviously not yet seen himself the German originals of the British intercepts. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR IRVING: It is quite interesting. MR JUSTICE GRAY: The postscript is perhaps of some significance. MR IRVING: It is interesting the British Official Historian and British Secret Service had either not been allowed to see or had not found in general chaos the documentation, these are the originals, which are now in the Public Record Office.

But the German originals are very, very informative in their scope, breadth and depth. That, my Lord, is 04. This is the first of the notes of the telephone conversations from Himmler’s telephone log to the Chief of the SS, and the one on which I rely is the one timed 12.15. It is the fourth

conversation. I am afraid I have not attached a translation of it, but I will do a translation on reply on the one or two lines that matter. It is a 15 minute conversation with Heydrich who on that day was in Berlin. We do not know who initiated the conversation, my Lord, but Heydrich phoned Himmler or Himmler phoned Heydrich. We never see them. We have to infer.

Conference with Rosenberg, conditions in the government general, getting rid of the Jews, beseitigung of the Jews, and then the third line — the fourth line rather, juristen nuralseerater, roughly lawyers just as advisers. Nothing else on that page to which I will refer. Merely it shows there were conversations going on between these two gentlemen on liquidation or getting rid of the Jews. MR JUSTICE GRAY: What is the significance for my purpose of that?

MR IRVING: It is the context in which the principal document is embedded, my Lord. The inference that has been drawn against me is that I have one cardinal document and I would go around the world waving this document and saying “here it the proof”. It is, in fact, showing that they were constantly talking about getting rid of the Jews, using — MR JUSTICE GRAY: There is no issue, is there, that that was something that both Himmler and Heydrich were intent upon

doing. MR RAMPTON: Yes. The word ” beseitigung” is interesting. You can look at it either this way or that way, literally as getting rid of, which can be sweeping under the carpet or liquidation. I am quite happy to accept that here they were talking about liquidation, these two gentlemen. It now becomes more interesting, my Lord, on page 5. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can you just let me highlight?

MR IRVING: We come to the intercepts and Mr Rampton does not wish me at this point to bring in this material. I am quite happy to turn the page, but I think it is useful to bring it in all in chronological sequence. MR JUSTICE GRAY: When you “intercept” — MR IRVING: This is the Bletchley Park intercept of the — MR JUSTICE GRAY: Messages to Berlin.

MR IRVING: Messages between Berlin and the Eastern Front for police commanders, and also a whole number of other SS units, but these are the ones I rely on. No. 35 is a message addressed from Berlin

on November 17th, that same day as the previous conversation, to the commander of security police, Dr Lange, L-A-N-G-E, in Riga, concerning, and I use the next word in original German — these are my translations, concerning the evakierung of the Jews. “Evakierung”, my Lord, is one of those words we will probably tussle over. The literal translation is “evacuation”, but I am perfectly ready to

accept for the purposes of this action that “evakierung” is occasionally used by the SS as a euphemism for a more ugly means of disposing.

Section 13.4 to 27.8

But in this particular case what is significant is that the man in Berlin is telling the recipient in Riga,

on November 17th, in other words, that same day, at 6.25 p.m., transport train No. DO 26 has left Berlin for Kovno or Kornas, with 940 more Jews on board. That was usually the rough size of each train load of Jews, about 1,000 Jews. Transport escorted by two Gestapo and 15 police officers. Transport commander is Criminal Overassessor Exner, the man’s name, who was two copies of the transport list with him.

Transport provided with following provisions, and this is interesting part, my Lord, 3,000 kilogrammes of bread, three tonnes of bread for a two or three day journey. 27 kilogrammes of flour, nearly three tonnes of flour; 200 kilogrammes of peas; 200 kilogrammes of nutriments; 300 kilogrammes of corn flakes; 18 bottles of soup spices.

They continue in the next message; 52 kilogrammes soup powders, 10 packets of something or other, we do not know; 50 kilogrammes of salt; 47,200 Reich Marks in crates. Signed Gestapo Headquarters, Berlin. Quite an interesting document, my Lord. It is the first kind of thing we come across in my view to show that these trains were actually well-provisioned. It is a bit of a dent, a tiny dent in

the image that we have, the perception, as Mr Rampton calls it, of the Holocaust today. The next one, page 6, is a message intercepted on 20th November. It is unimportant for our purposes on what day it was decoded. It was decoded 10 days. It takes 10 days to decode it. The actual message is dated three days later, 20th November 1941, again, dressed do commander of order police and the SS in Riga, concerning evacuation of Jews. The same kind of thing, transport train No. DO56.

Has left Bremen, destination Minsk with 971 Jews on 18th November. Escort command regular police Bremen, transport commander Police Meister Bockhorn, B-O-C-K-H-O-R-N, is in possession of two lists of names and 48,700 Reich Marks in cashiers’ credits. Jews are well-provisioned with food and appliances. My Lord, on the next page you will see the actual intercept, page 7 is what the actual intercept looked like. They are headed “Most Secret”. It is the second paragraph, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: “Most secret” is put on at Bletchley, is it not? MR IRVING: Indeed, of course. There is no indication on the intercepts themselves, as intercepted here, what security classification they have. But I want to draw attention only to the word “gerat” in the fifth or sixth line of the intercept, which means appliances. Any German speakers in

the room I am sure would agree the word “gerat” is the tools of the trade, roughly, they are being sent to the East with food, with provisions, and with the tools of their trade. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have translated that as what? MR IRVING: Appliances. It is a rough cover all, tools of the trade would be a little bit too specific, I am sure Mr Rampton will probably eventually object.

But the sense of gerat, if a cameraman comes into this room he would bring his gerat with him, his appliances with him. The next one is No. 15, I rely on this because it shows in the first line, I am sorry I am still on page 6, my Lord, the second message on page 6 SS Obergruppen Fuhrer Jeckelm, transferred from Kiev to Riga. So that was the day this criminal was transferred to Riga, round about November 20th, and in fact it is a pretty low level message.

They are worried about what happened to motor cars and things like that if I remember correctly. If we can now turn straight over to page 9, my Lord, I took the trouble during the night to dig out of my files, the war diary of Hitler’s headquarters, which I have. These are all my documents.

All my documents when I obtained them for the book, I had bound in these volumes because I anticipated perhaps Mr Rampton would say, well, we have no proof that Hitler was in his headquarters, that he was at home on the day of crucial

message November 30th. MR RAMPTON: No, he would not say that, my Lord, because Himmler recalls that he had lunch with Hitler on that day. MR IRVING: Well, I am just dotting the Is and crossing the Ts. MR JUSTICE GRAY: The point is not made, so we need not trouble with that. MR IRVING: It also talks about the arrival of the Fuhrer’s train that very morning. On the following day is the photocopy from the page of war diary at Hitler’s headquarters.

We then come to the crucial document we were talking about yesterday evening, which I … MR JUSTICE GRAY: I still have your copy of that. MR IRVING: I put it in the bundles for sake of completeness. It is referred to in the third conversation. I draw attention only to the first lines, which says: “Telephone conversation

on November 30th 1941″. The next line “Wolf stanche” means Wolf’s Lair. The next line “ausdemzung” it means from the train. Himmler is still in the train going to Hitler’s headquarters. Three lines down, ausdembunker, from the bunker, he is at the bunker now, in the Wolf’s Lair, 13.30 he telephones Heydrich, as we know only the third and fourth line of the notes are important, “Jew transport from Berlin, no liquidation”. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

MR IRVING: If I may proceed now to page 13, my Lord. This is

the one that I am alleged mysteriously to have misread and the implication being I deliberately misread it or deliberately changed word the Gerhartens Fuhrer (?) into “juden”, which would be quite a feat. My Lord on the page 13 the question of the line, the contentious line is third from the bottom, haben zubleiben. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Have to remain. MR IRVING: You will notice, my Lord, the word “haben” has obviously been retyped, a bit of squeeze getting it in.

It was retyped by my when I realized my error in transcription. That typewriter was disposed of some or ten or 15 years ago. That is how early I realized my error. I do not know if it is significant one way or the other, it may count against me. I do not know. It is also significant to see in the following line, my Lord, I have written the words “truppenschuhe”, and this is another misreading by me. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It does not really matter, does it.

MR IRVING: My Lord, I am just trying to say as you will see from the next page, which I now ask you to turn. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Before you leave that, I thought there was another point made on this document, which is your translation of the words — MR IRVING: That is Verwallueys Fuhrer. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Am I not right about that?

MR IRVING: This was the point Mr Rampton sought to make, and I corrected him, my Lord, and said that was not the word that I misread. It was the word on the following line haben, which I misread as Juden, and this is why I was going to ask your Lordship, respectfully, to turn to the next page, page 14, where you will see the words in question, three lines from the bottom on the right, that is the quality of the original I was working from.

I do not know if your copy is highlighted, the crucial word is not perhaps… MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, it is. What did you originally transcribe that as? MR IRVING: Juden, I would submit this is a perfectly reasonable kind of mistake to make. If I was to labour the point I would draw your Lordship’s attention to all the other versions of the word “Juden” that are correct, you will see they are very similar indeed in the German Gothic handwriting.

So what we have, my Lord, to recap at this point, November 30th Himmler for some reason in a telephone conversation with Heydrich saying that train load of Jews from Berlin is not to be liquidated. I believe that is a fair expansion of that sentence. On the following day he has that telephone conversation with SS Gruppen Fuhrer Poll, I am back on page 13, at 4.45 p.m. They touch on Depervartens (?)

Fuhrer, but more important now is the conversation, again, with Heydrich about the same time as the previous one, on the previous day, 13.15 on that page 13. He has a conversation with Prague first of all about his scribes, the female scribes and, secondly, “executionen”, like “executions”, in Riga. I am sure I do not have to translate that. So it is now very much in the air that something has gone on in Riga, my Lord.

On page 15, that same day, we are well in the chronology, my Lord, this is a telephone conversation at 7.15 a.m. on that Monday morning, December 1st, 1941. This is coming from Jeckelm to Berlin. This is a very ugly one indeed, my Lord. He is saying in English: “I need by next available air courier 10 Finnish”, Finland, in other words, “military pistols with two drum magazines each.

Execution of sonder aktionen”, special actions, S-O-N-D-E-R A-K-T-I-O-A-N, “request radio telegramme reply. Senior SS and Police Command, North Russia”. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Who is this addressed to in Berlin then? MR IRVING: The main leadership Hauptamt, would be the body concerned with the procurement of such armaments.

The significance of this, my Lord, if you remember the harrowing description by General Bruns of the shootings on the edge of the pit where the men were using machine guns, tommy-guns, and he has run, he has not enough tommy-guns,

he needs more. You can see the actual intercept of that, my Lord, on the next page. What is the answer he gets? Page 17, again my translation my Lord, Himmler himself contacts him, either in person, that is the second message, or through his Adjutant, Grothmann (who is still alive in Germany now). He sends this message to that same criminal, Jeckelm, at 7.30 p.m.

on December 1st: To SS Obergruppenfuhrer Jeckelm, Senior SS and Police Commander, Osla, Riga. Reichfuhrer SS Himmler summons you to him for a conference on December 4th. Please state when you will arrive here and by what means you will be travelling”. In other words, he had been summoned urgently to the Headquarters.

The very next message explains what is going to happen. “SS Obergruppenfuhrer Jeckelm” — this is the message we dealt with yesterday, my Lord — “The Jews being outplaced to Osland”, to the Baltic, “are to be dealt with only in accordance with the guidelines laid down by myself and/or by the … (reading to the words) … on my orders. I would punish arbitrary and disobedient acts”, signed Himmler. A most incredibly important message, I think, for many reasons.

He is not talking about a Hitler order here. He is saying: “The guidelines issued by me”, by Himmler, “or by the Reichssicherheits Hauptamt” who is Heydrich”, his telephone conversation partner. Jeckelm, out on the Eastern front, has overstepped the guidelines.

He started shooting thousands of Germans. He had been summoned to Himmler’s headquarters, to Rastenburg, in East Prussia to account for himself. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Where do we find the guideline? MR IRVING: My Lord, we will hear in the course of this trial that these intercepts are not wall to wall. We do not have everything that they sent. There is an enormous mass of trivia, people whose cars have been towed and that kind of thing, people whose wives have died.

Occasionally embedded in the trivia, like in a goldmine, in the slurry, there are diamonds like this. The incredible thing is, although this document has now been in the public domain for about five or six years, the historians and the world have not leapt on this document and said,”Irving was right. This proves that the Fuhrer’s headquarters were not only indignant, but were calling people to account.

In the way that the wars are, although he is brought back from the Front and he is wrapped on the knuckles, he is sent back to the Front to carry on with his job. He is not dismissed from service; in rather the same way as I know General Patten, for example, went to the Front when General Patten had been liquidating prisoners. He was called before Eisenhauer and called to account.

He was put on ice for two or three months and then he was given command of one of the best armies, the 3rd American Army, because good men are hard

to come by in a war. That is, undoubtedly, the way the Nazis viewed this criminal. May I proceed, my Lord? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, thank you. MR IRVING: We can see on page 21 the arrival of the unfortunate criminal, the arrival of the unfortunate criminal, SS Obbergruppenfuhrer Jeckelm in Himmler’s appointment book, in other words, at Hitler’s headquarters. One notices at 1300 they are driving over Hitler’s headquarters. Then Himmler visits the barber and the dentist.

He sees Hitler at 5 p.m. and at 7 p.m. he sees other SS Generals. At 8 p.m. he has dinner in part of Hitler’s headquarters with Jeckelm and at 9.30 he hauls Jeckelm over the carpet, the Jewish question, the SS brigade, economic business. So that is the actual visit. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Would it be a fair interpretation of this document that the original plan was that Jeckelm should be present with Hitler and Himmler at 5 o’clock in the afternoon?

MR IRVING: I cannot be specific on that, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It looks like it, does it not? MR IRVING: I do not want to speculate, but these are grey areas. The documents do not tell us everything we would dearly love to know. What we do know is the final two pages I put in the bundle. My Lord, you will see that the last page has some red print on the bottom, the very last

page. This is the German, I would say, official transcript of Himmler’s diary which, my Lord, the Defendants also have on the desk in front of them. It is published this year. It is enormously expensive. It is a very good and highly dependable transcription of Himmler’s diaries and appointment book.

They put that in as a footnote at 104, I believe, in which they say: “After these signals were exchanged”, which, oddly enough, they do not elucidate to the degree that I have, “the killings of German Jews stopped for many months”. I have no further submissions to make about these documents. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have lost me a little. Where do I find after these messages —- MR IRVING: The very last line of the red text.

This is the comments by the editors, who are a team of German historians, on the Himmler diaries which they have annotated most expertly, and they too have drawn finally on these two mysterious messages that we intercepted. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But the point that may be made, I do not know, on this is that it is the mass shootings of German Jews that ceased. MR IRVING: I agree, my Lord. This is why I have been very careful to make a distinction in my evidence and, indeed, in my books.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: That suggests to me — tell me if I am wrong

about this — that the guidelines mentioned in the earlier message were guidelines relating to German Jews. MR IRVING: This is quite possible, my Lord.

I would only ask you in reading, as undoubtedly you will, and re-reading passages from my books on which the Defendants seek to rely, you ask yourself this question, has Mr Irving, the so-called Holocaust denier, at any time implied that this kind of massacre did not go on, and that it was systematic and it was carried out on guidelines from above? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

MR IRVING: But you will notice that Mr Himmler talks about “orders that I have issued and the Reichssicherheits Hauptamt”. He never says, “On the Fuhrer’s instructions” which, obviously, there would be a strong temptation in a message like this to say, “You have not only upset me, but you have put Adolf’s nose really out of joint”.

So, I mean, obviously, I am going to submit that if documents like this exist of a quality like that, to imply that I was speaking off the wall in some way with no kind of documentary basis for the submissions that I make in my books, it would be unfair, unjust and perverse. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. You have taken me through, and thank you for that —- MR IRVING: I —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: — this little bundle. I am making this point at this stage because it is going to crop up time

and again. I am rather anxious not to have little one issue bundles cropping up at odd stages because, frankly, in a case of this length, it is all going to get lost and tangled. I imagine that all these documents are in one or other of the existing files. MR IRVING: They are in this cover, my Lord, but not in such pristine condition as that.

I want to very great trouble last night to prepare this particular bundle in the hope that you would say to yourself, well, if he was able to come up with evidence like this on this matter, no doubt he will be able on any other matter —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do not misunderstand me. I am not critical. I think it is helpful to have a bundle prepared like this, but what I need to be sure of is that I know where these documents can be found in the existing files.

What I will ask somebody on the Defendants’ side to do, if they would be good enough, if they can do this, is to provide me with the cross-reference. Could you ask somebody to do that? MR RAMPTON: We will think about that. The trouble is at the moment that our files are ordered according to the experts’ reports. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, but most of these documents would be relatively easily traced? MR RAMPTON: Most of them, I think, are referred to in the expert reports anyway.

Whether they are copied in quite that form, I am not sure; I think probably not.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: You see why I need to have what I am asking for. MR RAMPTON: Yes, I do. My immediate idea is just to put them with a separate numeration at the back of Professor Browning or that report.

It is apparently —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that is not a bad idea, to put them into J, otherwise there is going to be proliferation of… MR IRVING: My Lord, I am using an alphabetical system which requires that there are going to be less than 26 such files over the entire case that I would anticipate putting in of this nature.

If you will bear with me, the reason I called this just “Himmler” is that I was intending to produce further documents, for example, the Schlegelberger series (which I am sure your Lordship is familiar with). I would also put that into that binder. So there will just be an Irving series, Irving A, Irving B, Irving C. This is, after all, my case, my Lord, and I do not want my structure to be subsumed into the case for the Defendants. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I entirely agree with that.

This may all seem very boring, but, believe me, in a case like this you —- MR IRVING: “Boring” is not a word I would use. MR JUSTICE GRAY: — really do have to watch the sort of housekeeping. Just so that everybody knows where I have it, I am putting it into J. MR RAMPTON: Tab C.

Part II: David Irving’s Cross-Examination by Richard Rampton, continued (27.9 to 107.21)

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I have not got a tab C. MR IRVING: My Lord, I would propose that we now continue where we left off last night. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am going to treat what you have told me in the last 20 minutes or so as being part of your evidence, although you told me from counsel’s bench. It is up to you; I think you probably ought to go back, if you would be good enough, into the witness box.

Section 27.9 to 43.13

Cross-examined by MR RAMPTON, QC, continued. THE WITNESS [Mr Irving]: My Lord, there is just one other document there that I forgot to refer to and this is No. 23. I will just read it out to you. There is no need for your Lordship to see it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I had better follow it.

A. [Mr Irving]: A telephone conversation of exactly the same kind from Himmler’s telephone log: On Hitler’s birthday, at midday with Heydrich, again that is H-E-Y-D-I-C-H, a conversation with Heydrich in which the last line reads: “Kindly”, “Keine vernichtungd. Zigeuner”, K-E-I-N-E V-E-R-N-I-C-H-T-U-N-G-D. Z-I-G-E-U-N-E-R. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: That is “gypsies”, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: That is right, my Lord. Q. [Mr Rampton]: How would you translate “vernichtungd”?

A. [Mr Irving]: Literally “destruction” and that is how I will leave it. “No destruction of the gypsies”; the significance being that on this day at mid-day, Himmler is with Hitler

celebrating a birthday party. It was Hitler’s birthday, April 20th. Once again he has had to telephone his chief executioner, so to speak, Heydrich, and say, “The gypsies are not to be liquidated” and yet they were liquidated. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You say Himmler was with Hitler at 12 o’clock? A. [Mr Irving]: Quite definitely.

It was Hitler’s birthday and I would be happy to lead evidence to prove that, but I am sure Mr Rampton will not dispute that the head of the SS —- Q. [Mr Rampton]: And this is a phone call to Heydrich from Himmler? A. [Mr Irving]: It is a telephone conversation between them. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, I take that point. A. [Mr Irving]: Of significance, it is one more document in that chain that I occasionally refer to. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you.

MR RAMPTON: Yes, as to that, Mr Irving, the “no liquidation of the gypsies”, again that was before there was any meeting between them, was it not, on that day, which is 20th April 1942, Himmler’s log said that he met Fuhrer at 12.30? A. [Mr Irving]: This may well be. It may well be what his log says. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Whereas the telephone call is at noon, I think. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Rather like 30th November? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: 1941?

A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can we go back to 30th November 1941, please? Did you get

a transcript of your evidence of the proceedings yesterday — have you got a copy that looks like this, Mr Irving? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes I have. Q. [Mr Rampton]: With a quarter page like that? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Could you turn, please, to the page numbered 289? It is the top left-hand block on one of the pages. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I was asking you if you remember why it was that you had translated “Judentransport”, a singular word, as Jews in general?

A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You had said, you can see it there, can you not, that it was a silly misreading of the word. You said at line 19: “I admit I made a mistake in the transcription”? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: This was your sworn evidence on oath yesterday? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Now would you please turn to the first page of your new bundle? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: The translation you have made for us kindly —- A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: — 23rd January 1974, where you have transcribed it correctly?

A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: The answer you gave yesterday was wrong, was it not? A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Why was it wrong, Mr Irving? A. [Mr Irving]: Because we are talking about events almost 30 years ago. I was writing this book 32 years ago. I received these documents 35 years ago. I probably transcribed it, as you can see from the letter, round about 1974. It is very difficult to put myself back into my mind set of 25 or 26 years ago.

You asked me what the reason for that was and my first presumption was that I misread the word, but ably challenged by his Lordship, questioned by his Lordship, on this matter, I recalled also that at the time I looked at it, the word “transport”, “Judentransport”, to me also could be translated as “transportation of Jews”.

Indeed, it can be translated that way and I refined it later on when I was informed by Dr Flemming, as he then was, who is an expert on the Holocaust, that there was one very clear train load of Jews to which reference was being made. That is so, I think, an accurate answer which should really replace yesterday’s answer. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I dare say it should, Mr Irving. Whether I accept it, of course, is quite another question, even in its remodelled form. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: The answer is, of course, that I do not. Mr Irving, I would like you to think a little bit about what you have just said. You heard me open this case on Tuesday afternoon, did you not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. You have to say “yes” just for the recording. That is all. Nodding or so will not do. You had a copy of the written document that I read out, did you not? A. [Mr Irving]: Which document are you referring to?

Q. [Mr Rampton]: My opening statement in this case? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: That was on Tuesday afternoon. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You realized then —- A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: — that this is one of the points that I was going to make against you, did you not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, that has been repeatedly made, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It has been repeatedly made, has it not?

Yet, when you come into the witness box to answer questions on oath, you simply pluck an explanation out of the air, do you not? A. [Mr Irving]: Mr Rampton, may I explain to you that in the last four days I have had six hours sleep? Is this a satisfactory answer to why one occasionally makes slips of the memory in the witness box? If not, then I will go into it in greater detail.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: What is the truth, Mr Irving? You did not misread it, that is clear. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes — not this particular word. Q. [Mr Rampton]: No. So yesterday’s answer was a false answer. A. [Mr Irving]: Misinterpreted. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You now say, “Well, I may have mistranslated it, but my translation was, on the face of it, legitimate”?

A. [Mr Irving]: Well, in this case it is not a translation that is needed, it is an interpretation because it is a cryptic word. “Transport” can mean several different things. There are many words that can mean several different things, and you have to look at the context and you have to take other documents and possibly later information into account in arriving at which of those words is the correct translation.

None of the words would be a wrong translation at the time you first make it. You then refine the translation on the basis of external evidence. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Would not a more natural way of putting it in German to be to put it in the plural “Judentransporte” with an “e” on the end? A. [Mr Irving]: It can also be done that way, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Would part of the context be that there did happen at this time to be a train load of Jews setting out from Berlin to Riga?

A. [Mr Irving]: There were many train loads sitting out. By this time, by November 30th, there had been five trainloads of Jews

heading for Riga or Minsk. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Over what sort of period? A. [Mr Irving]: One week, round about that time — no, I am sorry, two weeks would be a closer approximation. They were given numbers, “D” for Germany, “O” for East or German, rather, and “O” for East. That is what the numbers in the intercepts are.

MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving, another of the things that you and I disagreed about yesterday was your unequivocal categorical assertion in your various publications that that order from Himmler to Heydrich on that day was given at the instigation of Hitler. You say it was, or at least that is a reasonable inference; you called it a “judgment call”, I think, did you not?

A. [Mr Irving]: I called that, the reason I used it, or referred to it in that — I think we ought to see the actual wording I used. If you say that I said it on a number of occasions, it would be helpful to see the actual wording that I used. Q. [Mr Rampton]: For example, let us just look at how you put it in “Hitler’s War 1991”. My Lord, that is bundle D1(v). It is in two halves. This is the second half. At page 427, Mr Irving, if you are using the published edition?

A. [Mr Irving]: I am just looking at the 1977 one to pre-empt you. Q. [Mr Rampton]: We will look at that first, if you will. I think there it is round about 300 and something.

A. [Mr Irving]: At 1.30 p.m. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, his Lordship may not have it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I have. MR RAMPTON: Have you got 1977, my Lord? 332. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. I think, with respect, it makes more sense to take it from the chronology that I wrote the various editions. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I was not actually going to look at all the references, but if you wish me to do so, I do not mind in the slightest.

A. [Mr Irving]: Well, it is like a building, the way a building changes over the years, that tells us something also. Q. [Mr Rampton]: “Himmler’s personal role is ambivalent.

On November 30th 1941, he was summoned to the Wolf’s Lair for a secret conference with Hitler in which the fate of Berlin’s Jews was clearly raised”. Pause there. What evidence that Himmler was summoned to the Wolfsschanze the Wolf’s Lair? A. [Mr Irving]: My very great expertise on this matter. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What? A. [Mr Irving]: My very great expertise on this matter. Do you wish me to elaborate?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I think you had better; I am not quite sure I understand the answer. MR RAMPTON: I asked for evidence, not expertise. A. [Mr Irving]: Well, the evidence is that if you go to the archives and work through the files of Hitler’s Chancellory, you will find every year, two or three times, the head of his

Chancellory, Hans Lammers, issued an edict to all the Reich ministers and all the senior Nazi officials informing them that nobody was permitted to visit Hitler, just ringing the door bell and saying, “Mein Fuhrer, can I drop in and see you for a moment?” They had to have a specific summons and invitation because Hitler was constantly being beseiged by junior and senior officials who were ringing his doorbell in that way and asking to see him.

Eventually, it had to be forbidden, first of all, by Lammers and then by an edit of Martin Bormann. So you could not visit Hitler unless you were summoned. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, I am not going away from that topic, believe me, I am not, but it may be we had better get this sorted out earlier rather than later in this case. Where do you place Himmler in the Nazi hierarchy? A. [Mr Irving]: Nowhere in the hierarchy that it would just turn up on Hitler’s doorstep.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Please, we will come to that I promise I not leaving the topic, where do you put him? A. [Mr Irving]: He had the rank of a Reichsminister, the rank of Reischminister was equivalent to a field marshal, so it would be the equivalent rank of four star general. He had Hitler’s ear, he took orders directly from Hitler, there was no intermediary, is that sufficient? Q. [Mr Rampton]: — yes, I am going to go a little bit further.

This is not hostile interrogation, Mr Irving, this is an attempt

to see if we can agree on some broad general facts which may be of use in this case. Himmler was, was he not, one of the original putschists of 1923? A. [Mr Irving]: He is there to be seen marching in the ranks. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Wearing Nazi uniform. A. [Mr Irving]: One of the old guard. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Have you read Ian Kershaw’s book? A. [Mr Irving]: Whose? Q. [Mr Rampton]: Ian Kershaw’s book? A. [Mr Irving]: I do not read books. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You do not read books. Of course not.

He is one of old guard, is he not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: So was Goring? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: And so was Goebbels? A. [Mr Irving]: On and off, if you see what I mean. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, I do see what you mean. Is there anything which leads you to suppose — A. [Mr Irving]: In connection with Goebbels, of course, he was not one of the putschists, he came in several years later. Q. [Mr Rampton]: — Rosenberg was perhaps, I do not know.

Is there anything you know of that prevents one from supposing that Hitler might have telephoned as he apparently was able to use the telephone on the train, was he not? A. [Mr Irving]: Himmler, you are talking about?

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Himmler I mean, telephoned the Wolf’s Lair and said “can I come and talk to you about something”? A. [Mr Irving]: No reason to suppose that at all, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: So why you do use the word “summon”? A. [Mr Irving]: Because then Hitler would have said “all right, come and see me”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You see in the context, do you agree, the word “summoned”? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Means that he is being summoned in order to discuss the fate of the Berlin Jews? A. [Mr Irving]: In the context. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. Amongst other things, perhaps? A. [Mr Irving]: No, I disagree with you Mr Rampton,

on November 30th, he, Himmler was summoned to the Wolf’s Lair for a secret conference with Hitler at which the fate of Berlin’s Jews was clearly raised. Q. [Mr Rampton]: By whom? A. [Mr Irving]: We do not know. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Then you go on, at 1.30 p.m. Himmler was obliged to telephone from Hitler’s bunker? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Who could have obliged, that is to say compel, Himmler to do such a thing? A. [Mr Irving]: His own inner conscience.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is what it was, was it? A. [Mr Irving]: That is why I used word “obliged” otherwise I would have

said “ordered”. MR JUSTICE GRAY: The reality of the way, would you not accept, Mr Irving, of the way it is put in your book is that the reader is going to infer that that was an order from Hitler to him? A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, I use my words with utmost care when I write passages like that. I will go backwards and forwards over them looking for a word which I considered to be justified by the evidence but not implying or imputing or inferring too much.

If I used the word “obliged” then it was because I hesitated to use the word “order” but for some reason he made the telephone conversation. He did not wait until he got back to his own headquarters, he immediately phoned Heydrich from Hitler’s bunker without even getting over to the local phone box, he phoned Heydrich with these instructions saying “stop the killing”. MR RAMPTON: That is what you intended to convey in that passage of that page of Hitler’s War 1977?

A. [Mr Irving]: That is all that I felt it was safe to convey on the basis of the very skimpy evidence I had at that time. At that time, of course, I did not even have the decodes, but now the decodes confirm me. Q. [Mr Rampton]: So you say. Let us turn to page (xiv) of the introduction to this book, may we? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Perhaps for completeness start at the bottom of page 13: “Many people, particularly in Germany and Austria had an interest in propagating the accepted version of the order of one mad man originated the entire massacre.” We are talking here about Holocaust in the old sense, old, in the Irving history. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am so sorry, Mr Rampton, I am lost, page 13. MR RAMPTON: (Xiii) of the introduction. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you. MR RAMPTON: I will start again.

Last two lines bottom of page 13: “Many people, particularly in Germany and Austria had an interest in propagating the accepted version that the order of one mad man originated the entire massacre.” That is to say the massacre of the Jews, those are my words, my Lord. “Precisely when the order was given in what form has admittedly never been established. In 1939? But the secret extermination did not begin operating until December 1941. At the January 1942 Bunzig conference?

But the incontrovertible evidence is”, note those words, Mr Irving, in the light of your recent answers, “the incontrovertible evidence is that Hitler ordered on November 30th 1941 that there was to be ‘no liquidation’ of the Jews (without much difficulty I found in Himmler’s private files his own handwritten note on this).” In the light of that, Mr Irving, would you care to revise the