The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/Closing_Address.Rampton

This text is excerpted from Day 32 of the trial. 

   MR RAMPTON:  My Lord, I start with this, that if one had read
        some of the media reports of this trial, which I realize
        that your Lordship probably has not, one might have
        supposed that Mr Irving had been dragged into this court
        to defend his freedom of expression as an historian.

                  In fact, of course, that is not so.  The history
        of the matter is quite the reverse.  Professor Deborah

.          P-5

        Lipstadt, an America academic, wrote a book called
        "Denying the Holocaust", which was first published in the
        United States in 1993.  It was then republished by Penguin
        Books in this country in 1994.  The book contained
        trenchant criticisms of Mr Irving's historiographical
        methods and his political views and associations.
        Mr Irving then issued legal proceedings claiming
        aggravated damages for libel and an injunction against
        Professor Lipstadt and Penguin.  This trial has taken
        place only because they decided to defend their right to
        publish the truth.

                  The principal accusations made against Mr Irving
        by Professor Lipstadt in her book were, in summary:
        first, that Mr Irving deliberately falsified history in
        order to make it conform with his ideological leanings and
        political agenda, and, in particular, in order to
        exonerate Adolf Hitler of responsibility for the Nazi
        persecution of the Jews.

                  Second, that in order to achieve his objective,
        Mr Irving distorted historical evidence and manipulated
        historical documents.

                  Third, that Mr Irving had become one of the most
        dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial.

                  Last, that he himself held extremist views and
        allied himself, with other right-wing extremists, in
        particular Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites.

.          P-6

                  My Lord, those were undoubtedly serious charges
        and, had they been untrue, Mr Irving would clearly have
        been entitled to a large sum of money and an order of the
        court preventing the Defendants from repeating their
        accusations.  But, as it turns out on the evidence before
        this court, the accusations are true, in every significant respect.

                  Mr Irving had in the past claimed that there was
        a chain or series of documents which showed that Hitler
        was innocent of the persecution of the Jews, and in
        particular their mass-murder during the War; indeed, that
        he was, in fact, "the best friend the Jews ever had in the
        Third Reich.

                  The Defendants decided to put that claim to
        the test.  They asked a professional historian, Professor
        Richard Evans of Cambridge University, to investigate it.

                  His findings were astonishing.  Upon
        examination, virtually every single one of the links in
        Mr Irving's chain crumbled in his hands, revealing a
        falsification of history on massive scale.  Equally
        revealing was the discovery that each of Mr Irving's
        falsifications led to the same end:  the exculpation of

                  In addition, in order to test Mr Irving's
        historiography by reference to his work on a topic other
        than Hitler -- in a sense, a control sample -- Professor

.          P-7

        Evans examined a number of successive editions of one of
        Mr Irving's most successful works, his book on the Allied
        bombing of Dresden in February 1945.  Here again Professor
        Evans found deliberate falsification on a grand scale, all
        of it tending to the same result:  a gross inflation of
        the numbers of German civilians killed in those raids.

                  The long written submission of the Defendants
        which is before your Lordship contains a detailed account
        of Professor Evans' findings and the evidence which
        supports them.  By the Defendants' estimate, there are, in
        relation to Hitler alone, as many as 25 major
        falsifications of history, as well as numerous subsidiary
        inventions, suppressions, manipulations and
        mistranslations employed to support the major
        falsifications.  If those relating to Auschwitz, Dresden
        and other matters are added in, the number goes well over thirty.

                  My Lord, in order to illustrate the
        extraordinary nature and extent of these falsifications,
        I will give but two examples.

                  On the evening of 9th November 1938, and through
        the night until the following morning, there was an orgy
        of violence and destruction against Jews and Jewish
        property throughout Germany.  This was Reichskristallnacht.

                  It had been prompted by the assassination in

.          P-8

        Paris of a German diplomat by a young Polish Jew.  The
        Nazi leadership in Berlin exploited it to the full.  It
        was orchestrated by the SA and the SS, and the police were
        ordered, by Hitler, not to intervene.

                  Mr Irving has described this pogrom in various
        places, but most particularly in his book "Goebbels:
        Mastermind of Third Reich", which was published in 1996,
        where he devotes a whole chapter to it.  In summary, his
        account of it is that the whole thing was initiated and
        orchestrated by Goebbels, without Hitler's knowledge or
        participation; and that when, in the early hours of 10th
        November 1938, Hitler found out what Goebbels had done, he
        was "livid with rage" and took immediate steps to put a
        stop to it.  This account purports to be based partly on
        the postwar testimony of former Nazis, but principally on
        the contemporary documents.  On examination of those
        documents, Mr Irving's account turns out to be
        completely bogus.  His use of two of those documents will
        suffice to illustrate the point.

                  On page 276 of his Goebbels book, Mr Irving
        writes this:

                  "What of Himmler and Hitler?  Both were totally
        unaware of what Goebbels had done until the synagogue next
        to Munich's Four Seasons Hotel was set on fire around 1
        am.  Heydrich, Himmler's national chief of police, was
        relaxing down in the hotel bar; he hurried up to Himmler's

.          P-9

        room, then telexed instructions to all police authorities
        to restore law and order,; protect Jews, and Jewish
        property, and halt any ongoing incidents.  I emphasise the
        last part of that sentence, to restore law and order,
        protect Jews, and Jewish property, and halt any ongoing

                  The reference given by Mr Irving in his book as
        his source for this is a telex sent by Heydrich at 1.20 am
        on 10th November 1938.  In fact, so far from ordering "all
        police authorities to restore law and order, protect Jews
        and Jewish property, and halt any ongoing incidents", it
        read as follows:

                   "(a) Only such measures may be taken as do not
        involve any endangering of German life or property (e.g.
        synagogue fires only if there is no danger of the fire
        spreading to the surrounding buildings).

                  (b) The shops and dwellings of Jews may only be
        destroyed, not looted.  The police are instructed to
        supervise the implementation of this order and to arrest looters.

                  (c) Care is to be taken that non-Jewish shops in
        shopping streets are unconditionally secured against damage.

                  (d) Foreign nationals may not be assaulted even if they are Jews."
                  That was what Heydrich stayed at 1.20 a.m. on

.          P-10

        10th November 1938.

                  Then, on page 277 of his book, after a colourful
        account of Hitler's supposedly furious intervention,
        Mr Irving writes this: "At 2.56 am Rudolf Hess's staff
        also began cabling, telephoning, and radioing instructions
        to gauleiters and police authorities around the nation to
        halt the madness", and I emphasise those words.

                  The source given by Mr Irving for this is a
        report made by the Nazi Party Court about the pogrom in
        February 1939.  It records this order from Hess's office,
        made on Hitler's authority.  This shows that, in truth,
        all that the order forbade was the continuing of arson
        attacks on Jewish shops.  Synagogues, houses, apartments,
        cemeteries, and, in particular, Jewish people were left to
        the mercy of the continuing violence.

                  As your Lordship knows, there was an aftermath
        of Reichskristallnacht.  Mr Irving describes one aspect on
        page 281 of Goebbels in these terms:

                  "Hess ... ordered the Gestapo and the party
        courts to delve into the origins of the night of violence
        and turn the culprits over to the public prosecutors".

                  Thus Mr Irving gives the impression that those
        who had perpetrated the violence were to be brought to
        justice and properly punished.

                  Nothing could be further from the truth.  As the
        contemporary documents, and in particular the Party Court

.          P-11

        report of February 1939, which Mr Irving himself used as a
        principal source for his account of Reichskristallnacht, reveal:

                  First, the Ministry of Justice ruled, on 10th
        November 1938, that those who had "merely" caused damage
        to Jewish shops, synagogues and the like should not be
        prosecuted at all.

                  Second, other more serious offences, such as
        looting, rape, assault, murder and the destruction of
        Jewish homes for selfish motives were to be referred to
        the Party Court, which would first decide whether any of
        the offenders should be referred to the ordinary criminal
        courts or acquitted by order of the Fuhrer.

                  Third, in the event, as was no doubt intended,
        the proceedings of the Party Court were a farce.  Of 16
        cases dealt with in the report of February 1939, 14 were
        disposed of with little more than a rap on the knuckles
        for the culprits, including 13 cases of murder involving
        the deaths of 21 Jews.  The two cases which were referred
        to the criminal courts were sexual offences against Jewish
        women - not because of their gravity, however, but because
        the offenders had been guilty of "racial defilement" (Rassenschande)!

                  Finally, the reason the Party Court gave for its
        leniency in the other 14 cases was that the criminals were
        in fact "only carrying out the unclearly expressed but

.          P-12

        properly recognized will of the leadership" - that is, Hitler.

                  Mr Irving knows all of this, but suppresses it entirely in his book.

                  The second striking example, amongst many, of
        Mr Irving's shocking falsification of history relates to 1943.

                  By the beginning of 1943, many of Europe's Jews
        had already been murdered.  Hungarian Jews, however, of
        whom there were perhaps 600 to 700,000, had, so far,
        escaped the destruction.  The reason was that the ruler of
        Hungary, Admiral Horthy, although Hitler's ally, had
        steadfastly refused to deliver up Hungary's Jews.  There
        was much agitation about this in Berlin.  Eventually, on
        16th and 17th April 1943, Hitler and his Foreign Minister,
        Ribbentrop, summoned Admiral Horthy to Klessheim, near
        Salzburg, in order to put pressure on him to surrender the
        Hungarian Jews into Nazi hands.  The notes of the meetings
        were taken by a man called Paul Schmidt and are agreed by
        Mr Irving, who used them for his own accounts of these
        meetings, to be very reliable.

                  According to Schmidt's notes at the first
        meeting on 16th April, Horthy protested at the Nazi
        leader's demands.  "But they" (the Jews) "can hardly be
        murdered or otherwise eliminated", he said.  Hitler's
        response was palliative:  "There is no need for that", he

.          P-13

        said, and added that they could be sent to remote work
        camps or down the mines."

                  The next day, 17th April 1943, Hitler's and
        Ribbentrop's demands became a good deal cruder.  Horthy
        again protested that he "surely couldn't beat the Jews to
        death".  Ribbentrop replied that they "must either be
        annihilated or taken to concentration camps.  There is no
        other way".  Hitler then followed up with this:

                  "Where the Jews are were left to themselves, as
        for example in Poland, gruesome poverty and degeneracy had
        ruled.  There were just pure parasites.  One had
        fundamentally cleared up this state of affairs in Poland.
        If the Jews there didn't want to work, they were shot.  If
        they couldn't work, they had to perish.  They had to be
        treated like tuberculosis bacilli, from which a healthy
        body could be infected.  That was not cruel", said Hitler,
         "if one remembered that even innocent natural creatures
        like hares and deer had to be killed so that no harm was
        caused.  Why should one spare the beasts who wanted to
        bring us Bolshevism once more?  Nations who did not rid
        themselves of Jews perished".

                  Mr Irving's account of this exchange in his 1977
        edition of "Hitler's War" (at page 509) is extraordinary.
        First, as an invented pretext for Hitler's remarks, he
        introduces the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which did not in
        fact begin until two days later.  Then, immediately

.          P-14

        following Hitler's brutal assertion of the need to kill
        the Jewish "beasts", Mr Irving adds this:

                  "Horthy apologetically noted that he had done
        all he decently could against the Jews:  'But they can
        hardly be murdered or otherwise eliminated', he
        protested.   Hitler reassured him:  'There is no need for
        that'.  But just as in Slovakia, they ought to be isolated
        in remote camps where they could no longer affect the
        healthy body of the public; or they could be put to work
        in the mines, for example.  He himself did not mind being
        temporarily excoriated for his Jewish policies, if they
        brought him tranquillity.  Horthy left unconvinced."

                  As, my Lord, will immediately be apparent, this
        was a quite brazen piece of manipulation:  as Mr Irving
        knew perfectly well, because he was familiar with
        Schmidt's notes, this exchange had, in fact, occurred on
        the previous day (16th April), not 17th.  It is apparent,
        therefore, that Mr Irving quite deliberately transferred
        it to 17th April in order to mitigate the chilling impact
        of Hitler's stark observation about the need to kill the
        Jewish "beasts".

                  The account given in the 1991 edition of
        "Hitler's War" (at pages 541 to 542) is no better.  True,
        the spurious reference to the Warsaw uprising has been
        removed.  But so, too, has Hitler's repellant analogy
        between the need to kill animals which cause damage and

.          P-15

        the need to kill the Jewish "beasts".  And the brazen
        transfer that Hitler's palliative remark on 16th April to
        this meeting on 17th is perpetuated.

                  My Lord, these two examples are but the tip of a
        large iceberg imposed of numbers of other equally
        egregious falsifications by Mr Irving in his written work
        and in his public utterances.

                  I conclude here, my Lord, with this, that the
        Defendants say, on this part of the case:  "Case proved:
        Mr Irving is, as was proposed at the outset of this trial, a liar".

                  My Lord, it might be thought that that would be
        enough to dispose of Mr Irving's claim, given the emphasis
        he places on the damage to his reputation as an historian
        which he says was caused by Professor Lipstadt's book.
        But the evidence in the case has covered a lot of other
        topics as well, and I shall, therefore, briefly mention
        them too.

                  Until 1988, Mr Irving had accepted the
        historical reality of Holocaust, but denied that Hitler
        authorized it or, until late on in the War, knew anything
        much about it.  This position, for an historian, was
        described by Sir John Keegan, the well-known military
        historian, who was called on subpoena to give evidence in
        this court by Mr Irving, it was described as "perverse"
        and as "defying reason."  Dr Peter Longerich, a

.          P-16

        distinguished historian of the period, who gave expert
        evidence for the Defendants, called it "absolutely absurd".

                  And so it was, for reasons which can be stated
        quite shortly.

                  The Holocaust - that is the systematic mass
        murder of millions of Jews, gypsies and others - took
        place in stages.

                  The first stage, beginning in the autumn of
        1941, after Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union,
        consisted of mass shootings carried out specially-formed
        SS groups and their local allies.  This continued through
        into 1942 and resulted in the deaths of up to 1.5 million
        Jews living in Russia and the Baltic states.

                  The second stage, which began in December 1941
        and continued through into 1943 or later, consisted of the
        gassing of the Jews of the Warthegau and Poland.  This
        resulted in the deaths of probably as many as 2.6 million
        Jews (300,000 in the Warthegau and 2.3 million in

                  The third stage, beginning with mass
        deportations to the East in the autumn of 1941, culminated
        in the deaths by gassing, mostly at Auschwitz, of Jews
        from Central, Western and Southern Europe.  This stage
        lasted until late 1944.  Reliable recent estimates of the
        numbers gassed at Auschwitz/Birkenhau give a figure of

.          P-17

        about 1.12 million.

                  Thus the total achievement of this horrendous
        exercise in systematic mass murder was probably somewhere
        between five and six million innocent lives.

                  The whole of this gigantic operation was
        orchestrated by Heinrich Himmler, the Reichsfuhrer SS, and
        his able subordinates, such as Heydrich, Globocnik and Eichmann.

                  As Dr Longerich explained in court, Hitler and
        Himmler were long-time intimate associates.  Himmler had
        been with Hitler during the 1923 putsch and Hitler
        appointed him Reichsfuhrer SS in 1929.  Throughout the
        War, and certainly while the Holocaust was underway, they
        met frequently, sometimes two or three times a week, often
        for hours at a time and often alone together.  It is,
        therefore, wholly inconceivable that during the whole
        three and a half years for which the killing lasted,
        Himmler could, or indeed would, have concealed from Hitler
        the enormous, systematic operation that he was directing.

                  This becomes all the less credible when it is
        remembered, as the documents show, that Hitler was the
        mainspring and driving force of Nazi anti-Jewish policy
        from 1923 onwards and that his anti-Semitism became
        noticeably more radical, if that were possible, from the
        date that he declared war on America (11th December 1941).

                  Thus, leaving aside all the specific evidence to

.          P-18

        be found in the contemporary documents, including
        documents written by Himmler himself, which, fairly read
        by an open-minded, careful historian, plainly implicate
        Hitler, the overall picture is compelling:  the Holocaust
        could not possibly have happened without Hitler's
        knowledge and authority.  It takes only a moment's light
        reflection to realize that the contrary idea is both
        absurd and perverse:  suppose, say, in July 1942, when
        Himmler went to Lublin and Auschwitz to review and advance
        the mass killing in Poland, and on his return had lunch
        with Hitler (as he did) that Hitler, previously in a state
        of complete ignorance, and in any case opposed to any
        Final Solution that involved any more than deportation of
        the Jews to Siberia or Central Africa after the War, had
        suddenly found out what Himmler was doing.  What, one
        wonders, would have happened to Himmler?  Well, of course,
        it didn't, not then or at any time thereafter.

                  In 1988 Mr Irving's position changed
        dramatically.  Not only did Hitler not know about the
        Holocaust, the Holocaust did not happen (which is why, of
        course, Hitler did not know about it).

                  The question is why?  Why this change in
        Mr Irving's position?  The one-word answer is: Leuchter.
        In April 1988, Mr Irving went to Canada, for reasons best
        known to himself, to give expert evidence at the trial in
        Toronto of a man called Ernst Zundel, a dedicated

.          P-19

        Holocaust denier, and since 1988, one of Mr Irving's
        staunchest allies and promoters.  While he was in Toronto,
        he met a man called Fred Leuchter, also proffered by
        Zundel, but rejected by the Canadian court, as an expert
        witness.  Leuchter was, it seems, some kind
        of consultant on execution facilities in the USA.  He'd
        been to Auschwitz and Birkenau to seek "scientific"
        evidence of the existence of homicidal gas chambers.  He
        made a report on his findings.

                  Mr Irving gave this report a cursory reading.
        His conversion was instantaneous.  Even as he gave
        evidence to the Canadian court, the Holocaust had suddenly
        never happened.

                  In June 1989, Mr Irving gave a press conference
        in London, triumphantly announcing the English publication
        of the Leuchter Report, with a foreword written by
        himself.  In his foreword, Mr Irving trumpeted the virtues
        of the Report, with particular emphasis on the chemical
        analysis of the samples which Leuchter had brought back
        from Auschwitz/Birkenau.  "Forensic chemistry" proclaimed
        Mr Irving, "is an exact science".

                  And, my Lord, indeed so it is.  Fred Leuchter
        had taken samples from the remains of the gas chambers and
        one sample from the delousing facility in the women's camp
        at Birkenau.  The samples from the gas chambers showed
        small, but significant, traces of cyanide, the active

.          P-20

        element in the Zyklon-B pellets used for the gassings, the
        sample from the delousing facility, relatively high
        traces.  Therefore, concluded Leuchter, the "gas chambers"
        could never have been gas chambers, because, according to
        Leuchter, the concentration of hydrogen cyanide needed to
        kill humans was higher than that needed to kill lice.

                  The Leuchter report (as Mr Irving has accepted
        during this trial) was riddled with numerous errors of
        various kinds, but this error was colossal.  As the
        material contained in the Leuchter report itself showed,
        the concentration of hydrogen cyanide required to kill
        humans is, in fact, some 22 times lower than that required
        to kill lice.  Thus, so far from disproving the existence
        of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, the Leuchter
        Report actually succeeded in proving the opposite.

                  Despite this, Mr Irving continued to cling, and
        still clings, to Leuchter's "forensic chemistry" as the
        flagship of his Holocaust denial.  In consequence,
        Mr Irving has, ever since 1988, used the Leuchter Report
        as the foundation not only for his denial of the existence
        of any homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, but also,
        quite illogically, for the existence of any gas chambers

                  In the end, at the trial of this action,
        Mr Irving has been driven, in the face of overwhelming
        evidence presented by Professor Robert Jan van Pelt,

.          P-21

        Professor Christopher Browning and Dr Longerich, to
        concede that there were indeed mass murders on a huge
        scale by means of gassing at Chelmno in the Warthegau and
        at the Reinhardt camps of Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor;
        and even that there were "some gassings" at Auschwitz.

                  His last remaining defence against the evidence
        showing that the crematoria at Birkenau were used to
        murder vast numbers of Jews by means of Zyklon B was to
        make the slippery concession that the gas chambers --
        known as Leichenkeller I at crematoria II and III at
        Birkenau -- were, indeed, gas chambers, but for gassing
        only (I quote Mr Irving's words) "objects and cadavers".

                  This last proposition is ludicrous.  If this
        were not such a serious matter, it would be hilarious.
        For the evidence, clearly explained by Professor van Pelt,
        is that the gas-tight doors in Leichenkeller I at both
        those crematoria were equipped with thick glass spyholes,
        protected by metal grilles.  Why, it was asked of
        Mr Irving, should these be required for the observation of
        the gassing of lice-infested "objects" and corpses?  Faced
        with this, Mr Irving retreated to the position that
        Leichenkeller I had been intended to serve an alternative
        purpose as an air-raid shelter.  This last refuge will be
        dealt with shortly below.  Meanwhile, Professor van Pelt
        also explained that when the plans of crematoria II and
        III were redesigned in late 1942 and early 1943, the

.          P-22

        corpse-slides or chutes appearing on the original plans
        were removed, and the entrance to the basement moved to
        the other side of the building.  Thus, if the re-design
        was intended to facilitate the gassing of corpses, people
        who are already dead, it had only succeeded in compelling
        those who were carrying the corpses to negotiate a series
        of small rooms, narrow passages, and staircases to reach
        the gassing-space.  Moreover, the plans were re-designed
        at that time so as to change the way in which the doors of
        the gassing-space opened from inwards to outwards, thus
        further impeding the carrying of corpses into the space.

                  Mr Irving's air-raid shelter proposal is equally
        absurd.  It is obvious that the Leichenkellers could never
        have served as air-raid shelters for an inmate population
        of 100,000 or more, even if it thought likely that the SS
        should have wanted to protect the inmates against
        air-raids.  Therefore, if the Leichenkellers were ever
        intended to be used as air-raid shelters, they must have
        been intended for the SS.  In fact, crematoria II and III
        are about one and a half miles from the nearest SS
        barracks.  The picture of SS personnel running from their
        barracks, round the perimeter wire, in full gear, one and
        a half miles to the crematoria, under a hail of bombs, is
        just plain daft.

                  Mr Irving's concession that Leichenkeller I was
        indeed a gas chamber is, of course, entirely inconsistent

.          P-23

        with his continued adherence to Leuchter's chemical
        analysis as being conclusive evidence that Leichenkeller I
        never was a gas chamber.  It is also wholly inconsistent
        with his final line of defence, which is
        that Leichenkeller I could never have been a gas chamber
        because the remains of the roof that can be seen at
        Birkenau do not show the holes through which the gas
        pellets were thrown.

                  This last line of defence, which emerged at a
        very late stage in Mr Irving's Holocaust denial, is, in
        any case, easily demolished.  In the first place,
        Professor van Pelt, who has subjected the remains of the
        roof of Leichenkeller I at crematorium II to careful
        examination (which Mr Irving has never done), told the
        court that the remains are so fragmentary that they do not
        allow any firm conclusions to be drawn as to the existence
        or non-existence of the holes.  Second, if, as Mr Irving
        accepts, Leichenkeller I was a gas chamber (for whatever
        purpose) it would always have needed apertures for
        inserting the Zyklon-B, since it never had any windows and
        only one gas-tight door.  Third, even if Mr Irving were
        right that it was used for gassing objects and corpses,
        the concentration of hydrogen cyanide required for this
        would have been comparatively high, with the consequence
        that the need for tight fitting apertures which could be
        opened and closed quickly and easily, would, for the

.          P-24

        protection of those throwing in the pellets, have been all
        the greater.  Finally, leaving aside all the mass of
        eyewitness testimony, there is a coincidence between two
        pieces of independent evidence which demonstrates
        conclusively the existence of these holes or apertures.
        In 1945, a former inmate of Auschwitz, David Olere, an
        artist, drew the ground plan of Leichenkeller I in
        crematorium III.  This drawing shows a zigzag alignment of
        the gassing columns in Leichenkeller I.  These are the
        columns which would have ended in the apertures through
        which the gas pellets were inserted.  It happens that that
        zigzag alignment is precisely matched by an aerial
        photograph taken by the Allies in 1944, which was not
        released to the world until 1979.  There can, therefore,
        be no possibility of any cross-contamination
        between Olere's drawing and the aerial photograph.  No
        doubt recognizing this, Mr Irving sought to suggest at
        this trial that the aerial photograph had been faked by
        the CIA.  Professor van Pelt, however, explained to the
        court that he had had the photograph tested by Dr Nevin
        Bryant at NASA and that the result of those tests showed
        conclusively that the photograph was authentic.

                  In the light of Mr Irving's concession that
        Leichenkeller I was indeed a gas chamber and of the fact
        that it is clear that it was never intended for the
        gassing of corpses or other inanimate objects, or for use

.          P-25

        as an air-raid shelter, the stark conclusion can only be
        this:  It must have been used for gassing people, live people.

                  One residual shred of this aspect of Mr Irving's
        Holocaust denial remains.  He disputes the numbers of
        people murdered at Auschwitz/Birkenau.  This last
        barricade of Mr Irving's is based on three
        distinctly unstable legs.

                  The first leg is the so-called "death books"
        released in recent years from the archive in Moscow.
        These are incomplete.  They show a total of some 74,000
        recorded deaths from various causes.  They relate,
        however, and could only ever relate, to the deaths of
        prisoners registered upon arrival at Auschwitz, that is to
        say, those destined to be accommodated in the camps at
        Auschwitz and, more particularly, Birkenau, as workers
        (for a time at least).

                  There was, however, a preliminary process at
        Auschwitz, which involved separating those deemed to be
        fit for work from the rest.  This was called "selection".
        The vast majority, including the old, young children, and
        mothers with small children, were "the rest".  They were
        gassed immediately without ever being registered; their
        deaths were never recorded.

                  There is a great deal of eyewitness evidence
        about this from both sides, perpetrators and surviving

.          P-26

        victims.  This evidence is confirmed by photographs taken
        by the SS during the so-called "Hungarian action" in the
        course of which, over a matter of months, some 400,000
        Hungarian Jews were gassed, in the summer of 1944.  Thus,
        once again, eyewitness evidence is corroborated by
        contemporary documentary evidence.

                  In the result, the fact that the "death books"
        fail to record the deaths of perhaps 1 million people
        killed on arrival is unsurprising and inconsequential.

                  The second leg of Mr Irving's last barricade
        consists of German police radio messages decoded by the
        British during the war.  Some of these came from
        Auschwitz, and of course none mentioned gassings.  For
        exactly the same reasons as the death books make no
        reference to those murdered on arrival, it is not
        reasonable to expect that the radio messages from
        Auschwitz would:  people who were not registered on
        arrival at Auschwitz because they were not destined for
        work in the camp but, instead, for immediate death in the
        gas chambers, would obviously not be mentioned in messages
        about recorded deaths.

                  The last leg in the barricade is Mr Irving's
        contention that Auschwitz did not have sufficient
        incineration capacity for all the corpses of those whom it
        is generally held by historians were killed there.  As
        Professor van Pelt convincingly demonstrated, by reference

.          P-27

        to a letter of 28th June 1943, from Karl Bischoff, the
        head of the building programme at Auschwitz, to Berlin,
        the potential incineration capacity at Auschwitz/Birkenau
        at that time far exceeded any possible mortality rate
        amongst the registered inmates from "natural"
        causes, including the possibility of a repeat of the
        typhus epidemic which had struck the camp in 1942.  This
        means that the incineration capacity must have been
        calculated and built, as it was in due course, to
        accommodate the mortal remains of the hundreds of
        thousands of people who were gassed on arrival.

                  Faced with this, Mr Irving's only possible
        response was (as ever) to challenge the authenticity of
        the Bischoff letter.  This challenge, in the end, turned
        out to be based on nothing more than the fact that the
        administrative reference on the letter did not contain the
        year date.  In fact, copies of this document have been
        retained in the archive at Moscow since 1945, when the
        Soviets liberated Auschwitz and acquired the documents
        which the SS had forgotten to destroy.  Moreover, the
        document was used at the trial of the Auschwitz
        commandant, Rudolf Hoess, in 1948, and again at the trial
        of the Auschwitz architects, Dejaco and Ertl, in 1971.
        Not unnaturally, Professor van Pelt saw no reason
        whatsoever to doubt the authenticity of the document.
        Amongst other reasons for rejecting Mr Irving's proposal

.          P-28

        that the document might be a postwar communist forgery, is
        the fact that the incineration capacity shown in the
        document -- that is 4,756 corpses per 24 hours -- is
        very significantly lower than that estimated by the
        Soviets and the Poles (both communist regimes) shortly
        after the War.  It follows that if the document were a
        communist forgery, it would be a very strange one.

                  Mr Irving's last challenge to the incineration
        capacity was that the amount of coke delivered to
        Auschwitz at the relevant time would not, in the ordinary
        way, have been sufficient to meet the required rate of
        incineration.  As Professor van Pelt demonstrated, this
        challenge is demolished by two considerations which
        Mr Irving had evidently ignored:  first, the procedure for
        incineration at Auschwitz involved the simultaneous
        incineration of up to four or five corpses even in every
        muffle of the ovens; and, second, in consequence, the
        corpses themselves served as fuel for the ovens, the more
        particularly so if, as they generally did, they included
        the comparatively well fed corpses of people recently
        arrived on the trains and gassed on arrival.

                  Mr Irving's Holocaust denial is thus exposed as
        a fraud.  It originated with a piece so-called scientific
        research which, on analysis, turns out, if it has any
        value at all, to support the overwhelming historical
        evidence that Auschwitz was indeed a gigantic death

.          P-29

        factory.  Mr Irving's later adornments to his gas chamber
        denial also turn out to be fragile conjectures based on no
        significant research at all:  it should be noted that
        Mr Irving has never himself been to Auschwitz to examine
        the archeological remains or the documentary evidence
        contained in the archive.  It follows that some other
        reason must be sought to explain his devotion, over many
        years, and even in this court, though his case has changed
        and changed back again throughout the trial, to the
        bizarre idea that no significant numbers of people were
        murdered in the homicidal gas chambers at
        Auschwitz/Birkenau.  The reasons are not far to seek.

                  As the evidence in this court has shown,
        Mr Irving is a right-wing extremist, a racist and, in
        particular, a rabid anti-Semite.

                  Two examples, again, amongst many, will suffice
        to illustrate this proposition.

                  In a speech which he made at Tampa, Florida, on
        6th October 1995 to the National Alliance, a white
        supremacist and profoundly anti-Semitic group, Mr Irving
        said this about the Jews:

                  "You have been disliked for 3,000 years.  You
        have been disliked so much that you have hounded from
        country to country, from pogrom to purge, from purge back
        to pogrom.  And yet you never ask yourselves why you are
        disliked, that's the difference between you and me.  It

.          P-30

        would never occur to you to look in the mirror and say
        "Why am I disliked, what is it the rest of humanity
        doesn't like about the Jewish people, to such an extent
        that they repeatedly put us through the grinder?" And he
        (a heckler whom Mr Irving said he had perceived to be
        Jewish) went beserk, said Mr Irving.  He said (the
        heckler), "Are you trying to say that we are responsible
        for Auschwitz ourselves"?  And I, that is Mr Irving, said,
        "Well, the short answer is yes".  The short answer I have
        to say is yes ... If you (the Jews) had behaved
        differently over the intervening 3,000 years, the Germans
        would have gone about their business and would not have
        found it necessary to go around doing whatever they did to
        you.  Nor would the Russians, nor the Ukranians, nor the
        Lithuanians, Estonians, Latvians, and all the other
        countries where you've had a rough time.  So why have you
        never asked yourselves that question?"  So much for the Jews.

                  As to the blacks (and homosexuals), Mr Irving,
        in an entry in his private diary on 10th November 1987, on
        the occasion of a visit to South Africa, recorded his own thoughts:

                  "God works in mysterious ways, but here (that is
        South Africa) we agree he appears to be working
        remorselessly towards a Final Solution which may cruelly
        wipe out not only blacks and homosexuals, but a large part

.          P-31

        of the drug addicts and sexually promiscuous and
        indiscriminate heterosexual population as well."

                  These examples, again the tip of, I am afraid, a
        very large iceberg, demonstrate, beyond doubt, that
        Mr Irving is a profound racist and a radical anti-Semite.
        But this is not the end of the story.  For many years,
        Mr Irving has travelled about the world giving vent to his
        views at gatherings composed of, and organized by, others
        of similar opinion.

                  Until he was banned in 1993.  Mr Irving's
        energies were particularly devoted to the propagation of
        his ideology in Germany, where pro-Nazi sentiment has not
        only persisted but alas, since reunification, undergone a
        significant revival, particularly in the East.

                  This is chilling exposed by a demonstration of
        neo-Nazi boot boys, waving Nazi flags and chanting racist
        slogans, which was addressed by Mr Irving at Halle in East
        Germany in November 1991.  In his diary Mr Irving
        described his speech at this rally as "rabble rousing", no
        doubt for good reason.  The speech was greeted with
        enthusiasm, not least, perhaps, because he predicted the
        recreation of a greater Germany, by the reconquest,
        through economic power, of the former Third Reich
        territories in the East.  This speech was greeted with
        enthusiasm and, unsurprisingly, shouts of "Sieg Heil!".

                  Holocaust denial is forbidden in Germany

.          P-32

        (notwithstanding which Mr Irving has, from time to time,
        managed to slip in direct statements that there were never
        any gas chambers).  Elsewhere, however, it has been a
        constant theme of Mr Irving's public utterances.  He has
        expressed it, on numerous occasions, in terms which
        variously attribute the blame for the Holocaust on the
        Jews themselves, accuse Holocaust survivors of lying in
        order to extort money from the German Government, and pour
        scorn on the suffering of Holocaust victims, both alive
        and dead.  These utterances are often greeted with warm
        applause and loud laughter by his audiences.

                  Given that Mr Irving has repeatedly falsified
        history in pursuit of his obsessive desire to exonerate
        Hitler of responsibility for the Nazi persecution of the
        Jews and, in particular, of responsibility for the
        Holocaust, and given that he has repeatedly denied the
        Holocaust, without any historical foundation, and in the
        face of overwhelming evidence that the Holocaust took
        place on the scale and in the manner generally described
        by reputable historians, the question now arises why
        Mr Irving should have engaged so actively in the promotion
        of these historical falsehoods.

                  The answers suggested by the evidence are:

        Mr Irving is an anti-Semite; Holocaust denial, in the form
        in which it is purveyed by Mr Irving, is an obvious
        expression of anti-Semitism, and is music to the ears of

.          P-33

        the neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists to whom he
        purveys it; Mr Irving is a Hitler partisan, who has
        falsified history on a staggering scale in order to
        "prove" Hitler's innocence; this, like Holocaust denial,
        is obviously very appealing to his fellow travellers --
        after all, if the Holocaust were a "myth", then,
        obviously, Hitler could have no responsibility for it.

                  How far, if at all, Mr Irving's anti-Semitism is
        a cause of his Hitler apology, or vice versa, is quite
        unimportant.  Whether they are taken together, or
        individually, it is clear that they have led him to
        prostitute his reputation as a serious historian (spurious
        though it can now be seen to have been) for the sake of a
        bogus rehabilitation of Hitler and the dissemination of
        virulent anti-Semitic propaganda.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Rampton, can I raise with you now the
        points I think I need to clarify?

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I do not think it will take very long.  There
        is just one point that occurred to me as you were reading
        out the statement, and it relates to paragraph 41, where
        you are dealing with incineration capacity.

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The point you are making is that it is
        strange to suggest that the Bischoff document is a
        communist forgery, since it shows a rate of incineration

.          P-34

        lower than was estimated by the Soviets and the Poles.  Am
        I right in thinking that the estimate you are there
        talking about by the Soviets and the Poles is the estimate
        of the total numbers killed, rather than of incineration
        capacity or rate of incineration?

   MR RAMPTON:  No, my Lord.  Well, I think that is partly right,
        if I may say so.  But also on page 207 of Professor van
        Pelt's report, there is rather a dense paragraph.
        I cannot remember now off the top of my head how the
        answers come out.  There is rather dense paragraph from
        which one can certainly work out, and I know Professor van
        Pelt told me what the totals were by but I have forgotten
        them.  One can certainly work out that the 4,756 corpses
        per 24 hours was significantly lower than the Russian and
        Polish estimates for incineration.  I think the Russian
        figure was 50 per cent higher and the Polish figure about
        30 per cent higher.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you very much.  I did not know that.
        You have given me the reference so that has dealt with
        that.  The other questions are really all rather broader
        ones.  Can I take them in what I hope is the sensible
        order?  The first one relates to deportation, and I will
        ask Mr Irving the same question in due course.  It is not
        really clear to me what, if any, is the issue between the
        parties as to that particular phase.

   MR RAMPTON:  No.  I have never understood that there was.

.          P-35


   MR RAMPTON:  Dr Longerich told your Lordship, and we accept, we
        have to, he knows a lot more about it than we do, that in
        the beginning the transportation of the German and other
        central European, French and Greek, Italian Jews was just
        to the East, where they were put into ghettoes which had
        been vacated by the murder of the Polish Jews.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  A sort of two phase deportation exercise?

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.  Then eventually, probably sometime in 1942,
        they started killing the arrivals.  There is a notable
        document your Lordship will remember from the Gestapo at
        Lodz, explaining how they cleared one lot and made room
        for the other lot.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes. Leaving aside the extermination, which
        is a separate issue and I understand what Mr Irving says
        about that, you do not understand there to be any argument
        or dispute between the Defendants and Mr Irving as to the
        fact that the deportation took place, and indeed also as
        to the fact that Hitler knew about it, because it is
        Mr Irving's case that that was all that was involved.

   MR RAMPTON:  No question.  Hitler gave the order for it.  As
        your Lordship will have seen, in one of the passages in
        our long submission, we draw attention, I forget which
        book it is, to a statement by Mr Irving where he says
        Hitler was neither consulted nor knew anything about the
        deportations.  Why he should say that, I have absolutely

.          P-36

        no idea, but the fact is that Hitler gave the order.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That was Hitler's preferred solution, as
        opposed to extermination, according to Mr Irving's argument.

   MR RAMPTON:  In 1941 it may or may not be so, so far as the
        German Jews are concerned.


   MR RAMPTON:  So far as the rest, anyway.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I noticed something this morning which I had
        not noticed before, which is that -- have you got your
        more detailed written submissions?

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I have.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Would you go to Tab 5 (i)?

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  There is at page 56, paragraph 4, which seems
        to continue over the page on page 57.

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, it does.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The next paragraph is 12.  I see what I have
        done.  Yes, there is an 11 somewhere lurking way back.

   MR RAMPTON:  Paragraph 11 is on page 53.  It has a large number
        of subparagraphs.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  The next broad question is this.  I am
        really asking for perhaps a bit of assistance on this.  It
        is what we have called the genesis of the gassing
        programme, or the extermination programme.

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.

.          P-37

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:   And what you have done, and this is your
        (ii), is very helpfully to set out what you say are
        gathered together from various files the various
        documentary references which demonstrate the setting up of
        the gassing in the Reinhardt camps and so on.

                  The slight problem I have with this way of
        dealing with it is that one has to try to confine the
        judgment within some sort reasonable bounds -- it is going
        to be horrifically long anyway -- and I do not think it is
        feasible to even begin to try to incorporate all those
        references.  It would just overload it.

   MR RAMPTON:  No, we were not expecting that your Lordship
        would, of course not.  It seemed to us, though, that now
        that one -- I mean, I am only a lawyer too -- had the
        chance to look at the thing with some considerable care,
        that that table led the eye through the stages really
        quite well; but if that is not so, then all I perhaps need
        to do is to refer your Lordship back to the little summary
        that I have given in this latest statement starting on page 10.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, but I think the problem is what I would
        really ideally want to aim at myself in order to give
        anyone reading the judgment a sufficient but not
        overextended view of what the documents show to have
        happened is something in between the two.

   MR RAMPTON:  I think what I am being asked ----

.          P-38

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You will think I am by very awkward.

   MR RAMPTON:  No, of course not.  I do not know how much time I
        have, that is all.  What I think I am being asked for and
        will willingly supply -- I might even get Dr Longerich to
        write it actually -- is really a chronological summary
        with a bit more detail than I have put in here and a bit
        less than I have put into the main submission.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think that is probably right.  Really in a
        way it perhaps will highlight the most significant
        documents.  I think it is right, I mean, as you realize,
        I have been trying to sort of keep a tag on what the
        evidence has revealed as it has gone on, so I think I have
        quite a lot of them, but I suspect I am missing some of
        the important ones and I would like to ----

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I mean, I do not say I have covered
        everything either.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can I invite you to do that?  Not at enormous
        length, but I think it would be helpful.

   MR RAMPTON:  We will do it in the course of the rest of this week.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  And bearing in mind, if I may suggest it, the
        issues that arise on the genesis of the gassing as opposed
        to Auschwitz, which I will deal with separately, seem to
        me to be, firstly, on what scale the extermination took
        place, and that is not really much of an issue now, as I
        understand Mr Irving's case.

.          P-39

   MR RAMPTON:  Not an issue at all.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But also Hitler's knowledge.  So that is the
        thing to concentrate on, and I appreciate to some extent
        that may not any longer be as stark an issue as it was.

   MR RAMPTON:  That is covered specifically, not only with what
        I said today in general terms, but there was an exercise
        that I did in re-examination with Professor Longerich
        which is referred back to in here, just that really the
        month of July and into August 1942, which demonstrates in
        Professor Longerich's view, which we obviously adopt, that
        it is inconceivable that while Himmler was supervising the
        mass extermination of goodness knows how many people in
        the General Government Hitler did not know about it.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  One of the things I was going to ask
        Mr Irving is whether he accepts the concessions that you
        attribute to him at various stages of your submission.

   MR RAMPTON:  I have given the reference to it somewhere in here.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You have, indeed, but I think it is right it
        should be put to him.

   MR RAMPTON:  I mean, what he says now, his position has changed
        throughout the case, but really the concessions, if I may
        say this now, which we have listed in various places in
        this long submission are those which were first driven out
        of him by cross-examination, no cleverness on my part, but
        by the evidence which was presented to him, and it was not

.          P-40

        selective, in cross-examination.  His first reaction,
        eventually in some case, sometimes quite quickly, was to
        say, "Yes, are you right, it did happen".

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, but I must find out what the up-to-date
        position is because I think it is fair to say that
        sometimes Mr Irving has fluctuated.

   MR RAMPTON:  As I say, I do not attach much weight to what
        I might call back tracking.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Right.  If Professor Longerich can perform
        that exercise, but also focus, if he would, on the extent
        of Hitler's knowledge and the reason for saying that he
        knew about the gassing at Chelmno and all the rest.

                  The next question is a very short one and
        I think I know what your answer is, but I will ask it all
        the same:  part of your case against Mr Irving is that he
        is a racist, leaving aside anti-Semitism, that he is a
        racist and you have a number of quotations from his speeches.

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  How does that bear on (a) the words
        complained of, and (b) the meanings that you seek to justify?

   MR RAMPTON:  I suppose we seek to justify simply that he holds
        extremist views in the written bit.  In the statement of
        case, I cannot remember.  It says something ----

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  There is a bit right at the back.

.          P-41

   MR RAMPTON:  --- rather more specific than that.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Perhaps my question really is, there is
        nothing about racism, is there, in ----


   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  --- Professor Lipstadt's book?

   MR RAMPTON:  Perhaps I should ask her.  There is some allusion to it, she says.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am not sure there is; if there is, I would like to know what it is.

   MR RAMPTON:  But, maybe your Lordship is right, there is this
        to be said, perhaps, if a man is and out and out racist
        which we would propose that it is obvious from his own
        private jottings, never mind what he says publicly, that
        Mr Irving is, and if anti-Semitism is a form of racism,
        which it plainly is, then it is a bit like a case where
        you accuse a man of grievous bodily harm and at trial
        succeed in proving that he is a murderer.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  I thought that would be your answer,
        that anti-Semitism is just one form of racism.

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, indeed.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  And, therefore, it is relevant, you would
        say, by way of justification of an anti-Semitic allegation
        that there is a general streak of racism to be perceived
        in what Mr Irving has said and done.

   MR RAMPTON:  It is evidence of his general disposition to
        disparage and be hostile towards people of different

.          P-42

        colours, ethnic backgrounds and cultures.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  Now perhaps, for me, at any rate, the
        most important question is to be absolutely clear about
        what you are saying in the section which is section 9,
        I think, or (ix) towards the back of your written
        submission about assessing Mr Irving as an historian.

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do you mind turning it up because I just want
        to be absolutely clear about it this because I think it is
        exceedingly important.  You first refer back to your
        historiographical criticisms, and I am right in taking it,
        am I not, it is pretty obvious from what you there say by
        way of criticism of Mr Irving that a number of the
        criticisms are criticisms that he has deliberately
        falsified the record.

   MR RAMPTON:  Every single one.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  All right, every single one.  Now, you do not
        expressly say so, but you may tell me it is implicit, that
        when you deal with his partisanship for Hitler which is
        (ii), you do not expressly say that that is all deliberate
        distortion and manipulation and so on.


   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But that I understand to be your case, am I right?

   MR RAMPTON:  No, what I say is that he has sought to exculpate
        Hitler; that he has done that by a massive falsification

.          P-43

        of the underlying historical record on a large number of occasions.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But going beyond what you have selected or
        Professor Evans has selected as the historical criticisms?

   MR RAMPTON:  Then I say if one looks at the general evidence as
        an objective, open-minded, careful, dispassionate
        historian, that Hitler was, indeed, responsible, knew all
        about it, and authorized it, the conclusion is
        irresistible that he did.  Mr Irving has shut that window,
        as it were, and has got on with the shut window behind him
        with the falsification of history so as to exculpate Hitler.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, so this is again another instance of
        deliberate manipulation which kind of runs through ----

   MR RAMPTON:  It is a kind of deliberate blindness to the
        evidence.  What he does not like, he ignores.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Deliberate blindness?

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, it is deliberate blindness.  He knows about,
        he has known for years, about report No. 51, for example.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So it is telescope to the wrong eye?

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, and for years, despite report No. 51, until
        we got him into this court, until he got us into this
        court, he did not accept that Hitler sanctioned the mass
        shootings in the East.  It is that kind of phenomenon.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So that the partisanship.  Then Auschwitz,

.          P-44

        well I think it is pretty clear what your case is about that.

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You do not specifically rely on the denials
        of the Holocaust, but, presumably, you say in relation to
        those that they are denials which Mr Irving must have
        known were false when he made them.

   MR RAMPTON:  No, again this is a bit like the sort of general
        refusal to accept Hitler's knowledge.  What I say about
        that is that his denials of the Holocaust have been made
        without any reference whatsoever to any reliable evidence.
        They started to be made on Leichter which is an obviously
        completely hopeless position for any kind of
        self-respecting historian or, indeed, anybody else for
        that matter.  Then much later on down the road he adds in
        one or two other things like the death books and the
        decrypts.  Finally, just before this trial or a year or so
        before this trial, he comes to the runes.  He has never
        been to Auschwitz.  He has never looked at any o the
        documents or the plans.  Such evidence as he knows about
        he dismisses out of hand as being mere eyewitness
        testimony.  When he comes to see an aerial photograph
        showing the holes in the roof, he says it is a forgery;
        the incineration capacity document is also a forgery, and
        so on and so forth.  This means that his denial must have
        another agenda because it cannot be the product of genuine

.          P-45

        bona fide historical research and contemplation.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So his state of mind which is -- and it is
        important that I am absolutely clear what it is that is
        being suggested in relation to the various issues that
        have arisen in the case -- this is an area where you put
        it as being deliberately perverse blindness and acting in
        pursuance of what is, effectively, a neoNazi agenda, is that right?

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I put it in two ways and I will say it as
        shortly as I can.  I put it forward as evidence of
        somebody who cannot be regarded as a serious historian,
        because what he has done is to allow his historical
        apparatus to be distorted by something beyond -- extrinsic
        or ulterior.  Looking at the way in which he expresses
        Holocaust denial and the audiences to whom he expresses
        that denial and the things that he says on those
        occasions, one is driven to the conclusion that the hidden
        agenda, the reason for the historical incompetence, if I
        can I call it that (though there is a much stronger word
        that I could think of) is that he is at root deeply
        anti-Semitic and a neo-Nazi, as your Lordship just said.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, that raises the last question that
        I wanted to canvass with you, and it is anti-Semitism and,
        indeed, the racism and the extremism and all the rest of
        it.  I find it a little, and I find it throughout the
        case, bit difficult to see how, if at all, those

.          P-46

        allegations against Mr Irving dovetail with the general
        allegation that he falsifies to an extent deliberately the
        historical record because it seems to me, and I just want
        to know how you put it, that if somebody is anti-Semitic,
        and leave aside racism, but anti-Semitic and extremist, he
        is perfectly capable of being, as it were, honestly
        anti-Semitic and honestly extremist in the sense that he
        is holding those views and expressing those views because
        they are, indeed, his views.

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Now, it seems to me that probably, if you
        come down to it, that the anti-Semitism is a completely
        separate allegation which really has precious little
        bearing on your broader and perhaps more important case
        that Mr Irving has manipulated the data and falsified the
        record, or do you say that they are corrected in some way
        and, if so, how?

   MR RAMPTON:  I propose that they probably are connected.  I do
        not have to do that, but I propose that they are
        connected, and that the link between them, I have no doubt
        at all he is genuinely anti-Semitic and all the more
        defamatory it is of him to say so, and it is true.
        I propose that certainly, that he is genuinely profoundly
        anti-Semitic.  But the bridge between the Holocaust denial
        and the Hitler apology from anti-Semitism is a very easy
        one to build, because what more would an historian who is

.          P-47

        an anti-Semite want to do in exculpation of Hitler which
        he has been trying to do by telling lies about history for
        years, what more would he want to do than to deny the Holocaust?

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, but he might believe what he is saying.
        That is the point.  That is why it is important.

   MR RAMPTON:  Believe what he is saying about what?

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  About the Holocaust.

   MR RAMPTON:  There is no way he could believe what he is saying
        about the Holocaust if it ----

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I understand that, but that has nothing to do
        with his anti-Semitism.  I am not sure I am making my
        point clear to you that ----

   MR RAMPTON:  No, I take a profound anti-Semite, I see that he
        has denied the Holocaust without any historical
        justification whatsoever.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But I understand all of that.

   MR RAMPTON:  Then I ask myself, what is his reason for denying
        the Holocaust because he has not got a good historical
        one, there must be another one?  And the most obvious
        thing for a profound and genuine anti-Semite to do because
        it suits his book is to leap into Holocaust denial without
        any proper evidence at all, any evidence at all, and cart
        it around the world in front of him and to audiences at
        other anti-Semites and neofascists.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is another agenda, you would say?

.          P-48

   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, that is the other agenda; the promotion of anti-Semitism.


   MR RAMPTON:  And given that there is, as I say, absolutely no
        historical foundation, no proper historical foundation,
        for Holocaust denial, and given that there is evidence
        that Mr Irving is an anti-Semite, as I say, the bridge
        between the one and the other is very easy to build indeed.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, thank you.

   MR RAMPTON:  And the same goes for Hitler exculpation.

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you very much.  Now, Mr Irving, it is your turn.

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.