Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day002.11
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20

   A.   I think the choice of words between their statements and
        my documents is not by happen chance, I think they have
        chosen the word "statement" deliberately because they
        intended to put to me self-serving statements made by
        people in various war crimes trials under whatever
        conditions against the documents which I have
obtained.
   Q.   Yes.  Now the next criticism really relates, I think,
to
        mainly to the way in which you dismiss some sources
which
        do not say what you want them to say.
   A.   I am sure your Lordship is also a bit baffled as to
what
        they are getting at here, I am sure Mr Rampton will
assist
        us when he comes to the cross-examination.  If they
are
        saying I do not put in adequate apparatuses in my book
        saying what sources and archives I have used there are
        several reasons for that.
   Q.   I think the key phrase in that criticism is "double
        standards"; I think what is said against you is that
you
        are inclined to adopt uncritically some source
material

.                                      P-192



        because it suits your agenda, as they put it, whereas
you
        dismiss --
   A.   I accept --
   Q.   -- more reliable evidence because it does not fit in
with
        your agenda?
   A.   -- I accept that that is a valid criticism, my Lord.
AGP
        Taylor said the same to me once.  He said, when you
are
        looking at the Final Solution you are asking for a
        document, when you looking at what happened to General
        Sikorski you are quite happy to make allegations
without a
        document.  There are answers you can give.  It is a
valid
        criticism, but I am not going to say it is a "correct
        criticism".
   Q.   Can you explain what you mean by that.
   A.   They are entitled to make that criticism on their
        perception of the way history is written.  If I take
that
        specific example, that there is no document -- I point
out
        there is no document showing that Hitler even knew
about
        Auschwitz, whereas when I wrote about the death of
General
        Sikorski in a book published in 1967 I am accused of
        having said it was probably sabotage even though there
is
        no documentary evidence to suggest it was.  This is
        I think an acceptable distinction because we are after
all
        the victor nation; all our records are intact.  We
lost
        none of our records through World War II. We were not
        invaded by the Red Army; our archives were not bombed
and

.                                      P-193



        blasted and burnt to pieces.  Our archives are intact.
We
        now no longer have a 50 year rule, and so we would be
        entitled to expect to find as a result of our having
had
        unconditional surrender from the Germans and total
insight
        into their archives we would expect to find the record
        relating to Hitler, then we would not expect to find
in
        the British Secret Service archives, which, of course,
are
        only the archives which are still closed in this
country.
        That became a bit convoluted, if I had a second chance
        I would say it again slightly differently.
   Q.   I think I understand what you are saying.  You are
really
        saying that because the German archive is incomplete -
-
   A.   Yes, we have total insight into the German archives
such
        as they have survived by virtue of unconditional
surrender
        which we did not have at the end of World War I, but
we
        certainly had at the end of World War II. There are no
        German archives that were withheld from the invading
        forces.
                  So after over 50 years we would be entitled
by
        now to have found the document that proves me wrong,
        whereas we are not entitled to expect to find records
        about General Sikorski, even now, because it would
have
        been a Secret Service matter and Secret Service files
are
        closed for at least the next 100 years.
                  So it looks like a double standard to start
with
        until you realise you are looking at two different

.                                      P-194



        theatres of operation.  But, again, if they want to
put
        specific examples to me, some I will concede, and most
        I will not, probably.
   Q.   -- well, I think before we move on to the next point
we
        will adjourn and resume, if you will, please, at
        2 o'clock?
                       (Luncheon adjournment)
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, can I before we resume with
your
        evidence just ask Mr Rampton something, if you will
        forgive me?  It is a logistical question, Mr Rampton.
        Assuming you are going to be starting to cross-examine
        this afternoon ----
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  --- I am wondering whether I have all the
        files that I ought to have here because what I do not
want
        to find happening is that you ask a question in
relation
        to a document that I do not have a copy of.  Are you
able
        to help?
   MR RAMPTON:  Can I just say, I do not know how long I will
get,
        but assuming it were an hour or so, your Lordship
would
        need the copy of Mr Irving's opening which you should
have
        already.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I have.
   MR RAMPTON:  And files D2(i), (ii) and (iii).
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I have all of those too.
   MR RAMPTON:  The only other thing that your Lordship would
need

.                                      P-195



        would be Professor Evans' report if we got as far as
that.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I have that.  Thank you very much.  I
thought
        I had better check?
   A.   My Lord, before you resume your examination or your
        questioning, can I raise just two points?
   Q.   Of course, yes.
   A.   I drew your Lordship's attention to a newspaper, a
leading
        article which appeared in The Independent this
morning.
   Q.   Which I have read.  I cannot lay my hands on it at the
        moment?
   A.   I have it here, my Lord.  I personally found it
pushing
        the envelope of what is permissible, but maybe, in
view of
        the fact that either I am a litigant in person or we
are
        sitting without a jury, this kind of comment is
permitted.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think the position really is this,
        Mr Irving.  I understand what you say, but I can
really
        only intervene if I were to take the view that in some
        shape or form it amounts to a contempt.  I do not.  I
am
        fairly clearly of that view.  But if it helps at all,
        I totally disregard it.
   A.   Thank you very much, my Lord.
   Q.   I think I will not say any more about it.
   A.   My Lord, you asked in one of your questions whether I
had
        compared or weighed casualties against casualties,
        atrocity against atrocity.  I have referred to the
final
        paragraph of my "Destruction of Dresden" book, and, my

.                                      P-196



        Lord, the bundle which I handed you this morning which
        I believe is on the desk in front of you at this end,
the
        thin bundle, is that it, bundle B on page 5.
   Q.   Yes, this is the new bundle.
   A.   That is the new one I gave you this morning.  It is
        selections from the books.  You already have the
entire
        books.
   Q.   Yes, you mentioned that.
   A.   If you look at page 5, my Lord, big figure 5, at the
foot
        of the page, there is this paragraph:  "On 13th
February
        1946, the former Commander in Chief of RAF Bomber
Command
        sailed from Southampton on the first stage of his
        journey.  That night throughout eastern and central
Europe
        at 10.10 p.m. the church bells began to peal.  For 20
        minutes the bells ran out across the territories now
        occupied by a force as ruthless as any that the bomber
        offensive had been launched to destroy.  It was the
first
        anniversary of the biggest single massacre in European
        history, a massacre carried out in the cause of
bringing
        to their knees a people who corrupted by Naziism had
        committed the greatest crimes against humanity in
recorded
        time".
                  That is about as close as I have ever got to
        weighing atrocity against atrocity, my Lord, and that
was
        in my first book.
   Q.   I am just puzzled by the date.

.                                      P-197



   A.   Well, it is the first anniversary of the Dresden raid,
my
        Lord.
   Q.   I see.
   A.   This is why the bells are ringing.
   Q.   I see.  It was the Commander in Chief of Bomber
Command
        setting out that misled me.
   A.   The second page I would draw your Lordship's attention
to
        concerns the adjutants.  You asked whether I had made
use
        of that information I obtained from the adjutants
about
        Buchenwald inmates to be liquidated.  Page 99, my
Lord, by
        chance, is one of the pages that I included in the
        selection.
   Q.   Tab 4, the last page.
   A.   It is big figures 99 at the bottom of the page.  The
third
        paragraph, my Lord, is:  "As American troops advanced
        across ... Hitler was confronted with the problem of
the
        concentration camps.  Goring advised him to turn them
over
        intact and under guard to the Western allies who would
        sort out the criminals from the foreign labourers and
        Russian prisoners thus preventing hoards of embittered
        ex-convicts from roaming the countryside and
inflicting
        additional horrors on the law-abiding.  Hitler did not
        share Goring's trust in the enemy.  Sitting casually
on
        the edge of the map table after one conference, he
        instructed Himmler's representative to ensure that all
        inmates were liquidated or evacuated before the camps
were

.                                      P-198



        overrun."
                  The footnote at the back of the book which I
        could show you if my Lordship is interested, because I
        have the book here, says the source of that
information is
        the SS Major, who was Himmler's Adjutant's Adjutant,
who
        has, however, requested that his identity be withheld.
        Some of these people at the time I wrote that book
were
        still nervous about being identified, but he was the
        source.
   Q.   But he is no longer nervous?
   A.   I am sure he has no nervousness now, my Lord, because
the
        years has passed, but he was the source and that was
the
        episode which I recounted to you.  You asked if I used
it.
          In my submission, I have used it exactly as it
should
        have been used and at the proper length.
   Q.   Is this the 1991 edition or the 1977?
   A.   That is the very first edition, my Lord, 1997.  If
your
        Lordship is interested, I can certainly produce almost
        identical pages from the subsequent editions.
   Q.   No, do not bother.  Thank you very much.  Yes, now
        anything else or shall we resume?  We are still on the
        topic of Hitler's Adjutants.  I think you have dealt
with
        criticisms (i), (ii) and (iii)?
   A.   Double standards.
   Q.   And the next one is, at any rate, self-explanatory?
   A.   I distort, suppress, manipulate evidence, but until
they

.                                      P-199



        give chapter and verse, I cannot say.
                  "The Plaintiff claims falsely that all of
        Hitler's surviving adjutants, secretaries and staff
had
        uniformly testified that the extermination of the
Russian
        or European Jews was never mentioned at Hitler's
        headquarters.  That claim is contradicted by the
evidence,
        my Lord.  I shall be interested to see what the
evidence
        is to which they are referring.
   Q.   Just pause a moment.  Do you accept that you have made
the
        claim that all the Hitler surviving adjutants and so
on
        have uniformly testified that the extermination of the
        Russian or European Jews was never mentioned at
        Hitler's  ----
   A.   I think the full extent of the statement was that they
        have been frequently questioned ever since the war
both by
        American and British interrogators and by others in
        between and certainly by myself on each occasion, and
each
        of them has said that this systematic extermination of
the
        Jews, or whatever -- what is it -- the extermination
of
        the Russian or European Jews was never mentioned at
        Hitler's headquarters, that it was never mentioned in
        their presence.  Obviously, they can only testify to
what
        they personally witnessed and that was all I was
        interested in.
   Q.   Yes, but the point I was on really was this, you have
made
        that claim?

.                                      P-200



   A.   I have made that claim.
   Q.   You say it is a true claim?
   A.   I have maintained that it is true claim.  If, however,
the
        Defendants produce new evidence that it is false, I
will
        accept that evidence, but that does not amount to my
        having distorted and manipulated.  They would have to
show
        that evidence was on my desk within my four walls, so
to
        speak.

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