Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day028.21 Last-Modified: 2000/07/25 MR RAMPTON: No, it is a matter of what it says, I agree. It is matter of comment and it is a matter in the end for . P-193 your Lordship what its drift is. My final question is this, having regard Professor Funke, to the content of those little extracts that we have from the meeting at Hagenau, yes? According to your knowledge of right-wing extremism and neo-Naziism in Germany, are these sorts of things which are said here, whether by Mr Irving or by Mr Zundel, are they in any way characteristic of the views and attitudes of neofascists in Germany? A. I have to give a differentiated answer. It is in that intensity of radical racist anti-Semitism, not a common language of all right-wingers. Parts of the right-wing extremists are more soft alluding to some aspects of what I said is a second anti-Semitism. So they criticise Galinski and nowadays Jewish leaders. So this kind of openly rage-based anti-Semitism, this full scale of contempt like in the word Juden Pack, this absolutely cynicism with which Irving is referring to the most deep causing sorrows of the people of the Jewish descent, this kind of extreme radical racist, post Holocaust anti-Semitism is more at the core of these groups that I call neo-National Socialists and those who are influenced as skinheads, as youngsters by these groupings, and what I have to say, according to social sciences surveys that are done in the Institute of anti-, to analyse anti-Semitism in Berlin is that this kind of . P-194 radical anti-Semitism, let us say where it is researched in the Branbuch area around Berlin is widespread within these circles. So you have on different levels, especially among male youngsters of middle education, you have this kind of anti-Semitism widespread. This is the very reason that the amount of destroying Jewish cemeteries, for example, the very well-known Wiesensee Cemetery or the grave, is it right, the grave of Heinz Galinski by a bomb attack, that this is caused by this kind of widespreading new kind of aggressive anti-Semitism within these circles. MR RAMPTON: Thank you very much indeed, Professor. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that should go, just so that we know where it is, in tab 15 of RWE 2, page? MR RAMPTON: Yes, page 18A and B but only the Hagenau bit because attached to it is some Munich, I think. The Leuchter conference -- well, that is Munich. Oh, a different Leuchter. It is not the Leuchter Congress. It is the Leuchter Conference. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR IRVING: My Lord, may I question for five minutes, please? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of course. One of the documents was the letter to Dr Frey? MR IRVING: Yes, on each of those documents, but in reverse order. I think that is the most helpful. (Further Cross-Examined by Mr Irving.) . P-195 MR IRVING: Professor Funke, you said that these kinds of remarks addressed to skinheads and youngsters are liable to lead to attacks on synagogues and so on, is that the ---- A. Say it again. Excuse me. Q. Referring to my remarks at Hagenau (which I will discuss with you in a moment) "addressed to skinheads and youngsters", that was your phrase, would be liable to cause the kind of circumstances you referred to there, like tombstones being overthrown, synagogues attacked, and so on? A. This kind of rhetoric, yes. Q. Can I ask you just to have a look at the photograph, please, on page 15 of the bundle of photographs which is the audience at Hagenau and tell me how many skinheads and youngsters you can see in it? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well... MR IRVING: My Lord, he said, it is a hypothetical thing, "If these remarks had been addressed to skinheads and youngsters, that would have been the outcome". A. No, it is researched. It is researched. It is the [German] research -- you may know it -- about the widespreading of anti-Semites within male youngsters who are often the same token very violent. Q. Answering Mr Rampton's question, you said that these remarks addressed to skinheads and youngsters would have . P-196 these undesirable effects and you are probably right. But if you look at the audience who were listening ---- A. Yes, of course, the audience is different. Q. Middle aged? A. Yes, with the exception of Christian Worch and his gang. Q. Right. I am only going to refer briefly to the one man gas chamber. If I am lecturing an audience on the improbabilities of aspects of the Holocaust legend and, as this court well knows, I criticise the quality of a lot of the eyewitness evidence, and if one of the eyewitnesses, and we know there is a lot of lurid eyewitness evidence that we can discard, has described this rather improbable contraption, would that fit the description of what I have described in that speech? A. What you are doing here is that you pretend that the eyewitnesses are excessing ---- Q. Exaggerating? A. --- exaggerating and producing legends, but I have to be now very personal. I did a book of those, it is called "Other Memory" of those who left Germany because of the pressure and later on the torture by the Nazi authorities. Social scientists, like Eric Ericson, Zaufriedlende, and what I learned as the essence of this encounter in the late '80s and at the time we are talking about, is, and I quote Zaufriedlende of the historian, the famous, that all those, excuse me ---- . P-197 Q. Can you just answer the question about this being a piece of lurid eyewitness evidence? A. That all those -- I do -- that all those who went through this horror ---- Q. The trauma? A. --- the trauma -- right, thank you -- cannot do this kind of research just as an objective historian. They have to do the objectivity and, on the other hand, they have to always rely to the experiences they themselves or their families went through. So, in other words, I would say no to all those who discard eyewitnesses. That does not say that the reconstruction of the Auschwitz horror, the cosmos of death -- if you go there you would see, you would sense it even today -- that the essence of this trauma and terror done by these Jews there, the mass gassing included, that this has been reconstructed by various means, and I think Peter Longerich did an awful good witness statement and paper to that, together with Mr Van Pelt. And so it is very clear that you cannot only count on the description of the eyewitnesses, although it is especially for the subjectivity what they went through very decisive. So to quote your reference to Dresden, the Dresden thing are horror for a lot of people and you refer to the ashes of Dresden, but you cannot do it only -- you can do it only if you refer in the same token to the ashes . P-198 of Auschwitz. Q. Right, but now let me put it like this. If in a speech I make a number of references to the appalling horrors undoubtedly suffered by the victims of Auschwitz, and I have never made any attempt to minimize them and I have referred to the shootings in Russia, I have quoted the Bruns report, and, on the other hand, I then mock the eyewitnesses who have obviously lied for whatever reason and dreamed up these totally ludicrous stories about the one man portable gas chamber, is it not dishonest, in your view, for somebody to take just that passage out and put that as a representation of my entire speech? A. It is, what you are doing is again and again. Look at the 40 pages that was with the help of our assistant, Thomas Robins and Dunn, on the anti-Semitic or the rhetoric you did on this issue. So I recall just another quotation of you. So if it would be one time, we can cross over, but you did it again and again, and you just minutes ago referred that mass gassings did not happen. So if this, as long as this is the case, I cannot say yes to any of this kind of cynicism that you put to the public. Let me just recall this other quotation. Q. If it is relevant, please? MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is relevant to the question ---- A. It is. MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- but we do not want a lot of speeches? . P-199 A. It is very short. It is like that you say, OK, this kind of survivors of the Holocaust, and you put it up in the way that you can quote it as "assholes". This cannot be. If you honestly, if you seriously, are saying that you realize the trauma of those who went through, if they survived. MR IRVING: Can I now take you to the letter dated 30th January 1991 which has been introduced by Mr Rampton? A. Yes. Q. Firstly, the question of the date. I do not know whether Mr Rampton meant it seriously or not, but as he said it I have to comment on it, if the letter is dated 30th January 1991, and if you look at the very top line, it is ---- A. Excuse me, I missed it. 9th November or? Q. 30th January? MR JUSTICE GRAY: 30th January 1991, Dr Frey? A. Yes. MR IRVING: Yes. If you look at the very top line, the fax line, it was faxed at 1.13 p.m. on the following day. Then the letter was probably written on January 30th, right? A. Right. Q. OK. If you turn the page, please, do you see I describe there that a number of great Germans I intend to talk about, the Nobel Prize winner, Otto Hahn and . P-200 Wernerheisenbger? A. Yes. Q. They are not leading Nazis, are they? A. No, no. Q. And the great ---- A. Although some of them I partially ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Not leading Nazis, the answer is no? A. Not leading Nazis, right. Excuse me. MR IRVING: The final sentence of the letter above the signature, I say: "Of course, as always at DVU functions, I am not going to mention the Jews or the concentration or extermination camps with one word"? A. Yes. Q. Then the final sentence of the PS is: "I will most painfully keep within the laws of Germany, the Federal Republic"? A. Yes. Q. Yes? A. Yes. Q. On the general matter, the proposition raised by Mr Rampton, that it is right-wingest to look to reunify Germany and all the rest of the things that he said, can I remind you of what the German constitution says every German citizen is beholden to do? Do you know the passage I am referring to? A. Tell me. I have the constitution here. What do you . P-201 mean? MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I do not think we need to... MR IRVING: Is not every German citizen held to strive for the reunification of the German territories? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think you are not doing justice to Mr Rampton's point. He was not just talking about the reunification of Germany. MR IRVING: I was once again dealing with it piecemeal. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I know it is difficult. MR IRVING: And I am sorry that that was not appreciated. THE WITNESS: It never meant unification includes parts of Poland, it never meant. MR IRVING: Thank you very much, Professor. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you. Professor Funke, that completes your evidence. Thank you very much. (The witness withdrew) MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton and Mr Irving, can I just mention that, in addition to the remaining cross-examination, there are several other outstanding things. I am sure you have them in mind. There is an argument about whether the expert reports of Eatwell and Levin can go in. MR RAMPTON: No, I do not want them. MR IRVING: My Lord, I was about to make the opposite concession. MR RAMPTON: I do not mind. I do not want them. MR IRVING: My friend said that if Mr Rampton had argued on the . P-202 basis of those authorities that he was entitled to, then who were we to argue against him? MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is kind, but if he does not want to, then the question ends. I have feeling there are some loose ends on Civil Evidence Act Notices in relation to Moscow? MR RAMPTON: No, I do not think so. I think all the Moscow evidence I need has come from Mr Irving actually probably. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Good. MR RAMPTON: It is only the American factual witnesses and they are in proper condition because they have had Civil Evidence Act Notices. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We need to at any rate identify those and ---- MR RAMPTON: I need them for the underlying material in due course, but whether I do any cross-examination is a different matter. MR IRVING: At what stage can I make submissions on the American factual witnesses, my Lord? MR JUSTICE GRAY: You do not, I think, have much of a legal submission you could make. They are overseas. You have had a notice, but I am not saying do not, but at the moment I do not quite see how you can keep those statements out. MR RAMPTON: What Mr Irving is entitled to ---- MR IRVING: I do not want to keep the statements out, but I . P-203 want to make certain representations about the quality of their evidence, their criminal records and the rest of it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That, I think, is a matter for you to deal with in your evidence. It is not a ground for objecting to the statements going in under the Act. MR IRVING: I mean I wanted to put it in by way of submission. That is what I suppose I was trying to say. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I will not prevent you doing that, whatever the form is. MR RAMPTON: That is what I was going to say. There is a provision that allows where a witness is not being called under the Civil Evidence Act for what one might call rebuttal material to be put in and, of course, and comment that can be made about the internal condition ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: The reliability of the evidence. MR RAMPTON: Exactly. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Quite. Good. So 10.30 tomorrow morning. (The court adjourned until the following day) . P-204
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.