The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit//transcripts/day002.17



   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.

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.