Q. In the four walls of that little paragraph the "it" that did not happen is the Holocaust, grammatically speaking, is it not? A. We keep coming back to the same question. Q. No. Just say yes or no. It is very easy. I am not trying to trick you. It is, is it not? It is not a difficult question. A. Which "it" are we talking about. Q. In the last line: "If something didn't happen you don't even dignify it with a footnote". That follows, does it not, from the earlier part ---- A. The something that did not happen is it. Q. The something that did not happen is the Holocaust if you look at the previous line. A. No, the clause, "if something didn't happen", that is the "it". . P-246 Q. All right, we will read the whole thing. If you read ---- A. It is still going to say the same no matter how often you read it. Q. "You won't find the Holocaust mentioned in one line, not even a footnote. Why should we? If something didn't happen then you don't even dignify it with a footnote." The something that did not happen is the Holocaust in this sentence, is it not? A. It is the clause if something did not happen. Let me explain to you, by this time I had encountered a very fine American editor Tom Condon, who was my American editor, American publishers have people who have editors who teach you how to write, and this particular editor said: "Mr Irving, don't waste time and ink telling your readers what has not happened." He said: "Don't say he didn't like dogs but he did like cats. You just write 'he did like cats'". This is what I am getting at there. You do not waste ink. Q. I follow that entirely, but let us look at the substance of the thing. The something that did not happen is the Holocaust, is it not, in this sentence? A. The gas chamber Holocaust, yes. Q. No, no, in the English, the something that did not happen is the Holocaust? A. The whole of this speech is about the gas chamber, the whole of this part of the speech. You will notice the . P-247 tape has previously jumped so we have no idea what has been cut out or what has been accidently omitted. Q. I said I am said trying to be fair. A. I must insist on fairness here, because I have stipulated that I will accept these transcripts and allow you to make great horseplay with them, except where they have been edited, and that is a paragraph or a sentence has that has been edited. It says specifically "tape jumps" which means it has been switched on and switched off. You are getting the second half of a sentence. Q. I wish you would not be so nervous of me, Mr Irving. I said I am trying to be fair. Now look down at the other paragraph we looked at earlier. I am now going to put some words into your mouth. You have said in the earlier paragraph that the Holocaust did not happen. That is as plain as a pikestaff to anybody who can read English. Now we see, do we not, as you have been trying to tell us, what you mean by the Holocaust: "The biggest lie of the lot is the lie that Germans had factories of death with gas chambers in which they liquidated millions of their opponents." A. My I intern that differently? I am sorry it is a question. I will intern that differently. The biggest lie of the lot is that the Germans had factories of death with gas chambers in which they killed millions of people. Q. Liquidated, yes. . P-248 A. Do you notice the difference there? Q. You can read it either, can you not? A. You read it your way, Mr Rampton. Q. No. What you are saying ---- A. And we at this end of the wicket will read it our way. Q. What you say is the biggest lie is the assertion that there were gas chambers. That is what you say you meant by that? A. Yes, in which millions were killed. This is what I asked you not to do, not just to take individual phrases out of a sentence and say, look at this bit and look at that. You have to judge the whole. Q. I do not think that is very fair. I read the whole sentence. A. No, you did not. You said there were gas chambers, the biggest lie is that they were gas chambers, and I am saying that, no, what I say is the biggest lie is that there were gas chambers in which millions were killed. Q. I thought, Mr Irving, these were elements in the lie, factories of death, gas chambers and millions? A. Only when taken together. Q. Right. A. My Lord, am I labouring these points too much? Q. No, you are not at all. You deny that there were factories of death with gas chambers in which were liquidated millions of Jews. I have rephrased it so that . P-249 it is absolutely crystal clear. A. I thought I did not recognize it. Q. So that it is absolutely crystal clear, it has not an ambiguity of what you wrote. I want to get your evidence clear. A. Let me explain what underlies this sentence. Because it is logistically impossible to kill millions of people in the buildings that have been portrayed to us as factories of death, therefore they cannot have been, and that is the big lie, if you try to cut that particular sentence up any particular way then it becomes (A) something I did not say and (B) worthless for the purposes of this court. Q. Mr Irving, you sorely tempt me to proceed to Auschwitz straightaway, but I will resist it. A. I am looking forward to Auschwitz. Q. Would you accept that one version of the Holocaust which is generally understood, accepted and perceived ---- A. Will you avoid using the passive voice so we know precisely who is generally accepting, understanding and perceiving? Q. Call it the public at large, the audiences to whom you speak. A. Have you stood in Oxford Street with a clip board asking them, the public at large? Q. You will not commit yourself to a generally understood sense of the Holocaust then? . P-250 A. I do not know what the generally sense of the Holocaust is. I have given my version of it. You are giving the court your version of it. Q. Will you accept, Mr Irving, and if you will not say no, it matters not, will you accept that one element in the public perception of the Holocaust is the killing of millions of Jews in gas chambers constructed by the Nazis in various parts of Europe? A. That I accept. Q. You will? A. Yes. Q. Right. And that you deny? A. Why did you not ask that question right at the beginning? Q. I wanted to know what you meant. A. It is one element. Q. Mr Irving, please. A. It is one element, as you say. Q. Would you not accept that it was the major element in the public perception of what the Holocaust was about? A. Now you are saying something different. Q. I am asking you a further question. A. You have changed from one element to a major element. Q. Mr Irving, please, I have asked you about one element. You have accepted that is an element. I now ask you whether you do not also accept that it is the major element? . P-251 A. In what? Q. In the public perception of the words "the Holocaust"? A. I do not know. Q. Right. You do not know. A. I have not take any statistical evaluations of what people think in Oxford Street. Q. You deny, I think we are clear on this now, that the Germans killed millions of Jews in gas chambers in purpose-built establishments? A. Will you repeat that sentence? You deny that Germans killed? Q. You deny that the Nazis, do not let us talk about Germans, let us talk about Nazis, that the Nazis killed millions of Jews in gas chambers in purpose-built establishments? A. Yes. Q. Yes. A. I am sorry to take so long to answer, but I have to see exactly what it is you are asking. Purpose-built establishments, millions of Nazis in gas chambers, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is the reason really why you deny that because you do not accept there were any such purpose-built factories? A. Well, the word "purpose-built" made my answer much easier, my Lord. You will understand why I say that when we turn to the architectural drawings and we bring in the evidence that I have. . P-252 Q. And Liechter? A. Liechter I think is something that I am not going to rely on at all. As I said in my introduction on the Liechter report, the Liechter report is flawed. We now have very much better expertise. MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving, you do tempt me very sorely. When Liechter first swam into your view, you had no expertise about Auschwitz or about gassing or extermination or anything like that, did you? A. I did not need it. That was not what his report was based on. Q. No. Mr Irving, when Liechter swam into view you had not studied this question at all, had you? A. No. Q. I think you said as much. A. No. Q. Yet I am right, am I not, that you announced Mr Liechter as having been, as it were, the corner stone of your conversion, if I may mix my metaphors ? A. Not Mr Liechter, but the laboratory analyses attached to his report. I am not sure whether I announced it in that way, but certainly that was the corner stone. Q. I will just read from the same -- there are many other references but we need not look them all up. Page 6 of the same transcript. We will start, if we may, at the large paragraph in the middle of the page, timed at 30.28 . P-253 because again I do not want to be accused of taking anything out of context. "Thank you Professor Faurisson for that wonderful erudite discursion on the argument on the controversy in which we are so emotionally and deeply embroiled. It is fascinating to see how an academic, a Professor, can enlarge upon what after all is just a tiny detail of history, as it now turns out. He can hold it under a microscope and see details, he can see details on those details and further details on those details. If I can just dot the i's and cross the t's to some of those details of details of details, he mentioned that after Fred Liechter did his truly epoch making investigation of the gas chambers at our Auschwitz, the forensic laboratory tests which yielded the extraordinary result which converted me" ---- A. There you have it. Q. " ... made me into a hardcore disbeliever." A. Yes. Q. That is right, is it not? A. Yes. Q. So it was the Liechter report and that aspect of the Liechter report which summarised or discussed the laboratory findings that converted you into a hardcore disbeliever? A. I specifically say there the laboratory forensic tests. . P-254 Can we analyse what I am disbelieving there? Q. No. It is much better we do not go down that road. A. I thought so. Q. Because we might find ourselves discussing Auschwitz now which might not suit your book. Do you agree? A. Mr Rampton, you said it did not suit your book in the interval. You were very willing to start with Auschwitz. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Anyway, we are not dealing with Auschwitz now. We are dealing really, are we not, with Holocaust denier. MR RAMPTON: Yes. A. Yes. Q. We have touched upon Mr Liechter. We are going to grapple with him much more extensively next week. We have touched upon Mr Liechter and it has led you to this conclusion that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, is it not? I use the historic present. It was Mr Liechter's report and the bit about the laboratory tests which converted you into disbelief that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz, is that right? A. That is correct.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor