Day 4 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

Part I: Initial Proceedings (1.1 to 26.4)

Section 1.1 to 16.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London Monday, 17th 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 FOUR

< DAY 4 Monday, 17th January 2000 MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, Mr Irving? MR IRVING: May it please your Lordship. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think this court is better. I know a lot of work has been put into moving everything and I am very grateful for those who did it. MR IRVING: I am indebted to the solicitors in this action. An added burden falls upon them, my being a litigant in person.

May it please the court, I have addressed a letter to the court suggesting that we spend some ten minutes this morning dealing with some minor matters that have come up, and also I wanted to propose that your Lordship should appoint a date when we might have a formal argument, lasting perhaps one half hour for each party, on this important question of what is relevant and what is not. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Are you talking about Auschwitz now? MR IRVING: About Auschwitz, my Lord, yes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I did not realize there was a dispute between you as to what is or is not relevant in the Defendants’ evidence for that matter. MR IRVING: Your Lordship will remember on the very first day in my opening remarks I did draw your attention to the fact in my view what happened 50 years ago was less important than what happened within the four walls of my

study, as I put it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That point I fully understood, but I am not sure that knocks out the much of the Defendants’ evidence, but we do not, I think, want to get into that today. MR IRVING: I do not want to get into argument today, but I wonder whether we possibly ought to steer toward having a discussion about it, so we can clarify our minds about the relevance of this.

I have seen that the Defendants have made remarks to various foreign newspapers about the Auschwitz lie or about Auschwitz and such. It is not. It is about specific libels as set out in the Statement of Claim. MR JUSTICE GRAY: In this court we are all agreed about that, but, yes, do raise that whenever is a convenient moment; I suspect now is not. MR IRVING: Now is not the right moment. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Because we are on another topic. You are in the middle of your evidence.

MR IRVING: I suspect we will have to prepare ourselves for it. But if you were to limit it to say half an hour each side maximum. I will try to persuade your Lordship to limit the ambit of the evidence and the argument and the hearing itself which would have a pleasing effect on the length of the trial, but, on the other hand, I am sure that the Defendants would wish to argue in the other direction.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, perhaps the first thing between you and Mr Rampton is to try to agree a time when it might be convenient to raise this issue. MR RAMPTON: My Lord, can I perhaps intervene at this stage? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR RAMPTON: As matters presently stand, I see that I have just been handed something from Mr Irving — I expect your Lordship has it too — containing some sort of a proposed timetable for his witnesses —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

MR RAMPTON: — about which I have no comment to make except this, that Professor van Pelt, as Mr Irving knows and has known for some time, is arriving in this country at the end of this week with a view to his giving evidence at the beginning of next — no, sorry not giving evidence being in court while I cross-examine Mr Irving about Auschwitz.

It follows from that — perhaps, two things follow; one that that cross-examination will be discontinuous, that is intermediate because of these other people that are coming. I am not going to stand in their way if it is inconvenient for them. I have few, if any, questions to ask them anyway, I suspect.

But it does mean that before I start my cross-examination on Auschwitz, if there is a ruling to be made, it would need to be made before the beginning of next week, preferably before Professor van Pelt steps on an aeroplane to come to Europe.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. We have proceeded on the basis that we are having two separate issues or two separate chunks of evidence; one related to Auschwitz and the other relating to everything else. You are in the middle of cross-examining on everything else. My impression is you have a little way to go. MR RAMPTON: I have miles to go. MR JUSTICE GRAY: How far to go? We may have to put Professor van Pelt off, may we not?

MR RAMPTON: It depends , because what I call the Evans part of the case is not a narrative I tried to keep it started at the end of 41, and so as far I am trying to keep on that track, and I will I hope this week manage to get to the beginning of the autumn of 1942. Maybe I will get a bit further than.

But then there are all sorts of what one might call various things such as Dresden, such as Reichskristallnacht, which have nothing to do with the narrative, but everything to do with Mr Irving’s historiography. I shall have to get to those. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think having gone down the road of treating those as separate issues, as being taken together and leaving Auschwitz on one side, we must follow that, must we not?

It will be hopelessly difficult for everybody to suddenly switch back to Auschwitz and then resume your cross-examination. MR RAMPTON: Auschwitz is more nearly a part of the narrative

that I am launched on now, chronologically speaking, than for example Reichskristallnacht, which is 1938. I had in mind to lead up to Auschwitz by the questions I shall ask about other matters arising from the Evans report and Browning and Longerich. So Auschwitz would fit neatly in at the end of my cross-examination this week as part of the historical narrative. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I think this is quite helpful to debate this through.

I had really understood the point you are on at the moment to be part of your case for saying that Hitler knew, if that is what it all goes to, and kristallnacht goes to that, so indeed did the events of 1924. MR RAMPTON: This is all to do to with system — two things, how systematic were the shootings and the gassings — MR JUSTICE GRAY: How high up did the instruction come from. MR RAMPTON: How high up did it go.

Embedded in that all are very specific criticisms about the way in which Mr Irving deals with the material. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of course, because that is an aspect of —- MR RAMPTON: The libel. MR JUSTICE GRAY: — your case in relation to whether Hitler knew. MR RAMPTON: Of course. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving has not taken account of all the material.

MR RAMPTON: That is right. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But, looking at it from my point of view, I would find it helpful to go through all of that in one bite, as it were, and to treat Auschwitz separately. If that is not practical, well, then we will have to live with it. MR RAMPTON: I will find out, obviously, in the light of what your Lordship said, whether it is practical, but I have to say I think at this stage it is going to be very difficult.

I know, that Professor van Pelt has a significant or substantial academic appointment to fulfil in, I think, March, is it March — yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is a fair way off. MR RAMPTON: Yes, I know. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We have to keep an eye on this not running out of control. MR RAMPTON: I quite agree. We have allocated three months, give or take maybe a week or two. I am very anxious, from my clients’ point of view, we keep to that schedule if we possibly can.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of course. MR RAMPTON: One of the key elements in all this is I do not know what Mr Irving’s position on Auschwitz is. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That may emerge if we have the debate about how much evidence is really relevant on Auschwitz. MR RAMPTON: Yes, I have two — I make it perfectly clear,

I have always done — main lines of attack so far as Mr Irving and Auschwitz are concerned, which all really amount to the same thing; either he leapt on the Leuchter bandwagon without having bothered to think about it, which is very good evidence of his poor quality as an historian, or else he did think about it and his position is every bit as bad.

So for that reason the detail may or may not be relevant, but since I do not know what his position is … MR JUSTICE GRAY: Again, I do not want to get into it too much, but one of the points you make is that there is a lot of evidence, eyewitness evidence, and the like, which, as I understand your case, you contend Mr Irving has not given proper or, perhaps, indeed, any weight to. How does that k– I mean, that must be part of the case still, must it not? MR RAMPTON: Of course it is.

I could cross-examine Mr Irving for a month about Auschwitz if he will not concede a single point about the convergent evidence which, as a matter of probability, would satisfy the historian that it happened. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. Well, you have put a few markers down. Mr Irving, I think it is helpful just to see the way the wind is blowing. Shall we try to deal with your witnesses? MR IRVING: I will reserve my position on Auschwitz. I have

very powerful material which supports my position. The second point, I am just asking your Lordship to utter a verbal “tut tut” to the Defence as they keep on trickling material at me. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. You refer to Professor Evans having submitted a closely typed 18 page list of amendments. MR IRVING: To his already very detailed report. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am not totally sure that has reached me, but may I wrong about that.

MR IRVING: It is about 5,000 or 8,000 words, I estimate very detailed, probably about 200 separate points. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I have, if I may say so, a lot of sympathy with that —- MR IRVING: The accuracy with which he is working, on the other hand, it inflicts an added burden on us. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I see that. I am conscious of the heavy burden you are bearing. I am well aware of that. MR IRVING: My Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Have I actually got that, Mr Rampton?

MR RAMPTON: I do not know, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: The addendum. MR RAMPTON: If not, I can only apologise on all our behalves; you certainly should have done. MR JUSTICE GRAY: At some stage I am, presumably, going to have to absorb it. I have noted, Mr Irving — MR IRVING: The third point, my Lord. I have suggested a

proposed timetable for witnesses. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Before we get to that, could I go back to your point (1)? I am a little concerned you feel part of your case has gone by the board. MR IRVING: Indeed, my Lord. If your Lordship would indicate how and in what manner I would be able to introduce the evidence I propose to lead? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I thought about that. Your main concern is you are obviously getting it into my head. MR IRVING: Getting it before your Lordship.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Quite. Well, if I may say so, I think you have produced enough in writing and, indeed, to some extent in your opening, in your short evidence-in-chief, in regard to your reputation. I do not think you need be concerned about that. That certainly has not gone by the board, as far as I am concerned.

As far as the attempt to destroy your legitimacy as an historian, I know what your case is, but I think I have to remind you that this is actually an action on Professor Lipstadt’ book, so — MR IRVING: I anticipated your Lordship would say that, but in view of the fact that the sources on which that book draws have been part and parcel of this campaign to destroy my legitimacy, as I would have attempted to establish in the evidence that I would have proposed to lead, in that respect I

consider it to be relevant to this case. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, up to a point. I think the fact is

that if Professor Lipstadt has jumped on board a sort of bandwagon of critics of yours. MR IRVING: Use that phrase. MR JUSTICE GRAY: She has to justify what she has adopted from that. MR IRVING: It is very difficult to justify if one knows in advance this particular witness is not proposing to submit herself to cross-examination. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You do not have to do it by going into the box yourself, you can do it by calling experts, as appears to be the Defendants’ intention.

But do not worry about the point about having gone by the board. I know what your case is. I am very well aware of that. MR IRVING: A case that is founded on documents is far better than a case based upon mere verbal allegations. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I see that. If I want to try and elicit more from your own expert witnesses when they come to give evidence about your own reputation and, indeed perhaps, about the campaign, well, to a limited extent, of course, you can do that.

MR IRVING: What about the historical documents, my Lord? For example, in December 1942, on Friday, we were looking at the December 1942 document — I am sure your Lordship remembers — when Himmler sent a report to Hitler saying the 300,000 Jews shot as partisans, roughly speaking, and this is used as evidence against me, or against my

position. There is a similar document from the same month showing a conference between Himmler and Hitler where Hitler is authorising Himmler to sell Jews to foreigners for foreign currency which would indicate in the other direction that he is not hell bent on destroying every Jew that comes into his possession. How will I be able to submit documents like that to your Lordship’s attention? MR JUSTICE GRAY: This is a document not in your discovery at the moment.

MR IRVING: It is in the discovery. All these kinds of documents are in the discovery, but unless I — I think there are over 2,000 documents in my discovery, many of them of many pages, and I am sure your Lordship will not have had time to consider them all. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No I do not pretend to.

MR RAMPTON: Might I again, I am only trying to help, I have no doubt at all that Mr Irving is correct — I have not looked at it myself but when he says he has disclosed these documents I have no doubt he has. What has happened is, of course, that the files, “bundles” the lawyers call them, which your Lordship has, are ours. Little or no material from Mr Irving’s side, except in so far as we already had and want to use it.

What has not happened in this case, I know not why, is there has not, I do not I think, been any request from Mr Irving to have files made up.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I follow. MR RAMPTON: For submission to the court in the normal way. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving is obviously free where they are relevant to say, well, there are other documents that put a different complexion on it. MR RAMPTON: I do not dispute this at all, what I am uncomfortable about as an advocate is, and I would I think if I were the judge in this case be uncomfortable about, is having documents coming at one with very little notice and at sort of random intervals.

I would rather some hearing time or at some time when Mr Irving is not doing something else he could sit down and make a list of all the documents that he wants to refer to rebut our case against his integrity as an historian. Then we will have them made up into files, which would then become the — MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think he would say I cannot really say in advance because it depends very much on what tack you adopt in cross-examination. He will hear what you say.

MR RAMPTON: My cross-examination merely follows the scheme of my expert reports. There is nothing — there is nothing — there is no ambushing. It is all there. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I accept that. MR RAMPTON: What is more there were all those written requests for information that we served in October or early November. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, you hear what Mr Rampton says, the

problem is time. I mean, you are not going to have a day to sit down — MR IRVING: I agree, I am looking at practicalities. MR JUSTICE GRAY: And do a list. I think the answer must to the extent you want to refer to documents you must be free to do so, but I am not inviting you to produce a sort of steady trickle of odd documents as we go along.

MR IRVING: My tactics will be, my Lord, that I will take specific issues, as I intend to this morning for a very few minutes suggest on the basis of documents already in the bundle or otherwise in the discovery that my position is correct, and that the position which they have laboured to establish is incorrect. I was proposing to do that for two or three minutes this morning on two specific issues that we will come to later.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, to the extent you want to introduce documents then I am not going to stop you. What I am very anxious to do is make sure we know where they are landing up. I am intending to put them all in the bundle called “J”. It may be sensible if everybody else does the same, including those documents you produced I think on Thursday. But if you can give Mr Rampton advance notice of any documents that are not already in the bundles then that would be helpful.

MR IRVING: I endeavour to do so, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Now these dates for Professor Watt and so

on. I have no problem with any of them. MR IRVING: I have established each date with a view to providing sufficient time for adequate cross-examination and, of course, they are flexible to that extent. MR RAMPTON: The first one is this Thursday. MR IRVING: Professor Watt, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton is still going to be cross-examining, that is what he is going to say. MR RAMPTON: I will still, but I do not mind my cross-examination being interrupted in the slightest.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, it might in some ways be an advantage. I do not, like you, think there is going to be much cross-examination of these witnesses. MR RAMPTON: I do not even know what Professor Watt is going to say. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is part of the point, is it not? Shall we proceed on the basis these dates are all acceptable. MR IRVING: Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan are appearing on subpoena.

This brings up one minor point; Sir John Keegan’s subpoena was dated for a different date than the date we proposed now to call on because — MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is agreed, is it not? MR IRVING: It is agreed. If your Lordship would agree to amend the summons. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am not sure I need formally to amend it. It is agreed and accepted —

MR IRVING: — Solicitors are very anxious that they should not be held to be in contempt. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I can say now they will not be, as long as he is here

on February 7th at 10.30. You want to address the court on the Anne Frank diary entry and on Goebbels diary. MR IRVING: Yes, it is a little bundle of pages I gave you. You will be relieved to hear that I only want to draw attention to five or six passages in them. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Just pause a moment, would you, Mr Irving. What I am going to treat this as being, as your wishing as part of your evidence to amplify some of the answers you gave on Thursday.

So I think it is best if you would do it from the witness box. MR IRVING: Very well, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That may sound a bit of a quibble, but I think that is the right way of doing it. Is there anything else before you go back. MR IRVING: I think we have dealt with point 6 already, that is the point about Auschwitz. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. Mr Rampton, there is nothing else you want to raise? MR RAMPTON: Not in this letter, no. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Or at all?

Section 16.25 to 26.4

MR RAMPTON: Yes, there is. I have another letter from Mr Irving. It came on Saturday. I do not know if your Lordship has it.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think I have. MR RAMPTON: I will do it, if I may, from memory. It looks like that, it has two paragraphs. A very small point on paragraph 1. Yes, of course, he can show it to people who would help him answer the point, or deal with the point. “I do not know about my friends”, I suppose that means “helpers”. That is a very small point. There is a more serious point in the second paragraph.

The last sentence says: “Materials collected for the purposes of testing the witnesses’ credibility and credentials will not be provided. If they are materials which have relevance to credit only, then that is perfectly correct, they need not be provided: If, however, they have relevance to the issues in the case then they must be provided. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, Mr Irving, I think that is right as a matter of law. MR IRVING: Yes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not know what you are talking about when you refer to these materials. MR IRVING: My Lord, I can be more specific. We have obviously a number of experts who are assisting me with advice. Some of them have submitted lengthy letters to me, others have submitted expertise to me in more a formal form, which is very clearly of a nature designed to test the credit of the witness Professor van Pelt. My

understanding of the law is that if it is designed to test his credit then I do not have disclose it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is right. MR IRVING: But it is very difficult to weed out from these reports what is a test as to credit and what is — MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you have material which suggests that Professor van Pelt is wrong about — MR IRVING: Specific issues.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Whatever it may be about maybe points he makes on the Leuchter report, something of that kind, then that plainly has to be disclosed. But if you have some sort of evidence suggesting that Professor van Pelt has an agenda of his own and has misconducted himself in some way as an expert, out of the context of this case, then I think you probably would not have to disclose that.

That may not be a very clear guide to you — MR IRVING: We will do so with the utmost reluctance, but if it is the law, then we will do so. But it is rather like playing poker with the other person having a mirror over your head. MR JUSTICE GRAY: The short answer is, if it goes to the accuracy of his observations as an expert, as to what happened at Auschwitz, then I think you ought to disclose it. If it is just prejudicing him as an expert in the general sense, then I think not.

MR IRVING: We will do so within 24 hours in that case.

MR RAMPTON: Can I pick up one thing Mr Irving said there, it shows not that he is trying to cheat, I do not mean that at all, but he may be under a misapprehension about the way litigation is conducted nowadays in these courts. He said it is rather like playing poker when your opponent has a mirror over your head, of course, litigation is not poker any more. All the cards have to be on the table anyway. It is like playing, what is the other game, patience.

MR IRVING: My Lord, my comment on that in any case there are any aspersions being cast on me, I do not think any Defendant or any party in an action has ever made a fuller discovery than I have, including the disclosure of my entire diaries. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that is fair, from my impression, I think that is right. MR IRVING: If I am hiding anything, I am hiding it in plain view.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can I just mention only in passing something you might like to think about, it relates to the Goebbels’ diaries, in Moscow, the Moscow archive. That looks as if it is going to be the subject of a certain amount of factual evidence. I have seen the way the pleadings go, and I have see what the Defendants are saying and what they are not saying I. Just wonder whether we are wise to spending very much time on that issue. I say that perhaps

for Mr Rampton perhaps to think about. MR RAMPTON: He has already thought so. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I thought he might have. In due course he can tell me the result of his thoughts. It is just we have to focus on what matters in this case. I understand your complaint entirely, but in the end is it a matter we want to spend a lot of time in evidence on? MR IRVING: Two minutes is not a lot of time.

In view of the fact that the newspapers around the world from here to New Zealand have picked on the alleged discrepancies in the diary of December 13th has been proof once more of how David Irving cheated or suppressed. The Defendants have over the weekend retrieved from me the entire Goebbels’ diaries which I obtained from Moscow I. Was going to draw your Lordship’s attention to two pages of the diaries which I produced. We only had the section which I used. We only read that far.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, you said that on Thursday. I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by the Goebbels’ diaries; I am talking about the issue whether there was a breach of an agreement by you. I do not understand the Defendants even to be alleging that now. But Mr Rampton is going to think about it, and shall we leave with it him because I think the ball is really in his court. If you would like to come back we will resume your evidence.

MR IRVING: Do you wish me to deal with that minor point of

Goebbels’ diaries? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think it is a matter of evidence because it was raised with you on Thursday and you can do it in your evidence perfectly easily. &MR DAVID IRVING, recalled MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving wants to deal with the point. Can he not deal with it first? MR RAMPTON: I see. This is going to be evidence-in-chief, is it? I will sit down. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is amplification of his answers in cross-examination, I think.

A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, the first page of that very small bundle is just to show the form in which I had the — this was the bundle which I gave to you this morning, page 1, as numbered at the bottom — this was the form in which I was given the Hans Frank diaries by the Institute of History in Munich some 30 years ago. I draw your Lordship’s attention purely to the little omission in the middle, the elipses.

Something has been left out — we do not know what it is — just before the vital paragraph which I quoted. I have provided a translation. If you now proceed, my Lord, to page 4 of that bundle. MR JUSTICE GRAY: So —- A. [Mr Irving]: I marked it. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — what is actually —-

A. [Mr Irving]: We do not know what has been left out. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You do not know what the elipses represents? A. [Mr Irving]: That is why one has to be extremely cautious about how one then uses the ensuing lines, in my submission. If you proceed to page 4, my Lord, this is the list made by my assistant in Moscow of the Goebbels’ diaries plates as they came to us out of the boxes. My Lord, you will see that they are in total chaos.

There is no rhyme or reason in what boxes they are in. If you proceed to page 9, my Lord, the fourth, fifth and sixth lines refer to the specific entry which we found one day relating to Pearl Harbour and the meeting with Hitler

on December 13th. There is one plate for December 13th. The next glass plate carries over from December 13th to 14th. You will see notice that it says in German four words ^^ “bis vierten zila ^^ gilazin”. MR JUSTICE GRAY: What is “zila”? A. [Mr Irving]: It means read until the fourth line. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Fourth line? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, the fourth line of that particular entry. We were working, I had a very good assistant working with me and we were as minutia as that.

We kept very detailed records of what we did. On page 11, my Lord, you will see that I sent to the Sunday Times a confidential survey of the unpublished Goebbels’ diaries fragments which were in my possession.

If your Lordship proceeds to page 14, this is important, right at the bottom, the last two lines, it says: “Among the things which I brought back are 21 pages of typescript from dictation” covering those dates, 9th to 13th December 1941, which is Pearl Harbour. On page 16, my Lord —- Q. [Mr Rampton]: Just pause a moment. It looks as if you did not touch at all on the entry which straddles 13th? A. [Mr Irving]: We are just coming to that, my Lord. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: 14th?

A. [Mr Irving]: That is a listing showing that there were 21 pages. That is the significance there. On page 16, my Lord, that is the folder containing the extracts which were provided to the Defendants and you will see they put a yellow post-it on it. That is the thing which I have marked. Item No. 45, copy from pages 1 to 21, my Lord. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes.

A. [Mr Irving]: And I have included, if you look at the handwritten numbers on the top, those are the last few pages of the bundle numbered pages 1 to 21 which is the entry for December 13th 1941. If I draw your Lordship’s attention to page 20 — I am sorry the page 20 numbered at the bottom — if I just rapidly translate a couple of lines from line 3 onwards “Nachmittag”, “In the afternoon the Fuhrer speaks to the Gauleiters”.

This was the meeting where we find out now that he mentioned his intentions to

do something. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: That was the 12th, was it not? A. [Mr Irving]: He spoke the previous day. Goebbels always wrote his diary up on the following day. There is a brief summary here at this point in the diary of the conference with Hitler. Then Hitler goes straight on to talk about the U boat war. There is only half a page on this page, my Lord, but it carries on straight over on the next page on about the U boat war.

I think the reason why I started a new page was that I was having trouble, as your Lordship will see, with the typewriter, and I have probably got out my screwdriver and fixed it. Your Lordship will see from my Moscow diaries that the typewriter had been pancaked by the airlines.

I invited the Defendants on Friday, if they were suspicious about that gap, to contact the library in Germany to whom I donated the entire diaries in 1993 where they could satisfy themselves that that gap is also on the original, my Lord. That is all I have to say on that matter. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: You have a gap on page 22 as well.

A. [Mr Irving]: I think that I can establish, in other words, that all that I had in front of me when I wrote the book was the passage that I had in those diaries, and that what has been published since then is moot, is of no consequence to

this particular action. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: The other thing is the reference “Hitler speaking to the Gauleiter” —- A. [Mr Irving]: This is typical of Dr Goebbels, my Lord. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: It is just one sentence and then he goes on to something completely different. A. [Mr Irving]: He goes on to something else. Then later on he will come back and dictate to his secretary, Richard Otte, a more full account.

Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: But you say you did not have the bit where he comes back to it. A. [Mr Irving]: That would have been on a subsequent plate, my Lord, or possibly later on on that same plate, but we only read to the fourth line.

So it cannot be held properly against me in this court that I had something in front of me which I should, if I had it in front of me, had used, and at the very end of the bundle, my Lord, you will find four pages which are not numbered which is the latest version of the Adolf Hitler biography which went to press some time ago which contains a perfectly proper treatment of this matter, including all the material now available.

Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Just let me wait for the transcript to catch up. A. [Mr Irving]: I will try to speak more slowly. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: No, it is all right. Yes, thank you very much. I am going to put this also into the J file. A. [Mr Irving]: Either that or you could discard it, my Lord, because I am

Part II: Rampton Continues Cross-Examination of Irving [Morning Session] (26.5 to 109.15)

sure that you have appreciated the point that I wish to make. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, but I will not keep it in my mind for the next two months.

Section 26.5 to 55.2

Cross-examined by MR RAMPTON, QC, continued MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving, just so that I understand what you have just been telling us. I am not going to explore it now, but I want to understand what it is that we have got here. These typed pages, 1 to 21, we have not got all 21? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: We have? A. [Mr Irving]: No, you have not. Q. [Mr Rampton]: We just have the relevant ones. A. [Mr Irving]: The ones that are relevant, yes, for the entry.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: They are extracts transcribed by you, is that right, on a typewriter? A. [Mr Irving]: Let me be precise. Sitting at the table in Moscow, I indicated to my assistant, I said, “Please dictate from here down to there” from the glass plates. Now let me get this absolutely correct. I read the glass plates, I dictated them, and later on I transcribed them. Either I dictated them or she dictated them. We shared the work on that particular occasion.

I think, in fact, she dictated because if you look on page 16, I have 11th December and in square brackets afterwards: “So says Susie”. I was a bit doubtful about whether she had got

the date right on printed page 17. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Printed page 17? A. [Mr Irving]: And it is on about the seventh line, 11th December, and in square brackets I have put in a little questi

on mark, “So says Susie?” Q. [Mr Rampton]: Susie is your assistant? A. [Mr Irving]: That is right, because you would have had to go back about 40 pages on the glass plates to find out what the actual date of the entry was. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I have certainly not seen these glass plates. Even if I should, I doubt I would make much sense of them. Can you tell me about the glass plates? How big is it? There is a point to this. I am not just wasting time. A. [Mr Irving]: I am sure.

The glass plates were about four inches by three inches, a regular photographic glass plate, negative. Q. [Mr Rampton]: This sort of thing? A. [Mr Irving]: Slightly smaller than a postcard. Some had 25 images on and some had 48 images on, depending on the format. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Each image of those, let us say, is a page, is it?

A. [Mr Irving]: Each image was either one page in the typescript version because from July 16th 1941 onwards he dictated to a secretary from them until the end of the war, he dictated them, so they were typescript. Until 16th July 1941 they were handwritten and there were two pages photographed at a time in a handwritten diary.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: And does each plate represent one day? A. [Mr Irving]: No. Q. [Mr Rampton]: No? A. [Mr Irving]: They just filmed continuously and when one plate ran out, they would then put another glass plate in and film the next one. That is why one plate, if you will note on that list, is called December 13th and the next plate is called December 13th to 14th.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can I ask you — I will ask you one more question and then I will ask you to look at something — do you know from memory — you do not seem to have a record of it — how many pages the entry for 13th December 1941 was? A. [Mr Irving]: No. Q. [Mr Rampton]: All right. Well, perhaps I can help you. I do not know. It is a possibility. Could Mr Irving please be given bundle H4(ii)? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am afraid I have not got this, Mr Rampton I am sorry. Thank you.

MR RAMPTON: Could you turn to a handwritten FN 156? A. [Mr Irving]: 156? Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is about two-thirds of the way through the file. It is what I call a sideways document. You have to turn the file around in order to read it. A. [Mr Irving]: I have it, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is a German document. It is headed on the right-hand column on page 487, internal page 487, 13th December in

German 1941, yes? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Just glance at this. It runs through — I think it is the whole entry — to page 501. These are double pages. So it does not involve turning over a lot of pages. 501 is where 14th December starts. Now, do you recognize this printed version? A. [Mr Irving]: I do. If you look on page FN 156, you find the passage that is on my transcript. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Sorry? They are all 156. A. [Mr Irving]: I am sorry.

It is on printed page, on book page 494. At line 283, 282, you see the sentence beginning “Nachmittags”, “In the afternoon the Fuhrer speaks to the Gauleiters”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I see that. A. [Mr Irving]: That is the passage which I got. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You have got that passage. But you also got more than that, did you not? Where is your U boat war, your boat war? A. [Mr Irving]: In that same paragraph. It continues in that same paragraph on printed page 494, book page 494.

It continues about the U boat. MR JUSTICE GRAY: And on the opposite page? A. [Mr Irving]: And on the opposite page. MR RAMPTON: Yes, I see that, what is puzzling me about this, Mr Irving, is this. I think you translated some of this

or all of it for the Sunday Times, did you not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can you turn to page 496? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: “Dab wir im Osten”, that is the last of your typewritten German passages, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: If you say so, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, it looks the same, does it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Page handwritten 21 of my note? Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct. Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is the same one.

I think that was the last of the passages on this day that you translated for the Sunday Times, was it not? A. [Mr Irving]: It was all that I had at the time. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. It is all that you brought back with you? A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I understood your evidence about that. Can you turn over? A. [Mr Irving]: 498 you probably want, 498. Q. [Mr Rampton]: 498 has disappeared.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: So it was not 30 or 40 pages further on, it was two pages further on. MR RAMPTON: No, well, that is—- A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, when you see these pages, it is printed in the large, I forget the actual technical name for it, but we call it the Fuhrer typewriter, and it is printed with four

spaces between each line. He has about 100 words on each page, my Lord, so it is very many further pages further on. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Sorry, that is what I was trying to find out. In my version it is very few pages further on. A. [Mr Irving]: In your photocopy of the original facsimile? Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, in this printed version it is only —- A. [Mr Irving]: It is only a few pages further on, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Three?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: But the point is that, apparently, in the original diaries it is all very much spread out? A. [Mr Irving]: For your Lordship’s amusement, I will bring one page of it to you tomorrow and you can see what it looks like. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: If anything turns on it, I do not know. A. [Mr Irving]: I think Mr Rampton apprehends that this is a major point; it has been flashed around the world that I was wrong again.

Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Well, I think you have made the point on Thursday that you did not actually know it was 30 or 40 pages further on because you did not ever read it so you could not tell? A. [Mr Irving]: Now we know, my Lord. MR RAMPTON: This is one thing I am concerned about, Mr Irving. You said, and I will read you your words — have you had your transcript —- A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, I have. Q. [Mr Rampton]: — for Thursday? His Lordship is right. It was

something along the lines of 30 or 40 pages further on which is just not right, is it? A. [Mr Irving]: What is not right, the exact phrase? Q. [Mr Rampton]: I will find the exact words. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is page 153. MR RAMPTON: That is right. You said: “Had I read on another 30 or 40 pages in the diary for that day, I would probably have come across the full length description of the report Gauleiters’ speech on which Longerich is relying? A. [Mr Irving]: Absolutely right.

This is probably 30 pages further on, but it shows my guess was absolutely right —- Q. [Mr Rampton]: 30? A. [Mr Irving]: — without even having seen it. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Tell me, if you will, if you look at — this is edited by Elke Frohlich, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: But it is not any sense edited by having things omitted? A. [Mr Irving]: I do not believe so, no. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is a continuous text?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton, is there much mileage in this because I think the next day, I mean the next page, I asked, “How do you know it is 30 or 40 pages further on?” and he makes clear that he did not know it was, but he had a glass plate with 45 pages on it and it was on that, so it must have been on the next one? A. [Mr Irving]: It would have been 25 pages on that one, my Lord — no, 48

single pages. MR RAMPTON: Is this glass plate that you transcribed, or some of it, the only one for that date that you looked at? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, this is the reason why I provided you over the weekend with a list of the actual pages that we looked at, the actual glass plates. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, but do you understand there is a difference — I know you do — between what you transcribed and what you looked at? A. [Mr Irving]: We looked at all the glass plates.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: You did? A. [Mr Irving]: Quite simply to establish an inventory. I looked through every single glass plate in the 1500 glass plates with this magnifier, established from the title line across the top what period was covered, put a yellow post-it on the glass side, not the emulsion side, of each plate indicating what date it was. Q. [Mr Rampton]: So you will have read the passage that Longerich relied on? A. [Mr Irving]: You did not hear what I said.

On the top of every page, on the top of every plate there was a title line written in handwriting saying the dates, the actual dates covered by that plate, like 13th to 14th December 1941. You did not have to look actually at the individual pages. I could see straightaway and say this is 13th to 14th December 1941, it is already out of our period of interest

because we were looking at Pearl Harbour. Q. [Mr Rampton]: How did you make your selection if you did not read the whole thing? A. [Mr Irving]: Time made the selection for us. We knew we were only there for a limited length of days. We had a flight to come back to England. You had to make judgment decisions and say, well, Pearl Harbour was December 7th 1941, we are already

on December 13th, my commission from the Sunday Times was to get material relating to Pearl Harbour. I had already read as much as I considered was necessary. Had I known that later on in the same entry he would have gone on about the Fuhrer talking to the Gauleiters at greater length, I might have gone on, but you cannot tell… Q. [Mr Rampton]: You have answered my question, I think, which is that you did not read it at the time?

A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct, and it was not before me at the time. Even now, to buy these diaries, you have to lay out more than £1,000. So it is quite an expensive task. I have now purchased them, but they have only just been published. Q. [Mr Rampton]: While you have that out, can I ask you a little word about something you said on Thursday? I think you told us, if you look at the passage quoted in Longerich, yes? A. [Mr Irving]: The passage quoted in?

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, the passage quoted by Longerich is at the bottom of

page 498 of the Frohlich edition? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, “In connection with the Jewish question, the Fuhrer has decided to make tabula rasa”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, and then it goes on, “He prophesized to the Jews that if they began yet another World War, they would thereby bring about their own destruction”, roughly speaking? A. [Mr Irving]: It is a crude translation, yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: He is reporting there, is he not, either something Hitler said to the Gauleiters on 12th December, or he is reminding himself of what Hitler said on 30th January? A. [Mr Irving]: January. Q. [Mr Rampton]: 1939 in the —- A. [Mr Irving]: You cannot tell from this particular quotation. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You cannot, can you? A. [Mr Irving]: It is the old gramaphone record that Hitler played again and again. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, indeed.

Then you say, well, you know from that point on, I think, “Das ist keine Phrase gewesen”, that these are no longer Hitler’s words because it is in direct speech? A. [Mr Irving]: It is in direct speech, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: So is the first sentence, is it not? “Bezuglich der Judenfrage ist der Fuhrer entschlossen”? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, that is correct. Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is also in direct speech? A. [Mr Irving]: He uses direct speech.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: He is reporting that, so far as the Jewish question is concerned, the Fuhrer is determined to make a clean sweep? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. That is direct speech, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: If you look over to the other side of the page, the first complete paragraph, the first sentence of the first complete paragraph, “Im Osten sieht der Fuhrer uberhaupt unser kommendes Indien” is in reported speech, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: No.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: No? A. [Mr Irving]: It would be in “osten siehe der Fuhrer”, S-I-E-H-E, would be reported speech, that would be the subjunctive. Q. [Mr Rampton]: That is fine. The next sentence is also in direct speech, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: That is direct speech. Q. [Mr Rampton]: And so is the next sentence, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: That is correct, yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: And the next one, well, this is in the past in the sense that he is reporting that the Germans have overrun and settled in the past? A. [Mr Irving]: The whole paragraph is in direct speech. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: And do you say that those are Goebbels’ private thoughts and not a report of what Hitler said?

A. [Mr Irving]: He is reporting in his own words what Hitler’s opinions and intentions are. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Precisely. So would you care to withdraw your criticism of Dr Longerich for putting what is in direct speech into Hitler’s mouth? A. [Mr Irving]: Are you not referring to the same passage, Mr Rampton? Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, but it is all part of the same two paragraphs.

A. [Mr Irving]: No, the specific allegation that you made was that Longerich was quoting Hitler when, in fact, he was quoting Goebbels which is my comment. Q. [Mr Rampton]: How can you tell that the first paragraph on the right-hand side is not also just Goebbels quoting Goebbels?

A. [Mr Irving]: We can refer back to the specific sentence that was the subject of your complaint, because we have now moved on to a different paragraph and you are trying to —- Q. [Mr Rampton]: What I am suggesting to you, Mr Irving, is very simple. It is simply this. You cannot tell from looking at these two paragraphs which is Hitler and which is Goebbels? A. [Mr Irving]: I think that is a very fair comment, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes.

So if (and we are dealing in probabilities, as I remind you, not certainties) as seems likely, the second of those two paragraphs is, as you have just told us, Goebbels’ version of what Hitler said to the Gauleiters on 12th December, then so is it as likely that the first paragraph is in precisely the same case, is it not?

A. [Mr Irving]: Mr Rampton, that is not what I said. I said it is Goebbels’ version of Hitler’s intentions, not what he said. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Where do you think that Goebbels derived his impression of Hitler’s intention? A. [Mr Irving]: Over a long period of sitting with him and talking with him over many weeks and months. Q. [Mr Rampton]: So this is nothing whatever to do with what Hitler is supposed to have said to the Gauleiters, is that your case?

A. [Mr Irving]: When you are writing a diary this is what happens. You put in information from what has just been told to you, but also your own external knowledge of what the person is thinking and saying. You cannot encapsulate individual phrases like that. If it was a shorthand record, it would be different. I prefer using shorthand records or even the table talk which is written in the first person form. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, I do not think I will push it any further, Mr Irving.

We have your answer. I certainly do not accept it. I put it to you that it is perfectly clear that this is Goebbels’ version of what Hitler said on 12th December 1941. A. [Mr Irving]: I think it is possible that you and I and Dr Longerich have different criteria when we are evaluating documents. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, does it not read very naturally as a direct speech account of the Fuhrer’s thoughts as expressed on

that occasion? A. [Mr Irving]: Which sentence are you referring to? Q. [Mr Rampton]: Any one you like. A. [Mr Irving]: Well, I mean, if I give you a general statement of opinion, then you are going to apply it to one particular sentence and say, “Here you have agreed that this sentence is Hitler’s statement on that day” and that is —- Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, look at the second paragraph. Let us leave out the paragraph you do not like. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let us look at the second paragraph at the top of page 499. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: “In the East, the Fuhrer sees above all” — you correct me where I go wrong — “our approaching India”. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. “This is colonial territory that we are going to settle”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. “This is colonial territory that we shall settle. Here great —- A. [Mr Irving]: “Farmsteads”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: “Homesteads” — what?

A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, “he already established great farmsteads for our peasant sons and the” —- Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, and what are the “Kapitulanten”? A. [Mr Irving]: I do not know what that word means, I must confess. Q. [Mr Rampton]: No. “unserer Wehrmacht gesch werden”?