Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day004.12
Last-Modified: 2000/08/01

   Q.   Yes.  I will read the next sentence, paragraph 2, if I
        may?  "He did make it clear, however, that he thought the
        mass killings of Jews in the Second World War resulted
        from local initiatives in East Central Europe, not from
        any overall coordination by the Nazi leadership or,
        indeed, by any part of it.  His view was that these local
        initiatives were excusable.  It comes through clearly as
        well as he told at an interview in the same month in 1986,
        the millions of Jews or the hundreds or thousands of Jews,
        I am not going to name any figure, who were liquidated
        during the Second World War by the Germans and the
        Latvians or the Ukrainians or all the rest who carried out
        liquidations, they were the victims of a large number of
        nameless criminals into whose hands they fell on the
        Eastern Front.  Mostly around Eastern Europe the
        liquidations occurred and these men acted on their own
        impulse, their own initiative, within the general
        atmosphere of brutality created by the Second World War in
        which, of course, the allied bombings had played a part".
                  Mr Irving, that first part, leave the allied

.          P-103



        bombings out of it for a moment because we will get on
to
        Dresden later in the case.
   A.   I think I am absolutely right.  I think the documents
that
        have come to light have established that a hundred
times
        over.
   Q.   What?
   A.   The fact that the mindless criminals on the Eastern
Front
        who carried out these killing operations had a motive
of
        their own to do the killing even when they were
ordered by
        Berlin or by Hitler's headquarters to stop and they
        carried on with the killing.  People like Altemeyer,
that
        young man we talked about earlier, the 22 year old,
who
        sniggered and said, "We have got this order to stop
the
        mass shootings but we are going to carry on anyway so
no
        one sees it".
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That may be true, Mr Irving, but it is
not
        really the point, is it?
   A.   Oh, I am sorry.  I must have missed the point that
        Mr Rampton is asking about.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, you have missed the point.  What you are
        denying here is system?
   A.   Yes, of course.
   Q.   Yes, and you have readily ----
   A.   The overall system, that link that you are looking for
        between Berlin and Hitler's headquarters.
   Q.   We have found it.  We have found it easily going to

.          P-104



        Heydrich.
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   And, no doubt, therefore, to Himmler and now we have
found
        it going to Hitler, have we not?
   A.   There must be something between the lines that I have
not
        been able to read.
   Q.   Between which lines?
   A.   That you have read out because where is the link to
Hitler
        here?
   Q.   No, sorry, we are at cross-purposes.  This will be my
last
        question, I hope.  The effect of what you are telling
this
        audience in Australia, or these two audiences in
        Australia, that this was unauthorized criminality
behind
        or beyond, you know, on the East?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Right.  I thought we had agreed this morning in court
        that, in fact, and contrary to what you are suggesting
to
        these people in Australia in 1986, the whole thing was
        organized and approved by Berlin?
   A.   Again which Jews are we talking about?
   MR RAMPTON;  We are talking about the Eastern Jews.  I am
being
        consistent.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, non-Berlin Jews.
   MR RAMPTON:  I am using oranges and oranges.
   A.   Yes, I think we have established quite clearly that
that
        is ----

.          P-105



   Q.   And that is completely contrary to what you are saying
to
        these Australians, is it not?
   A.   In 1986?
   Q.   Yes.
   A.   Where I said mind that it was the mindless killers on
the
        Eastern Front who did the killing?
   Q.   "These men acted on their own impulse, their own
        initiative", that means without orders, does it not?
   A.   When we are talking about the German Jews?
   Q.   No, we are not.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, we are not there.
   A.   Well, we do not know because we have only been given
these
        fragments of a transcript.
   Q.   No, just focus on the question.  What is being put is
that
        what you said in 1986 about these men on the Eastern
front
        having acted on their own impulse is at any rate now
known
        by you not to be right because, in fact, it was
authorised
        at the highest level, namely by Hitler?
   A.   What was authorized, my Lord?  The killing of Jews,
the
        partisans?
   Q.   Yes, you accepted that, I thought, a few minutes ago.
   A.   The Jews to be liquidated as partisans, 16th December,
the
        conversation, yes.  If we can expand that very meagre
        note, that skimpy note, into that interpretation which
I
        think is a legitimate expansion, certainly Hitler
        sanctioned the killing of the Jews on the Eastern
Front,

.          P-106



        all the rest Jews, the non-German Jews, and that has
never
        been a matter contention for me.
   Q.   I think what is being suggested is that what you said
in
        1986 can now be seen to be wrong because you were
        suggesting in 1986 that these killings on the Eastern
        Front of Jews was done on the initiative of the
commander?
   A.   They acted on their own impulse and their own
initiative,
        yes, but, clearly, you cannot have the systematic
killings
        without the people on the Eastern Front who are
willing to
        kill.  It is no use having a killing system if you
have
        not got mindless killers out there who are prepared to
do
        the killing.  This is an attempt, really, to explain
the
        mentality of the people who are doing the killing on
the
        Eastern Front.
   MR RAMPTON:  I will put the question one more time, then I
will
        leave it and I will tell you where to find the full
        transcript of this press conference or as such of it
as we
        have?
   A.   Yes.  I think I would like to read the whole
transcript
        rather than just fragments.
   Q.   You should and I tell you so if you want to glance at
it
        overnight?
   A.   Because both Evans and Browning have a habit of not
even
        indicating where they have left out whole sentences.
   Q.   They can answer for themselves in due course.
   A.   Professor Evans on one occasion left out three
sentences,

.          P-107



        eight full stops, three semi-colons and 86 words.
   Q.   I am going to make a joke about that and say "Good
Evans!"
        Maybe we can get on, Mr Irving.  My suggestion is
this,
        that those words you used in Australia on those two
        occasions in 1986 (and it maybe we shall find some
others,
        I do not know) are apt to suggest to the audience that
        this killing of the Eastern Jews on a vast scale went
on
        without the knowledge or approval of Hitler and his
        cronies, all of them, in Berlin?
   A.   If that impression is given, it is the wrong
impression.
   Q.   Yes, it is.
   A.   By me, quite clearly.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Is that a convenient break?
   MR RAMPTON:  My Lord, yes, thank you.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  2 o'clock.
                        (Luncheon adjournment)
                      MR DAVID IRVING, recalled
                  Cross-Examined by MR RAMPTON QC, continued
   A.   My Lord, can I make one small correction?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
   A.   I am wrong about one point on that German, the date
line,
        where it says "am", I am informed that in certain
regions
        of Germany it is proper to use "am"; it is a dialect.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I am not surprised to hear you say
so,
        thank you for that correction.
   A.   Thank you.

.          P-108



   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, before lunch we looked at some
remarks
        that you had made to audiences in Australia in 1986.
   A.   14 years ago.
   Q.   Yes, 14 years ago.  Do you take any point on the fact
that
        those remarks were made 14 years ago?
   A.   I just wanted to emphasise the fact these remarks were
        made 14 years ago.
   Q.   Can I now show you something you said in October 1992.
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Thank you.  My Lord, Mr Irving will need bundle
D5(ii),
        and D3(i).
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sorry D5 I have not got.
   MR RAMPTON:  Well --
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I mean, have not got here.
   MR RAMPTON:  Thank you, no.  My Lord, I think we can supply
        everybody with a copy.
   A.   D5?
   Q.   D5(ii), page 25, I have the copy loose.  I think this
is a
        wrong reference, I am afraid.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I think it must be.
   MR RAMPTON:  I am looking, Mr Irving, I will tell you what
I am
        looking for.  I am looking at the wrong thing anyway.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Is it a transcription of a speech?
   MR RAMPTON:  No, it should be a letter from Mr Marcellus
dated
        16th January 1992.  We cannot ----
   A.   Yes, it is on page -- it is page 141, identified as
No. --

.          P-109



        It is in the section after tab 29.
   Q.   Yes.
   A.   At page, handwritten bottom right 28.
   Q.   Oh.
   A.   No, it is -- handwritten at the bottom, 26. .  "Dear
Tom".
   Q.   Has the judge got that?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, not yet.
   A.   Alternatively 25, 25 is a longer letter.  It is a fax.
   MR RAMPTON:  The reference was right.  Does your Lordship
have
        it?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I have now.
   MR RAMPTON:  It is a fax, is it not?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
   A.   I was looking at this very letter only last night, in
        fact.
   Q.   Good.  I am only interested in the last part of this
for
        the moment.  Right at the end, you say this: "My
position
        remains unchanged, that there were certain Mi Li type
        atrocities by troops in Russia, that the gas chambers
and
        factories of death are Hollywood legends and that
there is
        no wartime evidence of a Hitler order that what I
consider
        in these papers is 'hearsay'."  This was, was it, in
        preparation for an IHR conference that year, do you
think?
   A.   The second paragraph indicates that I was methodically
        working my way through the Eichmann papers and
evaluating
        them, planning perhaps to do something with them at
this

.          P-110



        Institute of Historical Review, as you know.
   Q.   Yes, because in D3(i) at I suppose tab 30, there is a
        transcript, I think we looked at this for another
purpose
        not long ago, page 18, could you turn to, it is marked
        twice, in tab 30 of this file, we start at the
beginning,
        so we see what it is.  It is headed "the suppressed
        Eichmann and Goebbels papers David Irving presented at
the
        11th IHR conference October 1992", the date is
correct, is
        it, Mr Irving?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Now can you turn to the page marked 172 with a stamp
or 21
        in print.
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   And you say this in the last paragraph: "Now you
probably
        know that I am a revisionist to a degree, but I am not
a
        revisionist to the extent that I say there were no
murders
        of Jews.  I think we have to accept", can I pause
there
        and ask you why you use that form of words, "we have
to
        accept"?
   A.   The general public has to accept.
   Q.   Why should not the general public accept?  There is
bags
        of evidence for shootings of Jews, is there not?  Do
        I sense a some feeling of reluctance in that form of
        words?
   A.   I do not consider a film with Robert Mitchum called
"War
        of Remembrance" to be evidence which the general
public

.          P-111



        should necessarily accept.
   Q.   Can I repeat my question "in the form of words I think
we
        have to accept"?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Do I sense a note of reluctance in that?
   A.   No, not at all.  What you have also to remember I was
        speaking to an audience largely comprised of
revisionists
        who are loath to accept this kind of thing, so I am
saying
        to them --
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You say "we" not "you"?
   A.   I am part of this audience, I am part of this -- part
of
        this function.
   MR RAMPTON:  You are really meaning, are you not --
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   -- we, the revisionist movement?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   --- have, and I insert the words, Mr Irving,
reluctantly
        got to accept --
   A.   Excuse me, I did not say "reluctantly got to".
   Q.   -- you do not accept that is the sense of it?
   A.   Not at all.  What I am saying quite clearly here is
that
        that let us get one thing quite plain, we have to
accept
        there were these mass murders on the Eastern Front.
   Q.   So we may not wish to do?
   A.   These are your interpolations --
   Q.   Yes, they are --

.          P-112



   A.   -- manipulations and distortions --
   Q.   -- I was making a suggestion about what was in your mind
        when you spoke to this like-minded audience.
   A.   -- so are you now a mind reader, Mr Rampton.
   Q.   No, you said it was a conference of revisionists?
   A.   I assume --
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The point is made, we have the answer.
   MR RAMPTON:  The more often your Lordship pushes me in that way
        the happier I shall be.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:   I hope you will not take it unkindly.
   MR RAMPTON:  Of course not.  I am, as your Lordship knows, very
        used to do jury actions and sometimes old habits die hard
        that is all it is.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is an understandable lack of differentiation.

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