Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day019.21
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24

   Q.   It was not before, but you put in a word like "concede" or
        on the next page 121, first line, "Irving agreed once more
        conceding that"?
   A.   You have to put that in the context of what I say in the
        previous paragraph, which is where you go through the
        usual litany of stuff about casting doubt on the estimate
        of the numbers killed.  You are trying to say that there

.          P-189

        was never any written order from Himmler stating that
        Hitler decided the Final Solution and so on and so forth.
        I am using the word "concede" here to balance out what
        I say in the previous paragraphs.  What I am saying really
        is that your views conform to those of Holocaust deniers,
        but in this case you do say that there are some
        unauthorized mass shootings.
   Q.   The words Holocaust denier are becoming more and more
        meaningless as we progress.  If you look at the first on
        page 121, "Irving agreed once more", conceding (this
is
        1995) there again these are loaded words, Irving
agreed
        once conceding that "there is no doubt in my mind that
on
        the Eastern Front large numbers of Jews were massacred
by
        criminals with guns, SS men, Ukranians, Lithuanians,
        whatever, to get rid of them".  That is a strange kind
of
        Holocaust denier.
   A.   What I am saying here is that Holocaust deniers,
including
        Monsieur Faurisson, whom I quote on the previous page
as
        saying the same kind of thing, agreeing with you, have
        always admitted or said that there were unauthorized
        massacres of Jews behind the Eastern Front.
Therefore,
        that is not evidence of, as it were, not being a
Holocaust
        denier.  That has always been a concession they have
made
        to those who have argued that the Nazis killed large
        numbers of Jews.  You yourself have now of course
admitted
        in the course of this trial that there were up to a

.          P-190



        million Jews who were shot behind the Eastern Front as
        part of a systematic plan.
   Q.   Why do you say admitted?
   MR RAMPTON:  Let him finish.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  May I make a suggestion and see whether
you
        agree with it.  Your thesis, whether it is right or
wrong,
        is that Mr Irving denies to an extent the fact and the
        scale of the extermination and whether it was
systematic.
        It seems to me that, if that is your thesis, when you
get
        Mr Irving, he will not like the word, making
admissions or
        concessions that particular events happened, you are
going
        to describe it as an admission or a concession.  Is
that
        why you use the word?
   A.   Yes, exactly.
   Q.   It is not really in any sense intended to be
denigratory
        of you, I think?
   MR IRVING:  I disagree, my Lord.  In the context of this
report
        it is used as a loaded and as an emotive word.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I do not read it that way.  I really do
not.
        You can take it from me that I do not.
   A.   I certainly did not intend it that way. It is
difficult to
        find another word in this context.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is true.
   MR IRVING:  Page 123, please, paragraph 27, "The standard
works
        on the Holocaust", you write, "make it clear both that
a
        substantial proportion of those killed were shot or

.          P-191



        starved to death or deliberately weakened and made
        susceptible to fatal diseases as a matter of policy,
and
        that gassings took place at other centres besides
        Auschwitz, including notably Belzec, Sobibor and
        Treblinka". That is you writing that, is it not,
Professor
        Evans?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   From what part of that statement or cataclysm that you
        have written down there yourself do you believe I
differ?
        Is there not one line of that statement with which
        I agree?
   A.   Well, it looks at the previous part of that paragraph,
        where you say that, "The Holocaust with a capital 'H'
is
        what's gone down in history in this one sentence form,
so
        to speak:  'Adolf Hitler ordered the killing of six
        million Jews in Auschwitz'".  What I go on to say is
that
        nobody in fact has ever argued that six million Jews
were
        killed by gassing at Auschwitz, or indeed six million
Jews
        were killed in Auschwitz.  That is not the common
        definition of "the Holocaust" and I am trying to say
that
        your notion that that is what the Holocaust with a
capital
        'H' is is a figment of your own imagination.
   Q.   You have now skirted around answering my direct
question.
        The final sentence of that paragraph is your
definition of
        the word "Holocaust" and there is not one line of that
        with which I disagree, is there?

.          P-192



   A.   Yes, there is.  Gassings took place at other centres
        besides Auschwitz, including notably Belzec, Sobibor
and
        Treblinka.  You denied altogether----
   Q.   This is a point that his Lordship is familiar with, I
have
        conceded in all my books as well.
   A.   I wrote this report before this trial, Mr Irving.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am not sure about Belzec.
   MR RAMPTON:  No.  The concession was recently made in the
        course of this trial.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  And conceded Belzec too?
   MR IRVING:  Yes, my Lord, and also in the books as well.
   A.   I could not know, Mr Irving, what you were going to
        concede when I used the word in this trial.
   Q.   They are also in the books, are they not, the fact
that
        these gassings took place, exterminations in Belzec,
        Sobibor and Treblinka?  The only point I am holding
out on
        is that crematorium No. 2, that particular building.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You are now.  Yes, I agree. I did not
realize
        that you had been conceding this all along, and indeed
        I thought at the earlier stages of this trial you were
not
        conceding it, but anyway.
   A.   This is not the case, Mr Irving.
   MR IRVING:  It is an important point.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I think it may be.  Which books,
        Mr Irving, can I ask you that?  Hitler's War?  Do not
        answer if it is difficult off the top of your head.

.          P-193



   MR IRVING:  It would be time consuming to look it up but I
will
        look up the references overnight, my Lord.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is fine.
   MR IRVING:  I have tripled lined that in the margin, that
        particular part of the report, as being a definition
with
        which I wholeheartedly agree.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes?
   A.   My view is that you did not agree with that definition
        when you said, "The Holocaust with a capital 'H' is
what's
        gone down in history in this one sentence form, so to
        speak: 'Adolf Hitler ordered the killing of six
million
        Jews in Auschwitz'".
   MR IRVING:  That is the popular view, is it not?
   A.   No.
   Q.   The man on the Clapham omnibus view.  If you say to
him,
        "What is the Holocaust?", he will say, "Is that not
that
        guy Hitler, did he not kill 6 million Jews in
Auschwitz?"
        Is that not the common view of the Holocaust now?
   A.   "The Holocaust with a capital 'H' is what's gone down
in
        history in this one sentence form, so to speak:
'Adolf
        Hitler ordered the killing of six million Jews in
        Auschwitz'".  I am not aware of anybody in print who
has
        argued or suggested that.
   Q.   Even when I am quite specific about how huge the
figures
        concerned are, I am looking now at the next paragraph,
you
        dismiss that as being just one occasion when

.          P-194



        I accidentally or inadvertently conceded these huge
        figures.
   A.   Well, let me make a couple of point about that.  That
is
        the only occasion I could find.
   Q.   Yes.
   A.   I did not find any more.  And, of course, when you say
4
        million, then you say that is of course due mainly to
        barbarity and typhus and epidemics, as you say, and
you
        have many other statements which I cite in my report,
        where you say the Nazis killed in the order of
thousands
        at a time, not millions, as you said in 1990.
   Q.   Can we just ----
   A.   I also make the point that of course that last
statement,
        the statement before the last one, the last statement
        I quoted you as saying the Nazis killed of the order
of
        thousands at a time, not millions, as in 1990, and
your
        exceptional figure, the only instance I could find of
4
        million, where you mentioned barbarity and typhus and
        epidemics was in 1995.  In other words, that is after
        Professor Lipstadt's book was published.
   Q.   Can we just reel back slightly there?  Looking at the
last
        sentence in paragraph 29, the Nazis killed in the
order of
        thousands at a time, not millions.  I am not going to
        bother the court with looking up what the omission is
        because I will presume it is not important.  But it is
        perfectly correct, is it not, that the Nazis killed
them

.          P-195



        thousands at a time, did they not?  They did not kill
them
        millions at a time?
   A.   I guess it depends what you mean by "at a time".
   Q.   In other words, there is one trench with thousands
being
        lined up and shot into it on a particular morning.
That
        statement is accurate, is that right?
   A.   In that sense, yes, of course.
   Q.   And July 27th 1995 is over a year before the writ was
        issued in this particular action?
   A.   Yes, I do quote this here, but I do point out that it
is
        after Professor Lipstadt published her book.
   Q.   Have you any evidence that I took cognisance of the
        content of Professor Lipstadt's book or indeed even of
her
        opinions before the middle of 1996?
   A.   No.  I am not suggesting anything.  There is no
suggestion
        in my report that you said that because Professor
Lipstadt
        had published her book.
   Q.   Is not the evidence in fact that some time in 1996
        I obtained a copy of the report of the book round
about
        April when I was marketing the Goebbels biography, and
        that I immediately wrote a letter before action and
took
        legal steps.  So it was 1996 after I made this
broadcast?
   A.   Yes.  I am not suggesting anything else.  as I said,
        I repeat myself, I am not suggesting that you said
this
        because of Professor Lipstadt's book.
   Q.   So this broadcast cannot have been self-serving in any

.          P-196



        particular way in connection with this action?
   A.   I am not concerned with why you made this broadcast.
   Q.   Would it be possible that I made those statements
because
        I considered them to be true, in your view?
   A.   Perfectly possible, yes.  Let me quote the whole
statement
        we are talking about.  "I have to say, the figure I
would
        have to give you is a minimum of one million, which is
a
        monstrous crime, and a maximum of about 4 million,
        depending on what you mean by killed.  If putting
people
        into a concentration camp where they die of barbarity
and
        typhus and epidemics is killing, then I would say the
4
        million figure, because undoubtedly huge numbers did
die
        in the camps in the conditions that were very evident
at
        the end of the war", and on other occasions, as I go
on to
        say, you have argued that the deaths from disease in
the
        camps were due in large measure to the allied bombing
of
        the factories that made the medicines in Germany.
   Q.   Professor Evans, have I put this July 1995 broadcast
with
        those figures on my website for the world to see
already
        for a couple of years now?
   A.   It is here in my report, Mr Irving.  I have not
suppressed
        it.
   Q.   No, but is there any indication that it was a one off
on
        my part and I blurted it out by mistake at four in the
        morning, this is after all Australia I am talking to?
   A.   When did you put it on your website?

.          P-197



   Q.   Well, within the last year or two.
   A.   That is after the beginning of this action.
   Q.   Yes.  In other words, there is no reason to suggest
that
        this is a one off broadcast.  You said that it is the
one
        recorded episode.  There may have been more episodes
when
        I gave the same kind of figures.
   A.   It is the one recorded episode when I wrote this
report
        which I finished last spring, spring last year.
   Q.   But in fact the figures I give there are probably
pretty
        accurate, are they not?  Killed by all means?  Order
of
        one to four million?  Hilberg says 5.1 million, others
say
        6 million, does that make me a Holocaust denier
because
        I come down to four?
   A.   I think, in conjunction with the other things -- well,
let
        me say two things.  First of all, this is an isolated
        statement by the time I had written this report, and
you
        had not made it before Professor Lipstadt wrote her
book.
        You have many other statements where you give much
lower
        figures, and indeed the interviewer Rawden Casey was
        extremely surprised that you should give this figure.
        Secondly, you suggested and you have to take this as a
        kind of package, that huge numbers died in the camps
in
        the conditions that were very evident at the end of
the
        war, and that epidemics ----

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor