Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day008.21
Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day008.21
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20
MR RAMPTON: I am sorry if Professor Evans irritates you so
much. You can take your feelings out on him when he is in
the witness box. The position was this, was it not, at
this time, Mr Irving, and this is my last but one thing
for you to think about if you ever come to reconsider your
position on this document. There was at this time a
. P-189
squabble going on, and I am paraphrasing, I am using
colloquialisms, so please forgive me, the hour is late,
between the SS on the one hand who wanted the Mischlinge
carted off and the mixed marriages split up, and on the
other hand the Ministry of Justice who probably for
entirely practical reasons since they would have to make
all sorts of laws and decisions, wanted the question left
on one side?
A. That is absolutely right.
Q. Thank you. It is quite natural that Lammers, having
thought about it, should say: "Well, I think if I asked
Adolf Hitler he would probably say, well, forget the
Mischlinge question", and thought to himself: "Well, we
all know that in the past Hitler said he wants to postpone
the entlosung until after the war. I will just tell
Schlegelberger to write that down"?
A. But that is not what this document says, Mr Rampton, if
I can ----
Q. It says: "The Fuhrer has repeatedly said" or "The Fuhrer
had repeatedly said". We all know that the Fuhrer had
repeatedly said that way back in 1940 and 41.
A. Well, if you attach importance to the tense there I will
take expert advice overnight and ask exactly what the
English translation of that tense should be.
Q. Even if it has, a senior Civil Servant will be well aware
of the fact that the Fuhrer has in the past repeatedly
. P-190
said that he wants the thing postponed. What the document
does not say is that Herr Lammers went into Hitler's
office and said: "Look, Mein Fuhrer, there is this
squabble going on", and that Hitler said on that
occasion: "But you know perfectly well this can't
happen. I am not having the Jewish question solved at
this stage. It has got to be postponed until the end of
the war."
Now that last fanciful example is what you have
deduced from this document, is it not?
A. Mr Rampton, I am going to ask his Lordship's permission to
come in tomorrow with a little bundle say of, say, four or
five documents on this particular point, which I would ask
his Lordship's permission to put before the Court.
Q. If you would rather leave it now, I will leave it now. I
am just going to propose, you can think about it
overnight, one other possibility to you.
A. It is just that I would like the chance to bring in the
documents which will support my position rather than
yours.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, by all means.
MR RAMPTON: I think that is perfectly reasonable.
A. It will be a very small clip, and not one of my usual
bundles.
Q. I may need time to consult them with my expert team.
I am
not an expert. Mr Irving, there is one other
possibility,
. P-191
is there not, that if this represents, this note, a
contemporaneous statement by Hitler about his
intentions
for the Jews in general ----
A. Yes.
Q. --- then it is quite possible that it is not a 1942
document at all for this reason, that up to September
1941, the beginning of the entlosung on Hitler's order
had
not happened?
A. Yes.
Q. So it is logically consistent with Hitler's known
intentions and statements in the earlier part of 1941
or
in 1940, that this document might emanate at that
date, is
it not?
A. A vanishingly small probability that that was
possible.
To suggest that this 1942 file of documents could
contain
a stray document out of 1941, flies in the face of the
German mentality.
Q. Before we stop tonight, Mr Irving, and you collect
your
thoughts on the things I have been putting to you,
does
the file which you are talking about, is it an
original
Justice Ministry file in full integrity, or has it
been
mucked around with by the Allies?
A. I can establish what condition it was in when it came
into
Allied possession because we have the staff evidence
analysis sheet of the contents of that file, listing
the
contents.
. P-192
Q. But the thing you have seen is not, therefore, an
original
pristine, untouched Reichs Justice Ministry file?
A. No. I would just comment, I do not intend just to
collect
my thoughts tonight. I know precisely where my
thoughts
are, but I think it would be more useful if I can
buttress
them with the actual paperwork which establishes that
these are not stray thoughts.
Q. Is your Lordship content with that?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. That is a convenient moment, are
you
saying, Mr Rampton?
MR RAMPTON: No, I meant is it convenient for me to stop
now?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, that is what I thought you mind.
Can
I just mention one or two things?
(Administrative Discussion).
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Finally, Mr Rampton, can I just ask this.
I thought I said something, but I may have forgotten,
in
which case it is my fault, about maybe having half a
page
of argument, just so I know what the issue is in
advance
of tomorrow on this question of Auschwitz.
MR RAMPTON: It may only just be a question of my copying
out
what I said from the transcript in that case. I have
nothing more to say.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Even that or the reference. Could you
fax
through the reference?
MR RAMPTON: Yes. The short point is this. It seems to
unarguable that on the pleadings, and whether you talk
. P-193
about the old pleadings or the new Statement of Case,
and
on the discovery and everything else besides our case
is
perfectly clear. It is I hope accurately stated by me
I think it was yesterday. I cannot do any better then
that.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is the convergence of evidence point,
is
it?
MR RAMPTON: Yes. There are two separate things about it.
Let
me take it stages. I am not here to prove that
Auschwitz
had gas chambers, homicidal gas chambers. I do not
need
to do that. If you again you have an open mind and
you
look at the convergence of evidence, eyewitness
testimony
from victims.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I remember what you said.
MR RAMPTON: All of that, perpetrators, and the
contemporaneous
documentary evidence and the archeological remains,
you
are drink to conclude, as a matter of probability at
the
very least, that indeed what the eyewitnesses tell us
is
true. I am not here to persuade your Lordship of
that,
save as a preliminary first step to two things. Mr
Irving
on the back of a piece of so-called research which is
not
worth the paper it is written on jumped up and said he
was
perfectly certain that there were never any gas
chambers
at Auschwitz, and he has said that statement, made
that
statement repeatedly in circumstances where it is apt
to
excite the hostility towards Jews of people who are
likely
. P-194
to be anti-Semitic, which is the political side of
this
case which we will get to later on. As an insight
into
Mr Irving's credentials as a so-called historian, it
is
extremely illuminating, and that is the whole of my
argument.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: The question which may be capable of
being
narrowed is the extent to which Mr Irving contests the
possible validity of the eyewitnesses' evidence, the
survivor's evidence, the camp officials' evidence and
so
on?
MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving, I do not know what his case is.
His
case could be twofold: No, Liechter is not rubbish, it
is
jolly good and what is more there is a whole lot of
other
stuff besides relating, for example, to coke
consumption
and incineration capacity and goodness what else,
which
converges towards the conclusion that everybody has
been
wrong all this time, that leads me to the conclusion
that
the eyewitnesses are mistaken or lying. It could be
his
case. I just do not know.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that may be sufficient. We can
debate that tomorrow. 10.30 tomorrow.
< (The witness stood down)
(The court adjourned until the following
day)
. P-195
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London
Monday, 24th January
2000
Before:
MR JUSTICE GRAY
B E T W E E N:
DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING
Claimant
-and-
(1) PENGUIN BOOKS LIMITED
(2) DEBORAH E. LIPSTADT
Defendants
The Claimant appeared in person
MR RICHARD RAMPTON Q.C. (instructed by Messrs Davenport
Lyons
and Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the First and
Second Defendants
MISS HEATHER ROGERS (instructed by Davenport Lyons)
appeared on
behalf of the First Defendant Penguin Books Limited
MR ANTHONY JULIUS (of Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of
the Second Defendant Deborah Lipstadt
(Transcribed from the stenographic notes of Harry
Counsell
& Company, Clifford's Inn, Fetter Lane, London EC4
Telephone: 020-7242-9346)
PROCEEDINGS - DAY EIGHT
* Transcript not to be reproduced without the written
permission of Harry Counsell & Company
. P-1
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.