Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day005.20 Last-Modified: 2000/08/01 MR JUSTICE GRAY: But I am really talking about the post shooting phase, one calls it the gassing phase. It is a bit tendentious but it may not matter in the end. What I have not at the movement got clear in my mind is how you put the case that this was known by and authorized by Hitler. MR RAMPTON: Authorized by I do not know, the case is not that there is a piece of paper from Himmler to Hitler, saying here, Adolf, are the statistics, at least not until we get to December 1942 and that may concern Einsatzgruppen shootings rather than gassings in these places. The case is simply this. The scale of the operation is vast. It involves what must have been very considerable disruption to military operations amongst other things. It involves a lot of economic and manpower resources. It certainly goes all the way up to Heydrich and Wolf who is Himmler's adjutant, seconded as liaison officer at some time at least to Hitler. In the light of what we do know that Hitler did know, in the light of all the other information . P-179 we have about Hitler's anti-Semitism and, as in due course one will see, as one of the foundations of Nazi ideology, it would be amazing if Hitler did not know, in broad terms, I am not saying he was interested in numbers or anything like that, what was going on. It is as simple as that. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is extremely helpful to have you put it clearly in that way. Thank you very much. MR RAMPTON: It is an inference which any lawyer, never mind historian, would be willing to draw, I would suggest, on the balance of probabilities. MR JUSTICE GRAY: May I suggest that we just invite Mr Irving, if he wants to, to comment on that, because that is part of your case. MR RAMPTON: It certainly is. MR JUSTICE GRAY: He is entitled to have his say. MR RAMPTON: I would only add this negative sentence, I think. The fact that there is not a piece of paper, as the denier said, there is not just a single proof with Adolf's name on it, is neither here nor there? A. Well, my Lord, let him fight his own battles. The proposition that learned counsel has put is entirely acceptable. It is monstrous to assume that Adolf Hitler would not have known, and I have said precisely the same, my Lord. In my books I have said that after October 1943, which is the kind of watershed time that I put, he had no . P-180 excuse for not knowing, which is as far as I would go. Of course, it is not a smoking gun. It is not the kind of balance of probabilities, or even evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that would be required in a criminal case. But he had no excuse for not having known because he then came into very close proximity with a large number of people who had been briefed in the most nauseating detail by Himmler himself as to what he was doing. I have made no secret about that in my books. I would be interested to hear how learned counsel gets round that particular problem when the time comes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That again is extremely helpful to have you say that, but can I ask you one question arising out of it? I quite follow why you take October 1943 as the date from which you accept Hitler was in the know. A. Had no excuse not to know. Q. Or had no excuse not to know, but what about the period with I think Mr Rampton has really been dealing with this afternoon between November/December 1941 and October 1943? A. We are very ill-advised by the documents that are available even now. We are ill informed by the documents that are available even now after 55 years, my Lord, and this is where you begin having to say that, I forget what the legal term is, there may be a legal term for it, but in any case of ambiguity then the balance of doubt has to be given to the accused rather than to the incriminated. . P-181 Q. Can that really be right when you have a situation where Hitler was at any rate not objecting as from October 1943 to what most people would regard as thoroughly abhorrent? A. Yes. Q. Can you not infer from that that, assuming the evidence was available for him, he would not have put up any objection before October 1943? A. That is precisely the way that I would be inclined to put it, my Lord. I have even said on occasion that there is no evidence that he would have objected even if he had been told the most brutal detail of what was going on. But we just do not have that evidence. My literary agent in America said, "For God's sake, if you have not got the evidence, invent it". I thought my ten years spent in researching the book were too precious for that. MR RAMPTON: So it really comes to this, does it, Mr Irving? If you were sitting on a jury in a criminal court, whereas I might very easily convict Hitler, you would not, but, if you are looking for proof positive that he did not know, you are swimming very hard against the tide, are you not? A. No. You talk about in a criminal court and in a criminal court of course the standards of evidence required, particularly where a man's life is at stake, are much sterner than in a civil action. Am I right? Q. Never mind civil actions or criminal actions. This is a rotten analogy, anyway. You are an historian. . P-182 A. Mr Rampton, you started the analogy. Q. No, you did, with your references to the standard of proof in a criminal court when you were answering his Lordship. It is a rotten analogy. A. I think it is a very useful analogy. Q. What are you looking at as an historian is not a question whether a man is guilty or not of law, whether he is liable to pay damages. You are looking at the evidence with an open and objective mind to see what is the degree of probability that it suggests as to what happened. That is what are you doing, is it not? A. This is right, but then at this point different historians operate in different ways, and it may be that I make myself culpable by just putting the evidence in the pages and not joining up the dots and allowing the reader to do the dot joining for himself. I assume that my readers have a certain degree of intellectual honesty and ability, that they are capable of forming their own conclusions provided I present the evidence to them with as much integrity as possible. Other historians, like no doubt some of the experts in this case, like to join up the dots for you and that is where the mistakes I think creep in. It is possible that my way of writing history is wrong. It is possible their way of writing history is right. They have been taught in universities how to write, I have not, but this is not Holocaust denial, Mr Rampton. . P-183 Q. Well, Mr Irving, we will come to that next week, but your method of writing history, whether one approves of it academically or not is quite beside the point, is perfectly all right provided that you do not distort and manipulate the evidence, is it not? A. You are absolutely right. Q. If we should succeed in proving that that is exactly what you have done on a number of occasions, then you do not deserve the name historian, do you? A. I take you do not consider that you have succeeded so far. Q. What privately I should think, Mr Irving, I certainly am not going to tell you. A. From the way you couched the question. Q. I could be standing here thinking why am I going through all this, I have already cooked ---- A. You know why you are going through this, and I do. It is connected with a very substantial fee you are paid for this. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is cheap. Let us get on. MR RAMPTON: It is not only cheap, it is complete rubbish. My Lord, I would pass now, if I may ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think we will probably stop now. MR RAMPTON: I tell you where I am going next. I am going briefly to Dr Brach in the autumn of 1941, which relates to gassings in the Warthegau and possibly also in Riga. JUSTICE GRAY: Is that vans? . P-184 MR RAMPTON: Vans yes, and then I am going to go to what Mr Irving calls the Schlegelberger memorandum, and then probably to the Roman Jews, unless your Lordship would prefer, which equally well we can do, to have a look at Hitler's earlier utterances. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No. All I think is that sometime that is relevant. MR RAMPTON: It is obviously important. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Both to the manipulation and also to Auschwitz. MR RAMPTON: Yes. I am thinking that the subject of Hitler's Adjutants is a long one with, I am afraid, probably quite a lot of documents to look at because of the records of what they said. That may take more than one day, which I do not have, so I was going to leave that until after Auschwitz. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, that is fine. It does occur to me that sometimes there is scope for exploring before one gets into the detail. MR RAMPTON: I know. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We had an example just a moment ago. It is not remotely intended to be a reproof. MR RAMPTON: It is amazing what answers one can get. I have made the assumption, perhaps wrongly, that any general question I ask is either going to get no answer ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: I can see there may be forensic reasons for . P-185 doing it the other way too, but I just wonder in this case whether the desirability of short cuts does not suggest one sacrifices ---- MR RAMPTON: I see the attraction, but I do think it essential, and the only forensic reason, apart from wanting answers to my questions, is that I do want your Lordship to have as full a picture as possible, because all these things are contextually linked. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I have the reports, remember. MR RAMPTON: I know. MR JUSTICE GRAY: What about the argument about Auschwitz? It seems to me that we are nipping at that topic from time to time, inevitably. I think in many ways the sooner we have the argument the better? A. It is Tuesday now, possibly on Thursday. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If would you like go for Thursday, yes? A. If you would limit us both to half an hour each on that. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am all in favour of doing that. MR RAMPTON: I have said my two minutes already. A. You may have more to say after you have heard me. MR RAMPTON: We will let Mr Irving go first since essentially I believe it to be an objection really. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think it matters who goes first. Would you like to go first, Mr Irving? A. It makes no difference to me either. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Good, so 10.30 tomorrow? . P-186 A. Thank you. < (The witness stood down) (The court adjourned until the following day) . P-187
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.