The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit//transcripts/day020.10


Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day020.10
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24

   Q.   In other words, that I deliberately manipulate, I accept
        the evidence that I like and all the other evidence
        I disregard on this rather threadbare pretext of tortures
        and threats?
   A.   In your book on Nuremberg you refer constantly to -- and
        again, my Lord, this is in my written response No. 10 on
        page 6 of my reply to the second set of written questions
        by Mr Irving, where you talk about "the unsavoury methods
        of the OSS, intimidatory American tactics appear to have
        been routine, harassment of the prisoners, a paralysing
        regime of psychoterror enforced on the defendants", and so
        on.  That seems to me to be general attempts to discredit
        the testimony at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials.
   Q.   Having you investigated the methods used by the Allies and
        the interrogators at Nuremberg?  Are you able to state
        with confidence to this court that I am wrong?
   A.   You do not present, you present to me -- you present in
        your book some isolated incidents of maltreatment of
        prisoners of Streichier(?), I think, and, of course, in
        the initial interrogation of Hoss, but you do not
present
        evidence in your book that this was general.  I do not

.          P-85



        really see evidence there to justify those statements
        which you make in a general sense.
   Q.   So you have complete confidence yourself, therefore,
in
        the methods used by the allies to obtain ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No.  This witness has said many times you
        have to look at all the circumstances and evaluate the
        particular witness and his evidence.
   MR IRVING:  If you look at your footnote on that page, the
        second footnote:  "Irving in an interview in New
Zealand,
        recording a conversation with SS Colonel Gohler" which
        I claimed to have had at the end of the war when I
would
        have been a child?
   A.   Yes, I look up the transcript.  You said:  "I remember
        right at the end of the war I asked one of Himmler's
        staff", and so on and so forth, but it is not a very
        important point.
   Q.   So why did you put it in then?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Let us move on we all.  Agree it is not a
        very important point.
   MR IRVING:  But you are implying there that I have lied
again,
        are you not, in that footnote?
   A.   No, I am not, no.  It is an amusing little mistake
that
        you made.
   Q.   You agree that it is a misreading, therefore, of a
        transcript?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Don't let us spend time on it, Mr Irving.

.          P-86



   A.   No, I do not agree it is a misreading.  I think it is
just
        a misformulation of yours, Mr Irving.  It is not very
        important at all.
   Q.   These verbatim transcripts can easily be misread?
   A.   No, I think I read it correctly.  I am just saying it
is a
        slip of your tongue, that is all.
   Q.   Or a slip of the punctuation of the person doing the -
---
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, will you please move on?
   MR IRVING:  You are still critical, of course, of my
methods of
        obtaining information from Hitler's private staff.
Would
        you see, please, pages 83 to 5 of the little bundle?
This
        is the complete passage from that interview you have
just
        quoted, the one where I was allegedly conducting
        interviews as a six year old.  Why did you not pay
more
        attention to the surrounding three pages of that
interview
        instead of this rather amusing little footnote you put
in?
        Do I not describe in those three pages (and this is
the
        question) how I have persuaded Hitler's private staff
to
        reveal to me ugly secrets of their memories of their
times
        with Hitler, if I can put it like that, and is that
not
        more significant?
   A.   Well, that is not the context here of what I am
talking
        about here at all, Mr Irving.
   Q.   Have you referred to these three pages anywhere in
your
        expert report?
   A.   These are?

.          P-87



   Q.   The reference to what Hitler's private secretary told
me
        about the Night of the Long Knives, for example?  The
        reference to what Johannes Gohler told me about
Hitler's
        order to Himmler to liquidate the inmates of
Buchenwald?
   A.   The Night of the Long Knives is not a -- I think I do
        mention the Night of the Long Knives briefly, but it
is
        not really a central point in my report.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think you made this point on Thursday
to
        this witness.
   MR IRVING:  We did, my Lord, but I am just drawing
attention to
        the fact that he uses the transcripts very selectively
to
        imply that I am lying about the date I conducted an
        interview, but there are three pages ----
   A.   I am sorry, Mr Irving, I did not.
   Q.   Will you please not interrupt?
   A.   I did not imply that you were lying.  I am quite happy
to
        accept it is a slip of the tongue.
   Q.   But he ignores the three pages ----
   A.   It is not an important point.
   Q.   --- which show me quite clearly using interviews in
the
        manner that they should be conducted.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, you made a perfectly sensible
        point on Thursday, namely that you often do refer, so
you
        say, to the unfavourable things that the Adjutants and
        their relations told you about Hitler.  You have made
that
        point.  I have absorbed it and I have digested it.
There

.          P-88



        is no point in going back over it all over again.
   MR IRVING:  My remark goes purely to the selective nature
of
        this expert witness's report and reporting on the
basis of
        the evidence before him.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Would you like to move on now?
   MR IRVING:  Page 162, when we are now dealing with Hans
        Aumeier, you allege that:  "It did not fit into my
        preconceived notion" -  this is three lines from the
end
        -  "it did not fit into my preconceived notion that
there
        were no gassings" ----
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Is it not, in fact, the case that Hans Aumeier's
reports
        are not eagerly seized upon by the Holocaust
historians
        because he, too, presents information which does not
fit
        in with the standard version, like the gassings times?
   A.   I think that, in fact, the Aumeier documents, which
you
        discovered in the Public Record Office after their
release
        in 1992, were not seen by anybody else.  So I do not
think
        there is any suppression there by other people.
   Q.   Yes, but is it not the fact that the Aumeier documents
do
        not fit in with preconceived notions in the way you
        suggest?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We went through all this with Professor
van
        Pelt, did we not?
   MR IRVING:  On page 163, now, paragraph 41, you ask:  "Who
        could possibly have gone to all the immense trouble

.          P-89



        necessary to fabricate such a vast quantity of
documentary
        material"?  What documentary materials were you
describing
        there, just so we can be sure of what you are talking
        about?
   A.   Well, a number of different things, the memoirs, for
        example, of Holocaust survivors which exist in
substantial
        number.
   Q.   You are not talking about wartime documents then?
   A.   I do not say wartime documents.  In addition, in the
        course of this trial, you have repeatedly alleged that
        wartime documents have been fabricated without really
        saying who would have done it or why, or what
opportunity
        they might have had to do so.
   Q.   His Lordship knows this is not true.  I cast suspicion
        only on one document.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am afraid I do not accept that, Mr
Irving.
   MR IRVING:  On the June 24, 1943 document, my Lord.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, you cast suspicion on a number of
other
        documents.
   MR IRVING:  I am impugning the integrity of only one
document
        then.  Let me put it like that.  I raise my eyebrows
at
        certain others, but accept them just for the purposes
of
        argument.  In other words, you are not there talking
about
        a vast quantity of wartime documents then.  You are
        talking about a vast quantity of postwar ----
   A.   I am talking there in a general sense about the
evidence

.          P-90



        of all the crimes, for example the existence of gas
        chambers.
   Q.   But this is important.
   A.   It refers right back to the previous three sections of
        this particular chapter in my report.
   Q.   I am trying to narrow down here -- this is quite
        important.  If his Lordship is led to believe by a
        careless statement of the witnesses that there is a
vast
        body of wartime documents, this would be unfair, would
it
        not, because you are not referring to wartime
documents?
        You are referring to postwar documents?
   A.   I am referring to all kinds of documents.
   Q.   You are not referring to wartime documents?
   A.   I am referring to documents including wartime
documents,
        the totality of the written evidence for the Holocaust
        which you deny.
   Q.   Are you saying there is a vast quantity of wartime
        documents?
   A.   What I am saying is that there is a vast quantity of
        documents and material for all aspects of the
Holocaust.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I expect you would accept, Professor
Evans,
        just to move on, the number of overtly incriminating
        documents, wartime documents, as regards gas chambers
is
        actually pretty few and far between?
   A.   Gas chambers, other things such as the systematic
nature
        of the extermination, I am referring to the whole
package

.          P-91



        of evidence.
   MR IRVING:  But I am trying to divide that package.
   A.   Wartime, postwar, shootings, gassings, systematic
nature
        and so on.
   Q.   Professor Evans, you accept that we cannot do things
that
        way in this court.  We have to divide things up into
        parcels and look at the Eastern Front, look at the
        systematic nature, and look at the gas chambers, and
look
        at the documentary basis for each.  As his Lordship
has
        said, you do accept that the documentary basis for the
        gassings, the gas chambers and for the systematic
nature
        of that is thin compared with the documentation of the
        Eastern Front shootings?
   A.   Yes, but what I am describing here is really -- I am
        moving on to the totality of all the different kinds
of
        evidence.  For example, I have dealt previously ----
   Q.   I am anxious you do not move on from the questions I
am
        actually asking.
   A.   Have dealt previously in the report in an earlier
section
        with your allegation that Holocaust survivors have
made it
        all up, for example.
   Q.   Can we have a clear answer ----
   A.   Stabbed their tattoos on their arms themselves and so
on.
   Q.   -- so that we can move on.  The documentation relating
to
        the gas chambers and the systematic nature of gas
chamber
        killings is sparse compared with the documentation of
the

.          P-92



        killings on the Eastern Front, is that right?
   A.   Yes.  I think that is correct, that I am referring
here to
        the totality.
   Q.   Paragraph 44 on the facing page.  You object to my
        suggestion that there was a well-financed campaign.
   A.   I say it is a typical Holocaust denier's argument.
   Q.   Yes.  If it is a true statement, is that an
unjustified
        statement therefore?
   A.   Let me quote the sentence.  In the preface, this is a
        comment on a quote----
   Q.   Do not start reading all this out.
   A.   I am sorry, Mr Irving, but I do want to get quite
straight
        what I am actually saying.  I do not want the court to
        rely simply on your gloss on it.
   Q.   It is the question I am asking which you have to
answer,
        I am afraid.
   A.   Yes, I am going to answer it.

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.