He then began to question Robert Jan about Himmler’s July 1942 visit to Auschwitz. Robert Jan explained that this visit coincided with the Nazi hierarchy’s decision that Auschwitz play a central role in the Final Solution. Consequently, immediately after the visit, camp authorities ordered a dramatic increase in the crematoria’s incineration capacity. There would soon be more corpses to burn and, if the rate of incineration was not adequate, the backlog of bodies would prevent the smooth functioning of the killing process. Irving suggested that Robert Jan was seeing the sinister when a more benign explanation would suffice. Typhus had ravaged the camp in 1942. Camp officials increased the incineration capacity because they were anticipating another epidemic. Sounding a bit like a professor admonishing a student for a really dense answer, Robert Jan dismissed Irving’s theory as “absurd, . . . absolutely absurd.”15 The increase would boost the monthly incineration rate to 120,000 bodies, he explained, while the camp’s projected population was 150,000. For Irving’s explanation to make sense, in one month an epidemic would have to kill four-fifths of Auschwitz’s population and the Germans would have to repopulate the camp with 120,000 people. This exceeded the absolute worst-case epidemiological scenario.
Irving, shifting his line of questioning, challenged Robert Jan to explain how 120,000 bodies could be incinerated monthly. This was, Irving dismissively noted, “four times [the capacity of] Wembley stadium,” the famous London soccer arena. Declaring that it took 30 kilograms of coke to burn just one body, he held up his aerial photograph of the camp—the one with the stars and crosses—and asked Robert Jan where were the “mountains of coke?” Robert Jan explained that under normal circumstances it took significant fuel to burn one body because getting the “oven going . . . takes a hell of a lot of energy.” However, the Auschwitz ovens were kept hot, reducing the energy needed to incinerate subsequent bodies. The Auschwitz ovens had been designed with precisely that energy savings in mind. In 1943, Rudolf Jährling, a civilian engineer at Auschwitz, had calculated that 4,200 kilos of coke were needed to run one crematorium for twelve hours under normal circumstances, but only 2,800 if it was in constant use. Jährling estimated that, in these circumstances, less than 8,000 kilos of fuel—3.5 kilos per corpse—were sufficient for twelve hours for all the crematoria in Birkenau. Irving, lifting the water bottle from his table, scornfully asked, “Do you really, sincerely believe that you can burn one corpse with enough coke that you could fit in one of these water bottles?” Robert Jan affirmed that, based on German documents, he did.16
GAS CHAMBER TOURS: THE TESTIMONY OF ADA BIMKO
Then Irving began a concerted attack on the eyewitnesses who had attested to seeing gas chambers. He began with Ada Bimko, who later in life was known as Hadassah Rosensaft, a Polish-Jewish doctor who had been imprisoned at Birkenau, where she worked at the medical bloc. At a 1945 war crimes trial, Bimko testified that women, who had been held in a barracks prior to being sent to their death, were marched naked to the gas chamber. They were sometimes allowed to wrap themselves in blankets. On one occasion, when Bimko was sent to retrieve these blankets, an SS officer offered to give her a “tour” of the gas chamber. In addition to showing the chamber, he took her to the area above it, which housed the ventilation system for extracting the poison gas. He explained that the two large cylinders in the corner contained the poison. The gas, he continued, passed through the pipes into the gas chamber below.17
This explanation made no sense. In the crematorium she visited, Zyklon B was thrown through the windows, not piped in from above. Irving dismissed her testimony as pure invention. “She was now in British hands . . . and they have asked her to write a statement . . . because they needed to hang these criminals.” Robert Jan saw things quite differently. While Bimko’s explanation was wrong, her description of what she saw corresponded precisely to the ventilation system in cremas 4 and 5. Pipes in the attic floor extracted the gas from the chambers. The cylinders probably contained the ventilator. Her explanation was based on what the SS man had told her. When Robert Jan speculated that the SS man was mocking her, Irving admonished him: “Your imagination is not evidence in this court room and I would ask you to adhere to what you know.” Rampton jumped up. “That is not right. His motivation for the way he wrote the report is under attack. What he thinks she may have meant by what she said is directly relevant.” Judge Gray agreed. Robert Jan added that Bimko had described a system that was only visible from inside the attic. Given Bimko’s precise description she was “a very reliable witness, even if she did not know what [the pipe] was used for.”18
This exchange felt personal. I knew Bimko, who had been appointed by President Carter to the United States Holocaust Council. I was present when the designer of the Holocaust Museum described how visitors would pass through a boxcar used to transport Jews to the camps, Bimko stood up and emphatically declared that she had once been forced into such a car. Nothing could ever compel her to enter again. As a result, the design plan was reworked and visitors who wish can circumvent the car.
Irving, still deprecating Bimko, accused Robert Jan of having included her testimony in his report as “a bit of spice.” “Sorry?” Robert Jan asked in some confusion. Irving, seeming to enjoy the moment, repeated his charge. “As a bit of spice. . . . As one more statistic.” The distressed look on Robert Jan’s face became one of disgust when Irving bemoaned the “unfortunates” who were hanged on the basis of Bimko’s testimony.19 I reflected that among those “unfortunates” was the commandant of Bergen-Belsen, Josef Kramer, who had been in charge of the crematoria in Birkenau during the murder of Hungarian Jewry and, in that capacity, had selected people for the gas chambers. Another “unfortunate” convicted at that trial was Birkenau doctor, Fritz Klein, who, when asked how he could reconcile his Hippocratic oath with sending people to the gas chamber, had replied, “I am a doctor and I want to preserve life. And out of respect for human life, I would remove a gangrenous appendix from a diseased body. The Jew is the gangrenous appendix in the body of mankind.”20
NO HOLES, NO HOLOCAUST: THE TRAP
Irving next began to question Robert Jan about the testimony of Sonderkommando Henryk Tauber. Tauber had described how a SS officer on the roof of crema 2 or 3 would lift the cover over a hole in the roof, drop the Zyklon B gas pellets into a wire-mesh column, and close the cover. Irving began pressing Robert Jan about the dimensions and position of the holes and the columns. Then throwing back his shoulders, Irving looked up from his papers and loudly asked:
Professor van Pelt, we are wasting our time really, are we not? There were never any holes in the roof. There are no holes in that roof today. . . . They cannot have poured cyanide capsules through that roof. . . . You yourself have . . . looked for those holes and not found them. Our experts have stood on that roof and not found them. The holes were never there. What do you have to say to that?
Before Robert Jan could answer, Irving turned toward Judge Gray and said, “My Lord, you may apprehend that the trap is now sprung and it would be a pity to put the mouse back in its cage.” With a quizzical look, Judge Gray asked, “The trap is what you have just asked?” “Precisely,” Irving triumphantly declared. “There are no holes in that roof. There were never any holes in that roof. All the eyewitnesses on whom he relies are therefore exposed as liars.” Robert Jan protested that the roof was “absolutely a mess,” having collapsed in fragments when the gas chambers were blown up. Irving was “pretend[ing] to be talking about a piece which is intact. It is not.”21
Despite Robert Jan’s protests, Irving had grabbed the momentum, insisting that had there been “holes in the roof, which are the cardinal linchpin of the Defence in this action, they would have been found by now. . . . So their eyewitness evidence collapses because these people are exposed for the liars they were [sic].” Robert Jan was about to say something when Irving glanced at the clock on the wall: “My Lord, it is four minutes to four. Unless Mr Rampton wishes to say something to repair the damage at
this point. . . .” Robert Jan tried to interject but Judge Gray told him to wait “until 10:30 tomorrow morning.”22 With that we adjourned.
Anthony Julius, the architect of my legal defense, was known to the British as Princess Diana’s lawyer. I knew his name as the author of the compelling T. S. Eliot, Anti-Semitism, and Literary Form. The book was his Ph.D. thesis, something he earned while working full-time as a lawyer. (Photo courtesy of Deborah Lipstadt)
James Libson, a partner at Mishcon de Reya, worked with Anthony to build my defense. He mused about how rare it was to have “a case that is both so close to one’s heart and in which justice is so central.” (Photo courtesy of Deborah Lipstadt)
The three-thousand-seat sanctuary of Berlin’s Synagogue Oranienburger Strasse. Dedicated in 1866, in the presence of Chancellor Bismarck, it was protected during Kristallnacht (1938) by the local police chief. (Photo © Stiftung Neue Synagoge Berlin—Centrum Judaicum)
All that remains of the Oranienburger Strasse sanctuary after being damaged by Allied bombs. Visiting this site, immediately prior to going to Auschwitz to meet my defense team, vividly reminded me of the Jewish life that had been destroyed by the Holocaust. (Photo by Margit Billeb © Stiftung Neue Synagoge Berlin—Centrum Judaicum)
In the Auschwitz gas chamber barrister Richard Rampton, facing camera, aggressively questioned expert witness Robert Jan van Pelt, in black, about evidence for the gas chambers. I protested Rampton’s line of questions. He was not pleased. (Photo by Omer Arbel)
Walking behind my defense team in Birkenau shortly after my “altercation” with Rampton. (Photo by Omer Arbel)
At crema 2, we inspected the remains of the gas chamber roof. Deniers attempt to argue that there were no holes through which to insert Zyklon B. (Photo by Omer Arbel)
Both perpetrators and survivors describe how, in cremas 4/5, the Zyklon B was thrown in through windows. The Auschwitz archives contain a February 1943 work order for “12 gas-tight doors of 30/40 cm.” and architectural drawings of the cremas with windows of this dimension. We found this 30/40 cm. window in Auschwitz. Remnants of the gas-tight seal remain and the handle is on the outside, an impractical arrangement unless one wanted to prevent those inside from opening it. This is a stunning example of “confluence of evidence.” Architectural drawings, documentary evidence, testimony, and relics all coincide. (Photo by Omer Arbel)
A portion of the documentation gathered by the defense team for the case. A copy of every document mentioned in an expert report was deposited with the court. Ultimately there were close to one hundred linear feet of documentation. (Photo courtesy of Deborah Lipstadt)
Judge Charles Gray in his courtroom regalia. Prior to becoming a judge, Gray had been a distinguished QC (Queen’s Counsel) specializing in libel. Rampton surmised that Gray was chosen to hear this case because of his expertise in libel law. (© Julia Quenzler)
Upon entering the court on the first morning of the trial, David Irving predicted to the assembled reporters and photographers that he would be victorious. (Associated Press)
Lunch in barrister Richard Rampton’s chambers. Rampton has intense interests in the classics, music, history, literary theory, and good wine. (Photo courtesy of Deborah Lipstadt)
During the trial, I lost sleep worrying that Judge Gray might issue an “evenhanded” judgment. After a series of such nights, I was useless at an early-morning meeting in Anthony’s office. (Photo by James Libson)
When Irving told the judge that he was building his case with a “broad brush,” Richard Rampton sketched this cartoon. (Courtesy of Richard Rampton, QC)
On the day of closing arguments, the tedium of having to listen to Irving’s three-hour summation was disrupted somewhat when he—inadvertently, I assumed—addressed Judge Gray as mein Führer. When I left the Law Courts the photographers asked how I was doing. I told them I was happy to be any place but the courtroom. (Photo by David Minkin)
When the defense team gathered at a pub near the Law Courts after closing arguments, there was a celebratory atmosphere. It was as if, one expert observed, we were emerging from a “cosmos of death.” From left to right: Laura Tyler, Tobias Jersiak, Heather Rogers, Deborah Lipstadt, Thomas Skelton-Robinson, and Nick Wachsman. (Photo by David Minkin)
In my London hotel apartment the day before Judge Gray’s decision was to be announced. The lawyers already knew the outcome but were forbidden from telling me. The excruciating wait was lessened by a stream of reporters and photographers. (Photo courtesy of Deborah Lipstadt)
Shortly before I arrived at the Law Courts on the day of the judgment, Anthony told me of our victory. Forbidden from telling anyone until Judge Gray read his decision in court, I found it hard to suppress a smile as I entered the building. When friends called to find out if I knew, I said: “It’s a spectacular day here in London.” They cheered. (Martin Hayhow/Getty Images)
A few days after the judgment, the Wexners, stalwart supporters of my legal battle, hosted the defense team. Leslie Wexner said he felt privileged to have been part of this effort. (Photo courtesy of Deborah Lipstadt)
Richard Evans described his experience on the stand. Abigail Wexner and researcher Tobias Jersak listened. (Photo courtesy of Deborah Lipstadt)
Irving’s comment to a television reporter that the judgment was not a great loss and had been very complimentary to him prompted this editorial cartoon. (© Daily Telegraph)
After the Court of Appeal turned down Irving’s third and final appeal in July 2001, Anthony assured me it was “over.” I found that hard to fathom. (Photo courtesy of John R. Rifkin)
I was disappointed in Robert Jan’s half-hearted protest about Irving’s claim that the holes were the “cardinal linchpin” of our case. The holes did not even figure in our case. I felt as if he had really been caught off guard. Anticipating that the press would feature this in their reports, I grimly acknowledged to myself that Irving had orchestrated this well. As we exited the courtroom, I told Anthony how distressed I was. He dismissed these concerns: “It doesn’t matter. It’s one day’s testimony. The judge won’t be affected by it. And the press really doesn’t matter.”
I awoke the next morning and immediately checked some of the newspapers piled at my door. The Times carried the headline “Irving Disputes ‘Lurid’ Atrocity Stories.” It featured Irving’s claim that the eyewitness evidence had been “totally demolished” because there were no discernible holes in the roof. In contrast, the Guardian’s headline read: “Author Tells of Massive Proof for Gas Chambers.” The paper emphasized Robert Jan’s convergence of evidence. The BBC story was all that I had feared. “The existence of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz was completely fictitious, historian David Irving has told London’s High Court.” According to the BBC, Irving claimed that “eyewitness evidence of the chambers was ‘totally demolished’ because there were no holes in the roof to insert poison. The historian said his theory—based on research by revisionist historians—’blows holes in the whole gas chamber story.’” Toward the end, the report mentioned—almost as an afterthought—Robert Jan’s contention that there was a “massive amount of evidence” about the camp’s extermination activities.
At that point, I decided that rather than spend the next hour reading every newspaper report, I should stick to my daily ritual. I grabbed my shorts and T-shirt and headed for the gym. I had made a practice of beginning every day with an intensive early morning cardiovascular workout and a weightlifting session. About five years earlier I had lost a significant amount of weight. Keeping fit was a high priority for me. Shortly before I left for London, I had resolved that, irrespective of whatever this trial did to my head, it would not affect my body. My forty-five minutes on the treadmill and fifteen minutes lifting weights constituted both a physical and mental workout. I could not publicly speak, but by keeping in shape I could telegraph to friends, enemies, reporters, and myself that I was coping. A verse in Deuteronomy (4:9) teaches: “Above all, take utmost care and scrupulously watch out f
or yourself.” I had no choice but to let others take care of my legal battle. Only I could take utmost care of myself.
NUBILE YOUNG WOMEN
Irving began the next day’s session by announcing that there were no more “hidden booby-traps or mines.” Clearly enjoying the moment, he smiled at Robert Jan and said, “I am sure that the Professor will appreciate advance notification.” Robert Jan scowled as Irving continued, “One would have expected the researchers at the other end of the spectrum to have been . . . frantically looking for those holes to prove us wrong.”23
A sparring match about the holes occupied much of the day. Slowly, Robert Jan regained some of the initiative that he seemed to have lost the previous day. When Irving challenged the existence of the holes, Robert Jan cited the 1944 American aerial photographs of the gas chambers in which the holes were visible. When Irving claimed that the negatives had been altered, Van Pelt responded that Nevin Bryant, supervisor of cartographic and image processing at California’s prestigious Jet Propulsion Laboratory, used NASA technology to enhance the pictures. He found no alterations. When Irving asserted that the holes in the picture were shadows, Robert Jan cited drawings by Sonderkommando David Olère, who, upon liberation, sketched the gas chambers. The sketches, Robert Jan noted, were fully corroborated by the architectural plans in the Auschwitz Central Construction Office and the aerial photos.
Denial [Movie Tie-in] Page 18