The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day022.03

Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day022.03
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24

MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Just read on, Mr Irving.  Let me try and get
some sort of sense into this.  If you read that page, I do
not think Professor Evans is criticising your use of the
figure of 91.  What I think he is saying is (and he is
being critical here) that after you used that figure in
'The Warpath', you then reduced it when you came to
publish your book on Goebbels.  Now, I take that to be the
gist of the criticism.  It is probably not the most
important criticism made, but that is the criticism.  So
let us address that rather than something that is not being criticised.
MR IRVING:  I will address it briefly because I do not think it
is a just criticism.  Are you suggesting that in the book

.  P-19

on Goebbels I left the final death roll at 35?
A.Well, in the book on Goring published in '89, the book
Goebbels '96, you cite a figure of 35 or 36 basing it
an early incomplete report by Heydrich.
Q.You are suggesting that I left it at that figure?
A.And I cite Goring page 237, if you want to have a look
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, show him the passage where you
bump the figure up again.
MR IRVING:  My Lord, you are one who has brought this
matter up
and I am not prepared to answer that at short notice,
I will look into it and I will bring the figure and
source material out.
  The point that I was making with that is
that on
several previous occasions he has criticised my figure
91 in the Goebbels book, and here he says, "Well, lots
other historians have had the same figure"?
A.And my point, Mr Irving, as his Lordship has quite
correctly said, that reduce the figures to 35 or 36 in
your later work.
Q.On page 309?
A.Going back?
Q.Yes.  Do you rely on the testimony of Schirmeister and
Fritzsche and the fact that page numbers and dates are
wrong as being one more instance of David Irving's

.  P-20

A.Well, let me read that paragraph.  You give a footnote
page 281 of Goebbels.
Q.I summarise it for you?  Are you suggesting that I got
dates wrong of the testimony and the pagination wrong
which caused your researchers some difficulty?
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  This is one of the tiniest points I would
have thought in the entire report that Professor Evans
MR IRVING:  My Lord, it is a barrage of tiny points.  It is
death by a thousand cuts.  I am picking on some of
which I can with relative ease amend the damage.
MR RAMPTON:  Can I intervene because that reflects on
I raised yesterday.  I am very concerned about this
because it put me in a difficulty.  We had passed
Reichskristallnacht yesterday, I would have thought.
MR RAMPTON:  We have now come back to it for what I might
pinpricks.  One huge section, major section, of
Evans' of Mr Irving's treatment of Reichskristallnacht
the Heydrich telex at 1.28 and we have not touched on
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You have said just now -- I am trying to
guide you, Mr Irving -- that you were concentrating on
mountain peaks.  Absolutely right.  That is what you
do.  Professor Evans has taken some what I agree are
pretty tiny points, but you must not forget about the
mountain peaks altogether.  I mean, the Heydrich telex

.  P-21

a crucial part of the criticism that is made of your
rendering of the accounts of Kristallnacht.  I think
Mr Rampton is right and I think I am right in saying
you have not really challenged that part of the
MR IRVING:  I can deal with the Heydrich telex in two
quite simply by pointing to the 2.56 telegram that
MR IRVING:  By pointing to the 2.56 document issued by the
officer Rudolf Hess which came subsequent to that
clarifies that matter.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What do you mean, it clarifies?
MR IRVING:  I mean which renders the 1.20 telex, in my
view, of
much less significance.
MR RAMPTON:  No, it is not a question of history, my Lord.
is the question of how it is written by Mr Irving.  I
looking at the bottom of page 276 of Goebbels and I
what Mr Irving wrote about it.  Then if I look at the
actual document, I think I am looking at two
different things.  That is the criticism made by ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  This is the criticism Professor Evans
MR RAMPTON:  Yes.  Mr Irving has not even touched on it.
he accepts it as being a fair criticism.  That is what
I need to know.
MR IRVING:  Maybe I find these ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I mean, there are two points here and

.  P-22

are separate points.  One is whether you have
reported what the telex or the message or the order or
whatever it was said, and the second point is whether
matters one way or another.  I quite understand you
you can forget about it because things moved on an
and a half later.
MR IRVING:  Am I right in understanding that if I do not
challenge or traverse something here in cross-
then it could be taken as accepted?
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, the mountain peaks, yes.  You
chase every single tiny point, and I would not dream
criticising you for not doing so.
MR IRVING:  To be accused of poor scholarship, my Lord, is
a tiny point.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I follow that, but what I would be
of is if you did not pick up in cross-examination
criticisms.  It is terribly easy to see what the major
criticisms are -- at least I believe it is.
MR IRVING:  We will come to them, and I am not aided by the
lengthy discourses which are caused by the very
interruptions by Mr Rampton.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I do not think they are very frequent and
they are justified, then Mr Rampton cannot be
for making them.
MR RAMPTON:  Can I add, while I am on this subject, that is
major criticism which seemed to me to have, I do not

.  P-23

what the word is, bypassed a mountain peak.  Another
appear to have been bypassed yesterday, and again it
me in a difficulty because I am bound to say at the
end of
the case, if these mountain peaks are not tackled, I
say that Mr Irving has conceded them.  Another one was
Himmler log entry for 1st December 1941.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  I think Mr Irving must take his own
MR RAMPTON:  I agree.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  In the end, he must cross-examine on what
wants to.  I am not going to take anything as conceded
because it is not cross-examined to, but I ----
MR IRVING:  Unless I expressly concede it.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  --- I think it is right that I should
into account the fact that he has not challenged it.
I have to make up my own mind in the end.  I do not
I can say that the point goes by default.
MR RAMPTON:  I am using a shorthand; I would if he were a
professional advocate, he is not, but I am bound to
that I will place considerable weight on the fact that
makes no challenge.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I can see why you would.
MR IRVING:  Of course, they have been extensively dealt
with in
my cross-examination of me.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, I do not think that is a sufficient
answer.  I said yesterday (and I will say it again)

.  P-24

must cross-examine to the mountain peaks if you want
challenge what Professor Evans says but you can do it
MR IRVING:  Yes, I shall certainly do so.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Just going back, let us use the Heydrich
message of 1.20, or whatever it was ----
MR IRVING:  As an example.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  --- as an example; if you want to say
what you said about it in Goebbels is entirely
and no sensible person can criticise your account of
you can put that very briefly.
MR IRVING:  My Lord, the submission that I intend to make
on a
number of those matters is, apply the following test:
that sentence or that error or that flaw or that
misreading be taken out of that book, does it in the
slightest alter the thrust or the weight of the
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is a very good point, but that is a
point for final submissions ----
MR IRVING:  Yes, and that is why ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  --- not for cross-examination.
MR IRVING:  --- it may well be that I shall readily concede
points when the time comes.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So be it.  That, in a way, rather tallies
with what Mr Rampton just said.  But you must make a
judgment about that, but it is very important you

.  P-25

understand how I see the important points and what
do if you are going to challenge Professor Evans'
MR IRVING:  My Lord, it is revealing no secrets if I say
in my final speech I shall not be addressing all the
issues; I shall be strongly addressing to your
that a number of the issues are of far less moment.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I quite agree.
MR IRVING:  And that the major issues like poor
distortion, manipulation, Holocaust denier and so on
the ones to which I shall attend in the final speech.
That is why, with your Lordship's permission, I intend
dwell on matters like poor scholarship in a way that
appear infuriating to you, but I can only pick on the
examples that are given in this report.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, but I am getting the impression -- I
Judge alone, I can say this and I do not have to worry
about the Jury -- I get the slight impression that you
cherry picking your way through and alighting on some
really rather minor points.  I mean, the point about
Schirmeister and Fritzsche, if I may say so, with
to Professor Evans, it be could have been omitted from
report without doing any injustice to the Defendants'
MR IRVING:  Let me just ask two brief questions then, my
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, of course.

.  P-26

MR IRVING:  Professor Evans, you find criticism with the
that the pagination of the references to the testimony
not tally?
A.Let me read everything I say about this:  "Another
instance of Irving's poor scholarship is the footnote
reference given on page 281 of Goebbels: 'Mastermind
the "Third Reich"' to back up his claim that 'Goebbels
however would brag that he had proved that the Jews
be eliminated from the economy, whatever Funk said to
contrary'.  When we turn to pages 190-1 and 235-7 of
volume 17 of the Nuremberg Trials documents, cited by
Irving as the location of the 'Testimony of
and Fritzsche, June 28, 1946' in support of his
we find that the reference for pages 190-1 refers to
27 not June 28, that Schirmeister is never mentioned
these pages, and that Fritzsche's testimony deals with
completely different subject".  I am bound to say this
a very minor I point.  I thought it, on balance, worth
putting in.  I was not advised that it should be taken
out, but it really is not an important, not a
important, point.
Q.Can I ask you just one brief question?  Are you aware
the fact that there are two parallel editions, one
and one English?
A.If you -- well, in order -- if you really want to go
this, Mr Irving, we will have to look up both editions

.  P-27

have to have copies of both editions of the Nuremberg
Trial documents here and a copy of your book,
Master mind of the Third Reich" which I have here.
A.Do we really want to go through this?
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Speaking for myself, I do not think I
I would forget it.This is not going to feature in
conclusions that I come to in this case.
MR IRVING:  The allegations of poor scholarship, my Lord,
substantially on these trivial complaints.
A.I do not accept that, Mr Irving.
Q.Pages 321 to 322.  We are now back in Riga at the
shootings.  Can I ask you just a brief, simple question to
start with?  Professor Evans, do you challenge my account
of the shootings at Riga, the actual shootings on November
30th 1941, and if so, why?
A.Tell me what your account is, where it is, what you are
referring to exactly.
Q.Have you read, in pursuance of your duties as an expert
witness, the account I have given of that in various books
including Hitler's War volume 2 -- the second edition,
rather, and the Goebbels biography?
A.Can you point me to one of these, please?
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We can do that quite quickly.

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.