Day 6 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

Part I: Initial Proceedings (1.1 to 2.23)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London Wednesday, 19th 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 FirstDefendant 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 SIX

<Day 6. Wednesday, 19th January 2000 MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton, I wonder if I could ask you for a bit of help on really a logistical problem? Some of the source material that the experts rely on is fairly inaccessible. I was wondering if your team could provide me with copies of, I think, just three documents, report No. 51, that report from the Einsatzgruppen A, you know the one I mean, giving the partisans and the Jews killed? MR RAMPTON: Is that the Jaeger report?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. And also a document which I do not think actually I have ever seen, but Muller’s’s document of August 1941. MR RAMPTON: Yes, the Muller order. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If I had those separately, it would make life much easier. MR RAMPTON: Certainly, my Lord. We have copies of originals of all of those. MR IRVING: Muller is in one of the bundles, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am sure it is, but I have not actually seen it yet.

Is there anything that needs to be done before Mr Irving goes back into the box? MR RAMPTON: I do not know whether he has anything. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Would you like to come back?

Part II: David Irving’s Cross-Examination by Richard Rampton, continued (2.24 to 110.12)

Section 2.24-16.22

< MR DAVID IRVING, recalled. < Cross-Examined by Mr Rampton QC, continued. MR RAMPTON: My Lord, I am going to start in Riga, then I am

going to go to Yugoslavia and then I am going to go to the Warthegau, just to complete my 1941/42 tour of the size of the operation, and also make reference to what is plainly in some cases direct language and in other cases camouflage language. That should not, I hope, take very long. Then I will go back to, as it were, historiographical error — I use the word neutrally — with the so-called Schlegelberger memorandum.

May Mr Irving, please, be given Professor Browning’s report and at the same time files H3(ii), and H4(v)? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR RAMPTON: Could one turn, please, to page 28 of Professor Browning’s report?

In fact, I will perhaps, because it will be important for context later on, start at the bottom of page 27, if I may, in paragraph 5.1.6: “Between October 18 and 21, 1941, the Foreign Office expert for Jewish affairs, Franz Rademacher” — pausing there, Mr Irving, do you disagree with that description of Herr Rademacher’s position? A. [Mr Irving]: He was head of the appropriate department in section 2.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: He had a special responsibility in the Foreign Office for Jewish affairs? A. [Mr Irving]: Among other things, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. “and Eichmann’s second deputy, Friedrich Suhr, visited Belgrade. After the trip Rademacher reported how

the adult Jewish men in Serbia had been shot by the German army.” Do you notice that? They have not been shot by the SS, they have been shot by the Wehrmacht, have they not? MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is Browning’s words. MR RAMPTON: Yes. But, if Browning is right, that is Wehrmacht and not the SS, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: He has not given a quotation there for that. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, it may be that we would find it if we looked at Rademacher report? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Would you like to look at that now? A. [Mr Irving]: No. I am not quite happy with that. In fact, you remember there is a page of photographs of this kind of thing in my book on the Nuremberg trials. Q. [Mr Rampton]: So not all the systematic — I must not use that word, must I — not all the mass shootings were done by the SS? A. [Mr Irving]: No,. We do not know, of course, why they were shot. Q. [Mr Rampton]: No.

A. [Mr Irving]: He has just reported how they were shot, but not why. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Perhaps we might be able to deduce that in a little while, Mr Irving. ” Concerning the fate of the Jewish women, children, and elderly, Rademacher reported: ‘Then as soon as the technical possibility exists within the framework of the total solution to the Jewish question, the Jews will be deported by waterway to the reception camp in the east.’”?

A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you want to make a comment about that? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, of course, you are aware of the fact that I am going to comment on the fact that he has mistranslated “camps” as “camp”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: “Camp”, I see. A. [Mr Irving]: There is a substantial difference. “Into the reception camps”. I think it is a deliberate mistranslation by Professor Browning. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You must put that to him.

I am not going to take it up on his behalf. A. [Mr Irving]: I certainly shall. I am also drawing it to the court’s attention. It puts a totally different complexion on the document. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Put your eye down, if you will, to the bottom of the page where you see the German? A. [Mr Irving]: “… In die Auffanglager…”?

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Professor Browning, if he has made a deliberate mistranslation, it is not a very clever thing to have done as he has also given us the German text against which his English can be checked. A. [Mr Irving]: I have no doubt he is obliged to, but we have spotted his error. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You do not do it in your books, do you, Mr Irving? A. [Mr Irving]: You wish me in a thousand page book not only to put the English text of the documents, but the German text as

well. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, if I may use one of your phrases, if you are trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes, one way of doing it is to give your version of the German without giving the original, is it not, and that is not here what Professor Browning has done.

A. [Mr Irving]: But at the same time, of course, what one could also do, if one was the historian you are talking about, he could denote his entire files to the relevant archives and could draw the attention of other historians to those contentious documents in the way that I do. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Shall we move on? It seems to me to be a fairly narrow point.

A. [Mr Irving]: If it is just one camp, then there is obviously an inference to be drawn but, if they are being sent to many camps, then that rather destroys any inference that can be drawn from it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You develop that when we hear from Professor Browning.

MR RAMPTON: “In short, Jews deported from Europe were not simply going to be expelled into eastern Russia, but rather they were to be interned in a German’reception camp'[or’reception camps’] not yet built.” A. [Mr Irving]: That is the point that has now been destroyed, has it not, by the improper translation? “Into a reception camp which has not yet been built” when, in fact, they have been sent

to many camps, or more than one, hence the plural. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I will re-read it, Mr Irving, to take account of your wounding criticism of Professor Browning: “In short, Jews deported from Europe were not simply going to be expelled into eastern Russia, but rather they were to be interned in German’reception camps’ not yet built.

Furthermore, as these reception camps were for women, children, and elderly, clearly they were not labor camps.” A. [Mr Irving]: That is not what he has written. He has written: “… as this reception camp was for women, children, and elderly, it was clearly not a labor camp”. Can I remind you, Mr Rampton, of the fun you had with my mistranslation of transporte of transport as “transports”? Is this not precisely the same kind of manipulation by your expert?

Q. [Mr Rampton]: You must put that to him. A. [Mr Irving]: I am mentioning to you, Mr Rampton, so that the court can hear it. Q. [Mr Rampton]: My case against you, Mr Irving — you brought this action; you want to take money off my clients and you want to shut them up for the future with an injunction — is that you deliberately falsified the original documents amongst other things.

If you are making the same accusation against good Professor Browning, then you must make it to him, not to me. A. [Mr Irving]: Professor Browning has made an error of precisely the same magnitude as transport and transporte, Mr Rampton.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am well aware of that point. Let us move on. MR RAMPTON: Let us move on. There are two reasons I read that earlier paragraph, first because the next paragraph makes more sense if one has seen it; and secondly, because we will be coming back to Belgrade later on. “A second relevant document is a short hand-written letter of October 23, 1941, that Franz Rademacher found waiting for him from the foreign editor of Der Stormer, Paul Wurm, when he returned to Berlin.

Wurm wrote:…”, and again the German is at the bottom of this page and the next if you want to look at it. Would you like to look at it first? Footnote 82. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: My Lord, it is not unfortunately in the bundle. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do we really need it? MR RAMPTON: No. I am fearful of poor Professor Browning being accused of misquoting the German. A. [Mr Irving]: I think I have satisfied the court on that point. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Come on.

MR RAMPTON: Have you read the German? A. [Mr Irving]: I am sorry, my Lord, to mention it again, but there is a certain element of malicious glee. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Have you read the German, Mr Irving? A. [Mr Irving]: I have indeed and it is an accurate translation. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is an accurate translation. It reads: “Dear Party

comrade Rademacher! On my return trip from Berlin I met an old party comrade, who works in the east on the settlement of the Jewish question. In the near future many of the Jewish vermin…” The German is Ungezeifer, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Ungeziefer. It has been mistyped. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Deliberate manipulation.”… will be exterminated through special measures.” That is unequivocal, is it not?

A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, except the word “exterminated” is the usual contention that we have. He translates “vernichtet” and “vernichtung”, we discovered from the dictionary, is destroyed. He has taken the third or fourth meaning of the word in the way that your experts have. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I see. This is, I am bound to say, a baffling proposition, Mr Irving. He has used the word “Ungeziefer”, which means, you tell me accurately, means …? A. [Mr Irving]: Vermin.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Vermin. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What does one do with vermin? Transport them to camps in the East, put them to work? A. [Mr Irving]: I am giving a literal translation of the word. You remember we had the discussion about the difference between destroyed or annihilated and exterminated. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let’s not get bogged down. What is being put

to you is that, where you have vernichtung in combination with a reference to vermin, there can be no two ways about it. What is being talked about is extermination. Do you not agree with that? A. [Mr Irving]: There is more than one way to skin a cat and I am not going to go beyond what the actual document says, my Lord. For example — it could equally well be destroyed as vermin by being locked up for life.

I am just talking about theoretical possibilities, but I agree that there is a sinister connotation on this document. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You do agree? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. MR RAMPTON: Professor Browning goes on —-. A. [Mr Irving]: He has also talked about the fact that the Jewish men have been shot and disposed of, which is many of what he calls the vermin. This does not really take it much further. Q. [Mr Rampton]: We are coming to the female and the infant vermin in a moment.

What did Wurm mean by special measures for the destruction of Jews in the east, extermination, vernichtung, whatever? A. [Mr Irving]: I am not the writer of this letter, Mr Rampton, so I do not know what he is talking about. Q. [Mr Rampton]: No. Well, we will leave that, shall we? I do not believe there can be any doubt about what extermination of vermin actually means. Q. [Mr Rampton]: “On October 25, 1941, Rademacher’s counterpart in the Reich

Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, Eberhard Wetzel …”. Is that a correct description of Herr Wetzel’s position? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Was he of equal rank with Rademacher? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. He survived the war and he died in his bed at a ripe old age without having suffered any penalty. I remember corresponding with him some time ago.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: “… Met first with Viktor Brack of the Fuhrer Chancellery…” Can I pause there to ask you to explain what the Fuhrer Chancellery actually was, please? A. [Mr Irving]: It is a total misnomer really to call it the Fuhrer Chancellery. It was an office set up in another building many hundreds yards away from Hitler’s Chancellery.

It was a body which was primarily concerned with dealing with the public, and in that way it became involved with dealing with applications for clemency, and in that way it became involved in the euthanasia programme because doctors who were required to take part in the euthanasia programme had to apply, so to speak, to the head of state in advance for clemency for the actions they proposed to take. In that way it became involved in the mass killing operations.

Viktor Brack, I believe, was No. 2 in the Fuhrer Chancellery under Philip Buhler. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Can you tell me, I think Viktor Brack was, at any rate, one Dr Brack, sometimes German doctors are Dr Dr, but he

is Dr Brack, is he not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you know what his doctorate was in? A. [Mr Irving]: No. Probably in law. Most of the gangsters were lawyers. Most of the concentration camp commandants were lawyers. Q. [Mr Rampton]: As we shall see shortly. Dr Brack had a chemist called Kalmeier? A. [Mr Irving]: Dr Kalmeier, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I should ask you a further question.

Is it your position then that, despite the fact that it is called the Fuhrer Chancellery, there is not only a hundred yards, but a great deal more metaphorically speaking of distance between what goes on in that Chancellery and the Fuhrer himself? A. [Mr Irving]: I have read a great deal in the files of that department, and I cannot remember having seen any correspondence between that department and Hitler himself. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What was the Fuhrer’s office called?

A. [Mr Irving]: The Fuhrer’s office? Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. Did he have actual office of his own? A. [Mr Irving]: The Reichskanzlei would be the closest body to him which was under Dr Hans Lammas who we will meet later on this morning probably. He was head of the Reichskanzlei, the Reich Chancellery as Reich chancellor. As head of the Wehrmacht he would be the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht,

which was his military office, so to speak. Q. [Mr Rampton]: “… of the Fuhrer Chancellery (where he was involved with the so-called euthanasia program for the killing of mentally-and physically handicapped patients in German hospitals and asylums)…” Pause there a moment. This is not an important point but we will mention it, if we may, in passing. That is the so-called T 4 programme, is it not, from No. 4 Theresien Strasse? A. [Mr Irving]: No, Tiergarten Strasse.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: I beg your pardon. I muddled up two words. A. [Mr Irving]: The T 4, and they developed the expertise for killing, the gas trucks and so on. Q. [Mr Rampton]: That programme did have Adolf Hitler’s authority, did it not? A. [Mr Irving]: The euthanasia program was authorized by Hitler in the middle of September 1939. Around about August 1940, when it began to gather momentum voices in the public became agitated about it and retrospectively Hitler signed a decree

on September 1st 1939 authorizing it, in other words giving it the force of law. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Authorizing the use of gas trucks to effect the euthanasia? A. [Mr Irving]: No, my Lord, authorizing the euthanasia programme. Strictly speaking, he specified which doctors were allowed to carry it out or to make the decisions of life and death over the victims of the euthanasia programme. He did not

talk about the methods. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: He did not talk about methods at all? A. [Mr Irving]: Not in this decree. It is a five or six line decree. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Nor anywhere else? A. [Mr Irving]: No. It is a very interesting document because it is obviously a signed death warrant for thousands of people which Adolf Hitler has himself signed. It is that kind of order which does sometimes exist.

MR RAMPTON: I do not know, they probably used a variety of methods to begin with, did they not? A. [Mr Irving]: To do what? Q. [Mr Rampton]: A variety of methods to begin with, the euthanasia people? A. [Mr Irving]: I understand so. I think the order actually spoke of humane means, and you can interpret the word “humane” how you want if you are a Nazi, I suppose.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: One of the means used, I do not know whether it was the most frequently used, was carbon monoxide gas from bottles, was it not? A. [Mr Irving]: I believe that is correct, yes. I think this was the method. There was a discussion at Hitler’s table about the most humane ways of doing it. I discussed this with the widow of Dr Conte, who was the original chief doctor, and she remembered being at her home of the telephone call from Hitler to her husband in September 1939.

Her husband, immediately after the phone conversation, went to a dictionary to look up to see what the word “euthanasia”

meant. After that, they had the discussions at Hitler’s chancellery about the most humane ways of putting these people to sleep, if you can put it like that. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Including by the use of carbon monoxide gas? A. [Mr Irving]: This was one of the methods discussed on that occasion and I believe they did use it, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is said by Professor Browning that Wetzel met also Adolf Eichmann, Heydrich’s special adviser on Jewish policy. Two things.

Is there anything in that short account of whom Wetzel met on 25th October 1941, which is a matter of history you disagree with? It is not a matter of history I disagree with in broad terms, but the documentary basis is a bit suspect. I know the documents that Browning is referring to and some of them are in pencil, some of them had gaps in, I think it was N 0365 or something like that is the Nuremberg document number. They go through various drafts.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: The second question is this. Is it right that Adolf Eichmann was Heydrich’s special adviser on Jewish policy? A. [Mr Irving]: He was the head of the Jewish desk of the amtfuhrer which was the section 4 of the Riesigerhauptamt. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am not sure whether this is really covered by Mr Rampton’s question, but do you accept that Brack of the kanzlei did declare himself ready to aid in the construction of gassing apparatus? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, I think so, my Lord.

I think we can very rapidly

slice through this if I accept most of the contentions that are made in these paragraphs. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is helpful. MR RAMPTON: In that case I need not ask you to look at the Wetzel letter to Lohse, who is the Reichs commissar for the Ostland. You may, if you wish. It is in H3 (ii) at footnote 83. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do we need to? MR RAMPTON: No. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Broadly speaking, the narrative is accepted? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. I think that would probably just dot Is and cross Ts.

MR RAMPTON: I will tell you this. It is actually marked Geheim, which is what was second security classification. A. [Mr Irving]: Could you tell me again what the reference number for the document is. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I think you ought to look at it. I am sorry about this, my Lord, but I feel uncomfortable being the only one with the document open in front of me. It is H3 (ii), footnote 83. A. [Mr Irving]: I have it.

Section 16.23-37.26

Q. [Mr Rampton]: This is, I think, a Nuremberg document, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You can tell that from the top? A. [Mr Irving]: Right. With this document, of course, now I can see the document you are referring to, I do have a problem fitting

it into the actual framework you are trying to ascribe it to. It refers to unterkunfte and vergasungsapparate.

It is referring to Riga and by implication it also brings in Dr Tesch, who was the head of the company that manufactured or rather had the sole distribution rights on Zyklon B east of the river Elb, and I am quite familiar with the Tesch case because I did take the trouble, before this action began, to read through the entire transcripts of the war crimes trial against the Tesch company. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If I am supposed to follow that, I am afraid I am simply not following a word of it.

It is no criticism of you, Mr Irving. A. [Mr Irving]: It is just that I have extraneous knowledge, my Lord, about what was going on at Riga with Tesch, who had been sent out with his experts to set up fumigation facilities as a central fumigation plant for the huge masses of clothing, army clothing, military clothing, refugee clothing — and vergasungsapparate and unterkunfte, and we have one intercept which goes to this and which, purely by coincidence, I actually handed to Mr Rampton this

morning, the German intercept, which actually deals with the provision of the Zyklon to Tesch for this purpose. MR RAMPTON: This is merely a reference to using Dr Brack’s machinery to destroy, literally speaking, vermin. Is that right? A. [Mr Irving]: Perhaps we had better go through the document in detail

Q. [Mr Rampton]: I think you had better look at the first complete paragraph on the second page, the first sentence, before you commit yourself to that, Mr Irving. A. [Mr Irving]: That is quite plainly a reference to liquidating the Jews, the second paragraph, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Using Dr Brack’s machinery means? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, either machinery or methods. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, methods, Dr Brack’s gassing apparatus.

It is a reference to exterminating by means of gas those Jews who could not work, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: I am not going to be specific about means. All they are saying here is that they are going to be using Brack’s means or methods, which could be any means. They used various different means to dispose of the euthanasia victims. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Could you please read us in translation that first sentence of the first complete paragraph on page 2, Mr Irving?

A. [Mr Irving]: In German or in English? Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, in English. A. [Mr Irving]: According to the state of affairs, we have no misgivings if those Jews who are not capable of working are disposed of using Brack’s methods. Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: So the reference to vergasungsapparate is nothing whatever to do with lice or rats or anything else? A. [Mr Irving]: It does have a slight bearing on the fact that there were

extensive war crimes trial after the war. Dr Wetzel, who wrote this letter, was never prosecuted. He lived in complete comfort until the end of his life in Germany, and how can this be if this is the only interpretation to be placed on those words? MR JUSTICE GRAY: What does beseitegen mean? A. [Mr Irving]: “Getting rid of”. It is one of those vague words again, disposing of.

MR RAMPTON: There is no objection, or we have no reservations, if those Jews who cannot or who are unable to work, incapable of work, are disposed of by Dr Brack’s means? A. [Mr Irving]: Dr Brack’s methods, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Again, I am not asserting a positive case, Mr Irving, about history. I do not have to do that. I am asking you, in your role as an open minded objective and scholarly historian, what is the natural interpretation of that letter and the word vergasungsapparate?

A. [Mr Irving]: I would say quite clearly they are going to be liquidated. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Liquidated by what means? A. [Mr Irving]: Using the methods of Dr Brack. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What is a vergasungsapparatein that context? A. [Mr Irving]: There are two paragraphs here of course. We know what was going on at Riga and this is that there was a major fumigation centre at Riga. Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, please. A. [Mr Irving]: Well, you asked me the question; I gave you the answer

Q. [Mr Rampton]: I want to know what the German word “Vergasungsapparate” means? A. [Mr Irving]: Literally, “gassing equipments”. “Unterkunfte” means “rooms”. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, or huts or whatever, a place where you put people? A. [Mr Irving]: “Unterkunfte” means “rooms”. So we have those two words in conjunction. Q. [Mr Rampton]: We do not know whether these are nice little rooms with a view of the countryside? A. [Mr Irving]: I do not think so.

I think that they built a 50 cubic metre gassing chamber there for the clothing and this comes out at the test trial. The documents and the test trial make this quite plain. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, but let us get back to the Brack methods referred to on page 2 of that letter. You, as I understand it, accept that is a reference back —- A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, indeed, but I think it would be —- Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — “fergasungs”?

A. [Mr Irving]: — false to link these two matters because nobody has ever suggested that the gas chambers, homicidal gas chambers, were set up at Riga and that, frankly, my Lord, is the bottom line. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Whether or not they were set up, I just want to be clear what your evidence is about what was meant by the Brach methods of getting rid of these Jews. A. [Mr Irving]: Well, I think we established several paragraphs earlier

that they used various methods to kill the euthanasia victims. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: But including gas chambers? A. [Mr Irving]: They used carbon monoxide, gas chambers using carbon monoxide. I do not think they ever used any kind of chemicals apart from carbon monoxide from cylinders. They used phenol injections. They used other lethal injections.

MR RAMPTON: Could you then please turn, first of all —- A. [Mr Irving]: But I do emphasise once again that even the most determined Holocaust historian has never suggested that there was a homicidal gas chamber set up at Riga, which is what this letter is about. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think Mr Rampton puts it forward as evidence of the genesis of a policy —- A. [Mr Irving]: Right. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: — of extermination by methods including gas, is that right?

MR RAMPTON: It is, my Lord. My plain submission about this is that it is very strong evidence of intention at a high level to kill Jews by using gas. In the event, it is perfectly right they that did not build a gas chamber. They used trucks at this point. If we want to know what actually happened, may we please go to Professor Longerich’s report, the second part, page 49? A. [Mr Irving]: I can only emphasise the fact that in the test trial, all

this was exhaustively analysed, and the court accepted that there was never any suggestion that gassing equipment was used in Riga. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that is accepted. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: By Mr Rampton, I mean. MR RAMPTON: In the sense that, yes, “unterkumfte” means accommodations really, does it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is always almost used in relation to people in German, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Have you got that Longerich report? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: At page 49 of the second part at the top of the page, Dr Longerich sets out a translation of the significant parts of the letter from Wetzel to Lohse which, as you have noticed, is marked “Geheim”. That is not the highest security classification, is it, Geheim? A. [Mr Irving]: No.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: I will not read the first paragraph, but I will read the second since we have not done that: “The appropriate apparatus are not available in the required quantity at present, and must first be produced. As Brack is of the opinion that the production of the apparatus would provide greater difficulties in the

Reich than on-site, he considers it purposeful to send his people to Riga. His chemist, Dr Kallmeyer, in particular, will make all the necessary arrangements.” Then it is clearly indicated by Dr Longerich that there is an ellipse.

I can tell you that in the original the next sentence begins at the bottom of the first page of the letter. “According to Sturmbannfuhrer Eichmann, camps for Jews will be established in Riga and Minsk, into which Jews from the area of the Altreich will also possibly be brought.

At the moment Jews are being evacuated from the Altreich who will be brought to”, there probably should be an “o” on that “to” so that “brought too”, in other words, “as well as”, “in so far as they are fit for work. According to this state of affairs, there are no reservations if those Jews who are incapable of work, are eliminated by the Brackian means … Those fit for work, on the other hand, will be transported for labour in the East”.

The sense of that is, surely, this, is it not, Mr Irving — you can surely accept this — that the intention was — what happened in the event is another matter — as expressed by Wetzel in Berlin in the Ostland Ministry in Berlin, to bring train loads of Jews from the Altreich to Riga and to send some of them that were fit for work to the East and to gas the rest?

A. [Mr Irving]: That is a quantum leap which disregards the other evidence. You are talking about the intention. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am. A. [Mr Irving]: In fact, it is not the intention. It is the proposal. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes.

A. [Mr Irving]: And I think that there is more than just a nuance between those two words; just the same as somebody in Posnan, I think it was Mr Hukner, in July 1941 wrote a letter to Eichmann saying, would it not be far more humane if you would dispose of these people before the winter comes by some rapidly working means? Well, nobody did that at that time. So these proposals were ventilated by these gangsters.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Rather than letting them starve to death, I think it was, was it not? A. [Mr Irving]: I beg your pardon? Q. [Mr Rampton]: I said it was rather than letting them starve to death was the proposal. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes, and that is exactly the same kind of thing. These proposals were ventilated and aired. As we find out, nothing was ever done in that direction. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You may or may not agree with Professor Longerich. If you disagree, there is nothing I can do about it.

You will have to wait until he gets here. He says: “Gas chambers (here described as ‘dwellings’ (Unterkunfte) were not in fact erected in Riga. Rather, so-called gas vans were to

be employed”? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Where do you get that from? MR RAMPTON: I do not know; maybe it is in the next sentence. A. [Mr Irving]: Well, oddly enough, I would agree with that. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You would? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, there we are? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Then we need not bother. MR RAMPTON: I will just read on, if I may? A. [Mr Irving]: But I think it is irresponsible to talk about gas chambers being described as “dwellings” in this.

I mean, as we know —- Q. [Mr Rampton]: You must take that up with him, I am afraid. A. [Mr Irving]: As we know, they did erect this very large fumigation chamber in Riga which is why Dr Hesch went there in October 1941. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You would not describe a fumigation chamber as an “unterkunfte”, would you? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, we do not know exactly what shape this fumigation chamber took.

They may have taken over a Nissan hut and turned it into a gassing chamber with the appropriate sealants, and so on. Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, no, the letter talks about the construction of the required dwellings. That cannot be right, Mr Irving. I am sorry. A. [Mr Irving]: Well, Nissan huts constructed. I just gave that as a kind

of ready translation. Q. [Mr Rampton]: They are not probably (and I am only dealing in probabilities because I am interested in historical integrity rather than proof of what happened) they are not likely, the words “dwellings which needs to be constructed”, to be fumigation chambers, are they, given the use of the German word “unterkunfte”? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, I gave precisely the reason why they are.

Given the wartime circumstances, I find it highly likely they would have taken an existing building, like a Nissan hut, applied the appropriate sealants and then used that as a fumigation chamber. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What word would you naturally use in German for a delousing or fumigation chamber? A. [Mr Irving]: Entlausungs kammer, Entwesungs kammer, Vergasungs kammer. Q. [Mr Rampton]: But not this word? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, they have actually done the two.

They have said Unterkunfte, Vergasungsapparate. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Let us read paragraph 5, may we? “These gas vans were developed by the Criminal Police in autumn 1941 – parallel to the transfer of the technology of ‘euthanasia’ to Eastern Europe”. A. [Mr Irving]: That, I venture to suggest, if I may just interrupt you, is why the letter had a Geheim rating rather than the Top Secret rating. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton, I have read the next four or five paragraphs. What is really being said — I think this is agreed which is why I am intervening — is that the policy of using gas vans was not only proposed but was implemented? A. [Mr Irving]: It was implemented, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Eight or 10 of them were employed to kill Jews, starting, as I read it, in Chelmo. Does one need to go through it more detail? Do you accept that, Mr Irving?

A. [Mr Irving]: Except for the numbers, I think that is right. MR RAMPTON: I do have a point to make about this.

If one looks at paragraph 5, halfway through the paragraph: “After having an execution of Jews performed for his”, that is Himmler’s, “observation, he demanded of Nebe, the Head of EG B, that other methods of killing should be sought which were more ‘humane’ than execution”, that is by shooting, that is my interpolation, “methods, that is which would put less strain on the firing squads of the SS and policemen”. Is that correct? Is that what Himmler demanded of Nebe?

A. [Mr Irving]: What a waffly footnote, though, is it not? This is reconstructed from the accounts of witnesses and —- Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you agree —- A. [Mr Irving]: Excuse me, and he then actually uses the “indictment” of somebody as a source when an “indictment” is something that has been untested in law. If it had been a judgment

by a court, that would be different. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, you can, as I say, take up the cudgels with Dr Longerich and Professor Browning and anybody else, Professor Evans, about their methods, just as I am doing with you about yours. A. [Mr Irving]: Mr Rampton, you put the sentence to me and I immediately draw attention to the waffly basis. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, I wish you would sometimes just listen to my question.

Do you agree, as a matter of fact, with what Dr Longerich has there written? A. [Mr Irving]: That Himmler was squeamish? Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, that Himmler was worried about the mental and physical effect on the troops, the SS people, of having to shoot so many people? A. [Mr Irving]: I have heard this said about the same kind of evidentiary foundation that Mr Browning has put in. Let me put it the other way round.

There is no letter from Himmler to Berger or to Bouhler or to Heydrich saying, “We have to do this some other way; this is putting too much strain on my men”, but there is one episode which I clearly remember — I have mentioned it before — when Hitler’s film cameraman accompanied Himmler to a mass shooting outside Minsk in the middle of August 1941.

Half way through that, one of the machine gunners came running across the field to Himmler and to this party saying he could not do it, his nerves could not take it any more, could he be posted

somewhere else? He was sent back into the line. Q. [Mr Rampton]: That takes me back, you see, to Wisliceny and to Bruns and to the suggestion I made some days ago, if you remember, that the principal reason why, well, one of the two reasons why mass shootings of this kind were to stop was that they were apt to draw attention to themselves; the other was that it was a strain on the people who had to do the shooting, and that, in consequence, they had to find another means of killing Jews and so

they hit upon gassing. Now, will you please comment on that suggestion? A. [Mr Irving]: I do not think that is an adequate suggestion.

I do not think that the noise suggestion, if I can paraphrase it as that, holds water because these mass killings took place many miles outside the built up areas; and as for the strain on the nerves, of course, then how is it that the Russians managed to carry out their mass shootings on similar scales, if not even indeed even greater scales, without having to resort to gas chambers? I do not think there is a —- Q. [Mr Rampton]: Perhaps, Mr Irving, this is not a trial about the Russians.

Perhaps Russian public opinion was not as sensitive as German public opinion; who knows? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, exactly. Who knows the answers to many of these questions that you give? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton, will you go this far — I cannot give you chapter and verse for it, but my impression is

that there is quite a lot of evidence — I think that is the right word — to suggest that carrying out the shootings was causing, understandably I suppose, real anxiety, nervous breakdowns and the rest amongst those Germans who were being ordered to carry it out? A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, with respect, if they intend to make this a plank of their case, then they should lead such evidence and not allow —- Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am asking you if you accept it.

A. [Mr Irving]: I do not accept that, my Lord, unless they wish to put it to us in a slightly better founded form than Professor Browning has done saying it is based on an unspecified witness statement on an indictment of someone. MR RAMPTON: That is Dr Longerich, begging your pardon, and I am just about to show you something which I hope you will agree, as it were, helps to found the stability of this proposition by Dr Longerich. Can you please turn to file H4(v) and to footnote 260?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Before you do, can I ask one further question to see whether you are prepared to accept this, that there was at least disquiet about the method of executing Jews by shooting by the SS? A. [Mr Irving]: Clearly, a lot of the men did not like doing it, but a lot of the men did like doing it. I think Daniel Goldhart has brought this out very clearly in his book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”, that a lot of men actually

volunteered for the work. So there is an entire book written on this subject recently. This is Witte, right? MR RAMPTON: My Lord, this is two pages from a book, this footnote 262, to Professor Longerich’s, the second part of his report. I will, if I may, read from nearly the top of the page. MR JUSTICE GRAY: 260, are you talking about? MR RAMPTON: Yes, in fact, I had better start with 16. That is the internal page number on the left-hand side.

The German personnel, I do not know even know whose book this is. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yitzhak Arad. MR RAMPTON: “Odilo Globocnik’s first” under “German Personnel” “was to organize the manpower required for the construction and operation of the killing centres. The people assigned to Operation Reinhard came from the following sources: 1. SS and policemen who served under Globocnik’s command in the Lublin district until Operation Reinhard”.

Then there is a number. “Members of the SS and Police staffs or units. 3. Chancellery of the Fuhrer – Euthanasia programme”. A total of 450 men. “The most important group of Operation Reinhard came from the euthanasia programme. They brought with them knowledge and experience in setting up and operating gassing institutions for mass murder. They filled the key posts involved with the extermination methods, the

planning and construction of three death camps – Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka – and the command over these camps”. So far, that is just Mr Arad speaking. Now, Mr Irving, here is a report of something Dr Brack is later to have said: “Victor Brack gave evidence in his trial after the war about the transfer of the euthanasia personnel to Operation Reinhard: “‘In 1941, I received an order to discontinue the euthanasia programme.

In order to retain the personnel that had been relieved of these duties and in order to be able to start a new euthanasia programme after the war, Bouhler asked me – I think after a conference with Himmler – to send this personnel to Lublin and place it at the disposal of SS Brigadefuhrer Globocnik”. Are you familiar with that evidence, Mr Irving? A. [Mr Irving]: I was reading this a few days ago, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Have you never read it before?

A. [Mr Irving]: Just a few days ago I read it for the first time. Q. [Mr Rampton]: It is a Nuremberg piece of evidence, is it not? A. [Mr Irving]: According to the footnote, it comes from somebody else’s book. Q. [Mr Rampton]: From what? A. [Mr Irving]: From somebody else’s book. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I think — maybe it is not your fault; I made the same mistake when I first looked at it — the footnotes in question are those under the heading “Chapter Two” the

next page? A. [Mr Irving]: Very well. It is an affidavit, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is page 16, so it is likely, I think, is it not? MR RAMPTON: I think so, particularly when we looked a bit further down the page. Anyhow the text goes on as follows: “The first group of euthanasia personnel, numbering a few dozen men, arrived at Lublin between the end of October and the end of December 1941.

Among them was Kriminalkommissar of Police Christian Wirth, the highest ranking officer from the euthanasia programme assigned to Operation Reinhard, and Oberscharfuhrer Josef Oberhauser. Additional people from the euthanasia programme arrived in Lublin during the first months of

1. Viktor Brack visited Lublin at the beginning of May

1942 and discussed with Globocnik the contribution of the euthanasia organization to the task of exterminating Jews. Globocnik asked for more euthanasia personnel to be placed under his command. His request was accepted. After this meeting Brack wrote to Himmler: “‘In accordance with my orders from Reichsleiter Bouhler, I have long ago” — that would mean October 1941, I assume, according to this historical context, would it not, Mr Irving? A. [Mr Irving]: It could, yes

Q. [Mr Rampton]: — “put at Brigadefuhrer Globocnik’s disposal part of my manpower to aid him in carrying out his special mission’”. Pause there, do you accept that that special mission was the extermination of hundreds of thousands of Jews? A. [Mr Irving]: Can I make a general comment about the unsatisfactory nature of this kind of evidence? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, but can you answer the question first?

A. [Mr Irving]: No, I do not, not on the basis just of this one extract without knowing what the German document said, without seeing the classifications on it, without knowing the original wording. Why are we being presented with somebody else’s book as a source, just being given extracts from it in English? MR RAMPTON: We will try to remedy our negligent behaviour, Mr Irving, but assume for a moment that is a fair translation of the German of Brack’s original letter in May 1942.

Do you agree that it as reference to a special mission by Globocnik which means exterminating Jews in Eastern Poland? A. [Mr Irving]: On the balance of probabilities, yes, but I would like to know why we are not being shown the original document. You have had teams of researchers working in the archives who could have produced the original affidavit and the original letter, and we are only being produced somebody’s gloss, somebody’s chosen excerpts. I will draw attention

to one or two — you are looking weary, Mr Rampton. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am looking weary because. A. [Mr Irving]: But maybe my criteria are different. Q. [Mr Rampton]: If you have an application to make, Mr Irving — this is a court of law and not some forum for you to expound your views about this, that and the other, in particular the Defendants’ weakness. A. [Mr Irving]: Mr Rampton, frankly I would have hoped that the court would have made these observations.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Mr Irving, if you have an application to make for further discovery, make it to his Lordship at the proper time, will you? A. [Mr Irving]: I would have hoped that the court would have made the observation about the quality of this kind of evidence. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Since you invite me to, I have some sympathy for what you are just saying because this may be quite an important document, I do not know.

As far as I can see, the reference for it in the note 7 is to some Nuremberg documents, but it does not quite read like an extract from a Nuremberg document. MR RAMPTON: It is a letter, my Lord, and many of the Nuremberg documents are letters. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Are they? MR RAMPTON: Yes. We have looked at several of them in the last couple of days. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Right. But, Mr Rampton, the point really

that is concerning me a little is you are insisting (and it may be you are right to do so) on going in your cross-examination of Mr Irving to a lot of the source material. This is a bit second-hand, is it not? MR RAMPTON: Of course it is and I would much rather have the original. The fact is I do not have it. I will try to get it. I have a feeling that I have seen it somewhere, but I cannot at the moment remember where. But there it is. I will try to get it.

The purpose of this cross-examination is not, my Lord, to, as it were, investigate the Defendants’ efficiency or bona fides in the material that they have disclosed. The purpose of it is to see whether I can get Mr Irving to agree about what the evidence actually suggests. A. [Mr Irving]: May I also point out that the references to Operation Reinhard are not apparently contained in the documents quoted, but they are the interpolation of the author of this book, Mr Yitzhak or whoever it is.

I mean, this is the kind of thing that worries me, that these things are slid in. There is no reference to Operation Reinhard in the quotations actually given. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Well, what was Odilo Globocnik’s special mission? A. [Mr Irving]: He was chief of police in Lublin at this time. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Why should Brack write to Himmler about the Globocnik’s special mission?

A. [Mr Irving]: Mr Rampton, in the final analysis we are probably on the same side in this document. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I think we are too. A. [Mr Irving]: But I do not want to be ambushed with secondhand sources like this. Q. [Mr Rampton]: If we are on the same side, Mr Irving, there is no ambush, is there? A. [Mr Irving]: Well, you are ambushing me with second-hand sources like this where I have no means of testing the integrity of the document.

I would like to make certain observations about the nature of affidavits sworn in Nuremberg which I shall probably do when I come to cross-examination of Professor Longerich. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us cut this short. Would the Defendants, if they can, unearth this document? In the meantime, you have your answer that “special mission” probably does refer to extermination. MR RAMPTON: But I am unapologetic, my Lord, because that is not actually the most important part of this letter.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: You mean you have not get to the most important part? MR RAMPTON: No, it is at the bottom of the page. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Shall we press on? MR RAMPTON: Yes, please. “‘Upon his renewed request, I have now transferred to him additional personnel. Globocnik took this opportunity to explain to me his idea that the

action against the Jews”, that is pretty explicit, is it not, Mr Irving?

Section 38.1 to 52.1

A. [Mr Irving]: Well, of course, at this time they are busy cleaning all the Jews out of the General Government which is the actioning of the Jews. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What would Dr Brack have to do with that? A. [Mr Irving]: I do not know.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: No, quite. “‘… should be carried out with all deliberate speed, in order to avoid getting stuck [in the middle]‘”– That is in square brackets; I know not why — “‘one of these days when some sort of difficulty may force us to stop. You, yourself, Reichsfuhrer’”, that is Himmler, “‘once voiced to me your opinion that the requirements of secrecy also oblige us to act as quickly as possible.

Both conceptions are thus directed in principle towards the same result, and according to my experience, they are more than justified’”. Again looking at that, as a matter of probability, is Brack not saying two things? Brack, remember, Mr Irving, is master of the gassing apparatus. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: “You do not need secrecy to exterminate lice; you do need secrecy to cloak the killing of people”? A. [Mr Irving]: I quite agree.

That is undoubtedly, on the balance of probabilities, the overall burden of this document. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Thank you very much

Source Information
Original Publication: 2000-01-19
Digital Archive: Focal Point Publications
Accessed: June 4, 2026

See Also

• David Irving v Penguin & Lipstadt — Jan 1995 (Article)
• Index: Lipstadt Trial Documents (Article)
• The defeat of the denierDanuta Kean reports on how Penguin p (Article)
• Irving v Lipstadt: Trial Documents (German language) (Article)
• Documents on David Irving's early clashes with Professor Deborah Lipstadt (Article)