Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day020.02
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  Professor Evans, this is a point at
        which I think you ought to join in, if I can put it like
        that.  I think, Mr Irving, the point he made yesterday is right?
   A.   It is right, yes, indeed.
   MR IRVING:  Is it right to say that I, therefore, did not
        double the death roll by means of the comparison, in
        fact?  I adhered to a death roll in Hamburg of up to or
        nearly 50,000?
   A.   That is right, yes.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Not, I think, your error, but Professor
        Eatwell's?
   A.   It looks like it, my Lord.
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, the problem is Professor Evans' report has
        turned out to be a bit of a dummy minefield.  I am
        advancing into it, but very gingerly, because I do not
        know where the real mines are and where the dummies are
        like that one, and this is what is delaying us.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am not sure I accept any of that, but let
        us move on anyway.  We have got to about 100?
   MR IRVING:  128, my Lord, is where I propose to continue,
my
        Lord.  I am on 128 at paragraph 4, Professor Evans.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You are still on the topic of Holocaust
        denial, are you not?
   MR IRVING:  We are, my Lord, and we are dealing just
briefly
        with the experiment made with the gas vans.  Your
Lordship

.          P-10



        was concerned that I described this as an experiment
in
        view of the large numbers.  So Professor Evans has
quoted
        me as saying, "So I accept that this kind of
experiment
        was made on a very limited scale".  Do you agree that
        there was, in fact, an experiment, Professor Evans,
the
        use of the gas vans for a limited period of months on
the
        Eastern Front and elsewhere?
   A.   You go on to say:  "But, I don't accept that the gas
        chambers existed, and this is well known.  I've seen
no
        evidence at all that gas chambers existed".  So what I
am
        saying there in that quotation is that you say that
        gassing took place on a very limited scale,
experimental
        scale, but, as you say, it was rapidly abandoned as
being
        a totally inefficient way of killing people.
   Q.   Yes.
   A.   I understand that during the trial you have now
admitted
        that that was wrong, that it was, that gassing was not
        merely used on a limited experimental scale.
   Q.   You are overlooking the use of loaded words like
        "conceded" and "admitted".  Do you accept that,
        therefore, the gas vans were used as an experimental
basis
        for killing, and that they were abandoned then for
        whatever reason afterwards?
   A.   No, I do not.  They were used for killing on a large
        scale, as I think----
   Q.   Did they continue using them throughout the war or did

.          P-11



        they stop?
   A.   There was a transition to mainly using gas chambers,
but
        they were used on far more than a limited scale, as
        I believe you yourself have said in the course of this
        trial.
   Q.   Looking purely at the word "experimental" at this
point,
        you have agreed that Professor Burrin, the Swiss
Professor
        is something of an expert.  He is not an extremist or
what
        you call a Holocaust denier.
   A.   That is so, yes.
   Q.   I just put to you one sentence from his standard work
on
        this.  This is on page 112 of Philip Burrin:  "The gas
        truck had been an improvised response to a situation
no
        one had foreseen or imagined".  Would you agree with
that?
   A.   I would have to see the whole passage.  I find it
        difficult to comment simply on a single sentence taken
out
        of that.  In any case, the context of this section of
my
        report is concerned with your denial that gas chambers
        existed, that gas chambers were used.  That is the
        context.
   Q.   Before we move on, just a simple answer.  You do
accept
        therefore that the gas vans were used and then
abandoned
        at some stage as a means of killing?
   A.   Well, yes.  In the end of course the gas chambers were
        abandoned as a means of killing when they had
fulfilled
        their purpose.  I do not accept----

.          P-12



   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, I just want to see where we
are
        going occasionally.
   MR IRVING:  That was the end of that.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  At an earlier stage in this case --
correct
        me if I am recollecting wrongly -- you were presented
        with a document which indicated that at Chelmno 97,000
        Jews were killed in five weeks.
   MR RAMPTON:  Five months, my Lord.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I agree you did not accept that figure
was
        correct, but I believe you did accept in terms that
the
        gas vans were not used on a solely experimental basis
but
        were used for the systematic killing of substantial
        numbers of Jews.
   MR IRVING:  They were.  I do not agree that they were used
only
        at Chelmno.  They were certainly used once at Chelmno
        because there was an explosion there, but there is no
        evidence they were used only there.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I did not say "only there".  I am using
that
        as an illustration of what I had understood you to
have
        accepted earlier in this case.
   MR IRVING:  I am trying to justify the use of the word
        "experimental" by the virtue of the fact that other
        historians of reputation have also described this as
being
        an interim phase and it was abandoned, as it proved
not to
        be a very feasible or practical way of doing things.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That may be rather a different thing from

.          P-13



        saying it is experimental, but there we are.
   MR IRVING:  I think that you had fastened on the word
        "experimental" as being something repugnant in this
        particular connection and I can appreciate that, but I
was
        just trying to establish what was meant by the word
        "experimental".
                  Can we now proceed to paragraph 6 on the
same
        page 128, where we are talking about the subsequent
Polish
        tests which attempted to replicate the Leuchter tests.
        You say that I allege that there was a refusal of the
        authorities to call for site examinations and that
        forensic tests were carried out by the Poles, but the
        results were suppressed".  Is that correct in the last
        four lines on page 128?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Are you suggesting that I have got it wrong somehow?
   A.   In this paragraph I am trying to sum up your views as
        succinctly as I can.
   Q.   Do you accept that the Poles did carry out tests and
        suppress them?
   A.   No, I do not.  I have to say I am not an expert on
        Auschwitz and there has been a separate, as I call
        attention to at the top of the next page 130, expert
        witness report by Professor van Pelt, who is an expert
on
        Auschwitz, who goes into this in very great detail.
   Q.   Yes.  So we will not dwell very long on this, but
would

.          P-14



        you go to page 56 of the little bundle, which is the
first
        page of the Polish report I am referring to. We are
going
        to look at two dates on it.
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   It is a Polish document.  I am told that the date at
the
        top in Polish means 24th September 1990, and that is
the
        date that the report was submitted by this Polish
        Institute to the museum at Auschwitz, as you can see
in
        the address line on the top right quarter.  If you
look in
        the rubber stamp box, can you see a date on the final
        line?
   A.   Indeed, 11.10.1990.
   Q.   Did the Polish State authority, the Auschwitz
authorities,
        at any time thereafter publish that report, or did it
sit
        in their safe for some months and years?
   A.   I am not an expert on this subject.  I cannot really
        comment.  I think probably, if one consulted Professor
van
        Pelt's report, one would be able to clear that up.
   Q.   You spent a whole page -- again on the foot of page
129
        you say that Irving went on to claim that Dr Piper, in
        other words the Auschwitz State Museum, had suppressed
the
        fact and filed the report away.
   A.   Yes, I say that.
   Q.   You disqualify the Leuchter report in your view.  I
have
        to ask you these questions because it is said that I
have
        relied on the Leuchter report and that this was an

.          P-15



        unjustifiable act of a responsible historian.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You do not have to ask these questions.
I
        have already indicated that on Auschwitz -- I know it
is
        referred to in Professor Evans' report -- it does not
        appear to me that, if I may respectfully say so,
Professor
        Evans' opinions really bulk very large.  I think that
is
        really Professor van Pelt.  So do not feel you have to
ask
        these questions.
   MR IRVING:  I would like to ask him purely then about one
        matter.  Is it right that you suggest that the report
was
        not admitted as evidence at the Toronto trial, and
that
        this in some way discredits the report?
   A.   No, I cannot see that in my report.  I say it was
        discredited at the Zundel trial in 1988.  That is my
        understanding, having read some of the transcripts of
the
        trial.
   Q.   Was the report actually admitted as evidence of the
Zundel
        trial?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think we know it was, do we not?  We
can
        move on.
   MR IRVING:  The point that I am trying to make, my Lord, is
        that I have had considerable dealings overnight with
the
        Canadian solicitors involved in that action who
confirmed
        to me -- I just put the essential three lines of their
        letter to you.  The solicitor Barbara Kulaska has
written
        to me saying that the Leuchter report itself was not
filed

.          P-16



        as an exhibit for the sole reason that such
engineering
        reports are not generally admissible under Canadian
rules
        of evidence unless the other side consents.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I treat that with a certain amount of
        scepticism.  The evidence up to now is that it was not
        admitted in evidence at the Zundel trial because it
was
        not accepted that Leuchter was suitably qualified as
an
        expert.
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, with the utmost respect, I have to say
        that I have a very large bundle here now which
contains
        the actual transcript on that matter between the
        prosecution and the defence and the court in Toronto.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Shall we put that on one side?  I do not
        suppose Mr Rampton has had a chance to look at what
you
        are referring to me at the moment.  At any rate, let
us
        got on with Professor Evans.  I am not shutting you
out
        from adducing that evidence.
   MR IRVING:  I am prepared to make this transcript available
to
        the Defence in this matter.
   MR RAMPTON:  I have the transcript.  I used it in
        cross-examination of Mr Irving.  It is perfectly clear
the
        judge would not admit Mr Leuchter as an expert.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What you have not seen is what Mr Irving
is
        relying on from the Canadian lawyers giving an
entirely
        different reason why.
   MR RAMPTON:  I have seen it.  There is a one page letter

.          P-17



        I think in this new bundle.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What I am suggesting is that Mr Irving
        follows this up later.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I agree.  I attach no weight to what the
        lawyer says at all.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Rather than now.
   MR IRVING:  Whether Mr Rampton attaches weight to it or not
is
        neither here nor there.  In that case I shall put it
to
        your Lordship by way of submission later on.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Would you mind.
   MR IRVING:  At page 130 line 8 you say that my arguments
derive
        from previous work from well-known Holocaust deniers,
and
        then you mention some.
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Professor Faurisson. .  Are you familiar with the
        expertise of Germar Rudolf?
   A.   I mention Faurisson there.  I do not mention Rudolf
there.
   Q.   I can make this very brief.  Can you accept that there
are
        a number of other documentary bases on which I base my
        arguments, for example the air photographs as
interpreted
        by a man called John Ball?
   A.   It is clear I think that in the documents that I cite
you
        do rely heavily upon Faurisson, whose work you did
read in
        the late 1980s, as you recall in your diary.
   Q.   Which works of Professor Faurisson do you allege that
        I read?

.          P-18



   A.   It was an article in your diary entry of 26th July
1986.
        You wrote "Faurisson's paper on Auschwitz set me
thinking
        very hard."  I presume that is an article that he
        published or a paper that he gave to you.
   Q.   Are you suggesting that he is my only source, the only
        basis of my arguments that I do not rely----
   A.   No, I am not.  I give that as an example there.
   Q.   When is set thinking very hard, as no doubt you have
also
        been occasionally made to think very hard, you then
start
        looking at other sources to see how one should finally
        align one's own political or scientific or historical
        viewpoint.
   A.   Yes.  I say here that it derives from previous work by
        well-known Holocaust deniers such as Faurisson.
   Q.   Would you call Professor Hinsley a well-known Holocaust
        denier?
   A.   I do not think that these arguments, the arguments are
        derived -- you misuse Professor Hinsley's material in your work.

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