(10.30 a.m.)

[Professor Funke, recalled.]

Cross-Examined by Mr Irving, continued.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, Mr Irving?

MR IRVING: My Lord, I have put two small bundles in front of your Lordship. One is a bundle of photographs which I do not propose to dwell very much on. I think I will spend 10 seconds looking at each one with the witness. They are photographs of German meetings. They are minor points to be made possibly on each of the photographs. Some of he meetings we are familiar with, and some not.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

MR IRVING: The second bundle, my Lord, I have yesterday taken the Eichmann papers, which is what I am now holding in my hand. I have converted them to hard copy. I would be quite happy to make that available to the Defence. I have extracted five or six pages already, which are the only pages I have found with a word search for "Führer" or "Hitler" in any substance. They may help the Defence, they may help me, I have not really looked at them, but I have put them there in case there is any need for immediate action on them.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, you are not going to deal with them with this witness anyway?

MR IRVING: No, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: So we will put that on one side.

P-2

MR IRVING: Except that lower down on the same bundle there are one or two things that I probably will draw the witness's attention to.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton, do we have a list of the alleged extremists?

MR RAMPTON: Yes, we do.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I was thinking it might be helpful to have it at this stage.

MR RAMPTON: Yes. So, it is a list of the alleged extremists, it is a list of the important ones for this part of the case. There is an "Others" category which really does not directly concern Professor Funke.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Right. Yes, Professor?

A. Can I add three remarks from yesterday?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, if you wish to.

A. When?

Q. Yes, now.

A. OK, good. I rethought the coverage of 9th November '91 in Halle and, to my best knowledge, the NB, the National Bloc, is not as I said from the Ruhr area, but from Bavaria under the leader of Manfred Eichmann. This is the first. The second, I did not get the protocol of yesterday, so -- the minutes of yesterday, so I do not know if I got special question of David Irving right. So in the case I did not I want just to state that in those

P-3

pictures we saw he did not allude to direct forms of anti-Semitism, but that does not mean that he did not do this in the German, you know, appearances, and also if you see the whole text of the speech in Munich, I would claim this has anti-Semitic sentiments in it. The second one.

MR IRVING: Which speech in Munich are you referring to?

A. Yours.

Q. Well I spoke in Munich about 30 or 40 times probably.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: The one we saw on the video, I imagine.

MR RAMPTON: Can I intervene at that stage, to point something out, and it is this. If we are talking about the first Munich meeting, the one which has "Wahrheit macht frei" and David Irving's name on the placard underneath it. Our understanding from the diary of Mr Irving, first of all, is that he spoke twice at that meeting, once before the interval and once after. The second thing, we learned from his reply, that he spoke altogether for about an hour, and that he said he was going to rely on the text of what he said at the trial of this action.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have not had anything?

MR RAMPTON: I have never had the tape or a transcript of it.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. Mr Irving, what about that?

MR IRVING: My Lord, obviously, at one time I had anticipated that I had a tape of it. In fact, I think there is correspondence indicating that I believed I did have a

P-4

tape of it, but I have disclosed all my tapes and cassettes to the defence in this matter, nothing has been withheld. I had no idea what was on the video cassettes because I did not have a video player.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: In the light of that, Mr Rampton, I think it has to be left to cross-examination.

MR RAMPTON: Well, I think it will. There are some other things I want to raise in relation to discovery in cross-examination. I am a little concerned, however, about the time-scale, because the cross-examination of Mr Irving by me, which might last a day, or a day and a bit, I hope we will be finished this week.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: So do I.

MR RAMPTON: That will be the last of the evidence. I cannot say any more than that.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, obviously, I am not going to cut off Mr Irving. I have given an indication that I think the scope of cross-examination of this witness is relatively limited. You have, if I may say so, taken hints in the past, but you must take your own course, this is not a direction of any sort.

MR IRVING: Next week, of course, I will have some submissions to make.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of course. You both will. Anyway, shall we press on? Is there anything else?

MR RAMPTON: Is it appropriate to say something about, if we

P-5

are talking about closing speeches, about timing, at this juncture?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Shall we wait until after we have dealt with (if I may so put it that way) Professor Funke?

MR RAMPTON: It is only this, that there are a number of people here, and I do not shrink from saying, including me ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Oh, I see, you mean how long an interval? Is that what you are getting at?

MR RAMPTON: Yes, because there are "social" is the wrong word, but there are what one might call arrangements which have to be made. I have been talking earnestly with Miss Rogers, as I often do, and we are very anxious because of what might happen here after in another place, as the lawyers call it, that we leave no stone unturned to make sure that your Lordship has as much material as we would like you to have. Of course, I say without any kind of sycophancy, that I am confident that the case is in place already, but I cannot actually, in my client's interests, take that risk. Therefore, we want to do a long rather than a short job. I can do a short job. I can probably do it from memory, but I do not want to do that. It did seem to us we would need at least a week to get the thing properly in place. I am strongly of the view, as an advocate, I do remember, like your Lordship, in those days being of similar view, I think that it is not desirable that the Defendant makes a speech before a

P-6

weekend and the Claimant or Plaintiff after the weekend. Both should come in the same week. My proposal is that I should start on Monday 13th, which is a week from the coming Monday and that Mr Irving should have as much time as he likes thereafter, subject, obviously, to case control.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, do you have any views about that?

MR IRVING: Whether it would be Monday 13th or not I think is in the stars, because if Mr Rampton wishes to have a clear week, presumably, that clear week starts running from the end of the time I have put in documents and so on by way of submission, which may take more than a day.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, well, what I would be inclined to think in terms of, and we might have to revise this, is to have the whole of next week for preparing speeches, and if we do not finish the evidence by close of play on Thursday, then I think perhaps we can nibble into the week, because it seems to me that Monday the 13th would be a good day to have as a target for the start of closing speeches.

MR RAMPTON: I would rather nibble into Friday if it came to it.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I do not dispute that at all.

MR IRVING: I am afraid I do, because there is a German saying (German spoken) which means that a lot of dogs spell death to the hare, and there is a lot of dogs on the other side with no disrespect and there is one hare on this side.

P-7

I am carrying the ball entirely myself.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I follow that.

MR IRVING: I cherish every day that I have for preparation.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I tell you what I propose to deal with that, is for you to have the opportunity to indicate during the course of that week, the week prior to 13th March, that you falling behind or whatever, if you really need more time, I do not myself think you will because you have a great capacity for getting through the material, but if you are finding it difficult then obviously I would be very sympathetic to further time.

MR IRVING: I do not necessarily see the reason why it has to be a Monday Mr Rampton has to start unless he intends to speak for three whole days.

MR RAMPTON: I doubt he will speak for three whole days but he might speak for the best part of one whole day.

MR IRVING: That will allow both speeches to come within of compass of one week.

MR RAMPTON: Yes. I do not mind, I was not (to use a bit of Latin) I was not trying to fix Monday, 13th, as a terminus post quo nome, but as a terminus quo nome, if I can put it like that, meaning to say that I do not mind when it is, but I do not want it before Monday 13th.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think we are thinking in broadly the same terms.

MR RAMPTON: I would only make other observation, it is not

P-8

right for Mr Irving to talk about dogs and hares when after all it is a pack of hares that is being chased by one dog.

MR IRVING: Rabbits.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. Professor Funke, you have something else to say? You did only mention two, yes.

A. Yes. It relates to the Congress of 21st April '90 in Munich. I read the diary again and there is clearly described how and what form it was illegal, and that was the reference I had also to write it in my report. It was illegal demonstration after the Congress, and it is stated very clearly. The other thing I have to mention that to my best assessment the diary and the video converts to that, that at a given period of time he was with marching.

THE INTERPRETER: Marching along with?

A. Along with Kühnen and the others towards the Feldherrnhalle. I think it is very clear if you put these things together and also the letters Mr Irving gave us yesterday in the bundle J.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much, Professor Funke, for those three points. Mr Irving?

MR IRVING: My Lord, I do not think your Lordship will attach much attention to whether other members of the audience went off on a demonstration which was illegal or not. I would invite straightaway, therefore, this witness to

P-9

have a look at page 11 of the little bundle.

A. This new one or the old one.

MR IRVING: It is today's bundle.

A. Today's bundle? OK.

Q. It is the bundle beginning with some German pages. If you look at page 11, that should be the diary concerned, April 21st 1990, is that correct?

A. No, I have here ----

Q. No, not photographs. It is another bundle.

A. Excuse me. It is a new bundle of yesterday?

Q. Of today.

A. Today, OK, good.

Q. Page 11. Is this the diary entry to which you have just referred?

A. It seems to, yes, in a different written form.

Q. A different format, yes?

A. Yes, format.

Q. My Lord, I do not propose to read the whole diary entry out, of course, but I would just invite this witness ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: If Miss Rogers can give me the reference in RWE 1 or 2, I would be grateful for this diary entry, April 21st.

MS ROGERS: If it is on 21st April, it is RWE 2, tab 11, pages 19 to 20.

MR IRVING: My Lord, what I have given your Lordship in this morning's bundle is the entire diary entry. I am not sure

P-10

how far the entry has been redacted, if at all, in RW----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us move on with it.

MR IRVING: Would you just run your eye down those two pages which I have given you?

A. Yes.

Q. Beginning with the first page, page 11, the second paragraph?

A. Yes.

Q. Beginning with the phrase: "The audience stormed out into the streets"?

A. Right.

Q. "Taking about half an hour to assemble outside, I remained inside", does it say that?

A. Yes.

Q. How could I have joined a demonstration if I remained inside?

A. Look ----

Q. Selling books, pack ----

A. --- look further down to your own diary.

Q. Then it says: "Job finished. The driver suggested he drive me to the Hotel Drei Löwen?

A. Yes.

Q. "Via the route", in other words, "driving by the route taken by this spontaneous demonstration"?

A. Yes.

Q. So I was not part of the demonstration; I was driving past

P-11

it to see what the fuss was because there had been police flashing lights, and so on? Right?

A. I see it.

Q. "I got out of the car" -- this is four lines from the bottom "because I sighted my dinner guests. Crossed to say hello to them. There was some annoyance on the part of the demonstrators that I had not been with them". Did you see that? Why did you not quote that?

A. Right, right.

Q. I was not part of the demonstration. I do not really want, unless you wish to draw attention to any other parts of that diary entry?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I suspect he wants to read on to the bottom of the page, is that right?

A. Shall I read it to the court?

Q. No. Read the bits of it that you rely on.

MR IRVING: Yes.

A. So, "I sighted Uschi who had invited me to dinner. Got out of car after Daniel Hecht", I think, "crossed to say hello to them. Some annoyance on the 250's part that I had not been with them. I explained I had to pack things up. Two minutes later police trucks arrived with reinforcements. Announced over loud speakers, 'Dieses ist eine unangemeldete Sammlung, es ist verboten. Sie haben alle nach Hause zu gehen'". "This is an illegal demonstration". I can translate it shortly. If you want

P-12

it precise, do it, yes.

THE INTERPRETER: "This is a translation (sic) which no notice has been given of. It is forbidden. You are all requested to go home"?

A. Right. And I refer to this being "forbidden" in my report ----

THE INTERPRETER: Ordered to go home?

A. --- or words to that effect.

Q. Can I ask?

A. He adds, so then: "Road cordons were thrown across the street ahead of us and we were told to filter through single and disperse. I found myself in an embarrassing position, unwilling to desert audience, but equally unwilling to end up being coshed by a policeman".

Q. Coshed by a policeman?

A. Yes. "I filtered forwards and after minutes hold up I was allowed through by the cordons. 30 seconds later I was arrested by a small Italian-looking moustached police officer aged perhaps 35 who declared me to be a Versammlungsleiter".

Q. We do not need the rest.

A. This is the point. If you take this part and see the video, there is the moustached and so forth officer and you see before, you know, a march route of a given people. In the front Mr Irving, behind Michael Kühnen. So, of course, it was some minutes, but you were asked by

P-13

the crowd to enter and you did.

MR IRVING: You say some minutes. Can I ask you about the time-scale?

A. I do not know the time-scale. I just saw the video and I saw your diary and I saw another clip of Althans given to Zündel or by Zündel presenting the case further down in this document.

Q. Can I draw your attention to the second line of that second paragraph on page 11: "I remained inside selling the books, packaging them up and supervising their loading into the two cars". How long do you think that took?

A. I do not know.

Q. £2,000 worth of books had to be packaged into boxes, the boxes sealed, loaded into two cars -- three quarters of an hour, an hour?

A. I have no problem with that. I did not say you went all along, I do not know, maybe. There is, by the way, if I may add this, there is a longer version of this video, and if it is necessary, if this is a decisive point for the assessment, if I may add ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: It does not strike me as a decisive point. I think we can move on.

A. Then I would ask to get this to the court, but it is very difficult because it is in the hands of Michael Schmidt and I have to figure out where he is.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I know what the issue is.

P-14

MR IRVING: One more question and this is will you accept, because I asked you this question two or three times yesterday, the video shows clearly that these rather bestraggled demonstrators are actually returning from the demonstration they had been off to at the time I joined them and they are heading north ----

A. That does not fit.

Q. Excuse me, they are heading north at the time I joined them, in other words, it is all over -- and do you remember me asking you these questions yesterday?

A. Yes.

Q. And you made out that you could not recognize the victory monument behind them and so on?

A. There is no probability for that. You know, it fits so well with what you are writing in the diary and what is shown in the video that I cannot say "yes" to this question.

Q. So you do not accept that it took me one hour to load the boxes of books into the car and to drive off to the hotel and then come back and find the demonstrators walking back from their demonstration at this time this misfortune happened?

A. I mean, you had a lot of books to sell, but you need not an hour. I do not know how long it took.

Q. Very well. Would you now just have a brief look at photographs, please? The second bundle of photographs.

P-15

We will go through these very quickly. Photographs 1 and 2 are photographs of a meeting of the DVU. Can you see their flag around the podium?

A. No, not with this coverage, I mean.

Q. All right.

A. I cannot see.

Q. If you look at the people sitting in the audience there, can you see any skinheads or bovver boots?

A. I cannot see. It is so dark, you see, your Lordship. I cannot see it. Maybe ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Look at page 2. It is better.

MR IRVING: Perhaps you can borrow mine a second.

A. That is better, excuse me.

Q. Can you see any skinheads or bovver boots or musclemen?

A. I cannot say yes or no, because, you know, in the first, in the first lines they are all with ties and, you know, as DVU presents itself.

Q. And the next photograph is a bit clearer?

A. But I cannot say yes to your question because afterwards it is totally unclear and I know that DVU has this kind of skinhead appearances.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, that is that photograph.

MR IRVING: Can you see any banners around the hall with anti-Semitic slogans or Holocaust slogans or anything at all?

A. No.

P-16

Q. No banners at all?

A. No.

Q. The next photograph, page 3, please?

A. 3?

Q. Does this appear to be police protecting a rather pleasant country building against a number of young people?

A. It seems to.

Q. Yes.

A. What is it?

Q. It is in Cologne. I will have to tell you, you will have to just take my word for where these places are. The places are not important really. The next photograph, photograph 5 -- we will just go through them very quickly -- is the Congress Centre in Hamburg?

A. Right.

Q. Do you see again a line of police protecting the building against, no doubt, unfriendly people outside?

A. I cannot say unfriendly, I just see police caps.

Q. Shoulder to shoulder, massed against -- protecting the entrance to the building?

A. I cannot say anything else because it is unclear. I do not know where and when, so...

Q. Yes.

A. You may say.

Q. Would you like to have a look at photograph No. 9, please? This is the Palace of Culture from Dresden which

P-17

is one of the lectures you refer to, 13th February 1990, I think. There are no kinds of banners or placards or anything anywhere, are there?

A. It seems not. There is a picture, you know, I think you are speaking there, and ----

Q. And a picture of myself on the podium?

A. Yes, seems to, but I do not know what is written around, above and...

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, we cannot read that.

MR IRVING: Photograph No. 10 is obviously some years earlier?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it look as though I am addressing members of the German Bundeswehr that this is obviously a function ----

A. Yes, seems to, at least the uniforms they are wearing.

Q. Photograph No. 11 is the Leuchter press conference to which you refer. It is a sparsely attended press conference?

A. Where is it?

Q. Have you got photograph No. 11?

A. Yes, but where?

Q. It is in my home in London.

A. OK.

Q. Photograph 12, another typical speech that I address in Germany?

A. Where is it?

Q. That is somewhere in Baden Württemberg, Sindelfingen,

P-18

I think?

A. Is it Trier?

Q. I beg your pardon?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, it does not really matter, does it? I am not sure these photographs are helping all that much, Mr Irving.

MR IRVING: There are no placards, no skinheads. No. 14, I think you probably have my labels now?

A. Yes, Hagenau you say?

Q. No. 14 is Hagenau.

A. Yes.

Q. Can you see any of your suspects in that photograph?

A. What are you saying?

Q. Any of your suspects, like Remer or Küssel or any of these names you are talking about? Are they in that photograph or the next one?

A. I have to put up this...

Q. These photographs were all available for discovery, my Lord, and not used. Photograph No. 16 ----

A. Wait, wait. I have to see the people. Excuse me. It is not so easy. You know better. It is just 10 faces to 10 faces, right, to see and whatever 80, I cannot see.

Q. Would you say it is a very extremist just by the look of it?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, you cannot possibly answer from the backs of people's heads whether they are extremist.

P-19

MR IRVING: Precisely. Your Lordship has made exactly the point I was hoping that the witness would make. Photograph 16, is that the Löwenbräu beerhall in Munich?

A. I do not know, maybe.

Q. Obviously dressed up for some kind of function, listening to me speak?

A. Where is it? When is it?

Q. In Munich.

A. When is it?

Q. Probably about 1984, thereabouts, 1989. That again is the kind of audience -- they do not look particularly extreme or violent?

A. In '94 you were in Germany?

Q. No, '84. No. 17, there is a meeting to which you refer. Is it not a demonstration, photograph No. 17?

A. Yes.

Q. German historians, liars and cowards?

A. Who is the left person?

Q. That is Mr Pedro Varela. Do you recognise him?

A. OK.

Q. Yes. Does he look like a violent person or extreme?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, again....

MR IRVING: The point is it is difficult to judge by appearances. I mean, I might be violent or extreme. The point I am trying to make, witness, and would you agree with, is, it is difficult to tell when you look at an

P-20

audience who the people are? We do not know who is in this court room, we might have John George Hague, the acid bath murderer. He might be one of these members of the public or someone like that and we do not know, do we?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, the case against you is not that these people look like extremists, but that they have a track record of extremism and that you associated with them. So I do not think we want to spend terribly long on their physical appearance.

MR IRVING: Yes. But unless I am mistaken also the case against me is in part that these extremist organisations that I have been addressing, you would have expected all the trappings, "bovver boots", skinheads and flags --

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I follow that point.

MR IRVING: And the rest of it. These, on the face of it, these meetings appear to be respectable, middle-class, rather boring lectures. (To the Witness) Now I would like to return to your report, please, page 39.

A. Just a second.

Q. You refer to the NPD, can I ask you the simple question; is the NPD illegal or banned?

A. Just a second. What page?

Q. Page 39 of your report.

A. So be it.

Q. Is the NPD -- it is a political party in Germany, is it

P-21

not?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it illegal or banned?

A. It is not banned.

Q. So there is no reason why one should not address if one was invited to a function organised by NPD, or is there?

A. I stated yesterday it is formally not legal, but it is perceived by the social sciences, as well as by the official institutions as a hardcore, right-wing extremist.

Q. Yes, well, we know how much weight we have attach to that, I think.

A. No, we are different on that.

Q. Yes, but the left wing --

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, do not argue about it, we have the evidence.

MR IRVING: You mention Franz Schönhuber, I am not going to dwell upon him, but he was a popular Bavarian television host?

A. Yes.

Q. Which is how I first came to know him. I was on his show, is that correct?

A. I did not --

Q. So that is how I first came to know him. Lower down that page you refer to a man at 4.1.3, a man, Gottfried Küssel, do you have any evidence at all that I have any kind of contacts with Mr Küssel?

P-22

A. -- you were at the same demonstration, for example.

Q. Being in the same room, that kind of thing?

A. I alluded to that, that that is different and the Halle demonstration, he was at the top of this demonstration and that shows something for this kind of demonstration. It is not like a, you know, anarchist way, they are this and they are the others, he was at the top of the demonstration.

Q. You mean at the front --

A. He represented, at the head of it, yes, and he represented the new leadership of the Kühnen connection where you spoke to.

Q. -- yes.

A. To whom you spoke.

Q. I do not want to interrupt you, but we certainly do not want to view that video again unless his Lordship orders, but you are not suggesting in any of those shots showing Mr Küssel I was also visible?

A. The shots we did not see shows the hotel hall in the longer version and I saw it several times, and there the people went out and in, and you were asked you if you would -- so far as I recall, but we have to see it then again, if you will also meet Küssel and you said something I cannot recall. So it was -- you were aware somehow, and you drove to Halle I think three hours or more from Hamburg with Uschi or Ursula Worch, one of the leaders of

P-23

this Kühnen connection at that time, so you may have known, and if not it seems, for me at least, you are responsible not to whom you speak to.

Q. So to boil down what you are saying, what you are saying is I was in the same large city as Küssel and that he was at the head of the demonstration on shots of film we have seen but I am not in those shots and that you say there are other shots of film -- are you saying that I am together with him in those shots of film?

A. I do not know. But you were together at the meeting, he -- if we go very carefully through the video again I think you will see him at the spot where you spoke. So you cannot deny, you cannot deny that this is a Küssel/Kühnen connection, demonstration to whom you spoke. This is a clear cut case. You know it.

Q. Now you are bringing in Michael Kühnen. We have already established that I have no contact whatsoever with Michael Kühnen --

A. It does not matter, we refer -- we agreed even to call these groups "the Kühnen crew" or "the Kühnen connection", we can also say "Gesinnungsgemeinschaft". So I know what I am speaking about. These groups at that very meeting at 9th November '91 met. These were clear cut neo-Nazi groups organised by Christian Worch, by Uschi Worch and you were invited by Uschi Worch the other day in the evening, according to a diary, to meet this demonstration

P-24

and to talk to them.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, this is getting a bit repetitive, if I may say so, I have the evidence about Küssel. I think he can move on now.

MR IRVING: Yes. Footnote 117 on that page, 39, we find Deckert, how many meetings do you think that the schoolteacher, Dr Deckert, organised for me as chairman?

A. -- I do not know, you know better.

Q. Two meetings; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. One in Stuttgart and one in Weinheim?

A. Could be, yes.

Q. Both reputable bodies?

A. Excuse me?

Q. Both reputable bodies, the one in Stuttgart was to a veterans association, the one in Weinheim was to some other little splinter group?

A. I do not know, you know better. But I know what you spoke to and who Deckert is, and for the Lordship I just want to remind you that this is very famous and influential member of the NPD at that time, and got a bit later the leadership of this same NPD, and in which in that time the NPD radicalised with respect to hardcore revisionism, and with respect, and this is even for my assessment more important, radicalised in organising these groupings we are talking -- we talk just a minute -- we talked just a

P-25

minute about -- no, we talked about just a minute ago, for example, in Halle.

Q. Yes.

A. These groupings came after they were banned in '92, '93, '94, '95, all the more to this NPD organised and led by this Deckert, so a you have good friend.

Q. You are talking '92, '93, '94, it is getting rather vague now, because from '93 onwards I was never in Germany?

A. Oh, no, I can be very precise. I said bans were sent to these groups from '92 onwards.

Q. Can I make it very simple for you --

A. You were there, or you could go into the country, and you did up to the end of '93.

Q. -- 9th November 1993. Let me make simple for you, Dr Funke, and ask outright, do you know of any occasion when I addressed a meeting to an organisation which was at that time illegal or banned in Germany?

A. So far I know you do not address a meeting that was banned -- of a group that was banned at that time.

Q. Thank you.

A. That was not my point at all.

Q. You say you have seen the correspondence between myself and Günter Deckert who is one of names on the list?

A. Yes.

Q. Your footnote on page 39.

A. Yes, OK.

P-26

Q. Was there anything extremist about that correspondence?

A. We go into the correspondence.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, if we must, yes, but --

MR IRVING: Can I ask you if there was any anti-Semitism expressed in that correspondence?

A. I have to go into -- you know, piece by piece and then we can decide.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: RWE 2, tab 8.

A. 2, tab 8, excuse me, I am not familiar with this (Pause).

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am sorry, did I tell you the wrong one, it is my fault, maybe it is 9, RWE tab 9.

MR IRVING: I am not sure this is the right way to do this, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, this is not really your fault. I think this is not going to be a productive exercise. If you do not object, Mr Irving, do you mind me asking Mr Rampton, he may not be able to help off the top of his head, but is there anything you particularly rely on in the Deckert correspondence as being extremist? I have looked through the index and there does not appear to be anything.

MR RAMPTON: Not as being explicitly extremist, no.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Otherwise, we will spend half an hour trawling through for no purpose.

MR RAMPTON: I quite agree. If I should find something --

MR JUSTICE GRAY: You can re-examine.

MR RAMPTON: Then I shall include it in some submissions later.

P-27

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Or re-examination.

MR IRVING: Let me ask, Dr Funke --

A. Just a second, can I just go through 30 seconds more?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, if you find some extremist references.

MR IRVING: That will be very helpful.

MR RAMPTON: I would not expect to find it in the correspondence anyway.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Nor would I , which is why I wonder what the purpose of this is.

A. -- oh, yes.

MR RAMPTON: I would, would I?

A. Yes, you would, I have one, but I want to use my 20 seconds.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: You might extend that briefly.

A. I am not -- I refer to the following, it is II, it is at the beginning of No. One, tape 8, and the second page, 12th May '91, right. Do you have it? II.

Q. Yes.

A. There in the middle it is stated, but I have to check what are the references, the audio cassette and what have you, "in three/four years, at the latest, these legends will no longer hold water the legend will be over and then the tables will be turned and the whole" and so forth drowned out in past. This statement, if this is included in what you referring to here, we have to go to the sentence before and after, so far I see it can be referring to the

P-28

Holocaust thing. If so, then of course it fits in my perception of what is extremist.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much.

MR IRVING: He organised a meeting for me in Weinheim on September 3rd 1990, did he not, nearly ten years ago now; is that right?

A. Yes, it is the time that is of interest.

Q. Yes, he has been in prison for seven years for being chairman of that meeting, has he not?

A. I do not think so, seven years, but --

Q. He is still in prison now?

A. -- but several times, for a quite lot of time, right.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

MR IRVING: Paragraph -- do you approve of the imprisonment of people for chairing meetings where historians speak?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I do not think that is helpful.

MR IRVING: Paragraph 4.2.6 on page 42, you mention --

A. OK, just a second I have to, it is not so wide this space. 42, you say?

Q. -- page 42, paragraph 44.2.6.

A. Yes.

Q. You mention Worch, Christian Worch and his wife Uschi?

A. Yes.

Q. You rightly say that I am close friends or was close friends with that family. Worch is a trained lawyer, is he not?

P-29

A. I do not know that he is a trained lawyer, but he was a kind of assistant to a lawyer, and in that function he acted also in his political.

Q. Had he not studied law?

A. So far I know he was in the lawyer -- as a lawyer's firm as an assistant. He did not study law so far as I know.

Q. At the time --

A. To my best knowledge.

Q. -- at all material times had he a criminal record?

A. Excuse me?

Q. At all the material times that I was dealing with him had he a criminal record, to your knowledge?

A. Yes, there was -- he was sentenced, yes.

Q. What, under German laws for suppression of free speech or under regular criminal...

A. I mean under regular German law that includes some limits to freedom of expression. You know that.

Q. Well --

MR JUSTICE GRAY: The point was, it was put in a slightly tendentious way, but were these conviction for speaking about the Nazi era?

A. -- yes, I have to look up. It was in the ----

Q. Well, did he have any convictions which were for petty theft or burglary?

A. Because of his activities, yes, definitely.

MR IRVING: He is another politically incorrect friend of mine?

P-30

A. You say so.

Q. No, that is the question, as viewed from the left, he is politically incorrect?

A. I only refer to letters, that includes the German law and you may call this "political correctness" what the German laws are doing, fine with you.

Q. I do not want to have too long answers to this, but under German --

A. Very short --

Q. -- under the German constitution freedom of speech is protected, is it not?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think I know what the position is.

MR IRVING: But except for one exception.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think we need any questions and answers about it.

A. -- no, there are more than one exception.

MR IRVING: Paragraph 4.2.14, page 45.

A. Yes.

Q. You mentioned here on line 5 a lunatic, in my view, called Gary Lauck?

A. What line?

Q. Line five, you mention a American gentleman of questionable mental stability, in my view, called Gary Lauck?

A. Yes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: He is not on the list.

P-31

MR IRVING: Is he not on the list? Am I not going to be questioned about Lauck?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, he is not on list and I am therefore assuming he is not one of those who is relied on by the Defendants as a right-wing extremist associate.

MR IRVING: Paragraph 4.4.1, this is not one of the people that is a reference to the Leuchter report, Anthony Zündel. It is accepted, of course, that I know Zündel and I have had contact with Zündel, right? You state in paragraph 4.4.1 in line 4 that "he was found guilty of peddling anti-Semitic propaganda"; was that the actual charge?

A. I have to look. Can you translate this sentence to be very precise.

Q. Line 4?

A. To my best knowledge, but maybe there is more to it.

Q. Yes, he was not actually convicted of peddling anti-Semitic propaganda, the charge was spreading false information?

A. Yes, but this kind of false information, I would call it, that is in the realm of anti-Semitism, so it is my judgment, or my assessment to that.

Q. But you accept that that is not actually what he was charged with or convicted --

A. No problem with it.

Q. -- you also accept the conviction was subsequently overturned by Canada's Supreme Court?

P-32

A. So far as I know.

Q. And that he has no convictions, he is free of any conviction?

A. I do not know if he is now free of any conviction.

Q. Let me put that the other way round, are you aware of any conviction against him which has been upheld?

A. I do not know, I have to say I do not know.

Q. If no conviction against Ernst Zündel has been upheld he is less of a convict than I am?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think the point is whether these people have convictions, Mr Irving, it is what they say and do, not whether they are found to be guilty of some local law.

MR IRVING: It is a question of degree, my Lord. People like Anthony Eden or Lord Halifax, as we know, made anti-Semitic remakes in private and other people go around smearing swastikas on synagogue. One end of the scale is a criminal conviction, other end of the scale is people's rather tasteless private rights to freedom of speech.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: The point I am trying to make is what they do and say, not whether they are convicted or whether they are not.

MR IRVING: The fact they are convicted or not is a useful indicator for us as to the severity of the anti-Semitism which has been a component of their actions, in my view.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

P-33

MR IRVING: Or a possible one.

MR RAMPTON: So then are Mr Irving's convictions going to stand here in this court as evidence of his guilt of anti-Semitism?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I understand the intervention, but the answer is "no".

MR RAMPTON: Quite.

MR IRVING: Not a very helpful interruption. 448, I am sorry still stay on paragraph 4.4.1.

A. Yes.

Q. You refer there to the Leuchter report?

A. Yes.

Q. Towards the end of it you say you the report was not accepted by the court. Are you aware that under Canadian rules of evidence engineering reports like that are accepted only if both parties agree in advance, so it had nothing to do with the quality of the report?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think this witness can possibly answer that.

MR IRVING: No, my Lord. He has stated broadly it was not accepted --

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, it was not ever put in evidence in the Canadian proceedings.

MR IRVING: My Lord, I will make submissions when the time comes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: All right, but not through this witness,

P-34

I think.

MR IRVING: 4.4.8, that was just little bit of advertising that I will be making submissions when the time comes on that, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much.

MR IRVING: Paragraph 4.4.8, you are refer to a body called GdNF, not for the first time.

A. Yes.

Q. What is the GdNF? I had lost track of it by this time --

A. The Kühnen connection, we spoke at length yesterday about it.

Q. -- well, then I can ask this simple question as it has involved Mr Kühnen, is there any evidence in any of my diaries or private correspondence to which you had complete access of my knowledge of a body called GdNF?

A. Yes, you have been blank interaction with Christian Worch. He is one of main activists.

Q. That is not my question, my question was is there any reference whatsoever to GdNF, which frankly I have seen for first --

A. It is my shortening, GdNF. It is the shortening of the OPC. In Germany you may call different.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have not realised it is the Gesinnungsgemeinschaft.

MR IRVING: The way he put it in his acronym I assumed it was something like NATO, which is not a figment of

P-35

imagination, this is a figment of the witness's imagination and need to be recognised as such, in the transcript in my view.

A. -- it is the Gesinnungsgemeinschaft. We talked about that and we know what the body of it --

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, we know about that.

MR IRVING: Paragraph 5.1.4, back to our friend Mr Althans.

A. -- 5.1.4, yes.

Q. You rightly say that in my diary I refer to him as being a bit of a Nazi, that is at first blush, having just first met him, right?

A. Yes. So at least one of the first meetings right, a bit of Nazi but helpful.

Q. A bit of Nazi but helpful. I do not want to ride too much on that paragraph. Would you imply that if you read that I regard being a bit of a Nazi as being a negative factor rather than a positive factor?

A. Here you write as if it is a bit of a negative factor.

Q. In my private diary?

A. But on the same token, in the same sentence you say: He is though helpful.

Q. Yes. You are weighing one then against other the other rather like Schroeder, Hitler's private secretary, she was probably a bit of a Nazi , but she was very helpful, too ----

A. You say a bit later again something like that, "in

P-36

November '89 he was still a bit of a Nazi. He is a very useful young man, 23 but looks older and tougher".

Q. Yes.

A. Or you refer to him in November driving to Strasbourg with Althans and his skinhead friend to attend Christopher's meeting in Hagenau.

Q. If I say I am driving to Strasbourg with somebody's skinhead friend does that imply that I am raising my eyebrows slightly or that I am jolly happy that this guy is a skinhead?

A. You met them. You shared their car. You went to Hagenau, to very hardcore revisionist, anti-Jewish meeting in Hagenau with this Zündel Judenpack statements. You were then -- you got a dinner. You were invited by this "bit of a Nazi but helpful Althans" to a dinner before the Wahrheit macht frei Congress with Philip Deckert --

Q. Can we take this in sequence, please.

A. -- of course, again --

Q. This was the skinhead, so he was there, he is still around?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you say from your knowledge of my private diaries that my original impression of Althans, this man who has been to Israel, my impression was very favourable --

A. You did not say that he has connections at that time in your diary. I read it yesterday night. You said it at the

P-37

end, in '97 or so, so this is why it came to surprise to me. I never have known about that, because he was from 14 years old and on with Remer, you know, this very -- even you want -- did not want to be aligned with him, person. So it is a total surprise. I know this organisation very good, and to be very personal I like this organisation.

Q. -- the Aktion Sühnezeichen?

A. Yes, right.

Q. Have you not seen the correspondence back in early 1990 or late 1989 where I received a letter from somebody who told me about Althans's visit to Israel?

A. The visit seems to my recollection, but not to Sühnezeichen, because that I would have --

Q. Registered?

A. Registered, because I know this organisation. It is a Berlin based organisation and that is why I know it.

Q. -- just the general overview of my diaries over the three years of this unfortunate association with Mr Althans, my initial impression of him were favourable because he was young and full of initiative?

A. Right.

Q. But I rapidly became disillusioned with him; is that right?

A. Rapidly -- but you know in early 1990s, in 1991 it starts -- and even in '90 you were a bit disgusted by his hotheadedness, as you would put it.

P-38

Q. There were various reasons, but you agree finally my impressions of him were highly unfavourable and I warned everyone against him?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: At what time are you suggesting that happened, Mr Irving?

MR IRVING: Over a period of three years, two years probably because by 1993 I was out. I had had no dealings with him for long time by then.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: So your disillusionment started when?

MR IRVING: I am just about to put to this witness a number of diary entries on Althans which may help to flesh that out, very brief entries and I have to put them to you in the form of putting them to you and I will show them to if you wish and you may well have them in front of you. On September 30th 1989, two lines, "Althans phoned the hotel" that is in Berlin "he said he would phone again" --

A. '89 you say?

Q. -- yes. I stayed in for this, but he did not call back poor manners, poor manners?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, that is not your best point, Mr Irving.

MR IRVING: November 6th.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Move on to the next one.

MR IRVING: November 6th 1989, I learn that he spent ten days in jail for a technical offence involving the president von Weizsäcker; do you have that entry?

A. Yes.

P-39

Q. Then on November 18th 1989, I note he makes a very good impression, be is businesslike and ambitious, keen and organised --

A. Right.

Q. -- he has learned a lot already. He appears to be coming up to speed.

A. I mean he even spoke instead of you, taking your notice in a given moment. So it was quite close, although his manner, as you would put it, are lacking some of the Prussian, you know, style of organisations.

Q. February 5th 1990, I am sorry, February 3rd 1990, I express annoyance that Althans has made no attempt to contact me in two and a half months, and I add that was very unprofessional?

A. No, it went like it. You see it.

Q. Well, I think this is important, because his Lordship is interested in the closeness of the contact. If I note on February 3rd 1990, I expressed annoyance that Althans and made no attempt to contact me in two and a half months, that is very unprofessional. He is supposed to be setting up things in Dresden and so on?

A. But, again, he made this furious event in Dresden at the 13th February '90, and.

Q. --- did he --

A. You describe it. So I would just, if I may, I would just say it is a back and forth. It is in waves, right, but

P-40

very intense at that time.

Q. -- why do you say --

A. Because of the Zündel connections he had and the Philipp -- and all the bunch of people you referred at that time.

Q. -- why do you describe the event in Dresden as being curious --

A. I did not say "curious", furious. It was a furious success for you in your own perception.

Q. Furious?

A. Great, big, big success.

Q. -- on the diary of January 28th 1990 shows he organised it with the "culture director", the culture manager of the city of Dresden, did he not?

A. Right.

Q. Which is what I would expect a young man do for me, to act as my kind of manager and go out and organise these meetings, and he was organising meetings with the municipal authority of Dresden. But he is not dealing with skinhead organisations, or extreme right-wing groups, he is dealing with the proper authorities?

A. He did it both.

Q. But eventually we fell out, did we not, for a whole number of reasons?

A. Yes.

Q. Reasons for honesty and so on, I do not want to go into

P-41

the details?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, but when?

MR IRVING: I would have to look at the diaries and see. Let me read on.

MR RAMPTON: According to the diary entries we have here, certainly not until towards the end of 1994.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, that is my impression.

MR IRVING: 1991, in March 23rd 1991, do you have that entry?

A. Yes.

Q. This again shows that Althans lied to us. He does not care if we get arrested. This was the famous Leuchter congress. He had made arrangements. He lied us to us about what we were permitted to do under the law. What arrangements he made with the police. He was negotiating the whole time with the police, was he not, in Germany? The whole time? He was doing things in a legal way?

A. But, again, see the context.

Q. I beg your pardon?

A. See the context. I mean this was quite an event of hardcore revisionists, including some of the worst we have in Europe, Peter Varela.

Q. Mr ----

A. Mr Ahmed Remer.

Q. --- Althans had rented the Deutsches Museum. Is that a very prestigious building in Munich?

A. Yes, and the problems became not because he has rented as

P-42

a person for scientific Congress, but because of the scope and of the content of this so-called Leuchter, Fred Leuchter Congress.

Q. Yes.

A. So the authorities said this cannot be, it is not in line with the law that forbids Holocaust denier to state, to stage as was done.

Q. How did the authorities know what was going to be said?

A. Oh.

Q. Did they decide in advance to ban meetings because they are frightened that people may come out with politically incorrect views or what?

A. I think the Munich authorities at that time knew a lot because of the experience of the year before.

Q. But you agree that Althans was trying to do things in a responsible way? He had rented one of the most prestigious lecture theatres in Munich. He organised speakers to come along. The lecture theatre then violated the contract, is that correct, forcing the meeting to be held outside in the open air on the steps with the permission of the police, is that a correct summary?

A. I do not know. I do not see -- no, I would disagree with that.

Q. Which part do you disagree with? I cannot allow you to disagree without asking you why.

A. The whole perception of this scenery you described in your

P-43

sentences, I cannot go with it. I know that, according to your diary, he, Althans, was not careful enough to circumvent this kind of interaction with the police and then this ban to speak there and the decision of the Museum to speak there because they knew what will come. So, if I may say, if I would have, if I would have done it I would have been in the same problems, technical problems, Althans went into because of the content of it. Believe me, it is not, it is a technical problem that he cannot do it. It is not, the real problem is that the whole Leuchter Congress was so disgusting and so against the law we had and we have that it could not work by any means.

Q. These are the laws for suppression of free speech in Germany, is that correct? It is not against any kind of regular laws as accepted, for example, in the United States or in England?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I think when you asked almost exactly the same question about 45 minutes ago, I said I do not think that helps, so it is not going to help now.

MR IRVING: Let me try to explain what I am trying to get at. If Mr Althans tries to do things the proper way, he rents the most prestigious lecture theatre, he organises speakers like myself to come and speak on Churchill and Pearl Harbour, that was my topic, was it not? Was that my topic that day?

P-44

A. So far you said it and according to the video.

Q. And does the correspondence not also show that that is my topic that day, my prearranged topic?

A. The topic of the Congress was the hardcore Holocaust denials meeting in Munich and to changing, as Althans put it, very politically in his views, in his views, "We will stop with kind of defence revisionism. Now it is time to umdenken, to think anew" ----

THE INTERPRETER: To rethink?

A. --- "to rethink for the revolution", so this is something.

MR IRVING: But now?

A. Again I have just to remind you and with, if I may, your Lordship, just two sentences about the again and again posed question. It is not just a freedom of expression, but you have the constitution.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Professor Funke, I totally understand what Mr Irving is suggesting and what your response is on that, so I think we must move on because this is getting ----

MR IRVING: The position I am trying to get the witness to understand, and your Lordship has not yet received this and it will now come. In view of the fact that the contract was violated, we were, therefore, the organisers were forced in conformity with the police to move the meeting to the outside which is a more extreme position, is it not? They are no longer meeting in the comfort of a lecture theatre but they are out on the street?

P-45

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Under police protection. So sometimes the extremism is forced upon them, if I can put it like that?

A. If you go out, you are extreme?

Q. Well, standing on the back of a truck holding a microphone in your hand looks more extreme than standing in a podium in a lecture theatre, is that right?

A. Again I would refer to the content. It is not the appearance as such, the content, the content of the speeches, the content of the reasons to invite a demonstration like in Halle. The content matters.

Q. I am moving on. March 25th 1991. "Then to a new press conference by Althans (who was missing)"?

A. Wait. Where are we at?

Q. March 25th 1991, the diary?

A. Ah, OK.

Q. This is substantially before 1994, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. "New press conference organised by Althans (who was missing). Further shambles". Then two days later, no, yes, one day later, March 26th: "Althans told the press I was at the April 21st 1990 march (untrue)". Have you noticed that and why did you not refer to that?

A. I have to go to the letter itself, right?

Q. No, it is the diary. March 26th 1991.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I do not think we need to look at the

P-46

letter.

A. Where do I get...

MR IRVING: The diary, March 26th 1991. Do you have extracts from the diary there, my diary?

A. No.

Q. You do not?

A. But maybe you just quote it.

Q. Just the first line, that is March 26th 1991.

A. "The text from BFP, want me to speak May 10th, DVU, Althans told press I was at 21st April march (untrue)".

Q. That is this demonstration, the illegal demonstration?

A. Yes.

Q. I put in my diary that Althans is telling the press that I was on it and this is untrue.

A. You say? Yes, you say.

Q. Why would I lie to my own diary?

A. April 14th 1992, which is two years before 1994, "I am getting fed up with Althans. It is impossible to make dates". April 29th 1992, "Faxes from Althans".

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am getting really puzzled by this, Mr Irving. You have just referred to an entry ----

MR IRVING: Yes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- where you said it was untrue that you had been at a meeting on 21st April.

A. On the march after.

MR IRVING: On the march?

P-47

A. Afterwards, you know.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: On the march, I see.

MR IRVING: On this march afterwards, yes, the famous march to the Feldherrnhalle Halle?

A. One of the things.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I follow. I am sorry. I did not realise it was the march, not the meeting.

MR IRVING: Precisely, my Lord. In my private diary I make quite plain that this is untrue and these diaries, of course, have been available to the Defence and yet they are still persisting in their contention that I was on it.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. If I may say so, Mr Irving, I have got the diary entries. Of course, if there is some missing diary entry that you want to rely on, put it to Professor Funke, but I do not really find it very helpful just going through odd entries. Could you not put your case in relation to Althans more broadly? I mean, it may be you have put it effectively already.

MR IRVING: I did put it broadly, my Lord. Althans is one of the major figures, in my view.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I know.

MR IRVING: And I have three more one line episodes to put to this witness which again emphasise the fact that relations had broken down very early on.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Right. Remember it is the wood that I need to look at rather than the trees. I mean, that is the

P-48

point really. I can see the correspondence goes on between you until 1993 into 1994. So odd entries are not necessarily going to help enormously -- '95.

MR IRVING: If your Lordship has seen the odd entries, my Lord, and one example of the entries you have noticed is the one about the demonstration.

MR RAMPTON: It is right to point out (and everybody should be aware of it) that these, I do not know quite what, the abstracts at the front of each section in the RWE files are not, I think I have said it before, exhaustive. That can cut both ways.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I appreciate they are a selection, yes.

MR RAMPTON: They are a selection. There is a huge amount of material on the cutting room floors, as Miss Rogers puts it.

MR IRVING: And they are not agreed bundles either, my Lord, in this respect.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I agree. I have just said, I take Mr Rampton's point, that you are perfectly at liberty to say that you have left out a particular entry is significant for one reason or another, but I have the picture from the selected extracts and all I am asking you to do is to ----

MR IRVING: Speed things up.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- help on the overall association rather than go through individual diary entries.

P-49

MR IRVING: We have one more specific episode here, April 29th 1992, there is a fax from Althans, and I say ----

A. April 19th?

Q. '92?

A. No, 19th.

Q. April 29th 1992.

A. Excuse me.

Q. "Fax from Althans with an horrendously tasteless invitation to my Tuesday press conference"?

A. Yes.

Q. Then on May 4th, from the diary again, 1992 ----

A. Yes.

Q. "The Manager of the Bayerischer Hof has cancelled the booking because of Althans' horrendous invitation leaflet"?

A. Yes.

Q. So to turn to my original question which his Lordship wishes me to ask you, it is clear that relations with Althans were brittle?

A. I would say yes.

Q. Yes.

A. But intense.

Q. So although you quite rightly say there were contacts between myself and Althans, and his Lordship has seen an ongoing correspondence ----

A. But very intense.

MR RAMPTON: The witness was cut off he said intense, brittle

P-50

but intense, is that right.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much.

MR IRVING: Well, in the sense that our relations with Adolf Hitler during World War II were brittle but intense, is that correct?

A. This comparison does not hold.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, do not dealt with it at length because I do not think it helps either.

MR IRVING: Paragraph ----

A. Because may I add that I not caught into a wrong perception of my answer, it was intense co-operation based on the interaction with Zündel and others, and also, as I said, the Kühnen connection, with which Althans has also very intense relationships at that time. So they often came twice, like both of these groups or persons, to the same meetings where you attended. So I see this collection of references that show that you have problems with him more on a tactical basis, you know. You said he is unprofessional, he did wrong invitations. So...

MR IRVING: Horrendous?

A. Or he messed the things up. So, with respect to your efficiency to put your things down to the German audience, yes, he was not efficient, but because of the contents you shared it was at the beginning and in the coming year, you know, at the beginning, a very helpful and very intense relationship and co-operation.

P-51

Q. Until one learns more about the man and then you tend to break away from someone, would that be possible?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Yes. In paragraph 5.1.5, you mentioned once again there incidentally, Professor Funke, the name of "Kühnen". You do accept that I have never met Kühnen, never had a single word exchanged with him and never written to him?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: He has already accepted that.

A. I have to even question this because I do not know, but there are hints that, for example, but, you know -- your Lordship, am I allowed just to do ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: We dealt with this yesterday.

A. Yes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I have the impression that you accept you have got no evidence that Mr Irving has met Kühnen or corresponded with Kühnen?

A. They were at the same march. That is not getting slippery. He was on the same march, maybe only two or 20 minutes, you know, you do not know ----

MR IRVING: Which march was this?

A. --- he was in the same meeting of the march to the Feldherrnhalle Halle, the famous, the second famous, as you say, and he was, so far the records are there, he was -- Kühnen was at the 3rd March '90. But as long as we do not -- it is, you know, these groups are conspiracy.

MR IRVING: Conspiratorial.

P-52

A. Conspiratorial. These groups, the Kühnen connection, one of their main points is to act conspiratorially. So they use you as a kind of the most political outsider, as Christian Worch told it in the letter in June '90, so there was a special interaction. So this conspiratorial things, you even are not in their perception allowed to talk about this event, what really happened at 3rd March '90. So you even from their perspective had to sanitise your diary. There is nothing about the whole event at 3rd March of '90, and the lie. So there is, I just have to say it, I have just to say that there are sources that said Kühnen, Worch and Mr Irving were there, but, you know, as long as we have not the ----

Q. We are going to look at the sources later.

A. --- definitive proof, I have to be cautious at that.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, he is not on the list.

MR IRVING: Kühnen?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No.

A. I did not know.

MR IRVING: Is Kühnen not ----

A. He was on the list.

MR IRVING: He was on the list yesterday, I believe.

MR RAMPTON: That is a mistake. I mean, I will have in the end to be guided by the evidence of the witness. If the witness, under pressure from Mr Irving, refuses to concede that the link between Althans and Kühnen is illusory,

P-53

well, then he has to go on the list.

MR IRVING: It is the link between me and Kühnen that we are interested in.

MR RAMPTON: I do not find that very difficult either, I have to say.

MR IRVING: My Lord, on a point of law, I would like to be reminded of here, if a grave allegation is made in libel, do we have to expect an enhanced degree of proof and it is not just the balance of probabilities.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am not quite sure why you raise that point now, but the answer is yes.

MR IRVING: I just wanted to remind myself, in other words, what I can now be confident your Lordship is paying attention to.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: At the moment it seems to me that the link with Kühnen is extremely tenuous and if there are not better fish to fry, if I can put it that way, then I am not impressed. I really think we must move on.

MR IRVING: Paragraph 5.15, we have Remer who is one of the people on the list. Will you accept just in two lines or one line that this July 22nd meeting with General Remer on the evidence which has been before the court, do you have it, Professor Funke? It is on page 53.

A. Yes.

Q. At this meeting with Remer at Vlotho was a conversation with him for the purpose of interviewing him for my

P-54

Goebbels biography.

A. Yes, it seems so, yes, and you did attend later on as I see.

Q. Yes, and although we have seen evidence that he may have been in the audience of some meetings I addressed, there is no other evidence of contact between us?

A. So far I see, yes.

Q. Paragraph 5.1.5, when I in line 2 of that describe somebody as being a bit of a right-wing friend of someone, a rather right-wing friend, does that ----

A. Where is it?

Q. Line 2 of paragraph 5.1.5.

A. Yes.

Q. If I described somebody as being a rather right-wing friend of somebody, does that tell you something about my attitude to right-wingers?

A. No.

Q. It does not? Does it not imply that I hold right-wingers at arm's length slightly?

A. No. There are other statements that you describe yourself as a right-winger, but we come to that later.

Q. 5.1.6, this demonstration, this little demonstration, which organise rather wickedly outside the German Sender Freies Berlin ----

A. Right.

Q. --- television station, of which we have seen the

P-55

photograph, Pedro Varela was there, was he not?

A. I do not know. This is photograph, yes, then he was there.

Q. He was next to me holding a placard calling German historians liars and cowards?

A. Yes, right, yes.

Q. How do you know that it was because of the repugnance of my views that the historians refused to debate with me, Jaeckel and the other historians who have been invited on to this panel?

A. So far I know it is because of your radicalisation of your revisionist viewpoints since you endorse the so-called Fred Leuchter report.

Q. Like the Second Defendant in this case, all these historians refuse to debate with people who have different opinions?

A. No, say it again.

Q. These historians refuse to debate with people who hold different opinions to themselves?

A. No, not at all, not at all. They are very informed and debatable, debating scholars, like Jaeckel, for example. I know him very well.

Q. There is a footnote on the previous page 53, 158, you refer to a letter that I say that I am brushing up my Holocaust vocabulary?

A. It is on?

P-56

Q. Page 53, because I am about to go to Spain, am I not, and go on a lecture tour organised by Mr Varela? This is footnote 158.

A. Excuse me.

Q. In the meantime, I will freshen up my Holocaust vocabulary?

A. Yes.

Q. If you were going to make a lecture tour in Spain, in Spanish, would you also want to know how to translate words ----

A. Yes, of course.

Q. --- and you would make sure you have the correct words?

A. Of course.

Q. That is what that refers to, in other words?

A. Yes.

Q. There was nothing sinister about it. Paragraph 5.1.7, this is still about the Berlin demonstration, and I say that some of the people who are turning up on our behalf are some quite rough in my private diary, is it not?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the political situation in Berlin at that time? Was there a violent left-wing scene? I mean, the anarchists, were they an extremely violent gang of thugs who went around brutalising people?

A. That period of time I was in Berkeley, California.

Q. Well, Berkeley was much the same, was it not?

P-57

A. Not, at that point of history.

Q. It was when I spoke there.

A. No.

Q. But in Berlin?

A. So I do not feel, you know, endangered by this.

Q. I am sure you do not, but, well ----

A. As a normal person ----

Q. What is the word ----

A. --- and also my friend.

Q. What does the word "Chaoten" mean to you? It is C-H-A-O-T-E-N?

A. Chaoten? You want a good translation?

Q. Well, I just want to know what image does it conjure up? It is frequently used by the press, is it not, to describe people to breaking up demonstrations?

A. Yes. They bring up demonstrations and doing it too often, this is a kind of subtext of it.

Q. So if you were organising any kind of demonstration, even on the smallest scale in Berlin, you would want to go along and make sure that you were not going to be beaten to a pulp, you would have people there who were able to protect your suit or whatever?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, you have lost me completely. I just do not know what point you are seeking to make.

MR IRVING: The witness has referred to the fact that, obviously, I made a note in my diary that some of the

P-58

people who were coming along to our demonstration that night were rough necks, some quite rough, I think are the words, and I am just pointing out there was obviously a reason why we were glad to have one or two people with shoulder muscles there.

A. Was there a kind of violent interaction?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, Professor Funke ----

MR IRVING: We have moved on.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- don't let us spend time.

MR IRVING: Paragraph 5.1.8, please? "Irving told journalists", towards the end of that paragraph, "'The result of this report is final. There was no mass murder with poison gas'"?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you accept that this was not a verbatim transcript of that particular press conference

A. It was not a what?

Q. Verbatim transcript, it is not a Wortlautprotokoll?

A. There was no mass murder with poison gas. "Es gab keine Massentötung durch Giftgas".

Q. Yes, but you accept that this is not necessarily a verbatim protocol of my actual words as spoken at that press conference

A. Yes, it is a summary, it seems to.

Q. A summary?

A. And it shows by the way, if I may say, how link you with

P-59

Karl Philipp and to the radical revisionist cause.

Q. Yes. Do you agree that my position at this trial has always been that at Auschwitz there was no mass murder, and I emphasise the word "mass" with poison gas?

A. I know that you endorse the Fred Leuchter report and this is at the basic of the difficulty for the German, for the German authorities, because it hurts the people who survived the Holocaust at the very place.

Q. Yes, 5.1.10 -- I am sorry.

MR RAMPTON: I am sorry. One skips as usual, one has leapt over the difficult bit without booking beneath one's feet as one has gone. At the top of page 55 there is some dialogue between Mr Irving and a journalist which has been translated into English, fortunately. I draw attention to Mr Irving's last answer and the last sentence of that last answer and to the plural which he uses.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do you want to ask a question about that, Mr Irving?

MR IRVING: I have already asked the question which is does the witness accept this was not a verbatim transcript, my Lord, and that being so ----

A. This is verbatim now.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Please, Professor Funke, that really is not an answer, is it? Either you are correctly quoted or you are incorrectly quoted. What you are quoted as having said is that "It is the defamation of the German people if

P-60

one talks of extermination camps or death camps". Now, you either said that or you did not. If your case is that you did not say it, I think you ought to put it.

MR IRVING: I will put it another way round. Professor Funke, was this press conference held in English or in German, in your opinion?

A. Normally, these press conferences to get a better audience are held in German.

Q. So this is a translation by somebody into English, and we have no way really of knowing exactly what words I used.

A. But I can ----

MR RAMPTON: The German is quoted in footnote 175.

A. Right. It is stated there.

MR RAMPTON: It is in the plural -- even I know that -- in German.

A. I just want to quote it now.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: There is no need because I have read it out in English and Mr Irving is suggesting it is a mistranslation, he can say so. Mr Irving, are you suggesting there is a mistranslation there?

MR IRVING: There clearly is. "Todesfabriken" is not "death camps".

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, it is "death factories".

MR IRVING: "Factories of death" which is precisely the position I have adopted.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: What is the difference?

P-61

MR RAMPTON: Plural or singular?

MR IRVING: My Lord, this is crematorium No. II and we have gone over that in some detail already.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Now, come on, let us get to grips with this. Are you saying that you have either been misquoted or that what you said has been mistranslated in a significant way beyond what you have just pointed out, Mr Irving? I think you must come clean and put your case on this.

MR IRVING: I think it is a misquotation. I am not prepared to accept this is a genuine quotation of what I said. It partially represents my position. The "Todesfabriken" is correct. "Vernichtungslagern" is not correct. If the Defence wishes to produce a verbatim transcript of that press conference, then it is up to them to do so.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, that is an invitation that might be taken up because it, presumably, does exist, there must be a transcript.

MR IRVING: Yes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can you help about that, Professor Funke? Do you know what you are quoting from derives?

A. Yes. Just a second. The middle of page 52, just a second it is from Code. This is a right-wing extremist magazine that quotes this interaction. It is either Franke-Grieksch or Karl Philipp, maybe, so one of, just to have a look at it a minute, if you allow, your Lordship? Yes, it is a publishing of the press conference content by Code,

P-62

C-O-D-E, and this again is done by Karl Philipp. So he may be responsible for this kind of translation, what shows that he goes very -- he is a close co-operative person to Irving, knows or was also there at the press conference in London and he was there in the press conference in Berlin. So, the sense, the gist of it, I think he knows very well and, if I may say again, the translation of this German sentence is ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do not worry about the translation. It was really a simple question by me where it came from.

MR RAMPTON: I have the source here. We will provide, I think it only right, if your Lordship agrees, the article from which it is taken.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: By Karl Philipp?

A. Bundle No.?

MR RAMPTON: Yes. It is bundle No. 5.1I, H5.I?

A. And then I.

MR RAMPTON: Yes, I.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: May I suggest we leave this to re-examination when copies are available for everybody because they will not be at the moment, unless you think that is an undesirable course?

MR RAMPTON: They are.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, if they are, have you got H5.I?

MR RAMPTON: Yes, it is page 324 stamped at the bottom. In my file it is after a blue tab.

P-63

A. Right, I see.

MR IRVING: I will ask the witness further questions on this passage, obviously.

A. Just a second.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: All right.

MR RAMPTON: I can tell your Lordship that the words in question, well, one of the words in question, one of the groups, [German - document not provided] is in the second column at the top, at the end of the first block of Irving, and the exchange between Irving and the journalist where Irving says that there were no Vernichtungslagern or Todesfabriken is in the second column. It is the second Irving quote, the first half of that second Irving quote, the question having been, whatever it was [German - document not provided].

A. So it is clearly related to Todesfabriken, and that means death fabrics or death camps, death factories, and this is cannot be only the Auschwitz camp or the crematorium II or whatever you are referring just a minute ago, it is a very general statement that you deny the essence of Holocaust.

MR IRVING: Let me ask you two or three questions about that passage at the top of page 55. As Mr Rampton is obviously ----

A. Yes.

Q. --- hanging his coat on it.

P-64

MR RAMPTON: One of my many coats.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Ask the question, leave aside Mr Rampton.

MR IRVING: Is the entire exchange, the five-line exchange: "Journalist Irving, journalist Irving" concerning Auschwitz, are his two questions about Auschwitz and am I replying to two questions about Auschwitz?

A. The sentences before, yes. But the last sentence is a general observation. The last sentence, I quote it again: "Es ist eine Verleumdung des deutschen Volkes, wenn man von Vernichtungslagern und Todesfabriken spricht". This is clearly a general statement on the essence of the Holocaust you are denying towards the German public.

Q. "In bezug auf Auschwitz" - with regard to Auschwitz. That is what was his question was about, is that correct?

A. The question was, so I quote it again, first in German, "(Journalist) Warum heisst Auschwitz denn Vernichtungslager? (Irving) Nicht bei mir. Nur bei Ihnen und bei den deutschen Historikern. Und dann" ---- then there is the sentence I quoted before, it is -- it is there stated so I want to take this. It is a defamation of the German people, if one talks of extermination camps or death camps. So it is clearly a general statement. You know, you began by answering a question to Auschwitz, and then you extended it to the whole Holocaust, or however you say, this bit about the murdering of nearly 6

P-65

million people Jews.

Q. Is the sense of my final answer there that it is a defamation of the German people if one talks of extermination camps or death camps not, in fact, the following: "Is it the defamation of German people when you ask why Auschwitz is called an extermination camp, if you talk about extermination camps or death camps"? Do you understand what I am saying?

A. Say it again?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not want you to, because you have interpolated some words that are not there.

MR IRVING: I am interpolating his question to which I am responding, my Lord, to make it quite plain that this is ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: For my part, I think this debate has gone on long enough. I have the words that you have recorded as having said and I hear what you put and I hear what the witness answers.

MR IRVING: The words that I am quoted as having said rather than recorded as having said is the first point I make. The second point is I would say, what the correction translation for "Todesfabriken"?

A. I think that "death camps" is the more used translation, but the sense of it is the general observation that you denied the Holocaust, that is to say, the killing of 5 to 6 million Jewish people.

P-66

Q. You are aware, of course, that I have always said that there is no evidence that Auschwitz was purpose designed as a Vernichtungslager or a factory of death. Are you aware of that point?

A. I think you waived on that before 1989 and since 1989, you were very firm on that line.

Q. This is since 1989; this is late 1989, is that correct?

A. Right.

Q. So, if this has always been my position, then this is clearly all that I am saying in that paragraph. Do not come to me with talk about extermination camps and death camps, Auschwitz and so on.

A. But you have criticise then Karl Philipp.

Q. I beg your pardon?

A. Then you have to criticise Karl Philipp and you did not do so.

Q. No, I am criticising the person first of all who translated "Todesfabriken" as death camps.

A. And you did not do so.

Q. I am just criticising him now. I am also criticising the person who is not capable of seeing that this a response directly to the previous question.

A. So ----

Q. I am not going to take it any further.

A. So, again I have to state ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, we were passing on now, Professor Funke.

P-67

A. OK.

MR IRVING: You refer in your footnote 172, to the point that has already been raised, but here you make it more clearly, you say here that "Wahrheit macht Frei" is a tasteless pun, a "Wortspiel", on the inscription set over the gates at Auschwitz "Arbeit macht Frei". Is it not the other way round?

A. Excuse me, where is it?

Q. Footnote 172.

A. Yes, excuse me.

Q. Is it not the other way round that the quotation from the Scriptures, no doubt, comes 2,000 years before the SS so that the SS with the inscription over the gates with the tasteless pun ----?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, we had this precise point yesterday, and you say that there is no connection between "Arbeit macht Frei" and what one sees at this meeting.

MR IRVING: My Lord, here he is making the point in his footnote which he did not make yesterday. Your Lordship made the connection, but he did not.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I did not make the connection; I observed that you deny that there is one.

A. If I recall, the last speech of Raymund Bachman, in the second Leuchter Congress in 30, 23rd March 1991, before the Museum, he raised his voice and even shouted that we should not be suppressed by the police agencies and so

P-68

forth, and that freedom of expression should not be suppressed. What he meant was the ideas of these Holocaust deniers to be spread out and to say these denial things. Then he shouted to the public, and I would invite to see this, the Bachman, the Austrian speaker: "Auschwitz, Auschwitz, Auschwitz", and the whole people reacted to that. So, the more I realise what these congresses are about, the more there is an allusion of "Arbeit macht Frei", in the sense that this was a cynical description of destruction by work and this "Wahrheit macht Frei", the more I think about it, the more it is related to each other.

MR IRVING: My Lord, I have to say that I have no recollection of having seen that man shout "Auschwitz" three times on the video and I do not know if your Lordship saw it?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I think the point is whether "Arbeit macht Frei" is or is not connected with "Wahrheit macht Frei". I really do not think we can debate this any longer.

MR RAMPTON: No, we cannot, but we may as well if we throw it away with some ease because, in Mr Irving's diary for October 3rd 1989 when he was in West Berlin, he writes this: "At 11 am, a well attended press conference at the Kempinski (which I believe is some kind of hotel), around 20 writers, six or seven genuine journalists told them (I will read it but I do not know what it means): Zeit:

P-69

11 Uhr heute Morgen wird zurückgeschossen, and closed with my new slogan Wahrheit macht Frei. The lefty journalists got the allusions".

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, thank you. Mr Irving, you are in person and I appreciate the difficulties and you, again, have been confronted with an extremely long and detailed report, but, in the end, I think it is important to remember ----

MR IRVING: It is the names.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- what it is that this witness is telling me that really matters. He has identified a number of individuals who he says are right-wing extremist with whom he says you have close associations or associations anyway. That is what I am going to get from this witness, if I get anything, and----

MR IRVING: We will come to them.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- we are darting around looking at the odd footnote here and there and, as I have said so many times before, it is really the big picture that you must tackle, not whether particular footnotes are accurate or not. So can you please bear that in mind because I just do not think that we are making progress at all.

MR IRVING: It is just that I can feel the sharks over there. They will leap on anything that I have not traversed.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Try to ignore them and concentrate on asking the questions which I want to hear the answers to.

P-70

MR IRVING: In late 1989, Dr Funke, I conducted a tour of Austria, did I not?

A. Yes.

Q. Did I arrange the tour or was it arranged by somebody else?

A. It was arranged by Althans and Philipp and maybe some others, but these both ----

Q. These are two of the people on the list, are they not, Althans and Philipp? Can I ask you to look at document 14 in the little bundle that I gave you this morning?

A. It is too packed here, excuse me.

Q. There is no need to read it out, just read it to yourself quickly.

A. Yes.

Q. And then I will ask you two questions on it. (Pause for reading.) "I am writing to the head of the security police in Carinthia which is a province of Austria", is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. "In anticipation of the tour and I am asking him to effectively give me guidelines so that I can stay within the law"?

A. Yes.

Q. Is this a responsible thing to do?

A. Yes.

Q. Does it indicate any extremist intentions on my part or on

P-71

the part of the organisers?

A. The letter alludes to your topics. I quote: [German - document not provided].

Q. Yes. Do you have any comments on that?

A. Maybe I should translate it or maybe you can translate it for me?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I would not, Professor Funke, if I were you, spend very long on it. You have been asked whether you regard that as a responsible letter?

A. No.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: And it is ----

A. No, I do not.

Q. All right, you do not.

A. I do not because of that sentence.

MR IRVING: It is considered an irresponsible letter?

A. Yes.

Q. I do not think it is going to be productive, my Lord, to ask questions on this, unless your Lordship wishes to?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not really. I did try to give you a steer a moment ago to what I think is helpful.

MR IRVING: Yes, exactly. That is precisely how I am moving on not because I do not want to ask further questions. You referred in paragraph 5.1.11, and this very briefly, to a visit which I made to a man called Woltersdorf who is an old Nazi SS friend of someone, right?

A. Yes.

P-72

Q. Do you accept that if you write books about Nazis, you have to visit them sometimes?

A. Yes.

Q. In 5.1.12, we come to Mr Christophersen who is one of the people on the list. Is there correspondence between me and Mr Christophersen that you have read?

A. To a degree.

Q. Did I ever write back to him approving of the book that he sent me?

A. So far as I recall, no.

Q. No. In 5.1.13, there is reference to a magazine that he published called Bauernschaft. Have you seen in all the papers, or my diary, or the files of correspondences which have been made available to you any indication that I ordered it, or read it, or acknowledged it or thanked him for it?

A. I cannot recall -- I have to go through these letters to be sure that you did not.

Q. Well, let me phrase it another way. Can you recall having seen any such letters indicating that I ----

A. There were, there were a lot of quests of Christophersen to come to his meetings and you sometimes said no, and sometimes you attended like the Hagenau meeting, in so far as it is also prepared by Christophersen. So this is what I recall.

Q. To give his Lordship an indication of the intensity, to

P-73

use that word, my relations with Mr Christophersen, how many meetings, in your opinion, did Christophersen organise that I spoke at?

A. Only a few.

Q. One?

A. Only a few.

Q. Can you think of any more apart from Hagenau?

A. I have to look at the Christophersen file for a minute.

MR RAMPTON: Tab 15, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I am looking at it. (Pause for reading).

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think there are any other meetings that are referred to.

MR RAMPTON: There is possibly one between 12th and 17th September, actually.

A. September of what year?

MR RAMPTON: 1989, sorry. We do not have the recording in the diary of what took place.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I see what you mean.

MR RAMPTON: Die Bauernschaft's annual meeting.

A. OK.

MR IRVING: Moving on from Mr Christophersen, in 5.3.8, is Dieter Munier one of the names on the list? I am not sure.

A. Yes.

Q. A publisher Arndt Verlag. Is he a publisher?

P-74

A. Yes.

Q. Has he published books of mine?

A. Yes.

Q. Is one of the books a history of the Forschungsamt, the German intelligence code-breaking organisation?

A. That may be, I am not aware, but you published it with the Arndt publisher.

Q. With Arndt Verlag, yes. Are you aware that this book was highly praised by Professor Watt in the witness box where you are now sitting?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think he is on the list.

MR IRVING: I beg your pardon?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: He is not on the list.

MR IRVING: He is not on the list. Very well, in that case, let us move on. In paragraph 5.3.9, and to this I do attach importance, my Lord, the indented passage on page 62, now the question is, if you read the indented passage, Christian Worch is complaining about what I put into my speeches.

A. Right.

Q. Is he complaining because I have rubbed the noses of these right-wing audiences in the atrocities committed by the SS?

A. To a degree.

Q. To a degree. I have read out to you the entire Bruns Report. Is that evident from that letter?

P-75

A. It seems to.

Q. Do you think that was only occasion that I did this, or did I make a habit of doing that to every single right-wing audience I spoke to?

A. It seems that you not only did it in Hagenau, so far as I recall.

Q. There were frequent protests from these right-wingers, these extremists, of the fact I rubbed their noses in the crimes committed by the Nazis and the SS, and that this is documented in a way that we do not have to rely on a consensus of opinion, or the opinion of the social sciences. We have documents showing that I rubbed their noses in these crimes.

A. Yes, especially from Christophersen, I may add. Christophersen said not to do this, do not refer.

Q. Yes, and did I carry on doing it?

A. This is right.

Q. In paragraph 5.3.13, this is a meeting at which I addressed in Hamburg and then, I am sorry, paragraph 5.3.12. You are referring to a meeting that I addressed in Hamburg and then, in 5.3.13, you purport to put in what I said at that meeting. Is that transcript, in fact, from Hamburg or is it from another meeting?

A. Wait a minute. I think I did a mistake but I have to look at it more precisely.

MR RAMPTON: I think, in fact, it is the Moers meeting. It has

P-76

somehow been transposed.

A. Yes, I have to admit that ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is two months later, is it not?

MR RAMPTON: Yes, it is two months later, in fact.

A. By the way, the Moers meeting was not in your diary. It was stated sometime, it was on the 5th, but so far I reconstructed it was at the 9th March.

MR RAMPTON: It was the ninth Moers of ----

A. Yes, of 9th March.

MR RAMPTON: --- 5.3.19. That is the one meeting of which we do have a full transcript.

A. I referred to that, your Lordship, at the beginning of my three remarks today in the morning.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

MR IRVING: You made references on these pages to the NL. That is the Nationale Liste, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. Was that banned at that time?

A. No.

Q. In 5.3.14 - I am going to come back to the Hamburg meeting in a second - you had me saying there: "We are always running the danger that we will be arrested..." This is Moers meeting from the transcript, is it not?

A. I am lost.

Q. 5.3.14?

A. 5.3.14?

P-77

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, it is.

A. Yes.

MR IRVING: It all sounds rather conspiratorial, me telling an audience there that we are running the danger, that we are going to be arrested. Was the situation, at that time in Germany, really dangerous for dissident historians, that there was danger of being arrested because of what you said?

A. It is in early 1990, right? Yes.

Q. Are people still serving prison sentences in Germany today for things they said in 1990, to your knowledge, Günter Deckert?

A. Not for dissenting historians, but for hardcore denialists sometimes.

Q. Yes, the really wicked ones? Are you aware that the German government applied for my extradition last year because of something I said in September 1990?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, Mr Irving, I think we did at an earlier stage agree that what governments do or do not do is really not going to be helpful.

MR IRVING: I am proud to live in England and not in Germany, my Lord. 5.3.15.

A. I would like to comment on this.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No.

MR IRVING: This is an important one. 5.3.15, when you state that I arrived with Kühnen, which is obviously an

P-78

important point, the journalist Michael Schmidt, who is one of your favourite sources, says that Irving arrived with Michael Kühnen at this meeting in Hamburg.

A. Yes.

Q. You had before you my diary?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you check with the diary to see if there is any indication that I arrived with Michael Kühnen?

A. No. No, of course not. That is why I am raising this point.

Q. Well, either it is worth checking if something is likely or not. Can I take you to pages 13 and 14 of the bundle, please, I am sorry page 13.

A. Of the bundle?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. It is complicated and I am not going to read it all out. I want you to run your eye down it and I will ask you in advance the questions I am going to ask. Is it evident from at that my daughter Paloma was with me on this tour of Hamburg, tour of Germany, and that she was with me in the car and that she came with me to the function?

A. Yes.

Q. And that I spoke later that evening at another function to university students?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: And that you knew that Michael Kühnen was

P-79

going to be present.

MR IRVING: I beg your pardon?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: And that you knew that Michael Kühnen was going to be present.

MR IRVING: Did I say that I would not come if he was going to be present, that this has caused problems? This evoked consternation and I said I was not going to come. The question I am going to ask you is, is there any evidence from the diary entry that I had Michael Kühnen in the car with me and would I not have mentioned it?

A. In the car?

Q. In my car, yes.

A. I did not know.

Q. So you will accept, will you, that he was not with me and I did not arrive with him?

A. No, it is just the diary.

Q. Will you accept once more that I have never met Michael Kühnen knowingly in my life?

A. As a responsible scientist I have to at least notify that there are other hints and eyewitnesses, so to speak, who say differently.

Q. You have one, Michael Schmidt, you are familiar source, Michael Schmidt?

A. Yes, it is a very important source, because he is one of the few who is not in the right-wing camp, and could manage it for a time of some years to interact with them

P-80

and even film it, and all the video material is from him. So of course it is an important source. It is a worldwide important source for this kind of camp.

Q. But contrasting, shall we say, the post-war memoirs of Michael Schmidt, this left-wing journalist on the one hand, and his recollection that he seemed to think that I arrive with Michael Kühnen with my diary which shows clearly that I am with my daughter and there is no reference to Michael Kühnen arriving with me at all, or even being with me, in fact there is no reason why he would have been because I came from a totally different part of Germany, you have to admit that, on balance of probabilities, it is unlikely?

A. I cannot say yes or no to that. I read your diary. I was very cautious, but I have to mention that there are other, you know, eyewitnesses of that meeting.

Q. One?

A. Yes.

Q. Yes. Can I take you now to 5.3.16? We have moved on from Michael Kühnen. One of your other sources, a Miss Benedict, is it, or Mrs Benedict?

A. Yes.

Q. Says that I received applause from the older members of the audiences, especially SS veterans. How on earth does she know they were SS veterans?

A. She stated so.

P-81

Q. Is this not indicative of the kind of things your sources are writing? Were they in uniform? Did they hold up party cards?

A. I quote this person and I do not know more.

Q. Are you not critical about the sources you use when you write these reports?

A. Oh, yes I am very, and Benedict is one of the sources I met often, and she is one of those who knew the scene as intense and differentiated as, for example, Wagner. The problem is with these sources of course ----

Q. Is she one of your social scientists that you refer to?

A. Excuse me?

Q. Is she one of your social scientists you refer to as being a reliable source?

A. Yes.

Q. I thought so.

A. It is more out of an observational perspective, and she is one of the persons out of East Germany who knew the scene from before '89. So she knew the persons they interacted in the definitive phase between '85 and '90. So she is a very reasonable source.

Q. Paragraph 5.2 ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I thought we had got beyond that.

MR IRVING: We had got beyond that and I was just going to reassure myself once again, my Lord, this is headed "OPC Observations", that paragraph, it is on page 58, your

P-82

Lordship is paying little heed to OPC observations I trust.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well ----

MR IRVING: That is the German Office of the Protection of the Constitution.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I follow that. We went through this yesterday and it seems to me I make up my mind about these organisations on the basis of what Professor Funke tells me.

MR IRVING: Yes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: And not what the OPC says.

MR IRVING: We did have a discussion about it yesterday, and the impression I got was that your Lordship would attach little weight to what these ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: What I said yesterday was exactly what I said just now.

MR IRVING: I will have to read transcript. 5.3.2, Mr Zündel, footnote 198, there is a reference to Zündel's Maulkorb which is a ----

A. 598?

Q. I am sorry, footnote 198. There is a reference to a Maulkorb having been put on Zündel, a dog, what is the word for it ----

A. I did not see it.

Q. It is probably not important then.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is a classic example of what I did invite

P-83

you not to do, which is to go to some rather obscure footnote and completely fail to put your case in relation to your association or otherwise with Mr Zündel. I thought you accepted that Zündel was somebody with whom you had a close association?

MR IRVING: Yes, indeed, but it is just a trivial point I was just going to ask him if he knew why this Maulkorb, this gag, had been applied on Zündel, was it just a legal gag.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: If it is a trivial point let us, please, not bother with it.

MR IRVING: Yes. 5.3.26, please, this is Mr Althans who is organising my tour for me in Dresden and elsewhere. It states that the turnover did not apply, the Umsatz entfällt. Do you know why that was? Are you familiar from the correspondence that I had agreed to donate the entire proceedings for the rebuilding of the Church of our Lady in Dresden?

A. So far as I recall, yes.

Q. Yes. So there is nothing sinister about that particular arrangement?

A. No, it seems not.

Q. Paragraph 5.3.7, I am sorry my numbering has gone slightly astray, 5.3.7, you have: "In his report on Irving's court appearance", and you give as a footnote there 218. Is the source you give for that ----

A. Where is 218?

P-84

Q. Footnote 218, would I be right in describing that book that you are using there as being an anti-fascist kind of source?

A. Say it again? Where you are, please?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: We have now gone back to paragraph 5.3.7.

MR IRVING: Footnote 218 about Karl Philipp?

A. 5.3.7.

Q. I am just commenting on your evidently using what I would call anti-fascist sources. It is footnote 218. The question is purely, is that book you quote there what you would call an anti-fascist source?

A. Exactly.

Q. Yes. You accept such sources quite uncritically, do you?

A. I stated yesterday that I do it for a special purpose in a special situation where these sources seem to be very valid. Of course I have to do it in the case of the Michael Schmidt video, and this is a kind of rewriting of the whole video material Michael Schmidt put to these people. That is why, otherwise I would not, because I have to check again and again, but I could check, especially these sources, by seeing the videos and seeing what it means and what not.

Q. Would it not have been preferable to have used the original sources rather than other people's ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, are you challenging the correctness of what Mr Philipp wrote, because if you are

P-85

not, why are we spending a long time discussing whether the source for it is reliable?

MR IRVING: We will spend no further time. Paragraph 5.3.19, Professor Funke. We are now on page 66. We are back at the Moers meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. At 5.3.17 before that, you describe the speech I made at Moers as being demagogic or I describe it as being demagogic?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you object, demagogic, if you remember the little speech I made at the Leuchter Congress, was that demagogic, although all I was saying was that I am not allowed to speak?

A. It refers to your diary.

Q. Yes, but, I mean, there is nothing reprehensible about making a demagogic speech inherently or is there?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. All right.

A. My perception of demagogic is not so good as yours.

Q. 5.3.19, we are now actually going on to the content of the Moers speech?

A. Yes.

Q. The Moers speech was organised by Mr Althans, was it?

A. Yes.

Q. And here I am quoted as saying by the transcript: "Then

P-86

I believed these gentlemen [German historians] who said that something happened at Auschwitz. Now I no longer believe this story at all. Today I say the following: there were no gassings in Auschwitz". Stop there, do you know the difference between Auschwitz and Birkenau?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. Have you read either in these court documents or before or since an article published in L'Express, a French news magazine of repute, in January 1995 which established that the gas chamber at Auschwitz which is shown to the tourists is fake and that they admit it?

A. Give me the evidence, but it was debated very much in this court.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, we have been through that several times. It has nothing to do with this witness's evidence.

MR IRVING: It is my way just of reminding the court.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, please accept that I remember what you say about the dummies at Dachau and Auschwitz.

MR IRVING: The court did interrupt me when I was trying to cross-examine van Pelt about this matter.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Only because you had previously cross-examined him about it. So don't let us spend time with Professor Funke on it.

MR IRVING: The topics mentioned in paragraph 5.3.23?

A. Yes.

P-87

Q. It is over the page actually, at the top of page 68, there are several topics mentioned there, are any of those topics Holocaust denial or anti-Semitism or are they just plain revisionism?

A. I just have to read the sentence. No, it seems not.

Q. This is Mr Althans who was organising this particular tour with these topics?

A. Yes.

Q. Page 69, half way down the page, the letter was headed with a quote from Irving, the question is what evidence do you have that there was ever such a quote from me?

A. To what line are you referring to, please?

Q. Effectively, the second half of that page beginning with "The letter was headed"?

A. 69? Yes, I have it.

Q. This is a letter issued by some organisation with an invitation to a speech by me and then it is headed with what is said to be a quotation from me?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: You are saying that is something you never said?

MR IRVING: That is what I am putting to this witness, my Lord, yes. Have you seen any evidence that that quotation actually comes from anything I wrote or said?

A. I know that to a degree you referred to that kind of ideas, that is quoted there, that I know by the bundle of excerpts on anti-Semitism that Mr Rampton brought to the

P-88

court. Yes. But I do not know now, I have to look at the bundles to see.

Q. Yes. I do not want to dwell too long on organisations, but there are two or three bodies that you mentioned in that paragraph, 5.3.27, are any of them banned or right-wing extremists to your knowledge?

A. 5.3.27?

Q. Yes. The Arbeitskreis Deutsche Wahrheit or the Förderverein Junges Deutschland?

A. I have to look up, I do not know.

Q. Have you heard of them before?

A. Not at that point, not at that point, it seems to, not at that point in time.

Q. But have you ever heard of them?

A. Yes, but I do not know if they are banned. I have to look up later on.

Q. Yes.

A. But it is not of interest ...

Q. But you just say that they are right wing extremists, although you obviously do not know very much about them?

A. This is the point you want to make?

Q. Yes.

A. Then I have to look up more precise than...

Q. Well, unless his Lordship attaches importance here, I think we will move on.

A. OK, good.

P-89

Q. The impression I had was that you are relatively unfamiliar with these bodies and that you were willing to express an opinion on them, nonetheless?

A. So what did I say? So now come to the point, please.

Q. When I asked you were you familiar with them you said, well ----

A. No, no.

Q. --- yes and no.

A. What did I say on these groups, little groups? What did I say? What did I say to present them? What did I say?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: What Mr Irving said you said was that you had said that they were right-wing extremist organisations, but I am not quite sure where you are supposed to have said that.

MR IRVING: I asked if they were, my Lord, and he said, yes, he thought they were, but this was after he had said he did not know very much about them.

A. Yes, this is right. They are listed in this hundreds of groups of right-wing extremist tiny groups, and it is of interest that you spoke there and that they are perceived as right-wing extremists. I can look it up, I mean, of course if you want, so I looked it up but I have to refresh my memory. I think this is valid to do.

Q. You are going back to the consensus, are you? Are you going to have another look at the consensus of all the social sciences?

P-90

MR JUSTICE GRAY: It was you who asked the question, Mr Irving?

A. Whatever you call it, I do not care.

MR IRVING: I am quite happy to abandon this question because ----

A. No, no, I want to know it.

Q. Do you not say on 5.3.32 that they were fictitious organisations, 5.3.32?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: They will not be in your book if they were fictitious, I suspect.

MR IRVING: I am trying to speed things up.

A. Just a second.

Q. I will be quite happy to move on.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, whilst the witness, he is obviously very keen to look up and I understand why. I think you have been ----

A. Yes, this is one of this little group without ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Professor Funke, can you just pause a moment because I just want to say something to Mr Irving. Mr Irving, I think you have been cross-examining for nearly a day now. I have to tell you that I am not much the wiser as to what your case is in regard to what this witness has said, namely that there are these individuals with whom you have a close association and they are all on the extreme right-wing fringe. I cannot let the cross-examination go on. I keep asking you to focus on what matters.

P-91

MR IRVING: On individuals.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: And you are continuing to go through footnotes and trivial points. I think the point has come where, unless Mr Rampton discourages me, I must say to you, you must at 2 o'clock put your case in relation to these individuals and the organisations so that I understand what it is, because I do not think it is right for me to let the court's time be taken up with cross-examination which seems to me to achieving virtually nothing.

MR RAMPTON: Can I add to that?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I would like to hear Mr Rampton on this because I do not want to be over strict.

MR RAMPTON: No, I embrace that because I have no idea what Mr Irving says about these people's political attitudes, (a) what their political attitudes are, and (b) whether he knows what they are. That is essential. What is also essential is that he should say yeah or nay, does he propose that these meetings which he attended were in their content entirely innocent?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think it has to be done.

MR IRVING: That is for cross-examination.

MR IRVING: No, it is not; I do not know what Mr Irving's case is.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I want to make every allowance for the fact that you are in person and you have had an appalling task cross-examining witness after witness, expert witness

P-92

after expert witness, and there is an enormous volume of material you are having to deal with. But, in the end what matters is these individuals and the associations that they had or did not have with you. You must do it.

MR IRVING: Well, I believed I was working through this report name by name and, effectively, devaluing the quality of the evidence that had been given to suggest, except for a number of key names which we are all familiar with.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, what you are not doing, it is perfectly true that you pick up the odd name like Karl Philipp, or whatever it may be, and you make one or two -----

MR IRVING: That is the way the report has been written.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: You ask one or two questions by reference to individual diary entries, but you are missing the wood for the trees again. What I need to have you put to this witness is, "I did not ever meet with Karl Philipp or I may have spoken at meetings at which he was present, but I did not know it" or "Yes, we used to associate quite regularly together, but there is nothing particularly right-wing about him". Put your case.

MR IRVING: I can do that in 15 minutes, my Lord.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I do not want you to telescope it too much, but what has taken place this morning has really not, I think, advanced your case on this aspect of this trial at all.

MR IRVING: Well, I hoped that I was shaking your Lordship's

P-93

confidence in page after page after page of this report, which is initially impressive, but then once we take out the OPC reports, it becomes very much thinner. Once we take out the names of people I have never even met or heard of it becomes frequently sparse and fragmentary. Now we can deal with the people whose names I have heard of and deal with them in short order. For that reason I will go to the appendix and look at the names that we have highlighted, the people on the list, and put the propositions directly to the witness ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

MR IRVING: --- that your Lordship is suggesting.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I think that is the right way to do it, but do not feel confined -- when you are on a relevant topic, I do not want you to cut your cross-examination short.

MR IRVING: There are matters like the Adolf Hitler toast that was organised by Ewald Althans and things like that, and I would hate to let that go by the board.

MR RAMPTON: No, that should not be let go because that is a point I seek to be of some importance.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I mean, I cannot dictate the way you cross-examined, but if I had been doing this instead of you, I would have taken the individuals, I think I would have taken them one by one, and I would have gone through the alleged association to see how much of it there really

P-94

was.

MR IRVING: My Lord, you have considerable more experience than I do in cross-examination and some of your clients have ended up in prison and some of them, no doubt, have been acquitted and have been awarded large sums in damages.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is kind of you to put it like that. Now let us get on with the cross-examination.

MR IRVING: I am totally ignorant in the manner of how to deal with these things. I will certainly take the 5.3.35, we will deal with 5.3.35. My Lord, I do feel we have achieved things this morning, for example, establishing agreement that at most of these meetings I have rubbed their noses in the Bruns Report, things like that, which I hope your Lordship will not overlook when the time comes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I have that answer, yes, certainly.

THE WITNESS: Can I just answer the question?

MR IRVING: Yes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: What about those three organisations?

MR IRVING: Very briefly.

A. The [German] quotation in the bundle No. 2, bundle H5.I, No. II or 2, I do not know, II I think -- no, it is 2, right. Page on the bottom, 562, this is the leaflet and this leaflet is very sharp in criticising in the same line of Holocaust denial calling one of the most hideous sentences of Mr Irving. So the document itself shows me

P-95

this, that this is a very Holocaust denialist group that invites Mr Irving to state things. The signatures are of Stefan Rabe Förderverein Junges Deutschland and of Manfried Angeford, [German]. They met together to invite him in early '90, in March '90, it is in the Ruhe area in the Munster, in the north rural area, and then there is -- the next does not deal with this group. It is an invitation by Walendy in 56, on the bottom of the line 564. I can go on and describe the content of the leaflet, it is very clear, but if you want I can allude to this at length, your Lordship.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No I think that probably will be sufficient.

MR IRVING: Will you go to please to paragraph 5.3.35 of your report at page 72?

A. 5.3?

Q. 35.

A. Yes.

Q. Now on reading my diary of April 20th -- what day is April 20th in the German calendar, political calendar?

A. Excuse me?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: It was a Friday.

A. No, no, he is referring to the birthday of Adolf Hitler.

MR IRVING: It was Friday and Hitler's birthday in that order.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think you would do well to have with you, Professor Funke, RWE 2, tab 9, page 44.

MR IRVING: My Lord, what page?

P-96

MR JUSTICE GRAY: RWE 2, tab 9, page 44.

A. On the right side, the page number. Yes, OK, I have it.

MR IRVING: This is a dinner organised, firstly, this is a page from my private diary dated April 20th 1990?

A. Yes.

Q. And there is a reference in the paragraph beginning with the word "Dosed" to a dinner organised by Mr Althans in the hotel?

A. Yes.

Q. Drei Löwen Hotel was a reputable Hotel in Munich, is it not?

A. Excuse me?

Q. It is a very reputable hotel in the city centre of Munich, is it not?

A. It seems to, yes.

Q. And the people who were present, they are listed at the bottom?

A. Right.

Q. I found a list from which I have written down the names?

A. Right.

Q. The list says that those present are Stäglich, Althans and a number of others. Do you recognize any English people there?

A. Yes.

Q. Mr Hancock?

A. Right.

P-97

Q. And at this dinner party Althans offered a toast to Adolf Hitler, is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. "All rose and toasted", right?

A. Yes.

Q. From the diary entry, is it evident that I joined in or I did not join in this very tasteless toast?

A. I quote, "It ended with a Trinkspruch spoken by him to a certain statesman whose 101st birthday" ----

Q. Can you answer the question?

A. --- "falls today. All rose, toasted. I had no glass as I do not drink".

MR IRVING: Yes. So is it evident from that that I did not join in the toast?

MR RAMPTON: Yes, but there is nothing in the diary about ----

MR IRVING: Mr Rampton, will you allow the witness to answer, please.

MR RAMPTON: No, no, no. The witness ----

MR IRVING: I would grateful if you did not interrupt until he has finished his reply.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: If it is an objection which is not a valid one, then I will obviously reject it.

MR RAMPTON: Of course, as has not happened yet in this case, but has happened to me often enough in the past, Mr Irving should not lard his questions with interpretations like "this very tasteless event". There is nothing in the

P-98

diary about that.

MR IRVING: Let me start off, before answering this question, would you consider it to be very tasteless for a German to offer a toast to Adolf Hitler in the presence of two English people? Yes or no? Would you offer a toast to Adolf Hitler in the presence of two English people?

A. I would not do it anyway.

Q. Would you consider it to be a matter of dubious taste?

A. You know I would say ----

Q. Can you answer?

A. I answer, just now I am answering.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: He did answer. He said he would not think it was very -- he thought it would be rather tasteless in any event, whether there were English people present or not.

MR IRVING: In other words, the word "tasteless" was appropriate. Thank you, my Lord.

A. And if ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, no, let us move on.

A. If I regard these two, no, excuse me, my Lord. If I regard the two persons who were there, and I would have been Althans if I can, then I would not have the problem to do this toast.

MR IRVING: Right, now will you answer?

A. This tasteless toast.

Q. Will you now answer my previous question? Is it evident from the diary that I did not join in the toast?

P-99

A. It is not evident. "All rose, toasted. I had no glass as I do not drink". I do not know.

Q. If one has no glass and one does not drink, how can one toast someone? Will you now answer my question? Is it evident from the diary that I did not join in the toast?

A. I really cannot say.

Q. OK. You cannot say or you will not say?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, that is unnecessary.

MR IRVING: Will you accept that it is likely that by virtue of the fact that I recorded this incident in my diary I found it distasteful?

A. You did not say, you did not write it, and you are an admirer, to a degree, of Adolf Hitler and Tony Hancock, the same. We saw the video where he had this accruals(?) of Adolf Hitler, so why not for you?

Q. The video of the accruals of Adolf Hitler, what is this?

A. In the video we saw Tony Hancock distributing or showing accruals of Adolf Hitler, and we know of his record that he is somehow dealing with National Socialism. He was there, you both English persons were there, and I can allude to the others there, Ingrid Weckert, a very anti-Semitic, you know, person. By the way, Ingrid Weckert should have been on this list because she was very active in the Gesinnungsgemeinschaft, just to mention that.

Q. Is it evident from this list that I have written down that

P-100

most of the name are unknown to me and that I wrote it down as a curiosity to know who was present at this dinner?

A. You know Ingrid Weckert, it was shown by the ----

Q. Was that the question that I asked?

A. --- cross-examinations -- yes. It is part of the answer that you know a lot of these people.

Q. Do I know all of the people?

A. That I do not know.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us go through them.

MR IRVING: Yes.

A. Through them.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Stäglich.

MR IRVING: Are you suggesting that the fact that I wrote down this name on the list is evidence that I knew Mr Stäglich?

A. I think you may have known Stäglich at that period. You know Althans. You know Philipp. You know Höffkes very much. This we viewed of your cassette. You know Ingrid Weckert. You alluded to this during the cross-examination of Professor Evans. You know Professor Schröcke. Schröcke, I have to say did ----

Q. On what basis do you think I know Professor Schröcke? Have you seen any ----

A. Because he did a brilliant book on him, on David Irving, the later days, and he was there in the audience where you were there the next day.

P-101

Q. When did Professor Schröcke write this book on me?

A. Oh, you do not know?

Q. No, when was this?

A. A praising book to you -- in the last years. Oh, wonderful! I give it to you.

Q. I am flattered to know this, but are you suggesting that at this time or at any time I have had any correspondence or dealings with Professor Schröcke at all?

A. You met in the same Congress. He did a piece, he did a statement so far all the sources shows me at this very meeting the other day and Franke-Grieksch is the ----

Q. Let us stay with Schröcke for a moment. Have you seen any correspondence between me and Schröcke?

A. No, no, not correspondence.

Q. Is he mentioned in my diary apart from this list?

A. No.

Q. Arnold Fröhlich, have you seen any correspondence between me and him?

A. I do not know.

Q. Daniel ••Konekt(?), have you seen any correspondence between me and him?

A. Yes, he is the buddy of, if I may say so, of Althans.

Q. Yes, but have you seen any correspondence between me and him?

A. No.

Q. The fact ----

P-102

A. You mentioned Daniel Konekt a lot of times in your diary.

Q. ••Leota Fontiss(?) -- in what connection have I mentioned him, having contact with him or ----

A. Yes, with Daniel, you did the same tour to Strasbourg. That was before.

Q. What is Daniel Konekt? Is he a chauffeur or what? I do not know.

A. Look at your diaries.

Q. You are the expert. You are telling us these people are ----

A. Yes, I say look at your diaries, you know.

Q. Do you remember at the beginning of this cross-examination I showed you a list of 6,500 names?

A. Yes, I figured out three of them as noted in this, with respect to these whole endeavour. We can go to this list.

Q. Loeta Fontiss, do you ----

A. I do not know.

Q. H Forster?

A. I do not know.

Q. In other words, most of the people on this list I have no idea who they are, do you agree?

A. No.

Q. You do agree?

A. I cannot, so how many are on this list, it is 18 and half of them you know, Stäglich, Althans, Philipp, Höffkes ----

P-103

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Don't let us go through them all over again.

MR IRVING: No, no.

A. --- Weckert, Schröcke, Franke-Grieksch, Hancock, that is eight, nine, and Daniel Konekt, so ----

Q. Will you turn to page 46 and you see the diary entry for April 22: "Headache all day, aspirin at breakfast. I had fixed at his request an interview over breakfast with Judge Stäglich". Does this imply to you that I do not know who Judge Stäglich is, and this is probably my first ever meeting with him, my only ever meeting with him? And I say, "I can fit you in at breakfast"?

MR RAMPTON: I do not understand that because if they had dinner on the 20th, it was not the first time they had met two days later at breakfast. I do not follow it.

MR IRVING: Professor Funke, do you appreciate (which Mr Rampton apparently does not) the difference between meeting somebody at a dinner when somebody is 24 seats away down the table and shaking hands with them and having an earnest discussion with them? Is there a difference, in your opinion?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving -----

MR IRVING: I am trying to get answers from this witness but with ----

MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- the picture of 24 people at dinner sitting in a line seems to me to be rather illustrative of the way in which you are approaching this.

P-104

MR RAMPTON: Particularly since it is only 19 and not 24.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think it says 24 actually.

MR RAMPTON: Does it? Oh.

MR IRVING: Professor Funke, have you attended large dinner parties where you have not the faintest notion who the rest of the guests are, yes or no?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. This breakfast invitation with Stäglich, who is one of the people on the list, on April 22, is that an indication that I have fitted him in at breakfast and said, "Well, come and see me at breakfast" and that I never saw him again?

A. I did not get your point.

Q. Judge or not. I mean, we are trying to establish how intense, to use the word, my connections with this judge or ex judge were.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, again this is a good example. Put your case. Are you really saying that you only encountered Stäglich ----

MR IRVING: On this one occasion.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- once at a dinner party when you did not know he was there and on a second occasion when you fitted him in for an interview over breakfast?

MR IRVING: Let me put it like this to the witness.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is that your case? If it is your case, fine.

MR IRVING: Professor Funke, will you agree that the evidence

P-105

is that I had only one meaningful encounter with Dr Stäglich or Judge Stäglich when I fitted him in for a breakfast appointment on this day, on April 22nd, and that you have not seen any evidence to the contrary?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: No. It is not a question of whether he has seen any evidence; it is a question of what you say the position is, Mr Irving. There is a difference. Are you saying that there were just those two occasions when you even spoke to the man?

MR IRVING: Yes, of course. That is precisely what I am putting to the witness. I appreciate the witness is very tired, but I would like answers.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: What is the answer Professor Funke? Only saw him twice?

A. I see what I see, and these are the references.

MR IRVING: A meaningful encounter?

A. And I saw the videos and there was Stäglich in Hagenau and this was way before and, of course, there were 80 people in Hagenau or 100, and the literature shows that all the late 80s, Stäglich was one of the prominent along with Udo Walendy, so there is a high probability that you know him.

Q. From this same consensus of opinion of the social scientists, is that where this probability comes from or is it from any documents that you have seen?

A. I do not answer this question.

Q. I am sorry?

P-106

MR JUSTICE GRAY: He is not answering the question and I am not going to say he must.

MR IRVING: In other words, there is no evidence.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving ----

MR RAMPTON: No, I am sorry.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, Mr Rampton?

MR RAMPTON: I am sorry, it just will not do. There is a long entry, for example, for December '89 -- this is not from the red RWE files but from the diary files -- of a letter from Mr Irving to Stäglich dated, the diary entry, I am sorry, I do not know the date, it must be the last day of November, in fact, or something like that.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: It had better wait re-examination so that we know what the date is.

MR RAMPTON: It is villainous, in my submission -- I use that word deliberately -- for Mr Irving to propose that he has had no meaningful contact with Stäglich in order to mislead the witness and, perhaps, indirectly the court when I see from his diary a long German letter to Dr Stäglich a whole year earlier.

MR IRVING: Saying precisely what?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: It may be, Mr Rampton, if I may suggest it, that Stäglich might be an example of somebody who it would be, in the light of the way Mr Irving puts his case, who might be added as another of the sections in one of these RWE files.

P-107

MR RAMPTON: He might be, it might be that it is difficult. To trawl a haystack like that is quite hard.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, you must be appreciating that I must have you put your case in relation to these witnesses ----

MR IRVING: I thought I had put it more clearly than I did, that I had had no meaningful contacts with Mr Stäglich.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: You did eventually, yes, and I would like you to do that with the others and not take time, I think, on individual paragraphs of the report, although there may be some important ones.

MR IRVING: I guarantee we will finish within 30 minutes from 2 o'clock, I will have finished with all the other numbers, all the other names, and this is the way to do it.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Very well. 2 o'clock. (Luncheon adjournment)

(2.00 p.m.)

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, Mr Irving.

MR IRVING: Thank you, my Lord. I asked the defence to show me the Stäglich letter on which they are going to rely and they refused. They said they would have it translated.

MR RAMPTON: No, I have not had it translated. It is in the original German in Mr Irving's diary. We had but the one copy in court. We have more now if Mr Irving would like to have one.

P-108

MR IRVING: I will show it to the witness. (Same handed).

A. Thank you.

Q. It begins three lines on the bottom of the page. Have you read it?

A. Yes.

Q. So I just ask you two or three questions based on that letter, is there any indication from this letter that there had been any meetings between myself and Stäglich prior to that letter?

A. No.

Q. Is there any indication that I had written to him? Is he responding to a letter of mine, or is he in fact just writing out of the blue to me?

A. I do not know if he is writing out of the blue, but he did write to you.

Q. Does he reference a letter from me there, does he say in reply to your letter of?

A. Yes, from the 28th of supposedly November.

MR RAMPTON: We do not have the rest of the correspondence because it has not been disclosed.

A. I just referred to the letter and stated here 28th November.

MR RAMPTON: Yes, I know, we do not have the earlier correspondence.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Professor Funke, can you translate the first sentence of the second paragraph of the letter?

P-109

A. The second paragraph?

Q. Yes.

A. I was surprised that the facsimile publisher, for you it is not a concept still. It is a very small, very aggressive, yes, publication.

THE INTERPRETER: Publishing house.

THE WITNESS: That absolutely is in our sense according to our lines.

MR IRVING: Are you familiar with the facsimile, they publish historical facsimiles?

A. No, I do not.

Q. In other words, we are all interested in facsimiles, we are all interested in accurate representations of documents?

A. Can you say the name of this facsimile firm?

Q. I am sorry?

A. Can you say the name of this facsimile?

Q. It is called facsimile for law?

A. OK, good.

Q. Will you accept that the reference to being "in our sense" is that they are interested in accurate reproductions of documents as facsimiles?

A. I think it meant -- the "our" means -- the our it is an our sense means more than just being interested in documentation, then, for example, I would be included in that, and why.

P-110

Q. Yes, in other words, from this correspondence or on this letter from me to Dr Stäglich, I am replying to him and he is asking me for advice on publishing something?

A. Yes, and you are replying and saying, OK, it is absolutely in the like minded, you know, direction of publishing things.

Q. Yes?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: "Sinne" means thought or mind, does it?

A. Excuse me?

Q. "Sinne" means thought or mind?

A. Yes.

T