Documents on the Auschwitz Controversy

David Irving's 1988 Testimony at the Trial of Ernst Zündel   David Irving testified as the twenty-third and final witness in the Zündel trial on Friday, April 22, Monday, April 25 and Tuesday, April 26, 1988.     From the digest published by Ottawa legal expert Barbara Kulaszka.

David Irving, the British historian and author, was permitted to testify as an expert in the area of the history of the Second World War. (33-9346)   Irving had worked as a professional historian since 1963 and was the author of between twenty and thirty books. These included Hess: The Missing Years, 1941 - 1945, The Service: The Memoirs of General Gehlen, Accident: The Death of General Sikorski, The Destruction of Dresden, The Secret Diaries of Hitler's Doctor, The Trail of the Fox, The War Between the Generals: Inside the Allied High Command, The German Atomic Bomb, Convoy: The Destruction of Convoy PQ 17, The Mare's Nest, The War Path, Hitler's War, The Morgenthau Plan, Breach of Security, Uprising, and Churchill's War.   April 22, 1988   As a historian, he was interested in contemporary history; that of the twentieth century. Irving himself came from an English service family. His father was a Royal Navy service officer. For twenty-five years, Irving had researched in archives around the world, including Canada, the United States, France, East and West Germany and other countries. He had also had the co- operation of the archives in Israel and the Soviet Union. (33-9312 to 9325) He was "very familiar with the records of the German High Command and the other German wartime government agencies." He had acquired this knowledge and expertise initially at Alexandria in Virginia, where the archives were originally stored after they were seized by the American army. The documents had been subsequently sent back to West Germany. They were still available in Washington partly in original form and partly on microfilm. A number of records were also held by the British government. (33-9325)

Irving had also done in-depth research into the life of AdolfHitler: "For ten years I researched Hitler's life based entirely onprimary records. I don't believe in buying other people's books orreading them on Adolf Hitler. We can readily surmise there must bemany tens or hundreds of tons of books. I think it's easier to go tothe archives and look at the documents. That way you avoid soaking upother people's prejudices...Dealing with Adolf Hitler, I would lookfor the private papers of his personal staff, people who weredirectly associated with him from secretarial or adjutant level, upto Field-Marshal. I would try and amass a great body of documentaryevidence which passes certain criteria. And these were the criteriawhich the great English historian, Hugh Trevor-Roper, laid down inparticular; three criteria for a document to be acceptable to ahistorian. The first criterion is quite obviously, is the documentyou are looking at genuine? The second criterion is, was the personwho wrote the document in a position to know what he is writingabout? A street sweeper in Berlin may have been in Berlin in the lastdays of the war, but he doesn't know what's going on in Hitler'smind. The third criterion you ask yourself, why does this documentexist? Why has it come into existence? You may look at a documentthat is apparently honest but you find out later on from othersources that the general wrote the document to protect himself. Soyou ask yourself, how did this document meet these three criteria andin the ten years that I worked on the Hitler project, I built up ashelf of about seventy feet of original documents that probably noother historian had ever seen. I persuaded Hitler's staff to trust mewith their private papers that they had not shown to anyone else. Ialso built up a card index of ten or fifteen thousand filing cards ona day-by-day basis so you knew exactly what Hitler was doing, ratherlike a diary. You could say exactly what he was doing which meantthat you had a useful tool to check any document. Any document thatwas shown to you had to fit with that card index. If it didn't, thenthere was something phony about the document." (33-9326, 9327)

Irving was very familiar with German documents, "...with the waythey look, the way they smell - they have a certain physical smell -with the way they are phrased and with the archives they come fromand the language they use, of course. I'm very fluent in the Germanlanguage." (33-9328)

He had also conducted scientific tests as part of his research:"In the twenty-five years I have done research, on occasion documentshave been offered to me that I had reason to suspect. On one occasionI was offered the private diaries of the German Vice Admiral WilhelmCanaris...who is the chief of the German Secret Service. We knew thatthese diaries existed. We have been looking for them. They haven'tbeen found to this day. In the end I persuaded the man who hadoffered these diaries to me and the English publishers, Collins, tocome to London bringing one page of those diaries. In return, we paid50,000 pounds into his bank but we didn't release it into his accountuntil we carried out laboratory tests on the paper. This was in about1970. And the laboratory tests carried out on the paper and the inkand the typewriter showed that the paper was wartime paper. It didn'thave the whiteness that modern paper has; it didn't have melamineformaldehyde added that modern paper has. The paper had been cut tothe German size with scissors, as microscopic examination showed.Also the signature had been written in a ball point pen. The chemicaltests showed that quite clearly. Tests were carried out on the ink ofthe signature normally to show how old the signature is. Thislaboratory in London which I use, Hehner & Cox, carried out atest normally on the iron content [of the] ink. Normally, ifyou write a signature with ink, the iron oxidizes, so I am told, andyou can tell the degree of oxidization, and tell how long a signaturehas been there. This document was signed in a ball- point pen and wasclearly a forgery. I had the man prosecuted for criminal fraud and heavoided the consequences by dying, or by purporting to have died. Atany rate, he submitted a death certificate which I was prepared toaccept as genuine. And of course, I was involved in the very famousdiscovery of the Hitler diaries forgery. I had had the Hitler diariessubmitted to me six months, I recall, earlier along with ancillarydocuments. I had had the Hitler's diaries submitted to me in 1982,November, along with other ancillary documents. And I detected thatthe letterhead on a Hermann Goering notepaper was actuallymisspelled. They misspelled the rank of the Field-Marshal, of theReichsmarschall as he was, which was completely improbable, and whenthe Hitler diaries were presented to the world in April, 1983, Iattended the press conference and exploded that press conference asyou may have seen on "Good Morning America" and the other televisionprogrammes. The diaries were a fake and I had the forensic evidencethey were fake...there had been occasions, sir, when I have usedlaboratories to determine forgeries. "(33-9328 to 9330)

Irving's Hitler research failed to uncover any evidence thatHitler was aware of the alleged "final solution" of the Jews: "At theend of writing the Adolf Hitler biography in draft, I was aware ofthe fact that having written it from primary, original Hitlersources, I, as the author, didn't know about the Holocaust. I hadfound no documents showing any involvement between Adolf Hitler andthe Holocaust which was very disturbing for me. So I re-investigated.I sent a researcher back into the archives where, with a specificjob, the researcher, who was a trained historical scientist at theInstitute of Contemporary History in Munich, I said to her, 'Go backto the archives in Freiburg, Munich and Berlin, and see if I havemissed anything'. I couldn't believe what I was seeing, the factthere were no documents whatsoever showing that a Holocaust had everhappened. I'm using the word 'Holocaust' in the modern sense that thenewspapers tell us to use it. And certainly there was no evidencethat Hitler had ever known such a thing was going on, whatever itwas. This was very disturbing for me and it was even more disturbingfor my literary agent who warned me of the consequences of producingthe Hitler book in this fashion." (33-9330, 9331)

This completed defence attorney Doug Christie's examination ofIrving for the purpose of qualifying him as an expert witness. CrownAttorney John Pearson then rose to cross-examine Irving on hisqualifications as an expert in history. (33-9332)

In response to Pearson's questions, Irving testified that his bookChurchill's War, was published in West Australia by VeritasPublishing Company. David Thompson, the firm's East Australian salesmanager, introduced Irving at a speech Irving gave at the Universityof Sydney. (33-9332, 9333)

And do you remember, asked Pearson, saying that you had noqualifications whatsoever and you were proud of the fact that you hadno qualifications whatsoever?

"I think my precise words would be to say that the onlyexamination I...failed at school is O-level history which is the mostelementary level of history you can fail," said Irving. (33-9333)

You were proud to say you flunked history?, asked Pearson.

"I have started off from such humble beginnings...I have noacademic qualifications whatsoever." (33-9333)

Right, said Pearson, you make your living writing and publishingcontroversial books about history.

"I make my living publishing books about history, yes...Many ofthem are controversial. I don't create the controversy, the mediado...I'm a controversial historian." Irving agreed that his books hadbeen the object of contempt and scorn and that he had been houndedand attacked. He disagreed, however, that controversy was good forbook sales: "Quite the contrary, sir. I rather hinted when Imentioned my literary agent, in the matter of Hitler's War, myliterary agent warned me of the severe consequences of thecontroversy that would develop from omitting Hitler's role in theHolocaust. He told me we would lose the Sunday Times deal, theReader's Digest deal, the Book of the Month Club deal, and we wouldnot sell the book as a paperback in the United States. We lost aboutone million dollars. Controversy is not necessarily good." (33-9334,9335)

Well, are you familiar with the book called Spy Catcher?, askedPearson. Irving replied that he knew of the book and that it had beenbanned when he left Britain five weeks before. And wouldn't you agreewith me it was good for sales?, asked Pearson. Irving agreed this hadbeen true for sales of Spy Catcher in Australia, but said: "Beingbanned ipso facto is not good for sales. You have to be banned in acertain way...There are useful controversies and there arecontroversies which don't promote your purposes as a historian."(33-9335, 9336)

Well, said Pearson, if there's controversies that create mediaattention, that's good for sales because thereby people learn about abook that they'd otherwise not even know about. Isn't that right?Said Irving: "This is true. And I emphasize as a professionalhistorian I have to sell my books. I can't afford to lose mycredibility." (33-9336)

When you say you're a professional historian, asked Pearson, whatyou mean by that is you write books on history and sell them?

"I write books on history as a profession. That's whatprofessional historian means." Irving agreed that he was in a fightfor media attention: "I think that is correct. In England 58,000 newbooks are published every year and only 1,000 will ever getreviewed...So, it's a bit of a struggle of life." (33-9336)

Would you agree with me that you hold academic historians incontempt?, asked Pearson.

"I hold them in contempt for specific reasons," said Irving. "Notall academic historians but the broad majority of them."(33-9337)

Would you agree with me, asked Pearson, that the academichistorians, for instance, Martin Broszat, consider your thesis inyour Hitler book as embarrassing? Irving disagreed: "On the contrary.Martin Broszat went to great lengths in a 54-page review of my Hitlerbook to say on one central issue he considered that I was correct,that there was no general order for the extermination of the Jews...Idon't think he ever used the word embarrassing. I'm not familiar withall his writings." (33-9337)

Pearson produced a copy of an article by Broszat published in YadVashem Studies. Irving indicated he was familiar only with the Germanedition: "...I haven't read this particular one. I don't subscribe toYad Vashem Studies. If he said it was embarrassing, I will acceptyour word for it, but it would be embarrassing for the body ofacademic historians because I have shown them up for not doing theresearch which did I." Irving examined the article and confirmed thatit was an English translation of the original German paper whichappeared in Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte with which hewas familiar. (33-9338, 9339)

And it doesn't matter that it's published in Yad Vashem, does it?,asked Pearson.

"I...think I did emphasize I have co-operation from the Israeliarchives so that does mean it's a two-way co-operation."(33-9339)

Pearson repeated the question.

"I can't see what point you're driving at," said Irving, "I justsaid...I'm not familiar with the Yad Vashem version of it." (33-9339,9340)

The title of the article by Broszat was "Hitler and the Genesis ofthe 'Final Solution': An Assessment of David Irving's Theses."1 AtPearson's request, Irving read the first paragraph:

THE ENGLISH EDITION of David Irving's Hitler book, published inthe spring of 1977, two years after the expurgated German edition,has created a furore both in England and elsewhere. The Britishauthor, who gained a reputation as an enfant terrible with earlierpublications on contemporary history, has propounded a thesis whichis embarrassing even to some of his friends and admirers.

Pearson indicated that Broszat went on to say that Irving was avery good writer. Pearson then continued reading from page 76 of thearticle:

The discovery and utilization of contemporary primary sources haslong been a sort of adventuresome passion of Irving the historian.However, the unprejudiced historian and researcher is obstructed bythe passionately partisan author whose insistence on primary sourceslacks the control and discipline essential in the selectiveinterpretation and evaluation of material.

He is too eager to accept authenticity for objectivity, is overlyhasty in interpreting superficial diagnoses and often seemsinsufficiently interested in complex historical interconnections andin structural problems that transcend the mere recording ofhistorical facts but are essential for their evaluation. Spurred bythe ambition of matching himself against professional historians inhis precise knowledge of documents, he adopts the role of theterrible simplificateur as he intends to wrest fresh interpretationsfrom historical facts and events and spring these on the public insensational new books.

Said Irving: "I think every historian is entitled to hisopinion...What he is saying is I haven't learned to read between thelines the way that the academic historians have." (33-9341, 9342)

Pearson asked whether Irving's thesis in Hitler's War was thatHitler was a bad administrator who liked ideas and not details, andthat it was Heydrich, Himmler, Frank and others who were engaged inperpetrating the Holocaust. Said Irving: "In the introduction I makeplain that I regard Germany, by the end of the Second World War, as aFührer state without a Führer. He had lost control ofwhatever was going on and I'm not going to be so simple as to say itwas quite simply what is now called the 'Holocaust.' Whatever it wasthat was going on, there is no evidence that Hitler knew it. There'snot enough evidence to satisfy an English magistrate's court and itcertainly shouldn't satisfy an academic historian or a professionalone." (33 9342, 9343)

Are you repudiating what you wrote in Hitler's War about theactivities of Himmler, Heydrich and Frank?, asked Pearson.

"I didn't use the word 'Holocaust' to the best of my knowledge.This is a relatively modern invention. I think we have to be muchless simple than using a word like that. We have to try to examinewhat was going on, see if there was a pattern or was it just ahaphazard series of ad hoc tragedies generated by all sorts ofdifferent criminals who were running amok." Irving indicated that hedid not think he repudiated anything he wrote in Hitler's War, butindicated that he "would need to know exactly which passage I ambeing asked to...repudiate." (33-9343, 9344)

Pearson asked if Irving's thesis in his book Churchill's War wasthat Churchill wanted a war because he knew he wouldn't get electedin peacetime and he conducted a lot of his activities during the warin a drunken haze?

"This is not a thesis," said Irving. "That is, in fact, astatement of fact." (33-9344)

David Irving was accepted as an expert witness qualified to givetestimony in the area of the history of the Second World War. Defenceattorney Douglas Christie commenced his examination-in-chief ofIrving. (33-9346)

In your opinion as a historian of the Second World War, askedChristie, what is the 'Holocaust' as it is currently presented?

"The Holocaust as it is currently presented," said Irving, "I cando no better than quote the words used by the chief rabbi of England,Lord...[Immanuel] Jakobovits, who has recently said that inhis view, it has become big business...Which he deplores."(33-9347)

Irving had read Did Six Million Really Die?: "...I have seen thisbook before over several years. I have never read it until two daysago when a copy was sent to me by courier in Florida with a requestthat I should read it for the purposes of this trial. And I read itwith great interest and I must say that I was surprised by thequality of the arguments that it represented. It has obvious flaws.It uses sources that I would not personally use. In fact, the entirebody of sources is different. This is based entirely on secondaryliterature, books by other people, including some experts, whereas Iuse no books. I use just the archives. But independently, the authorof this came to conclusions and asked questions of a logical naturewhich I had arrived at by an entirely different route, so-to-speak. Igive one example. On one page, which I can't remember, he asks theobvious logical question, if you are going to exterminate millions ofpeople, why did you go to all the trouble of shipping them thousandsof miles across Europe first? This is the kind of logical questionwhich the academic historian[s] have ducked until now. And ifI was to ask what is the value of a brochure like this, I think it isthat it provokes people to ask questions, rather as my book onHitler's War provoked the historians. I think I am told that thiscourt has heard about the historians' dispute that has opened up inGermany. That was entirely as a result of my controversial book onHitler. Until 1977, the German historians had never asked the obviousquestions. This is the kind of value which I found this brochure tohave. It was asking proper questions on the basis of an entirelydifferent set of sources. But I do emphasize that it contains flawsand it contains also some opinions with which I personally wouldn'tagree." (33-9347, 9348)

If the 'Holocaust' is represented as the allegation of theextermination of 6 million Jews during the Second World War as adirect result of official German policy of extermination, what wouldyou say to that thesis?, asked Christie.

"There are several elements of that sentence I would dispute,"said Irving. "Firstly, the allegation that it was official Germanpolicy. We are not familiar, neither the academic nor theprofessional historians are familiar with the slightest documentaryevidence that there was any such German policy. And I should befamiliar with it having spent ten years wading around in the archivesof the German High Command and speaking with Hitler's private staff.It isn't there. I am not familiar with any documentary evidence ofany such figure as 6 million and I think I know how the figureoriginated because I am familiar with the private papers of theAmerican Chief Justice at Nuremberg, the Justice Robert H. Jacksonand I saw the actual interview on which that figure was...arrivedat...Many years ago, I wrote a very detailed analysis of theNuremberg trial and the procedures and the sequence of events at theNuremberg trial. In the course of which I obtained privileged accessto all the private and official records of the American chiefprosecutor, Justice Robert H. Jackson, in the course of which Ichanged my opinion about him. I set off with a bad opinion of him andin the light of what I read in his diaries, I came to realize he wasa profound and honest American lawyer." (33-9349, 9350)

Do you have any opinion as a result of your research as to thenumber of Jews who died in concentration camps during the SecondWorld War?, asked Christie. Said Irving: "I am not sure that anopinion here would be of use. I have opinions. I have opinions,however, in the kind of statistical orders of magnitude, where youcan see there's a minimum number and a maximum number, and I can onlyset these two limits and say that to my mind, it must have been ofthe order of 100,000 or more, but to my mind it was certainly lessthan the figure which is quoted nowadays of 6 million. Because on theevidence of comparison with other similar tragedies which happened inthe Second World War, it is unlikely that the Jewish community wouldhave suffered any worse than these communities. You can weigh thefigures in certain ways and look at air raid damage and look at othercommunities like the gypsies and so on and say, this is the balanceof probabilities. But it shouldn't be necessary to talk aboutprobabilities. All Hitler's other crimes are documented instatistical details in the archives. This is supposed to have beenthe biggest crime of all and yet the documents just aren't there sowhy do we have to speculate? Why do we have to have opinions aboutfigures?" Irving pointed out that there was documentary evidence tosupport the German policy of deporting the Jews: "Oh, yes. Quitedefinitely. In the course of my Hitler research I came acrossacceptable German archival evidence which met the criteria which HughTrevor-Roper had taught me, being authentic documents written bypeople in a position to know. I came across documents showing thatHitler had given the orders for the deportation of the Jews to theeast. This deportation was in full swing by the middle of 1942 andyou find, for example, Heinrich Himmler writing to Gauleiters thatthe Führer, Adolf Hitler, has given me the order to make Europefree of the Jews, clean of the Jews from west to east, stage-by-stage, and it's quite clearly referred to as Hitler's order, thedeportation." (33-9351, 9352)

There were, however, no orders for the extermination of Jews:"None whatsoever. I have not found in any archives of the world,including I mentioned the Israeli archives which have beenco-operating with me; I also underline the fact even in the Britisharchives, where we were reading the signals, the code signals of theSS units operating on the eastern front, with our code- breakingmachinery, not even in the British archives are there any decipheredHitler orders for the killing of Jews...There are no explicit ordersand this is where the academic historians start asking us to readbetween the lines and find fancy translations for certain words and Iwouldn't go along with those methods. I want in a crime as big asthis to find explicit evidence." (33-9352, 9353)

Was there a Madagascar plan?, asked Christie.

"The original 'final solution' of the Jewish problem as envisagedby the German High Command," said Irving, "was to deport the Jews todifferent territories. Various different territories were called intoaccount for this. On one occasion, the Jews were going to be shippedto western Australia. On another occasion they were going to beshipped to Palestine and Adolf Eichmann was actually sentto...Palestine in 1939 to negotiate with the Zionists in Palestine.The principal plan was the so-called Madagascar plan. Madagascar isan island off the coast of Africa about the size of Germany. Atemperate island, the kind you have in Canada or in Britain, and theidea was to ship all the world's Jews to Madagascar. In 1940 afterthe German defeat of France, the intention was to incorporate theMadagascar plan in the final peace treaty obliging France to makeMadagascar, which was a French colony, available for the purpose ofJewish resettlement. And there are traces, by which I mean there areextensive files, on the Madagascar plan in the archives of the Germanadmiralty, because they would be involved in the transportation, andthe archives [of] the German Foreign Ministry and in variousother German government bodies. This plan was abandoned when the warcontinued because it was impossible to have an overseas shipment ofJews at a time of war. And finally, in 1942, there is a document inthe records of the German Foreign Ministry which says the Madagascarplan is being abandoned because we now have new territories availablein the east, the occupied Russian territories, to which all the Jewswill be transported instead." (33-9353, 9354)

Is there any one document in the archives, asked Christie, of thevarious ministries which say, as late as March 1942, that there was aplan to exterminate the Jews?

"This is typical of the documents which I have found and which theacademic historians, until I had published it, would not publish it,"replied Irving. "In the archives of the German Ministry of Justice, Ifound a document which was concealed at Nuremberg...which resurfacedin the archives in Koblenz, dated in the spring of 1942. It is a noteof a telephone conversation of the Secretary of State of the GermanMinistry of Justice with the Reich Chancellor...That would be ratherlike a Prime Minister, a Prime Minister in a dictatorship, second mandown from Hitler...[who was] Hans Lammers. Lammers hadtelephoned the ministry in the spring of 1942 and the minister writesa note on the conversation, and I can quote the memorandum frommemory. It says: 'Lammers has said that the Führer, AdolfHitler, has repeatedly ordained that he wants the 'final solution' -that he wants the solution of the Jewish problem postponed untilafter the war is over.' And this document, of course, takes someexplaining and this is the kind of document which embarrasses thehistorians, if I can use the word that Mr. Pearson has reminded meof. They are embarrassed because they haven't found that documentthemselves." (33-9354, 9355)

Irving testified that he was familiar with the Einsatzgruppenreports: "Here we have to look at the third of the Trevor-Ropercriteria. If you remember, the question a historian should ask is,'Why does this document exist?'. A man is out in the field behind theRussian front doing his job for the SS and he is being asked how wellhe is doing and he's going to submit a report containing figures andhe's going to show he's doing a jolly good job and that's the kind ofcategory I... put these Einsatzgruppen reports into. I don't trustthe statistics they contain. Soldiers who are out in the field doinga job or murderers who are out in the field doing a job, they don'thave time to count. I don't think Lieutenant Calley stopped to findout how many people [he] killed. Statistics like this aremeaningless. Documents like this I am very, very worried about as ahistorical source." (33-9355, 9356)

Christie produced Exhibit 118, a document referring to Galicia,which he showed to Irving. Said Irving: "May I say that I am verywary about any Nuremberg document that has the document numberL...This is L-18...Historians are familiar with quite a number of Ldocuments from the Nuremberg series and a lot of them turn out to beforgeries. A lot of them turn out to be produced or manufactured forthe Nuremberg trials to the best of my knowledge. So, this is thefirst thing that would worry me about that." (33-9357)

Crown Attorney Pearson objected to this testimony, alleging thatthis was a serious accusation to make. Irving replied: "If I mayanswer that point, sir, I investigated the Nuremberg trials in somedetail and I was familiar with the fact that at Nuremberg, they didhave a collection of the necessary rubber stamps, the securityclassification stamps in order to manufacture documents and they diddo it. There are several instances where this subsequently turnedout...I have published a book on that sir. It's Nuremberg - The LastBattle...The prefixes on the Nuremberg documents give some index ofthe providence of the document. There's a PS series which was foundby Colonel Storey [in] Paris, the Paris/Storey collection.Many PS series are thoroughly authentic. The L series were a smallcollection of documents used at Nuremberg and contain documentsproduced by journalists and handed over by a very eclectic series ofsources. The NOK documents, the German for the [High] Commandtrial, the private files give us a first sniff, if I might put itlike that." (33 9358, 9359)

Irving testified that he was not familiar with this particulardocument: "...I am not familiar with the document. I am not, Iemphasize, a Holocaust historian." (33-9360) With respect to theauthenticity of the document, Irving testified that he would "acceptthese documents as attached are probably genuine on the basis of thephotocopies but that's just the first impression you get in lookingat an archives - I recognize the numbers at the bottom. I can tellyou which microfilms they come from. They are authentic reproductionsfrom Nuremberg microfilm. . . Prima facie it appears to be genuine."(33-9362, 9363)

Have you yourself ever seen any evidence in any of the archives toestablish the existence of homicidal gas chambers?, askedChristie.

"No, sir. None whatsoever. And certainly one would have expectedto have found it in the number of archives that I've been in."(33-9363)

Yesterday, said Christie, the Crown produced a letter from someonein Auschwitz pertaining to the building of the crematories and theword used there was Vergasungskellers. Are you familiar with thatdocument?, he asked.

"I am very familiar with the German language and I am quitefamiliar with that document also," said Irving. "No German would havereferred to a gas chamber, which of course is quite a common conceptbecause the Americans use[d] gas chambers at that time forlegal executions. No German would have translated the word 'gaschamber' as vergasungskeller. They have a perfectly good German wordfor that... a gaskammer." (33-9363, 9364)

Christie noted that the Crown had quoted a man named MartinBroszat during his cross- examination of Irving. What was Broszat'sjob?

"He is now the director of the Institute of Contemporary Historyin Munich, which is a very good historical institute partly funded byGerman federal funds and partly by provincial funds...My dealing withthe Institute of History began in late 1963 before he became directorof the institute. The institute has acquired my entire researchcollections of documents which are now housed in that building as theDavid Irving Collection and I have suspended further deliveries ofdocuments until Broszat resigns or retires." Irving testified thatthere were personal animosities between himself and Broszat which"began in the 1970s over a certain young lady who is now living withhim...further animosity was caused by the fact that I revealed thatdocuments that the Broszat institute published were forgeries. Thediary of...Engel turned out to have been written on post-war paperand yet the Institute went ahead and published this diary knowingthat it would pollute the writing of history for many decadesafterwards...It is now recognized as a forgery and yet the instituteof Dr. Broszat still publishes it." (33-9366, 9367)

Christie turned to the subject of the Posen speech of HeinrichHimmler. Said Irving: "In October, 1943, Heinrich Himmler, the chiefof the SS, delivered two speeches, one to the SS generals and one tothe Gauleiters - the Nazi party district chiefs, the governors of thedistricts." Irving had examined the transcripts of the speech andother archival materials: "I looked at Heinrich Himmler's handwrittennotes on the basis of which he delivered those speeches, I looked atthe typescript of the transcript made from the recording of thespeeches, I looked at the final copy made that have typescript in thespecial large typewriter face that was used for Adolf Hitler to read,so the speeches exist in several copies and I understand that in theNational Archives, there is also a sound recording of the twospeeches." (33-9368)

Did he have any reason to question the accuracies of the Posenspeech?, asked Christie.

"[In] both speeches which I referred to," said Irving,"Heinrich Himmler made startling admissions to his very selectaudience which amounted to the fact that he was - he had given orderspersonally not only for the killing of certain Jewish men, but alsofor the killing of certain Jewish women and children and he tried tojustify what he was doing, using, if I may say so, rather the samekind of language as [Israeli Prime Minister] Mr. Shamir nowuses in the West Bank, saying that we have to carry out this task inorder to be able to live in security in future. This was the languagethat Himmler used and I arrived at the very strange discovery when Ilooked at the transcript of both those speeches that those two pageshad been retyped at some other date. I can't say whether it wasretyped before or after the bulk of the speech, but they had beentyped by a different secretary on a different typewriter usingdifferent carbon paper. Obviously you only discover this if you lookat the original documents which the average historian is not patientenough to do. They had been retyped and they had been repaginated inpencil at that point and I have to say to preempt your question, Ihave no explanation why. It just raises the fact that a document - ifa document has been retyped at a key point, then I hold that documentto be suspect." (33-9368, 9369)

Do historians generally have any criterion for accepting documentsas being both authentic, genuine and true or do they simply take themat their face value?, asked Christie.

"It depends very much on the historian," replied Irving. "Thegreen historian who is fresh out of university and not inquisitive,will be happy to accept the printed volumes of documents particularlyif they have pictures in them and an index at the end. Later on, youlearn not to trust printed volumes of documents. If I can give oneexample from my Churchill research, there is a report by the AmericanAssistant Secretary of State, Sumner Welles, on a visit to Churchillin March 1940, describing how he found Churchill in a state ofcomplete intoxication in the admiralty. The printed version of thisdocument and the American government volumes omits those sentencesdescribing Churchill's drunkenness, but the original report by theSecretary of State in the Roosevelt library contains those sentences.So, I can only say that a historian must be very careful about usingprinted or even photocopied documents."(33-9369, 9370)

Irving had also studied the Goebbels diaries: "I am very familiarwith the Goebbels diaries insofar as they have been publiclyavailable and in the course of the next twelve months I shall beginreading the entire microfiche of the Goebbels diaries that have nowbecome available to western historians," said Irving. "They appearedin a very mysterious way from the custody of the East Germangovernment, where they have been held since the end of the SecondWorld War unknown to us; we didn't know those diaries were there andthen they suddenly turned up. I have to say from what I have seen sofar, I consider the diaries to be genuine, but we have to apply onceagain the third criteria of Trevor-Roper which is, 'Why did they comeinto existence'? Why did Goebbels write them?" The diaries werepartly written and partly transcribed: "Many early years are writtenin his very difficult, indecipherable handwriting. The later yearswhen he was Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany, he dictated themonto a recording machine and his secretary transcribed them each day,sometimes at very great length. Sometimes 139 pages on one day in1943." (33-9370, 9371)

He was also familiar with the Wannsee Conference documents: "InJanuary 1942, there was a conference at a house in Berlin, Wannsee,an inter-agency or inter ministerial conference between statesecretaries. The state secretaries were like the deputy minister in aministry and they were discussing the technicalities of the finalsolution of the Jewish problem, and to understand the Wannseeprotocol, it is not enough just to look at that document. You have tolook at the entire file containing that document. And you thenrealize what the document is about. Even then it is written in veryobscure civil service language and several of the participants in theWannsee Conference subsequently testified in later criminalproceedings that they emerged from that conversation no wiser thanwhen they went in. Certainly none of them had - certainly none ofthem had any idea that at that conference there had been a discussionof liquidation of Jews." (33-9371, 9372)

Had he investigated the trials of these individuals?, askedChristie.

"I read the records of the Wilhelmstrasse trial," said Irving,"which is the second trial to be held in the post-Nurembergproceedings series after the plain Nuremberg trial. There were twelvesubsequent proceedings. The Wilhelmstrasse trial was the second one.None of them testified that there had been any discussion ofliquidation of the Jews at the Wannsee Conference." (33-9372,9373)

Christie referred to the letter from Goering to Heydrich of July1941 which had figured prominently in both Hilberg's and Browning'stestimony and asked if Irving was familiar with it. Irving repliedthat he was: "On July the 31st, 1941, as is said from HermannGoering's private diary, which I suppose I'm one of the very fewpeople to have used it in the original, on the afternoon of that day,Reinhard Heydrich, the chief of the Gestapo, visited Goering who waspassing very rapidly through Berlin and put a pile of documents onthe desk for Goering to sign, one of which was a piece of what Iwould describe as legal bumph, where Heydrich is just saying toGoering, 'In 1939, you gave me orders to carry out certain measuresconnected with the Jewish solution, will you now extend the authoritygiven by those orders to the new territories in Russia which we'vecaptured'. That is what the document says. I wouldn't attempt torepeat the document from memory. I'm sure it's in the court files.July the 31st, 1941, Goering signs the document for Heydrich withoutever even bothering to read it. It's a piece of legal bumph whichagain says nothing about killing Jews. It is talking about theoverall solution of the Jewish problem which, as I testified earliertoday, was at that time regarded to be the geographical resettlementof Jews, relocating them from where they were at that time."(33-9373, 9374)

Did those sources - the Posen speech, the Goebbels diary, theWannsee Conference and the letter of July 31, 1941 - indicate anyplan to exterminate European Jews?, asked Christie.

"No," said Irving. "There is no explicit reference either implicitin these documents or legible in these documents to liquidation ofJews. They are all equally applicable to any other solution. Ofcourse, relocation of the Jews in the middle of a war was a radicalsolution but it is not what is described as the 'Holocaust.'"(33-9374)

Does the existence of these documents indicate to you that thereis any other material that would corroborate an exterminationprogramme?, asked Christie.

"I think it highly unlikely. It is very difficult to prove anegative to say that documents don't exist. But I will say is, if thedocuments did exist, I would have found them by now and if I hadn'tfound them, then certainly the Holocaust historians would have foundthem by now, explicit documents, and as you may know I have offeredrepeatedly around the world a thousand pounds for any wartimecontemporary document showing that Adolf Hitler even knew what wasgoing on, whatever it was, whatever is now described as the'Holocaust' and they haven't been able to find that let aloneexplicit orders or documentary evidence about gas chambers or thesimilar kind of documentary material." (33-9374, 9375)

In your research as a historian, asked Christie, do you considerit likely that an enterprise of the magnitude of the extermination ofthe Jews of Europe could be accomplished by the people[Germans] knowing the way they conducted their business fromtheir documents without the existence of explicit orders andplans?

"Not only without existence of orders," said Irving, "but alsowithout the existence of any written reference to it. I have to saythat the German wartime civil servant was basically a - a cowardlyanimal and he would not do something that he considered to becriminal without getting a document clearing himself. He would gethis superior to write a letter saying, 'On the Führer's orders,we are doing the following', which is why there are letters showingHimmler saying, 'On the Führer's orders, we are deporting theJews.' Which was the extent of the Führer's orders and which wasthe extent, to my mind, of the final solution. So the documents don'texist where you would expect to find them. Hitler's other crimes, thedocuments are there: the euthanasia order, the order to kill Britishcommandos, the orders to lynch American airmen, the orders for thekilling of the male population of Stalingrad if ever they occupiedit. Hitler's other crimes, simple crimes, the documents are therewhere you expect to find them. And yet this biggest crime of all,there is no document...I think there would definitely have had to beorders and these orders would have been referred to in countlessfiles of different ministerial bodies. So, it would have beenimpossible for these documents to have been destroyed at the end ofthe war. There would always be carbon copies somewhere." (33-9375,9376)

The term ausrotten, said Christie, has been represented to mean'extermination' in the literal sense. Have you examined that word inits context in the various speeches of Adolf Hitler?

"I am very fluent in the German language, having lived in thatcountry for a long time and having read, of course, millions of wordsin the German language in context," said Irving. "There is no doubtthat in modern Germany the word ausrotten now means murder. But wehave to look at the meaning of the word ausrotten in the 1930s andthe 1940s, as used by those who wrote or spoke these documents. Inthe mouth of Adolf Hitler, the word ausrotten is never once used tomean murder, and I've made a study of that particular semanticproblem. You can find document after document which Hitler himselfspoke or wrote where the word ausrotten cannot possibly mean murder.I can give one or two examples briefly. In August 1936, Hitlerdictated the famous memorandum on the four year plan which containsthe phrase 'if the Bolsheviks succeed in entering Germany, it willlead to the ausrotten of the German people'. Now, clearly, he doesn'tmean that if the Bolsheviks invade Germany it will lead to the murderof 50 million Germans. He is saying it will lead to the end ofGermany as a national state, as a power, as a factor, an end of theGerman people. He says the same to the Czechoslovakian President EmilHácha, on March the 15th, 1939. Hácha has just signedaway Czechoslovakia's independence in a midnight session with Hitlerand Hitler says to him afterwards, 'It is a good thing that yousigned because otherwise it would have meant the ausrotten of theCzechoslovakian people'. Hitler didn't mean, 'If you hadn't signed, Iwould have had to kill 8 million Czechs.' What he is saying[is], 'If you hadn't signed, I would have endedCzechoslovakia's existence as a separate country.' There are variousother examples of that and I defy anybody to find the meaning of theword differently used by Adolf Hitler to mean the word 'murder'. Thisis the kind of analysis which unfortunately the academic historianshave not bothered to conduct." (33-9377, 9378)

Could you give us your opinion of the value of Did Six MillionReally Die?, asked Christie.

"It has a - a value I would suggest in technical terms of acatalyst. It has existed rather like the grain of sand inside anoyster. It has provoked and irritated people [in] rather thesame way but on a different level that my book Hitler's War did. Ithas forced people to prove what they have been maintaining - to puttheir money where their mouth is in common terms - and they haven'tbeen able to do it and because they haven't been able to prove whatthey've been maintaining for thirty or forty years, they resort toextramural methods. In Germany, it is declared a criminal offence nowto question certain historical facts. In other countries, I thinkjudicial notice is taken of them." (33-9378, 9379) Irving estimated"over 90 percent of the brochure Did Six Million Really Die? to befactually accurate on the basis of the facts which I arrived at by anentirely different approach, namely, the documentary basis."(33-9388)

Irving testified that he was familiar with the subject of KurtGerstein: "I have examined the Kurt Gerstein report and its variousadaptations and having read the very interesting doctoraldissertation by the Frenchman Henri Roques, which was produced ayear-and-a-half ago, I came to the conclusion on the basis of thedocuments that Roques found in the French police files, on the basisof my own family experience with a handicapped member of my family,that Gerstein himself was probably unstable when he wrote his variousreports." Irving did not examine the documents in their originalform: "I examined facsimiles. Had I been a Holocaust historian, ofcourse, I would have gone into much greater detail and demanded tosee the originals." Irving had also examined facsimiles of Gerstein'swritings of a personal nature, which were found among his effectsafter his suicide. (33-9379, 9381)

In the course of his research, Irving was required to makeassessments of the credibility of the people who had produced thedocuments: "Indeed I do, and one can do so on the internal evidenceof the document itself or of associated events and documents. In thiscase, the suicide or apparent suicide of the person who wrote thedocument is a clear sign of mental instability...The documentsthemselves are unstable. The most graphic description of that are thewords, that the facts and dates contained by the documents varydramatically," said Irving. As a historian, he had made these typesof assessments in regard to other documents as well: "Yes, over theyears I have repeatedly had to do so. One has to weigh documents."(33-9380)

Irving testified that Professor Hans Mommsen of the University ofBochum now shared his thesis pertaining to the absence of a plan ororder. That had not been the case in 1970. Said Irving: "...At theend of the Second World War, the - the professorial bodies at theinstitutes of higher learning in Germany were extensively re-staffed.New textbooks were introduced; the professors were retaught. Theuniversity system produced, in its turn, new professors. There was abroadly held body of opinion as to what had happened and it has notbeen without - not to be wondered at, as fresh documents becameavailable, then this opinion is changed. Fresh hypotheses are raisedby authorized or unauthorized writers and even the academics thenhave to change their minds." Irving himself had changed his mind overthe years. In a book he published many years before on the VietnamWar, he had referred "to the 6 million who were killed at Auschwitzand if I was to be asked now why did I write that, then I would haveto quote the words of William Casey and I - 'I believe[d]',but since then, since having spent ten years writing the Hitlerbiography and since having worked in the world's archives, I've cometo question that belief which was an oversimple belief." (33-9381,9382)

In your opinion as a historian, asked Christie, from what you haveseen of the information about the subject, has the Holocaust beensufficiently investigated to determine accurately its extent andmeaning?

"I think there has been virtually no investigation of theHolocaust," replied Irving. "When we realize that Mr. Zündel,the defendant in this case, is the first person who has gone to thetrouble to get the aerial photographs of the German concentrationcamps, the kind of concrete evidence that anybody is entitled todemand when you're carrying out an investigation, this shows us howwe can - all the other historians on that field, including myself -have been. And the same kind of forensic examination which has nowbeen made of the site, an idea which hadn't occurred to me one couldconduct - really getting down to the basics of what happened. Thishas not been done by historians of the Holocaust." (33-9382,9383)

Are there factual errors in major history books?, askedChristie.

"Oh, yes. I think it would be a foolish historian who denies hemakes errors on Adolf Hitler. The standard works like Alan Bullock,his book Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, is riddled with errors and yetthat book goes into reprint after reprint. William Shirer's book TheRise and Fall of the Third Reich, is a very good book in its way,written at a very early stage. It is based entirely on theprosecution documents at Nuremberg and, as such, is out of balanceand also contains misstatements of fact. These are gradually reshapedand corrected as the years pass. One never really establishes totaltruth. One only approximates to it." (33-9383)

Christie turned to Did Six Million Really Die? and some of thespecific allegations made in it. Did Irving know of any indicationthat Ohlendorf, for example, was tortured?

"Oh, yes," said Irving. "The SS General Ohlendorf and the SSGeneral Pohl were both very severely maltreated at Nuremberg and inthe internment camps where they were held by the Allies after theSecond World War and prior to their testimony. They subsequentlytestified to that to their fellow prisoners like Field Marshal Milch,who kept a diary which I have and also in the subsequenttrials...Field-Marshal Milch was the second person in the German airforce. He was threatened with severe punishment unless he testifiedagainst Goering. On November the 5th, 1945, an American, who is aMajor Ernst Engländer, who is a Wall Street financier, whopresented himself to Milch as Major Evans, instructed him that hewould be subjected to a war crimes trial unless he agreed to perjurehimself against Goering. Milch refused to perjure himself andalthough there was an animosity between himself and Goering, he wentinto the witness stand and spoke in defence of Goering and on thenext day, Milch was thrown into the punishment bunker at Dachauconcentration camp, a bunker which had been designed by the SS tohold one recalcitrant prisoner, but which the Americans were usingrather more economically in as much as they put six prisoners in thisone-man bunker, all of them Field-Marshals as a punishment. Milch wasthen subjected to a war crimes trial and sentenced to lifeimprisonment. Admiral Eberhard Godt, the Chief of Staff, wasthreatened with hanging unless he...testified that Dönitz hadgiven illegal orders and so on. There's a whole string of examples ofthe coercion of prisoners at Nuremberg." (33-9384, 9385)

Irving testified that "[t]he principal trial was the trialof the major war criminals at Nuremberg from October 1945 to October1946. There was then a series of twelve subsequent proceedingsagainst Milch, who was the first trial, and then the Wilhelmstrassetrial defendants...The legal records, the whole of the legal systemat Nuremberg was unlike any other legal system. No appeal waspermitted. The procedure for hearing witnesses was remarkable. Theaffidavits were submitted [e]ven [if] their witnesseswere present in person and could have testified personally...many,many hundreds of thousands of affidavits were submitted with nochance for the defence to cross-examine the person who had submittedthe affidavit as to the conditions under which he had given theaffidavit, sworn the affidavit." (33-9385, 9386)

Irving was familiar with the book on the Manstein war crimes trialwritten by Paget. Said Irving: "R.T. Paget was a labour member ofParliament who was a King's Counsel, defence counsel of Field-MarshalManstein, one of the most illustrious German soldiers. He was puton...trial by the British in Hamburg. I read that book when I wastwenty-two with great fascination and increasing indignation to readof the methods that had been used to obtain testimony from prisoners,including the very severe maltreatment, brutalization of a number ofwitnesses." As a result, Irving made inquiries of certain documentsfrom the National Archives in Washington: "In the very early 1960s, Iobtained from them a complete photocopy of the Simpson Commission ofInquiries which the American Justice Department, to its credit, sentto Europe to investigate the allegations that American officers weretorturing German defence witnesses." After reading the document, saidIrving, "I formed the opinion that in future, one would have to bevery, very cautious before accepting without verification theevidence sworn by defence or prosecution witnesses in the Nurembergtrials." (33-9387)

In the course of your research, asked Christie, have youdiscovered new documents as you went along or documents now beingmade available that were not available in the past?

"It's a continuous process. For example, I have contacts with theRussians who provided me copies of the German documents that theRussians captured at the end of the war. I am constantly generatingnew sources of documents which I make available to internationalhistorians all over the world." (33-9388)

Irving testified that he was familiar with Sefton Delmer: "SeftonDelmer was a former German citizen who emigrated to Britain fairlyearly on and worked for the British propaganda agency, thepsychological warfare executive, as a clandestine broadcaster,broadcasting what is called black propaganda; in other words,disinformation and lies to the enemy over clandestine radiotransmitters. A very good journalist but not a man that one wouldturn to establish the truth." Irving did not know whether Delmer hadbeen involved in activities in Germany after the war or not: "He mayhave been but I'm not familiar with that." (33-9388, 9389)

Christie turned to the subject of the Hans Frank diaries andwhether Irving was familiar with them. Said Irving: "Very familiarwith the Hans Frank diaries which is - the original Hans Frankdiaries are in very many volumes, seventeen or twenty volumes oftypescript and handwriting containing not just what we describe asdiaries but also the verbatim transcripts of very many records ofconferences which he attended...I read them from the angle ofsomebody...writing a biography of Adolf Hitler, so I was specificallyinterested in any reference to Adolf Hitler's doings and wrongdoingsand the doings and wrongdoings of the Third Reich under Hitler'srule." In Irving's opinion the diaries did not verify the existenceof any plan for or any extermination of the Jews of Europe: "There isno reference in the Hans Frank diaries," said Irving, "and one wouldexpect them, because Hans Frank was the Governor General of Poland,or the Governor General of the area of...Poland where theextermination camps are now supposed to have existed. There is noexplicit reference in the Hans Frank diaries from start to finish togas chambers or to a mass extermination of the Jews as governmentpolicy whatsoever. And this is a unique source because it is sohomogenous the whole way through. The most remarkable passage I foundwas in February or March, 1944, and I have quoted it in Hitler's War,where he has a long conference with Hitler as the Russians areinvading Poland, his own territory, and Frank wants to know what todo and there's a passage there where Hans Frank writes in his diarysaying, 'the Führer said to me how glad we are...solving theproblem by deporting the Jews to all the different territories.'Words to that effect. When you see something like that, you have tosay [to] yourself, are we all writing the same language? Dideither of them know what is supposed to have been going on?"(33-9389, 9390)

Irving referred to Adolf Hitler's reaction when Auschwitz wascaptured by the Soviets in 1945: "On January the 26th or January the27th, 1945, the Russian troops overran Auschwitz and on this day, thestenographers, who took down in Hitler's headquarters every word hespoke, recorded a passage which has survived. We have the fragment ofwhat he said. General Guderian reported to the Führer,'Yesterday the Russians overran Auschwitz', and Hitler just replied,'Oh, yes.' Now, if Hitler had known what was going on, if Hitler hadknown what was supposed to have been going on, he would surely havesaid something like, 'Well, let's hope they manage to get rid of it'or 'They're not going to find anything.' All he said was 'Oh, yes'and move on to the next business. This is the kind of clue that onehas. Straws in the wind. Altogether it makes a very differentpicture." (33-9390, 9391)

Are you familiar with someone by the name of Robert Kempner?,asked Christie.

"Robert M. W. Kempner, an attorney now in Frankfurt, was[with] Goering's Ministry of the Interior in Prussia in 1933.He emigrated to America because of the Nazi anti-semitism. There hebecame a successful attorney. He returned to Nuremberg after the warand he became a leading member of the American prosecution staff inthe rebuttal division...Robert Kempner used methods of coercion toprevent witnesses from testifying in certain ways. Friedrich Gaus...alegal member of the German Foreign Ministry, testified to this in asubsequent trial and affidavit that he had been threatened by Kempnerwith being handed over to the Russians unless he withdrew certainincriminating testimony. By incriminating, I mean testimony that wasgoing to incriminate the Russians." (33-9391, 9392)

Irving testified that at Nuremberg, the "prosecution witnesses,the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the prosecution werecosseted. They were flown in by special plane; they were housed inthe few remaining luxury hotels in Nuremberg. They were lavishly fed.They were well paid and they were promised jobs in the American zoneof Germany." On the other hand, he testified: "The defence witnesseswere universally badly treated. They were housed in the criminalwings in the Nuremberg Palace of Justice. They were housed in cellswith no windows; in winter in unheated cells. They were very poorlyfed. They were subjected to coercion and physical maltreatment." SaidIrving: "I think that not only I but I think reputable lawyers aroundthe world are rather ashamed about the Nuremberg proceedings.Certainly Justice Robert H. Jackson, the American chief prosecutor,was ashamed about them as is quite evident from his privatediary...I've examined it. I've had privileged access to that diary inthe Library of Congress...I have made a copy of it which I could makeavailable if necessary...Shortly after Robert H. Jackson was giventhe job by President Truman of conducting the American prosecution atNuremberg, he learned of the American plans to drop the atomic bombsand from that moment on, he became very uneasy with what he, himself,was doing. Prosecuting for one nation, crimes it had committed, beingfully aware that the United States was about to commit and indeedcommitting a crime of an even greater magnitude." (33-9392 to9394)

The unfairness of the Nuremberg proceedings extended to the mannerin which documentary evidence was handled. "The procedure withdocuments [at] Nuremberg was rather rare," said Irving. "Theprosecution obtained all the documents for its own purposes and thedefence was then allowed to build up its case entirely on the basisof the prosecution collection of documents. No collection ofdocuments by the defence was made possible by the authorities inNuremberg. They were allowed very limited access to the documentscollected exclusively for the purposes of the prosecution."(33-9394)

In Irving's opinion, many of the witnesses at Nuremberg and otherwar crimes trials were unreliable. An example was Karl Wolff: "MajorGeneral Karl Wolff was the liaison officer between Hitler andHimmler, an SS general, a character I would describe as being arather suave character who ended up, by reason of his personalfavouritism with Himmler, in charge of the police units in northernItaly at the end of the war and as the military commander in thatregion, and largely in order to create an alibi, he then begannegotiating with the American secret service in order to speed thesurrender of the German troops in northern Italy...Wolff testified onmany occasions over the years up to his death, frequently varying histestimony according to...which way he was being required to testify.He was always acutely aware of the fact that he had done a deal withthe Americans whereby the Americans...promised him immunity and thesubsequent West German government also promised him immunity fromprosecution if he behaved in a certain way." (33 9394, 9395)

Another example was Dieter Wisliceny: "Dieter Wisliceny was a highSS official who was held by the Communist authorities at the end ofthe war, and among the private papers which Hugh Trevor-Roper, theBritish historian, made available to me, was a long, handwrittenaccount by Wisliceny which greatly amplifies the version which ismore familiar and known to historians...I read the Wisliceny reportwith great interest and entertainment, but one has to say that theinternal evidence suggested that it was not a document that could betaken seriously in the absence of collateral evidence." Irvingcontinued: "He explained things for which there was not a trace inthe archives. He described episodes and matters - well, for example,he describes a conversation with Adolf Eichmann and Adolf Eichmannshowing to him a Führer document, a Führer order. Well,there is no such order. It has not been seen and we then have tounderstand in human terms why Wisliceny is writing this down...It waswritten in Bratislava (or Pressburg) in Czechoslovakia... He wasbeing held in rather inhumane conditions in captivity at the end ofthe war...by the Communist authorities." (33-9396, 9397)

The Allied authorities also ensured that certain witnesses were"not available" for the defence, such as Karl Koller: "General KarlKoller...[w]as the Chief of Staff of the German air force atthe end of the war. I have his private diaries and papers...hispresence was required by the defence at Nuremberg but the Americanspretended that they didn't know where to find him. They had, in fact,locked him away in a prison camp and were interrogating him at thattime. This was one typical example of the Americans obstructing thedefence at Nuremberg. Karl Wolff was locked up in a lunatic asylumand the Americans pretended they didn't know where he was either andhe didn't surface again until 1947." (33-9395, 9396)

Christie turned to the subject of the Eichmann trial and askedIrving if he considered the information there to be of value tohistorians.

"I think the Eichmann trial is already getting very late in theday as far as recollected testimony is concerned. I personallyhesitate to question a witness thirty or forty years after an eventas to what happened. You can no longer separate in his mind, nomatter how willing the witness is, what really happened and what hehas in the meantime read has happened...I recollect from the parts ofhis testimony that I have read - and I can't purport to have read allthe Eichmann testimony for the reason I just said - I recollect atone stage where Eichmann interrupts himself to say 'one moment, Iwant to point out what I just said I can no longer recollect whetherI actually saw this or whether I'm recollecting what you told me Isaw.' And this, I think, is a very honest statement by Eichmann wherehe is questioning his own powers of recollection. In human terms youhave to say it's not unlikely in 1963 or 1964, when that trial washeld, much had happened." (33-9397, 9398)

Irving had been involved in the publication of the book Ich, AdolfEichmann: "Adolf Eichmann's son, who is an engineer in Germany,approached me and revealed he had all the tape recordings that hisfather had made several years before his kidnapping. And the sonwanted to know what to do with these tape recorded memoirs of hisfather. I suggested he should transcribe them and have them publishedby the world's publishers as a historical source. Again ofquestionable value, depending on when the [tape] recordingswere made, but certainly of great historical interest to historiansto see how versions of events had changed over the years. Andsubsequently, those were published, I think, in the English language,the German language and Spanish." (33-9398, 9399)

Had Irving himself undertaken any investigation of the Anne Frankdiaries?, asked Christie.

"The Anne Frank diaries have had a long and checkered history,"said Irving, "which is best described by the present state of play,as a result of a court decision in a libel action. The father of AnneFrank, with whom I corresponded over many years, finally relented andallowed the diaries to be submitted to the kind of laboratoryexamination that I always insist [upon] where a document isin question. As a result of this laboratory examination carried outby the West German criminal police laboratory, in Wiesbaden, it wasdetermined that the Anne Frank diaries were partly written inball-point pen. It's a long story. I'm not going to bore you with thedetails. My own conclusion on the Anne Frank diaries is for thegreater part they are authentic writings of a pubescent teenageJewish girl who was locked up and hidden, that they were then takenby her father, Otto Frank, after the girl's tragic death of typhus ina concentration camp, and her father or other persons unknown amendedthe diaries into a saleable form as a result of which he and the AnneFrank Foundation became rich, but as a historical document they arecompletely worthless by virtue of having been tampered with."(33-9399, 9400)

Irving continued: "Anne Frank's father, Otto Frank, fought anumber of legal actions to defend the authenticity of the diaries andthe first legal action which I believe was fought in Lübeck, heintroduced handwriting evidence of a graphologist and an affidavitswearing that the diaries were written throughout in the samehandwriting. Subsequently, I stated in the introduction of the Germanedition of my Hitler biography, that a number of forged documentsexisted which were unquestionably accepted and I've mentioned them incourt today, the Canaris diary, the Engel diaries, and I mentionedthe Anne Frank diary, which was one of dubious authenticity. AnneFrank's father threatened my German publishers with libelproceedings. The German publishers paid him a cash settlement to shutup without consulting me. I would have told them they were on verysafe ground. Subsequently, he has litigated against other people, butin the meantime this litigation has now been - is being spun out,because the only remaining trial I believe is in northern Germany andthey are playing it for time. They're waiting for the defendant todie." (33-9400, 9401)

Christie noted that one of the publications tendered as an exhibitin the court was the book The Hitler We Loved and Why. Was Hitlerloved in Germany?

"I think I'm right in saying in April 1938, 48 million Germansloved Adolf Hitler and about 200,000 didn't. That was as a result ofa perfectly genuine plebiscite that was held shortly after theannexation of Austria by the Germans. I think there's not theslightest evidence that this plebiscite was faked in any way. I don'tsee how you can fake a referendum on that scale, and yet 48 millionadult Germans voted for Adolf Hitler. I would like to add Ipersonally found the title rather tasteless," said Irving. (33-9401,9402)

Did Churchill have anything good to say about Adolf Hitler?, askedChristie.

"In the 1930[s], when Churchill was not in Parliament andhe lived from journalism and writing in the Evening Standard inSeptember 1937, he had words of high praise for Adolf Hitler...Wordsto the effect that, 'If Britain...should ever come into the positionthat Germany was in, I would hope that one day we would find anational leader of the stature of Adolf Hitler'." (33- 9402)

Christie asked Irving if there was a document called Table-Talk byHeinrich Heim and whether there was a reference in that to theposition of Jews after the war.

"Indeed," said Irving. "Heinrich Heim was the adjutant of MartinBormann who wrote down on a day by day basis a detailed semi-verbatimrecord of Adolf Hitler's lunch-time and dinner-timeconversation...Hitler repeatedly referred to his post war plans withthe Jews. He refers in the Table-Talk in July 1942, I believe I'mright in saying, to his plans for the deportation or relocation ofthe Jews elsewhere and Heinrich Heim was a very reputable Germancivil servant who is alive, in fact. I have no doubt that is anaccurate rendering of Hitler's words." Irving testified that he hadmet Heinrich Heim: "I have also made use of the original paper of theTable- Talk. I'm one of the few privileged historians to have usedthat material. It's in private hands in Switzerland." (33-9402,9403)

Christie referred back to Did Six Million Really Die? and askedIrving for his opinion on its conclusions regarding the number ofJews who survived. Said Irving: "Let me say at this point I thinkthis conclusion...they are aiming at here is justified. I amdelighted that so many Jews survived what they now describe as the'Holocaust' and I am puzzled at the apparent lack of logic: that theNazis are supposed to have had a government policy for thedeliberate, ruthless, systematic extermination of the Jews inAuschwitz and other places of murder and yet tens if not hundreds ofthousands of Jews passed through these camps and are, I am glad tosay, alive and well amongst us now to testify to their survival. Soeither the Nazis had no such programme or they were an exceedinglysloppy race, which isn't the image that we have of them today. It'sanother of the logical questions which is being asked in this historywhich the historians hitherto have not asked." (33-9403, 9404)

Do you consider it possible to be accurate in terms of statisticalanalysis?, asked Christie. Irving did not: "No, I shy away fromstatistics. I am very, very nervous. I had a one year's training instatistics at university. I know how risky it is to operate withstatistics, different tables or different fields or differentsources. It's like subtracting apples from potatoes - you can't saythere were so many Jews here at the beginning of the war and so manyJews there at the end of the war and subtract one total from theother and say this is the difference. I say this whether it helps orhinders the defence or prosecution. I am very nervous about massstatistics." (33 9404)

Was the conclusion of Did Six Million Really Die?, that the numberof Jews who died in concentration camps could only be measured inthousands, legitimate and arguable?, asked Christie.

"Well, I refer to my previous answer," said Irving, "and say thatI'm very nervous giving opinions about statistics. Do we mean died orkilled?" (33-9405)

Christie indicated roughly 6 million were allegedly killed byeither gassing or by the Einsatzgruppen. In your research, askedChristie, has there been any indication of hard evidence for numbersat all?

"Certain numbers for certain specific tragedies. One episodeoutside Dvinsk, being on the road to Dvinsk being in November 1941,certainly there was an episode there ...a mass grave had been dug anda mass execution...of unidentified civilians was being carried out byunidentified people. It was witnessed by one German Major GeneralWalter Bruns. There is another episode which was witnessed byHitler's photographer, Walter Frentz, who described it to me...fromhis own memory what he had seen when he accompanied Heinrich Himmler.Again one isolated episode behind the front, nothing to do withAuschwitz or Treblinka or the so-called extermination camps. So,we're looking there at several hundred if not several thousand peoplebeing killed in specific, isolated episodes which are repeatedlyserved up again and again as being examples of what was going on. Ican only look at them as isolated episodes of what was going on."(33-9405, 9406)

Is there any hard evidence to support the estimates of millions ofJews gassed, for example, 4 million in Auschwitz-Birkenau?, askedChristie.

"No documentary, contemporaneous evidence of the kind that wouldsatisfy me," said Irving, "but I think that other historians mayperhaps be less pernickety...I think Winston Churchill once definedthe job of a historian [is] to find out what happened and whyand those are the major areas of historical fact that a historianshould try to investigate. What happened and why and the Holocausthistorians haven't really established either fact, in the case of theHolocaust, what really happened and why it happened." (33-9406)

In Irving's opinion it was the reader who decided what constituteda historical fact: "The reader. The reader on the balance ofprobabilities having weighed up not just one source but severalsources. He can buy my book on Winston Churchill, he can buy MartinGilbert's book on Winston Churchill and he can decide where on thetwo scales...the truth about Winston Churchill lies, but he has tohave the alternate sources to look at. He can't have one bookpresented to him and be told this is the truth, take it or lump it.Take it or go to prison. That would be a very unacceptable form ofsociety." (33-9406, 9407)

Irving pointed out that history was "constantly being revised. Imentioned the episode of the British code-breaking operations. Until1974, the British official historians, the government historians,were not allowed to be told and not allowed to reveal that we Britishhad been reading the German, the Japanese, the Spanish, the American,the Italian codes by computer. This is a so- called Ultra secret.Knowledge of that is, of course, crucial to the knowledge of how wewon the war and yet our entire multi-volume official history of theSecond World War until 1974 makes no mention of this. They are goingto have to be rewritten. All history books are going to have to berewritten since 1974 since that one fact became known and so it is inmany other fields. It would be a sad day if there was no work for thehistorian to do. I say that with profound conviction as aprofessional historian." (33-9407, 9408)

And does a historian, asked Christie, when he's confronted with adocument, have to take time to test and evaluate that source todetermine its accuracies?

"Certainly with some documents," replied Irving. "Usually ahistorian will very rapidly get the feeling for where he can be easywith a document and comfortable, and where suddenly his ears prick upand say to himself, wait a minute, I didn't know this. This is soegregious, this fact, so unusual, can I trust it? There's one or twodocuments in the Holocaust mythology which make me very suspiciousfor no other reason than that they stand out too much. They arestatistic oddities. It looks nice, it looks neat, it looks as thoughsuddenly there's proof, there's 100,000 Jews been killed as partisansand Hitler's told this. And yet we have to say to ourselves, whysuddenly this one document which looks like none of the otherdocuments in that series? This is where you have to act a bit like amagistrate and say well, it's nice, I will take notice of that but Iwant to see more, please. The historian should be constantly weighingand evaluating and not necessarily accepting without question."(33-9408)

Does the fact that documents are located in archives satisfy thosetests?, asked Christie.

"I shall disappoint you, I think, by saying on balance, usuallyyes," replied Irving. "I have rarely if ever come across an archivedocument which is fake. It is very difficult to get a fake documentinto an archive. Having said that, I would add it's not impossibleand one would then want to look at the file of documents and say doesthis document, which is controversial, look different in any way? Isthe paper newer? Is the ink of the signature fresher? Are the holesin a different position? Questions like that. I mean, the way thedocument looks; it's not impossible to put fake documents intoarchives. Certainly they get stolen out of them. But all the fakesthat have been put to me - I emphasize all the fakes that have beenput to me - come from private hands and not archival sources."(33-9409)

Did you investigate the effects of the breaking of the Germancodes upon the whole question of the Holocaust in relation totransportation of millions of people without orders?, askedChristie.

"Well, it is unlikely that the Germans could have been issuingcriminal orders for the liquidation of millions of people or evenhundreds of thousands of people to their SS or police units on theeastern front without us British knowing of it at the time from ourcode-breaking operations. And of course the Germans, at the end ofthe war, could not have required us to destroy those records."(33-9409, 9410)

There were, however, references during the war to allegations ofmass gassings of Jews in some Allied documents: "I am familiar withthe...British archives, the public records office, of attempts tostart a black propaganda campaign alleging that the Germans wereemploying gas chambers and at one stage the head of the Britishsecret service is being cautioned not to go too far with thispropaganda because it will make the whole - it will undermine thecredibility of the propaganda effort if we go too far with theseallegations...This would have been in 1944," said Irving. The factthat these allegations were now made so freely was due, said Irving,to what the chief rabbi of Britain, Lord Jakobovits, said had"unfortunately ...become big business with whose teams of scriptwriters and screen writers and journalists and newspaper writers,making great money out of it. I think it's a great tragedy." (339410, 9411)

As a writer yourself, you've been involved in publishing, saidChristie. Do you have any knowledge of what would happen if you werewriting about the subject of the Holocaust in your own books in amore favourable way than you have?

"After I wrote Hitler's War, my front door was smashed down by agentleman with a sledgehammer," replied Irving. "I was raided bypeople disguised [as] telephone engineers who turned out tobe from a Jewish organization in Britain. The people who printed thisin Britain...had their printing works burned to the ground by one ofthese fake engineers. They all went to prison. I am an ordinarywriter with a family who is frightened for - I don't like to besubjected to this kind of terror. If I was to write the other kind ofbook, if I was to follow the general line of the present Holocaustmythology, the easy acceptance of it all, 'Adolf Hitler ordered thekilling of 6 million Jews in Auschwitz', I would do a very good jobof it because I'm a good writer and I would be rich beyond the dreamsof avarice, but I couldn't live with my own conscience."(33-9411)

[The testimony which follows was given by Irving in theabsence of the jury in support of an application by defence attorneyDouglas Christie for leave to introduce the Leuchter Report intoevidence and to allow Irving to give his expert opinion on its valueas a historical document.]

Irving testified that the previous day he had read the LeuchterReport in its entirety. Said Irving: "If a future historian was to bewriting the history of the Holocaust controversy, then undoubtedlythey can no longer ignore a document of this validity." (33-9413) Hecontinued: "It is clearly an authentic document. It's clearly adocument written by somebody in the position to know what he iswriting about and it's a document written for a valid purpose. It'snot a spurious document written in order to camouflage something, inmy view...It is very much the kind of document that I, as ahistorian, would hope to find if I was investigating the Holocaustcontroversy. I'm very impressed, in fact, by the presentation, by thescientific manner of presentation, by the expertise that's been shownby it and by the very novel conclusion that he's arrived at and Imust say that as a historian I'm rather ashamed it never occurred tome to make this kind of investigation on this particularcontroversy." (33-9414)

To your knowledge, asked Christie, has any physical examination ofAuschwitz, Birkenau or Majdanek previously been published todetermine if these places could have been used in the manner allegedin the Holocaust literature as homicidal gas chambers?

"There has been...to the best of my knowledge, no forensicexamination of the sites conducted whatsoever. Either in situ by anexpert in execution technology, or in absentia by taking samples forlaboratory analysis elsewhere," Irving testified. (33 9414, 9415)

Crown Attorney Pearson rose to cross-examine Irving and began byasking him if the Leuchter Report was a document he would look to asa historian researching the Holocaust controversy.

Irving replied: "If I was a future historian researching theHolocaust controversy, this is certainly the kind of evidence that Ishould want to make use of." (33-9415)

Are you saying, asked Pearson, that if you were a historian in theyear 2015 and you were doing research with respect to what happenedin Birkenau on August 25, 1944, you would use this document as afoundation for a conclusion?

"This would give me a foundation for a conclusion about what didnot happen in the concentration camps which were investigated by theexpert in [the report]," replied Irving. (33- 9415)

What do you mean by saying the report is 'authentic', askedPearson.

"By that I mean this clearly isn't a fake report. It isn't areport which purports to be what it is but in fact isn't, in thesense of what a fake document is. In other words, this isn'tsomething that has not been written by the purported author. It isquite clearly an authentic investigation by the man who purports tobe the author." (33 9416)

Irving agreed that the document was described as an "engineeringreport" and testified that he "would expect to find it written by aman who has some engineering qualifications." He defined 'engineeringqualifications' to mean "[s]aid qualifications for the jobthat he was purporting to report on...In other words, if he isreporting on execution technology, then I would expect him to be anexpert on the subject of the engineering of execution chambers."(33-9416)

If he was reporting on the residue of hydrogen cyanide, would youwant him to have a background in chemistry?, asked Pearson.

"No," said Irving, "but I would want him to produce...evidencethat - that would satisfy me that he had obtained the samples in ascientific manner and...had sub contracted the quantitative analysisof those samples to a qualified person to make those determinations.It would be too much to expect an engineer to be qualified in thequantitative or qualitative analysis."

An engineer, someone with a degree in engineering?, askedPearson.

"Yes."

All right, said Pearson, issued by a recognized university?

"Is that a question?"

Yes, said Pearson. What I want to get at is you said authentic andyou just said an engineer, someone with a degree in engineering?

"What I actually said was I expect to find him qualified in theengineering field on which he is purporting to report, in this case,execution technology," replied Irving. (33-9417)

So, would you mean somebody who's been recognized by aprofessional engineering body as being a competent person?, askedPearson.

"This undoubtedly would be ideal, but obviously we're looking hereat the - at what is practicable rather than what is ideal. In thiscase this is the best engineering report available to this date onthe execution technology alleged to have been present at Auschwitzand the other camps." Irving testified that he did not knowLeuchter's qualifications personally: "I don't know the author ofthis report personally at all. All I know from having read the reportwith the eye of a historian is that he purports to be an expert, aqualified expert in execution technology and...is recognized as suchby those states of the United States of America which carry outexecutions by gas chamber."

If you found out that he only had a Bachelor of Arts and he didn'thave an engineering degree, wouldn't that cause you some concernabout his engineering report?, asked Pearson.

"It would cause me some concern but it obviously hasn't concernedthe states of the United States of America which carry out the verygrizzly business of forwarding people from life to death inside gaschambers. They have accepted his expertise." (33-9418, 9419)

Did the states of the Unites States have this man go over toPoland to produce an engineering report about what happened in Polandin 1944?, asked Pearson.

"No, this was, as I understand it, entirely an undertakingorganized and financed at the expense of the defendant in the currentproceedings," said Irving.

And what was the third criteria that Hugh Trevor-Roper mentioned?,asked Pearson.

"That is...the reason why the document has come into existence. Imentioned earlier this morning that sometimes German generals wouldwrite a document for a specific reason, namely to cover themselvesfor an operation. They would fake something to clear themselves infuture. Now, the reason why this document has come into existence isquite clearly as a defence document in this case, and if I wouldelaborate on that, I would say that therefore the author of thatreport would be aware of the fact that the document would besubjected to the most expert scrutiny by the likes of yourself andtherefore he would employ an enhanced accuracy in presenting hisfindings." (33-9419)

Irving testified that he would take into account the fact that thereport was commissioned by the defence. Asked Pearson, And don't youthink that might have some bearing on how much value a historianattaches to it? Irving replied: "Um, this is true, but one wouldn'texpect the author of the report to perjure himself and one certainlywouldn't expect the highly qualified analytical laboratories whichcarried out the chemical analysis on the compounds which wereprocured from the gas chambers so-called and the delousing chambersso-called in the concentration camps, to have falsified theirfindings in any way. And certainly, my eye could detect no sign ofany kind of falsification in these analytical reports."

Do you purport to have any expertise to draw conclusions fromthose analytical reports, sir?, asked Pearson.

"Not on the basis of any more than the quantitative chemistryanalysis one has learned in the course of a university career," saidIrving. "Certainly on the basis of a historian, I can detect fudging.I can detect where something is being omitted. When I exposed theHitler diaries as being a fake, it was on the basis of the fact thatthe magazine purported to carry out tests on the ink but didn't, infact, submit those tests to us at the press conference. They fudgedaround their findings." (33-9420, 9421)

Pearson indicated that the tests themselves did not say anything;it was the conclusions drawn from them that were important.

"I think that if historians are inclined to accept the eyewitnessor hearsay testimony of people who were present on a site, fortyyears later, the testimony of the bricks and stones which can becollected from the site and subjected to objective chemical analysisshould very certainly be relevant to a historian." (33-9421)

You're a historian, said Pearson. You agree with me that you donot have the expertise to draw a conclusion from the absence of achemical compound on the wall of an installation? Irving disagreed:"Well, I'm afraid there's only one conclusion possible. If, fortyyears later, this chemical compound is absent from that wall and weare instructed by the scientific expertise it should have beenpresent if it ever was present, then it never was present."(33-9422)

And whose scientific expertise are you talking about?, askedPearson.

"Going by the expertise of the analytical chemists who werecommissioned to make this report...It was either stated in theanalysis reports or in the findings of the specialist who hasprepared this report on the basis of the evidence presented byDEGESCH, the manufacturers of the cyanide, or on the basis of Dupont,who are the American manufacturers of an equivalent chemicalcompound. But this chemical compound should still have been presentafter that length of time." (33 9422, 9423)

Pearson suggested that the only person who had drawn thatconclusion was Leuchter, in his report.

"Very well, sir," said Irving. "This is if you were to ask me, andI am sure you eventually will, if I find any flaws in this report,this is the kind of flaw which I would have found in this report andwhich I think could have been obviated if more money and time hadbeen spent on it...I'm not saying that the report is perfect. What Iam saying is, it is important. In fact, I think it is shattering inthe significance of its discovery." (33-9423)

If someone is going to draw a conclusion about the absence of acompound on a wall, wouldn't you agree, asked Pearson, they shouldreally know what they're talking about?

"Or consult people who knew what they were talking about," saidIrving. "Yes, I would agree with you. But if I were to amplify myopinion as to the - the expertise of this particular witness, I canthink of a no more suitable expert to go and examine the sites ofpurported gas chambers in Poland than one of the few American expertson the construction of gas chambers. And I think it's a stroke ofgenius on the part of the defence that they should have thought ofthis and gone to the expense of sending this particular expert withhis team out to Poland to collect the samples and bring them back andI think it portrays a certain weakness of the supporters of theHolocaust historiography that they have not undertaken this kind ofanalysis in the past." (33- 9424)

Irving testified that from his understanding from reading thereport, Leuchter was under contract and constructed gas chambers andbeen consulted by the various American states on their construction.He continued that he could be open to correction on this, and thatLeuchter might merely have been consulted as an expert by the variousAmerican states concerned. Said Irving: "My conclusion as a historianis that on the basis of what is in front of me, Mr. Leuchter was in aposition to know what he was talking about when he was investigatingAuschwitz with the eye of a man familiar with the design of gaschambers." (33-9424 to 9427)

Judge Ron Thomas interjected: "Well, I think I can shorten this.You needn't ask any further questions. Do you have any submissions?,"he asked Christie. (33-9427)

Christie said: "Yes, I would submit that it would be a remarkabledouble standard if the Crown can introduce documents without authorsfor them, without any proof of who wrote them in this case becausethey happen to be filed in the National Archives...I would submit toyou that this witness has said that this evidence is important forhistorians, it's a valuable piece of historical evidence. It meetsthe test of historical evidence. The author of the report has beencalled and cross-examined in front of the jury, unlike any of theother pieces of evidence that have been tendered by the Crown throughMr. Browning, who didn't have any first-hand knowledge of any ofthem, and for that reason it's my submission that the witness shouldbe allowed to tender that evidence and give his opinion of the valueof it in a historical context. I would also like to ask the witnesswhether, to his knowledge, any physical examination of Auschwitz-Birkenau or Majdanek have previously been published to determine ifthese places have been used in the manner alleged [as]homicidal gas chambers." (33-9427, 9428)

Judge Ron Thomas ruled: "You will be permitted to ask thatquestion. There will be no comment on the Leuchter Report. Send forthe jury, please. You can refer to the fact, and advise this witness,that Mr. Leuchter testified here and that he had conducted thisanalysation (sic) and then find out from this historian if anythinglike this had been done to his knowledge before in the history ofresearching the Second World War." (33-9428)

Christie asked: "Can I ask him whether he considers such evidencevaluable?" (33 9429)

Thomas replied: "No." (33-9429)

[This ended the voir dire to determine the admissibility ofthe Leuchter Report through the expert historian, David Irving.Thomas gave no reasons for disallowing the admission of the LeuchterReport, which had met all tests of valid historical evidence. Theevidence which follows was given in the presence of thejury.]

Mr. Irving, said Christie, we have had in this trial the testimonyof a Mr. Leuchter, indicating investigations of the physical sitesand he was a person who has certain expertise in execution technologyusing hydrogen cyanide gas and certain chemical analysis was donepertaining to that report in regard to the content of hydrogencyanide in the walls of the alleged gas chamber. To your knowledge,asked Christie, has any physical examination of Auschwitz, Birkenau,Majdanek, Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor or any of the allegedextermination camps been previously published to determine if theseplaces could have been used in the manner alleged in the Holocaustliterature as homicidal gas chambers?

Irving replied: "No, sir. To the best of my knowledge, there hasbeen no kind of examination prior to this trial and to the evidenceintroduced or the evidence mentioned in this trial of the so-calledmurder camps, the extermination camps. No kind of teams of analyticalchemists were sent there to investigate the soil or the bricks of thechambers, no kind of a determination was made as to the suitabilityof the doors or the levers or the flanges or whether the walls hadany kind of special sealing compound applied to them to protect thepassersby on the street outside. There had been no kind of specialdetermination made as to whether these buildings could ever haveeffectively been used as homicidal gas chambers and it wasn't untilthis trial that an attempt was made to carry out such aninvestigation."

This ended the examination-in-chief of Irving by defence attorneyDouglas Christie. Crown Attorney John Pearson rose to commence hiscross-examination. (33-9430, 9431)

Pearson referred first to the July 31, 1941 document from Goeringto Heydrich and Irving's testimony that Goering could never have readthe document. Said Irving: "He couldn't have had time to read it.It's quite evident that Heydrich was only with him for a matter ofminutes. Heydrich, in fact, had the document prepared on a letterheadwhich Heydrich himself had typed. It wasn't even typed on HermannGoering's notepaper. It was typed on Heydrich's notepaper. It wasslipped in for Goering to sign and slipped out again." Irving knewthis "From the evidence contained in Goering's diary showing howbriefly Heydrich was with Goering." Heydrich was with Goering "tenminutes." Irving pointed out that it was not the only document signedthat day. (33-9431, 9432)

How do you know it's not the only one he didn't read?, askedPearson.

"Because Hermann Goering himself so testified under oath," repliedIrving. "Goering testified that he was unfamiliar with this document.I have the entire series of Hermann Goering interrogations, when hewas interrogated before the trial began, the pretrialinterrogations."

Are you telling us, asked Pearson, that Goering testified that henever read that document?

"It was a surprise to him...To the best of my memory, he was shownthe document under pretrial interrogation and this was the first timehe recalled seeing it. The document itself is very harmless. It justtalks about giving - giving Heydrich, extending his powers for theoverall solution of the Jewish problem to the newlyoccupied-territories." Irving testified that Goering did not denysigning it: "No, in fact, I have the copy as signed by HermannGoering with his signature." He agreed with Pearson that Goering musthave seen it when he signed it but he continued: "Do you have anyidea how many documents Hermann Goering would have signed every daynormally?...It made no impression on him at all...let me say onceagain the document was shown to him in the course of a ten minuteinterview between the chief of the Gestapo, Heydrich, and himself ona rainy afternoon when Hermann Goering was hurrying to the station topick up his wife whom he hadn't seen for three months." Irvingpointed out there were certainly three documents signed by HermannGoering that day for Heydrich in the ten minute period. He agreedwith Pearson that Goering therefore had about three minutes perdocument. (33-9433 to 9435)

Wouldn't you agree, asked Pearson, that you are speculating whenyou say he never read it?

"We have to try to interpret how much a man can do in ten minuteswhen it's such an unimportant document as that." Irving pointed outthat the document in question was two paragraphs long.

How long do you think it takes to read?, asked Pearson.

"Two paragraphs, a piece of bureaucratic bumph, I'm afraid you'renot familiar with Hermann Goering's lifestyle," said Irving. "...hehad a very opulent kind of lifestyle. He wasn't really interested inthe minutiae of the bureaucratic life. He wasn't really interested inReinhard Heydrich, he wasn't really interested in the Jewishquestion. In July 1942, he still is saying in a verbatim conferencethat the Führer has made exceptions all the way down thebureaucratic level. He can't understand why all this persecution ofthe Jews is going on...[t]he same with the Nuremberg racelaws. He couldn't understand how they had come into being."(33-9436)

If the academic historians are right, suggested Pearson, that wasindeed a significant memo, wasn't it?

"Indeed. They clutch at straws."

What was Heydrich's position?, asked Pearson.

"Heydrich was the chief of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, whichput him in overall charge of the Gestapo and various other importantSS police executive agencies." Irving agreed that he held a seniorposition in the Nazi hierarchy and that "Hitler at one time wasconsidering him as a successor." (33-9436, 9437)

Wasn't it right, asked Pearson, that Heydrich, being a seniorperson in the hierarchy, was looking to Goering for approval to dosomething?

"For the reason that Hermann Goering was chief of the four yearplan. The head of the four year plan had very, very substantialeconomic influence in Germany, responsibilities also which had beenassigned to him under the overall umbrella of the four year planoffice. One of those responsibilities which Hitler had given toGoering at the time of the Reichskristallnacht, the night of brokenglass in November 1938, was to oversee the final solution of theJewish problem. Hermann Goering in January 1939 put Reinhard Heydrichin charge of the geographical resettlement of all Germany's Jews andAustria's Jews and Reinhard Heydrich set up at that time a centraloffice for the relocation of the Jews and so it became Heydrich'spenchant, drawing on Hermann Goering's authorities which is why hethen had to go back to Hermann Goering in July 1941 to say, 'LookHermann, we've now taken over all these territories in the east and Ineed you to expand that authority to me so I can carry on the job inthe eastern territories', and that's what Hermann understood was themeat of the document he was signing. In other words, a piece ofbureaucratic bumph, drawing the line a little bit further to theeast." (33-9438, 9439)

Said Pearson, I don't know, sounds pretty important to me.Bureaucratic bumph?

"You're clutching at straws, the same as historians, if I may beso rude," replied Irving.

You are the one, said Pearson, who told us that this was asignificant four year plan and the mandate of the senior official isbeing extended by the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany?

Said Irving: "The four year plan was very important until March1942 and it virtually vanished...Heydrich took it as a usefulconvenience that he could put on his headed notepaper the fact thathe was acting on behalf of the head of the four year plan[in] carrying out these jobs. It was a...short-circuiting[of] any kind of opposition that would come along thatHeydrich could [use] and indeed did. For example, whenHeydrich called the Wannsee Conference, he referred specifically toHermann Goering's July 1941 document which says that theReichsmarschall and head of the four year plan has instructed me tocarry out an investigation of how we're going to carry out the finalsolution. I am therefore calling a meeting, which was the famousWannsee Conference. Heydrich would point to the Goering document and[say] 'This is my authority, so don't start smart-talkingme.'" (33-9439, 9440)

Irving agreed that the document was very important to Heydrich andthat he used it. Pearson pointed out that Irving had neverthelessdescribed it as 'bureaucratic bumph'. Said Irving: "Yes. When...youask me why Hermann Goering himself would have paid little attentionto what he was signing, he would have viewed it as a piece ofbureaucratic bumph...he himself never again referred to it throughoutthe war years...We have seventy volumes of verbatim records ofHermann Goering's wartime conferences so we're pretty well informedabout the way his mind was working. If people take the trouble toread them. But they are in that strange language and people don'ttake the time." (33-9440, 9441)

Pearson asked Irving whether he disputed the authenticity of theWannsee Conference protocols. Irving testified that he did not: "Ihave read the entire file...incorporating the Wannsee Conferenceprotocol and the other versions of the protocol. There are two orthree records of the same meeting in various files." (33 9441)

You would agree, suggested Pearson, that at his trial inJerusalem, Eichmann indicated that that was an important stage in thefinal steps of the creation of the 'final solution.' Irvinginterjected to point out that the trial was "twenty years later" andthen continued: "I think we can agree that Adolf Eichmann atJerusalem, when he was on trial, wasn't exactly attending ahistorical seminar. He was under considerable physical and mentalcoercion. Some of the things he said would have been true; others ofthe things that he said would have been false; and I am not in aposition to determine which was which."

Are you now saying that the important thing is he was beingcoerced?, asked Pearson.

"Yes...I am saying that given the wealth of other documentationthat we have, we should be able to dispense with looking at twentyyear old trials to try and find still further clues as to whathappened."

Pearson pointed out that Irving looked at the testimony of otherparticipants at the conference as being significant.

"At the Nuremberg trials. This is true," said Irving. "The trialsheld in 1945, 1946 and 1947, they were particularly...in '46 and '47,the pretrial of Kritzinger and Lammers and the other...people who hadattended, ...Wilhelm Stuckart, who attended the Wannsee Conference,were interrogated in great detail as to what they recollected."Irving agreed he viewed their testimony as significant: "One year orless after the end of the war, yes. I would consider that to be moreacceptable than what Eichmann would be saying twenty years after thewar." (33-9442. 9443)

So, asked Pearson, the significance now isn't the coercion, it'sthe passage of time, is it?

"There's an element," replied Irving. "There's an element ofpassage of time; an element of coercion. If a man, despite coercion,is saying things in a certain way, then it's more likely to be truethan if a man because of coercion twenty years later is saying thingsin a certain way." (33- 9443)

Pearson asked if Irving agreed that if Eichmann attended andprepared the minutes of a meeting which was integral to the plan toexterminate the Jews of Europe, that the passage of twenty years wasnot going to make him forget that? Irving pointed out that this wasPearson's interpretation of the meeting. He continued: "I think thatyou have to realize the Wannsee Conference is one of very manyinterministerial conferences that were held during the war years onall sorts of different topics, stocks, shipping, barges, economy, thefat supply, nitrogen, this kind of conference. And to single out oneconference and expect a man years later to recollect what went onthere when it's a matter which was as boring to most of them as thesolution of the Jewish problem - who is a Jew, who is a half-Jew,what is a quarter-Jew, what do we do with people who have one Jewishgrandparent - this kind of thing, a lot of them will have had theirminds elsewhere. A lot of them did have their minds elsewhere."

Is it your position, asked Pearson, as a professional historian,that the Wannsee Conference was not a conference to discuss theextermination of the Jews of Europe?

"There is no explicit reference to extermination of the Jews ofEurope in the Wannsee Conference and more important, not in any ofthe other documents in that file. We cannot take documents out ofcontext...In my opinion, it has been inflated to that importance byirresponsible historians who probably haven't read the document,"said Irving.

Pearson pointed out there was also the testimony of Eichmann.

"Twenty years later...I think we talked this morning a bit aboutEichmann's powers of recollection and the fact he himself gotconfused about what he really recalled and what he had in themeantime been told. And this is a human failing which unfortunatelyafflicts all of us, that our memories get bad as we get older."

Forget about the minutes of the meeting and forget about thetestimony, said Pearson. Is it your opinion that the WannseeConference itself was not a conference to discuss the exterminationof Jews?

"That is my opinion." (33-9444 to 9446)

So, suggested Pearson, Eichmann made it up?

"I'm saying that Eichmann was wrong in giving contrary testimony,"replied Irving, "but you would have to tell me precisely whatEichmann said. I'm not prepared to take your word for what Eichmannsaid. I think I have to know his precise words. I don't mean thatoffensively at all. Even in paraphrasing we may oversimplify whatsomebody...had said."

Have you read the transcript of Eichmann's testimony?, askedPearson.

"No, I haven't. I've read a few snatches of it like I mentionedthis morning."

Pearson suggested that this hindered Irving's ability to reach theconclusion he had reached. Irving disagreed: "No. I think that whenone has a given life span, one can decide how one spends that life.You can spend your life in a library reading all the books[on] Adolf Eichmann...and write the X plus one book or spendyour life in the archives and try to write a truer book. If you dothat, you don't have to read and why should you bother with the trialrecords because where you are sitting is right where the truth is, inthe archives, and you haven't got the Israeli Ministry of Justiceputting itself between you and Adolf Eichmann." (33-9447)

Said Irving: "I don't consider that the testimony of AdolfEichmann at Jerusalem would have advanced...my knowledge of whathappened at the Wannsee Conference. It is twenty years after the war,which is five years after the Wannsee Conference, four years afterthe Wannsee Conference, and it would have polluted my knowledgerather than improved it." Irving agreed that Eichmann was present atthe Wannsee Conference but would not swear that it was he who draftedthe protocol: "To the best of my knowledge there is no signature onit." (33-9448)

It's your opinion, suggested Pearson, it's of no value to read thewords of a participant in a conference to determine what theconference was about?

"Having read the fragments of Adolf Eichmann's testimony where hesays his memory is so shaken that he can no longer distinguishbetween fiction and fact, he can no longer distinguish between whathe really recollects and what he is told he recollects, from thatpoint on all the Adolf Eichmann testimony becomes polluted, dangerousto read for a historian. It would be really like watching amade-for-TV movie about Auschwitz. That would not advance myknowledge," said Irving.

Pearson suggested again that Irving relied on the testimony of theother participants at the conference when they were on trial and hada clear interest in denying that it had anything to do withextermination.

"I accept that, yes...I accept your inference too, that they had areason to simulate, they had a reason to deceive...I read it withinterest. That doesn't mean to say I rely on it. You take note ofit."

But you don't take note of Eichmann?, asked Pearson.

"No," said Irving. "Not in that account because of the particularcircumstances where Adolf Eichmann was being [heard]. HadAdolf Eichmann been questioned in 1945 at very great length byAmerican or British interrogators, that would have been ofsubstantially greater evidentiary value for a historian than giventhe circumstances where he is being interrogated under the certainknowledge that he's about to be executed." (33-9449, 9450)

April 25, 1988

Irving agreed that he had written about thirty books andresearched for more than ten years before writing Hitler's War andten years before writing Churchill's War. Hitler's War was firstpublished in Germany in 1975. Said Irving: "The German publishers,without so informing me, willfully excluded and changed parts of thetext. I then obliged them to withdraw the book from publicationovernight on publication day." Among other things, the publishers hadchanged parts relating to Hitler's knowledge of the extermination ofthe Jews. (34-9455, 9456)

Is it your evidence, asked Pearson, that they published that firstrun without letting you see the final version they were going topublish?

"Most unusual," said Irving. "They did not let me see thetypescript of the German translation which I normally like to checkmyself. They did not honour their promise to let me see the proofs.They did not supply me with an advance copy of the book. I had to buya copy of the book myself in a book shop in Munich and I immediatelysent a telegram forbidding them to print any further editions or tosell any more copies." The English language version of the bookappeared in 1977. (34 9456)

Irving agreed that he commenced Hitler's War by saying that theten years that he had chosen to research Hitler were the best tenyears to do so because the archives opened up to researchers and thepeople who had been involved with Hitler, especially his closestpersonnel, were still available. (34-9457)

Irving wrote in his introduction to Hitler's War that "the mostimportant documents were provided by Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper..."Irving testified that "Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper is a verywell-known and eminent professor of history, modern history. He wasthe regius professor of Oxford in history...he is now the master ofan important college at Cambridge University...He is an academichistorian who started initially as a non-academic historian inBritish intelligence." Irving agreed that he had "[not] theslightest" contempt for Trevor-Roper and in fact had written that thehistorian's work The Last Days of Hitler was a brilliant exception tomost weak biographies of Hitler. Said Irving: "This is why I singledhim out for special commendation." He owed Trevor-Roper a "veryconsiderable debt." (34-9457 to 9459)

Irving also agreed that in his introduction to Hitler's War he hadacknowledged the debt he owed to Professor Raul Hilberg. Said Irving:"Indeed, oh, yes. I corresponded with Professor Hilberg who Iunderstand has given evidence in a previous hearing." Irvingtestified he had "[not] the slightest" contempt for Hilberg:"Again, he's one of the few academic historians who has done hishomework, if I can put it in that shorthand form." (34-9459)

Would you agree, asked Pearson, that Hugh Trevor-Roper is probablythe foremost expert on the Nazi regime in Germany of any Englishhistorian?

"Except in one respect," said Irving. "He has very littleknowledge of the German language which is a substantial impediment.But otherwise I agree with your statement." (34- 9459)

After Hitler's War, Irving moved on to Churchill, but kept hisHitler dossiers open "as a matter of professional interest." Hisresearch into Churchill relied more on archival documents thantestimonials as many of Churchill's associates had already died.(34-9460)

Pearson turned to the subject of the assassination of GeneralSikorski, the Polish Prime Minister-in-exile during the war who diedin a plane crash in Gibraltar. Irving gave qualified agreement thathis book on Sikorski claimed that Churchill was responsible for hisassassination. "I will go along with that description. In fact, itwas left more open than that but the reader was invited to draw thatconclusion," said Irving.

Did the law courts consider the proposition that Sikorski wasassassinated by Churchill?, asked Pearson.

"They did indeed...The lower courts, on the basis of a playwritten by a completely different person, considered a libel actionbrought by the sole survivor of the plane, a Czechoslovakiannational. The libel action was rather uniquely fought in as much asthe defendant was a German living in Switzerland who made no attemptto appear and on the basis of that kind of court case, the courtfound, of course, for the plaintiff...to be perfectly specific, ofcourse, my book was not on trial. The pilot, the Czech, Prchal,issued a libel writ against me as the author of the book, Accident:The Death of General Sikorski, and he chose not to, which implies inmy view, he accepted that what I had written was not open tochallenge in the English lower courts. We would certainly havedefended it had he issued a writ." (34-9461, 9462)

Pearson produced a review of Hitler's War written by HughTrevor-Roper which appeared on June 12, 1977 in the Sunday TimesWeekly Review, with which Irving was familiar:

It is well known that Mr. Irving, some years ago, convincedhimself that General Sikorski, who died in an air-crash at Gibraltar,had been "assassinated" by Winston Churchill, to whom in fact hisdeath was a political calamity. Not a shred of evidence orprobability has ever been produced for this theory, and when it wastested in the courts, Mr. Irving's only "evidence" (which was veryindirect at best) was shown to be a clumsy misreading of a manuscriptdiary. (I have myself seen the diary and feel justified in using theword "clumsy"). And yet here is this stale and exploded libel trottedout again, as if it were an accepted truth, in order to support aquestionable generalisation.

Did Hugh Trevor-Roper say that in his article, sir?, askedPearson.

"He did indeed," agreed Irving, "but he is wrong in suggestingthat my theory was ever tested in the lower courts and you can have alook at my book if you wish, Accident: The Death of General Sikorski,and you will find no reference whatsoever in it to the diary which hementions...The newspaper then refused to publish a letter from me inreply. I pointed out he was entitled to his opinions and he could putthem to music and have them played by the Mainstream Guards, but Ideal in facts."

Didn't Sir Frank Roberts say that Churchill wept when he heard thenews?, asked Pearson.

"I have read that statement recently. It's a very recent statementby the head of the Central Department of the Foreign Office in 1943.He made that statement in the 1980s, forty years later to WinstonChurchill's authorized biographer and we can each of us attachwhatever weight we choose to that statement."

You choose not to accept it?, asked Pearson.

"Churchill wept freely and readily," said Irving. (34-9464,9465)

Pearson turned to Hitler's War and read from the introduction:

The negative is traditionally always difficult to prove; but itseemed well worth attempting to discredit accepted dogmas if only toexpose the "unseaworthiness" of many current legends about Hitler.The most durable of these concerns the Führer's involvement inthe extermination of the Jews. My analysis of this controversialissue serves to highlight two broad conclusions: that in wartime,dictatorships are fundamentally weak - the dictator himself, howeveralert, is unable to oversee all the functions of his executivesacting within the confines of his far-flung empire; and that in thisparticular case, the burden of guilt for the bloody and mindlessmassacre of the Jews rests on a large number of Germans, many of themalive today, and not just on one "mad dictator," whose order had tobe obeyed without question.

"I think that today, eleven years later, I still stand by what Ipublished on that date," said Irving. "...There were very largenumbers of massacres which can only be described as bloody andmindless of Jews and other ethnic minorities in occupied Europeduring the Second World War."

I suggest, said Pearson, that the way you have written it - 'theJews', not 'some Jews' - that you're talking about race genocide.

"I think that readers who are picking up my book and looking at itare very familiar with the fact there has long been an allegationabout a massacre or extermination of the Jews in the Second WorldWar. The same as we talk about the extermination or massacre of theArmenians. I think it would - I really hope you have better materialthan this with which to challenge me frankly. I've come a very longway. I don't really want to spend a great deal of timedebat[ing] one word, 'the'." (34-9466, 9467)

Pearson continued reading:

I had approached the massacre of the Jews from the traditionalviewpoint prevailing in the mid- 1960s. "Supposing Hitler was acapable statesman and a gifted commander," the argument ran, "howdoes one explain his murder of six million Jews?" If this book weresimply a history of the rise and fall of Hitler's Reich, it would belegitimate to conclude: "Hitler killed the Jews." He after allcreated the atmosphere of hatred with his anti-Semitic speeches inthe 1930s; he and Himmler created the SS; he built the concentrationcamps; his speeches, though never explicit, left the clear impressionthat "liquidate" was what he meant. For a full length war biographyof Hitler, I felt that a more analytical approach to the keyquestions of initiative, complicity, and execution would benecessary.

Pearson suggested that in that passage Irving was saying that ifone was looking at Hitler's Reich and not just at Hitler, it would belegitimate to conclude that Hitler killed the Jews. Irving repliedthat Hitler "had a constitutional responsibility as head of state."(34-9467, 9468)

What was the significance of the statement that Hitler and Himmlercreated the SS?, asked Pearson.

"Back in the 1930s, back in the 1920s in fact," said Irving, "theSS was created as an elite bodyguard for Hitler and out of whichemerged the various branches of the SS, including the Waffen SS,which was the biggest branch of all, and the sentence means what itsays. They both jointly created the SS." (34-9468)

Pearson suggested that in effect, Irving was saying Hitler wasresponsible for creating the organ that massacred the Jews. Irvingdisagreed: "I don't think I say that the SS is the organ thatmassacred the Jews. I'm just saying what, in fact, I printed there. Ichose those words very carefully in writing the introduction."(34-9468)

Pearson continued reading:

For a full-length war biography of Hitler, I felt that a moreanalytical approach to the key questions of initiative, complicity,and execution would be necessary. Remarkably, I found that Hitler'sown role in the "Final Solution of the Jewish Problem" has never beenexamined.

What did you mean by the "final solution of the Jewish problem"?,asked Pearson.

"Well, earlier in that paragraph, I have talked about theargument, the public perception of what had happened and I haveclearly put that sentence in quotation marks; what the public callsthe 'final solution of the Jewish problem'...We are going to examinein the book what the 'final solution' was, but I am already advancinghere, I am alerting the reader to the fact that in this book he'sgoing to find data on this controversy."

Wasn't the "final solution" the term generally accepted as beingthe term used for the racial genocide of the Jews?, askedPearson.

"On Friday I quoted you from memory a spring 1942 document inwhich Hitler is quoted by the chief of his Reich Chancellery assaying 'the Führer wants the solution of the Jewish problempostponed until after the war is over'. Now, you can't have it bothways. That document is a genuine document." (34-9469)

Pearson suggested that in his introduction, Irving was telling thereader that he was going to prove that Hitler did not have personalknowledge of the extermination of the Jews. Irving agreed: "I am." Hecontinued: "What I am more specifically saying in there is what Iactually write, that Hitler, his role and whatever the 'finalsolution of the Jewish problem' was, whatever that was, is going tobe analysed in this book."

Where are the words 'whatever that was', asked Pearson.

"It's not necessary," replied Irving. "What I am saying is that ifI was writing a history of the Third Reich I would analyse it, butI'm not. I'm writing a biography of Hitler. It's already a thousandpages long. If I'm going to write an analysis of the Holocaust, thebook would be 2,000 pages long."

Are you saying, asked Pearson, that you wrote a book to prove thatHitler wasn't responsible for something that never happened? Irvingreplied that he did not set out to write a book to prove anything: "Iset out to write a biography of Hitler based on the documents asaccurately as I could find them...having written the book, I wrotethe introduction and not the other way around." (34-9470)

And the conclusion, suggested Pearson, was that Hitler was notresponsible for something that never happened?

Said Irving: "I don't say that Hitler wasn't responsible. I amvery clear there that he had a constitutional responsibility. Butcertainly it is questionable whether he ever knew that the 'finalsolution' was going on, whatever the 'final solution' was." (349471)

Pearson continued reading:

For thirty years, our knowledge of Hitler's part in the atrocityhas rested on inter historian incest.

What atrocity are you talking about?, asked Pearson.

"There is no other way to describe what happened," said Irving."Thousands of civilians being lined up on the side of pits and beingmachine-gunned to the pits after being robbed of their personalpossessions. This kind of thing can only be described as an atrocitywhether it happens in Germany, Yugoslavia or Vietnam." (34-9472)

Pearson continued reading:

Many people, particularly in Germany and Austria, had an interestin propagating the accepted version that the order of one madmanoriginated the entire massacre. Precisely when the order was givenand in what form has, admittedly, never been established. In 1939? -but the secret extermination camps did not begin operating untilDecember 1941.

Order for the what?, asked Pearson.

"The order for the atrocities. We are talking about the order thatthese people imagine exist so there was one central order."(34-9472)

Aren't you suggesting there, asked Pearson, that secretextermination camps did not begin operating until December 1941?

"I think I have to say here that this sentence falls into thecategory of sentences that I would not repeat in 1988," said Irving."At the time I wrote that in the 1960s, 1974 thereabouts when Iwrote...that introduction, I believed. I believed everything I hadheard about the extermination camps. I wasn't investigating theextermination camps. I was investigating Hitler." (34-9472, 9473)

But you told us you did ten years of extensive research on theNational Socialist regime, said Pearson, and you had no problemmaking that statement, did you?

"Because I believed," said Irving. He continued: "I believed whatI had read up [to] that point. I hadn't gone to the sites ofAuschwitz and Treblinka and Majdanek and brought back samples andcarried out an analysis. I hadn't done any research into what iscalled the 'Holocaust'. I researched Hitler and his staff." Irvingtestified that he had not done such research in the meantime: "I havecarried out no investigation...in equivalent depth of the Holocaust."(34- 9473)

But your mind changed?, asked Pearson, You no longer believeit?

"My mind has now changed," said Irving. "I have now begun tochallenge that. I understand it is now a subject open to debate...Mybelief has now changed because I understand that the whole of theHolocaust mythology is, after all, open to doubt and certainly in thecourse of what I have read in the last few days, in fact, in thistrial, I am now becoming more and more hardened in this view."(34-9474)

Said Irving: "One sees the sentence, the line of that page, 'thesecret extermination camps did not begin operating until...'. Then Iwrote that on the basis of what all the other eminent academichistorians had been saying, that there were such extermination camps.I believed." (34- 9474)

Pearson returned to Hitler's War and continued reading:

...but the incontrovertible evidence is that Hitler ordered onNovember 30, 1941, that there was to be "no liquidation" of the Jews(without much difficulty, I found in Himmler's private files his ownhandwritten note on this).

Would you agree, asked Pearson, that this November 30, 1941 orderis the lynch-pin of your whole argument in Hitler's War?

"No, sir. I am aware of the newspapers hav[ing] tried tomake out that was the lynch pin. In fact, that is one minor item in aseries of about ten documents beginning in 1923, 1924 and going rightthrough until 1944. The only documents specifically linking Hitlerwith what was happening to the Jews, and in each Hitler is puttingout his hand to stop it happening. This is just one of those itemsand I have to say there preemptively that the word 'the' in front ofJews is wrong. It is one specific transport of Jews from Berlin goingto the eastern front going to Riga, who were, in fact, at that time,November the 30th, 1941, already dead by some hours. This was one ofthe specific atrocities." (34-9475, 9476)

Pearson suggested that the academic historians had indicated thatIrving had tried to extrapolate from a single order, relating to oneshipment of Jews, a profound conclusion with respect to Hitler'srole.

"They couldn't - they can't establish that. What they haveoverlooked is that is just one document that is referred to in a bookof a thousand pages containing very many similar documents.Obviously, I particularly enjoyed drawing their attention to thatdocument because it gave me the chance of pointing out that all theseworld famous academic historians had not even bothered to transcribeHimmler's own handwritten notes of his telephone conversations. Thisis [why] I referred to it in the introduction."

Don't they suggest that they didn't consider it that significant?,asked Pearson.

"I wouldn't think any of them have had the cheek or the gall oreffrontery to suggest that Himmler's own handwritten notes on amatter like this would not be significant," replied Irving. Hecontinued: "It is very significant. It is one of a series ofdocuments showing Hitler intervening to try and stop mindlesssubordinates carrying out atrocities. There was another identicalhandwritten note by Himmler on April the 20th, 1942, reading inEnglish: 'no annihilation of the gypsies'. Himmler has just been tosee Hitler on that day, it was Hitler's birthday, and Himmler cameout and had to telephone Heydrich, the chief of the Reich SecurityOffice, with the instruction that there was to be no annihilation ofthe gypsies. But you