Institute of Historical Review's Conference, October 1992
given by David Irving
Focal Point, David Irving
First a presentation by
Ladies and gentlemen, we are once again delighted to welcome to this podium the English, British historian Mr David Irving. He was a few minutes late getting here because he is a professional historian. And he has to work for his living. A lecture by Mr David Irving, ladies and gentlemen, is always a treat as those who recall his presentations at the IHR (Institute of Historical Review) conferences of 1983, 1989 and 1990 will attached.
David Irving was born in Essex England 1938. The son of a Royal Navy commander. At the education at London university, our next speaker spend a year working in a German steel-mill to perfect his fullness in German. In the year since he has fullness established himself as not only one of the most courageous historian of this or any age, but also as one of the most successful and widely read. His first work, "The destruction of Dresden", was published in 1963 when he was 25 years old. Since then he has published more than two dozens books. Many of them best-sellers. Several have appeared in various languages. And several have been sterilised in pure articles including The Sunday Express, The Sunday Telegraph and Der Spiegel. David Irving is currently working on a book, on a biography of Hitler's propaganda chief doctor Joseph Goebbels. For those who which of course he is pleased to autograph copies of his books. A good selection of which are available here this weekend.
Over the years our next speaker had convudrital articles to some 60 British and foreign pure articles, including The Daily Telegraph and Sunday Express in London and to Stern and Der Spiegel in Germany. Mr Irving is almost certainly the best read historian in English languages today. He has a track-record of uncovering startling new facts about even supposedly well known episodes of history. Much of his effectiveness is do to his existence reliance on original source materials, such as diaries, original documents and so for, from both official and privet sources. He is tireless in his seas less digging in just about every important historical archives in the western world. He has little respect for colleagues who are guiltily of what he calls "inter historian incest". And who there by helped to keep alive dangerous myths and legends left over from war time propaganda. Irving's reputation began take a betting following the publication in 1977 of "Hitler's war". A monumental work that was hysterically criticised for its contention that Hitler did not order the extermination of Europe's Jews. The mass killings must have been carried out by Himmler and by his co hawks behind Hitler's back Irving concluded at that time. But so in rage was the Zionist Anti-Defamation League Bernard Breath by this book, that the shadow organisation promptly added his name to its ever growing lists of enemies. As a journalist for Time magazine once told Irving: "Until 'Hitler's war" you couldn't put a foot wrong. You were the darling of the media. After it, they heap slam on you". Well as it turned out, the ADL's troubles with Mr Irving were only just beginning.
The campaign against our next speaker became even more striding following the publications in 1981 of "Uprising". An unvarnished history of the 1956 anti-Communist revolt in Hungary. This book in rage the ADL crowd because it dose not white-wash the significant Jewish roll in the Hungarian communist regime.
A startling climax in the second Holocaust trial of Ernest Zündel in 1988, was the testimony of our next speaker. Who was the last of 23 defence witnesses. Irving stunned the completely pact around the court-room by announcing that he had change his mind about the Holocaust story. During his 3 days on the stamp he explained in detail why he now endorses the revisionists view of the extermination story.
In June 1989 even Irving published a British edition of the Leuchter report. This handsome illustrated edition for which he wrote a forward was launched by him in a press conference in London. He told journalists there that the influence extermination gas chambers of Auschwitz and Majdanek did not exist except perhaps as the brainchild invention of Britain's war time propaganda-burro PWE.
Last year a magnificent 870 pages photo point edition of "Hitler's war" was published. Taking a count of the most resent reassure and insides reference to so called extermination camps have been removed from this new revised addition. And in his introductions Irving definitely tears apart one historical legend after another. Ladies and gentlemen just the other day an official of the American Jewish committee, a certain Kenneth S Sturn stated: "David Irving never has been considered a serious historian." This is simply a false faced lie. In fact our next speaker remarkable abilities has been acknowledged by some of the prominent names in the field. British historian A P Taylor once wrote of him: "David Irving is a patience researcher of unravelled industry and success." Another prominent British historian U Traver Roper writing in The Sunday Times of London declared: "No price can be to high for Irving's indefatigable scholarly industry." Taver Roper also called Irving: "One of the few guys I would entirely trust in the factorable and presume of evidence, fearless and face of it sounds in judgement." Like Faurisson we have seen the pre Holocaust Irving and the post Holocaust Irving. David Irving had made several highly successful speaking and promotion tours in Germany, Canada, Australia, South Africa, The United States and other countries. His appearance with us here this weekend is only one stop on yet another North America tour that will take him to speaking engagements around The United States and across Canada. German listeners in particular delight in hearing an Englishman say out loud what many in that country believe in there souls, but have been in terminated to keep to themselves. In Germany Irving has became a kind of conscience for a people who have been largely robbed of there own.
Last January a flow of reports appeared in newspapers and television broadcast around the world suggesting that Irving had abandoned his highly sceptical view of the Holocaust extermination story, because of what he have found in the memoir of Adolf Eichmann, the German SS officer who co-ordinated the war time deportations of Jews. Had a good friend of the IHR defected from the revisionist campaign? In the wait of this author Irving told the IHR: "My position remains unchanged. There were certain mélange type atrocities by German troops in the occupied Soviet territories. But the gas chambers and factories of death are a legends, and there is no war time evidence of an order by Hitler to exterminate the Jews." In an interview at that time with The London Jewish Chronicle Irving said: "The Jews are very foolish not to abandon in the gas chamber theory while they still have time." Last may 5 a German court find Irving 10 000 marks, about 7 000 dollars depending on the latest readings, for public statements he had made against the Holocaust story. His specific crime at a meeting in Munich in April 1990, Irving had said that building in the Auschwitz maintain, that has been for trade for years as an extermination gas chambers, is a phoney reconstruction. Now what is perhaps most remarkable about this affair, is that another revisionist who will speak here later this weekend, is able to confirm that the director of the Auschwitz state museum has in fact knowledge personally to him that what Irving had told the Munich meeting is in fact the truth.
Also this year Irving played a key roll in bringing to light the long suppress diary of third Rich's propaganda chief doctor Joseph Goebbels. In July this London's Sunday Times, one of the world most influential papers, published extensive translated excepts from the diary, which Irving found and transcribe. Major Jewish organisations last no time in attacking the paper for employing the notorious Irving. And the resulting fiorle made headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world. A report in the London Jewish Chronicle had a line: "Sunday Times comes under pressure". Describe the existence of the campaign to punish the paper for it's collaboration with Irving. Officials of the American Jewish committee added there voices to the world wide pressure campaign expressing particular anger because the British historian had dear to address several meetings of the IHR, Institute for Historical Review. On July 3 about 300 Jewish demonstrators gadded outside Irving's London residence to denounce him. The next day, July 4, which was by the way the 9th anniversary of the devastation 1984 Arson attack against our office and our house, a lager crowd of several hundreds met at the same place to shout more insults. Among the banners carried by the crowd of Marxists, Jews and rastafarians, were placards reading: "Return to the road of Lenin and Trotsky" and "Build a Bolshevik party, tribune of all the suppress ". That same day although about 250 persons gathered to hear and cheer Irving and other speakers at a revisionist meeting in London. Besides Irving the audiences heard Russell by Mr Kurt Lion, Leuchter US uterine, and Georgia uterine Sam Dixon, who was here this weekend and who addressed the 1986 IHR conference.
Well in all this, it is gratifying to knew that it is a revisionist historian who was once again at the fore front of historical discovery. In spit of the well organise international campaign to boycott and silence him David Irving remains at the vanguard of his profession. And by the way unlike academic to employed by the State institutions, solely on the bases of his industry knowledge skill and ability. It is also a gratifying to release that a result of this latest controversy hundred of thousands if not millions of newspaper and magazine readers around the world are now aware, that a historian of recognise international statue rejects the Holocaust extermination story. You need a pickup truck to carry away all the newspaper and magazine clippings that have appear over the years about our next speaker. Soviet prime president Nikita Chrustjov once warn that historians are dangerous, because they have the power to upset everything. Our next speaker is just such historian. German chancellor Adolf von Bismarck once said: "The main thing is not to write history but to make it." David Irving is a man who has been able to do some of both. He is also a living proof that the light of the historian need not be dole. The leftist liberal British daily newspaper, The Garden, once commend it: "If one could overlook his out reidlessly audiences view, Irving like Hitler can be a funny man. The humour comes from a hint of self markery and in obvious delight in making liberal flash creep." This afternoon Mr Irving will speak about the significant of the Eichmann memoir, and he has also promise to let us in on some of the new ways he has manage to find to make liberal flash creep. Ladies and gentlemen a warm welcome then please for an outstanding historian and a good friend of IHR, Mr David Irving.
David Irving speaks...
Well ladies and gentlemen thank you for that magnificent introduction by Mr Mark Weber. And thank you, The United States, for letting me come and speak. And I mean that seriously. Because the fight is now getting quite creepy. You know that for 2 years now, I have been conducting this international campaign for real history around the world. The international campaign for real history. And for 2 years in country after country I have come up against an international campaign against real history. An international campaign for the lies. An international campaign to suppress the truth. And the truth is quite clear. It's something which previously I had wonted to believe.
But there is an international force out there, with an influenced transcend front tears. Day after day, country after country, month after month, I come up against this international force. And I've now in fact open a file in my apartment in London with the title "Jewish harassment". And I don't wont it to be taken, to mean in the slightest that I am "anti-Jewish", because I am not. The fact that large numbers of Jews are "anti-Irving" does not mean to say that Irving is "anti-Jewish". There is a paradox in that statement. But they're coursing me a menthe harassment, embarrassment and distress and again and again, week after week, month after month, the journalists come to me and they say: "Mr Irving are you anti-Semitic?" And I say: "Not yet." So for 2 years this campaign has gone around the world, with me at the spear head of it. Germany, France, Spain, South Africa, The United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, England. Let me tell you one or two of the things that had happened in this countries.
Germany, I am now a prohibited person. I can't go to Germany. The German government is all damn that David Irving should no longer across there front tears. A free democracy and yet that's the only way they can fight against me. By forbidding me to come in. That issue, 2 years ago in March 1990. I've been in and out of Germany 16 times since then. I am not going to tell you how I've done it. The ways you are doing it, it depends on the fact that in Austria, another country here, in Austria there is a arrest war against me. But no entry prohibition. Where in Germany, there is entry prohibition but no arrest war. So between the two of them you could find some point getting in. As I said to the Germans last time I spoke to a mass meeting of 7000 people in Fharsau. I said: "There is enough people here in paying cloth who writing down the notes for the ministry of the interior who's going been asking tonight: How did he get in again and again? And I can only say: Go and ask your colleagues in Austria how David Irving got in this time. So I can't get in to German officially. I can't get in to Austria, France, Spain, South Africa.
I spoke for 2 months since in South Africa. This time visiting 15 great cities in South Africa in January, February this year. Got back to England. 2 weeks later a letter from South African government from Pretoria saying: "Dear Mr Irving. As an Englishman you normally do not require a visa to enter South African territories. For you we are going to make an exception." And the South African newspapers, to home I reported this discovered with in a matter of days, that this unique embargo will be unpleased on me by the South African government at the request of South African Jewish organisations. And of course there was the, an out cried by all the other South Africans who had wonted to hear me on the radio and television and in the flesh. At this encroachment once again of freedom of speak.
The United States, I can come and speak here. And this is because that in The United States you have something very important. That is your first hemedment, the freedom of speak. And I think it is very unrightly that The United States government would actually stoke to trying to prevent me from coming here to speak. We would be very very serious indeed if ever that should happened.
Canada, I have a big speaking tour line up in Canada, to start on October the 26th. Yesterday here in this very hotel, I was handed a federal express-letter from the Canadian government, informing me that I would not be aloud to enter Canada to speak there either. Once again the pressure from this international gropes had succeeded in the derision of giving Mr Irving under the immigration act. A person is to find as a not permitted to enter, if he has committed a criminal offence in any other countries or if he is likely to commit a criminal offence in Canada. And we consider you maybe likely to commit a criminal offence. So I instructed my tour man in Canada, of course straight away to point that I have been to Canada 30 times since 1960 - 1965 and not once I have committed a criminal offence. So supreme affiance I unlikely to commit a criminal offence on the 31st accession either. But we wont get very far of course. It would take months before that case gets off the ground. Which is why they serviced this notice for me yesterday, where a public holiday coming up in Canada on Monday just like in United States. And this is the method that they use. They can't defeat it.
Italy, I went to Italy to speak in June this year. Ironically I flew from Moscow, where I have been working for 2 weeks in the secret state of the archives of the Soviet government, for 2 weeks in Moscow. On the Friday I flew down to Munich. Saturday morning I flew from to Munich to Room's international airport. As I got to the foot of the steps of the plane, came down of club class of the plane, there was 6 police-cars of carabineers waiting on foot of steps of the plane out on the airfield for me. As I got in the airport bus, they storm the bus with their rifles drown, call out my name, Mr Irving. Ladies and gentlemen it is embarrassing. It is embarrassing. I mean how, I tried to look as those as this is my VIP escort. And they held me there in the police station at Room's airport for 4 hours, until the plane turned round and flew back to Munich. And the half way throw of course, they brought in the Italians who had come to meet me. I had been invited by the university, by students there, by a professor of the university. And they held me in the police station and they brought in the students who come to meet me at the airport. And of course during the police interrogation I hadn't understood a word of Italian. I made them speak English to me. Who when the students came in then I spoke Italian to them and explain how sorry I was. And the police colonel get very indigned and he said: "Silenzio, don't speak." So I said: "Where is it say I can't speak?" He said: "Silenzio, don't speak." And I said: "Excuse me." It was a beautiful brand-new police station with magnificent painted walls. And I said: "Excuse me, do you know where I can se a Science Silenzio?" So he see how the felt pen. That's it. In a blind Italian temper he went to the wall: "You can't see? Here. Silenzio. Silenzio."
Italy. Brazil, Argentina. I spoke in Argentina last November. October, November. I didn't been in Argentina 3 days. The first day I spoke in Argentina I took part in a television program that morning because I speak fluent Spanish as well. And I took part in a television program that Monday morning. A 2 hours television program with a man call Morisio Maoro. But his real name turned out to be Goldfarb. If only they had told me before. But to late. He asked questions like: "But Adolf Hitler, he was crazy? Wasn't he?" And I said: "No, he wasn't." "But of course he was crazy." I said: "There is no evidence at all. The evidence is that we British and Americans captured 7 of Hitler's doctors. We interrogated all 7 of them on that specific point. They, Hitler's own doctors. His positions consider him to be clinically sane and unsound of mind. And all of them come to conclusion that he was totally sane to the very last moment of his life." And not only that I said on this program: "I personally found Adolf Hitler's medical diaries. The diaries kept by his doctor Morell. And I published them after transcribe this diaries that I founded in the archives in Washington. And there is no doubt at all in those diaries that Hitler was perfectly sane and physically normal." And this Morisio Maoro, Goldfarb became very agitated. He said: "The man must be totally crazy. He killed 40 millions human beings." I let the 40 million passed the first time round. But the second time round I stopped him and I said: "40 million? Excuse me, where does this figure come from then?" And he said: "40 million persons. A person who kills one man is a criminal." So I said: "In this case president Bush, your friend, is a criminal, because of the damage he did in the Golf war this very February."
And this interview was dramatically cut short. And not only that interview. But the very next day, all the other interviews that I had lined up for me by my publisher Planeto in Argentina were cancelled. The interviews with the newspapers, the television interviews, the university Bel Grano, the house of the chancellor. It was an object lessons in the influences certain people have. And the day after that the main newspaper of Argentina, La Nation, published the newspaper autitom headed: "International agitator is among in armist." I am an international agitator.
Well I'm sorry that the Jews get so easily agitated. But it is not my fault. My job is to go there and lecture them on the historical truth as I see it. And I admit we maybe be wrong. We may all in this room be wrong on this matter or that matter. But I demand the right to be wrong. That is in the ethnic of the freedom of speak that we have in this country and in The United Kingdom. No one is going to define what the receive version of history is. No one going to say: History was like that and no one is going to changed your opinion of it. This is what they trying to do in Germany now. This is what they trying to do all around the world now. Every other aspect of international histories open to debate in despotic accept one. And that one anybody who's challenge it is automatically in fact, is so facto describe as an anti-Semite. The Jews themselves now say: Anybody who's questions any aspect of the Holocaust, is an anti-Semite. And this is not truth of course. We are just lovers of the truth and we are determined to get to the bottom of what actually happened and what didn't happened. And I am not going to say that: What I am lecture here the next three hours is to you is necessarily the only version of the truth and I should have no other truth than this. I am not as arrogant as that. I should say: The best that I could do, given a limit to the sources and against the harassment, that I have come up against the last few years.
But the harassment had got worse and worse as we published the book "Hitler's war" as Mark Webber mentioned. In my own publishing house Focal point. I got the right back in the publishing edition, with things that nobody ever has seen. If you wont to see a photograph what it looks like, when 17 500 people are killed in 20 minutes, as a photograph of this. I shown it to audiences after audiences around the world. That's what it look like. 17 500 people dying in a space of 20 minutes. It's a short time. A little town in Baden-Wurtenberg in Germany in the middle of February 1945. I Knew how it's herd. If you herd the arounchmend of Dresden. But here in short time. 17 500 people being burn alive by the British in 20 minutes in 1945. That is 1 person in 4 in that town who was killed in the most horrible manner. That is a crime. We have photographs of it. All the previous pages.
The famous photographs of Dresden. A hundred thousand people killed in a space of 12 hours. Again by the British and the Americans. So many people killed. There weren't enough left living to bury the dead. They where burned to copses, on this huge funereal pies in the out mark in Dresden. I published the photographs many years ago in 1963 in my book, "The destruction of Dresden". And this, I published for the first time the same photographs in full colour. 60 colour photographs in this book. The book which no other publisher would have published.
And of course our traditional enemies are absolute libel . Because it makes the book a very desirable object in Britain. We publish it ourselves and I have personally delivered 5000 copies of it to 500 book shops up and down the country. And the way that they are fighting back, our traditional enemies, is: One by one they visited the book shops. Patiently, methodically they commanded their local souls and branches and agency to visit every book shop who stock this book. And demand that it be unstuck. An of course most of the book shop-managers are not open to entemedasion, the way the newspapers are. So they got there windows smashed. There has been a campaign of window smashing throe out Britain over the last 3 or 4 months. It is not reported in the national press. But I got press-clipping here. It's been reported in all the local newspapers. The degree to which this book shops, big and small who had there windows smashed in a campaign. I find them in a second, in a campaign against Waterstones and Dillons and Volium one book shop and all the book shops. They had theirs windows smashed, big thick glass-windows, during the night. And the next morning they received a letter on the headed not paper of the local synagogue or the local branch of defiance of Jews saying: "We are very sorry that your windows got smashed. But what can you expect? We promise that if you stop stocking David Irving's books you find that this kind of problems ceases." Now the local newspapers reported this. And because I got press-clipping agency I got all this local newspapers. Newcastle, Nottingham, Norwich. All the middle big cities had that. But not the national newspapers in Britain. And why not? Well the answer is that the national newspapers are staffs by national newspaper journalists, who is a differed calibre journalist from the local journalists.
I often wonder where this national newspaper journalists come from. They are people who spindly little turds and creeps. And I had a particular problem with a journalist call Gitta Sereny. Who wrote a biography of Albert Speer and who writing all sorts of articles attacking me. She wrote a whole page article, attacking me a few months ago in The Independent. A newspaper which in England is characterise by the extraordinary number of a batteries it carries for Jews in fact. I am not saying it's a fully Semitic newspaper. But it appears to find a more imported to carry a batteries of rabbis and Jews from all around the world. Then noted English scientists or philosophers or other non-Jews in Britain. So this tell us something about the newspaper and something about Gitta Sereny. Who publishes one huge attack on me. And I wrote a letter to The Independent in which I said that: "I am terribly sorry to see that this scrupulous little towed Gitta Sereny has got away with publishing that attack of lies about me." And then I had an after thought and I wrote another letter which I sent around the following day saying: "I am terrible sorry about the appalling phonetic error which crept into the transcript of the letter, which went to you yesterday. The letter shouldn't have said: " a scourges little towed Gitta Sereny", "but, a scourges little turd Gitta Sereny", and a do apologise for this appalling slip of the tongue."
Journalists in Britain are not my favourite people. You see I'm very philosophise about newspapers in Britain. I remember a journalist. My secretary Robert Davis once coming to me one Monday morning saying: "David, how could you stand for it, The Sunday Times yesterday? Have you read what they wrote about you?" And I said: "No Robin, what did they write this time?" He said: "Only a little thing. But I mean you have to pack up. You might will go finish. And I said: "What did they write Robin?" He said: "'David Irving who appears substantially to over estimated his mental stability this time.' They calling you mad." And I said: "Okay so what, send me to some kind of psychiatric Gulag-archipelago next. But who cares. This is The Sunday Times and today it is Monday. I said it is better being an author than being a journalist. When I write a book it goes to the libraries and it stays there. Specially if it's on aside free paper. What they write is in The Sunday Times on Sunday and by Monday it is wrapping fish and chips. Who cares." And if it's very lucky is not wrapping fish and chips but the newspaper been recycled.
Let me tell you what recycling involved ladies and gentlemen. The news print goes to a huge kind of shopping and shopping and dumping and dumping machine. And again in this pulping process the ink is washed away by the turdigens and go in that direction and the paper and the cellulose is separated out and go in that direction and get recycled as paper on which fresh write would be printed. And the ink is washed down with its turdighed mixer. Down into the grain, into the slues, into the gutter, which is where journalist like Bernard Levin and the rest of them find it and recycled it to write there lies all over again.
Were is this journalists come from? This nasty little greasy pimply, spotted creeps? Well I use to wonder about this myself until I remember that many, many, many years ago I had a friend who worked in Harolds, the big department-store in London, who worked in the perfumery in Harolds. She was a delightful little thing and she review to me one professional secret of the other girls at Harolds. The girls in the perfumery told me that the girls in the pharmacy, with whom there is a certain rivalry: When the girls in the pharmacy got board they would take packages of condoms off the shell and run needles threw them. And this explains I think where many years ago a lot of this journalists come from. There only takes one trick.
Here for example is one of the South African journalists who wrote to me at the height of my South African tour. Meeting after meeting addressing pack tools in Pretoria as usual 2000 people come to hear me speak. This was this March. And then In Cape Town where once again we had in Goodward city centre. Goodward is a suburb of Cape Town. We had the Goodward city centre. A huge audiences turned out to hear me speak. And the following day I got a long letter from a journalist call Clear Bisikal on The Cape Times, who previously bombarded me with questions by facts about what I thought about president de Klerk and what I thought about the prospects of South African, the ANC and all the rest of it. And this time her letter was quite brief: "Mr Irving, The Cape Times would like to have your response to the following allegations made by a Cape Townian who attended your meeting at Goodward on March the 9th. The source said that the meeting was away neunazis nature, complete with nazi banners and nazi salutes. We would appreciated very much if you could fax back to us your response as soon as you are able." So I turned it over in my mind. Remember you are dealing with a journalist. Bernard Gothem Levin. You are dealing with a journalist, who will twist what ever you say. What do you say: I have no commend. They will print there lies and say Mr Irving said: I had no commend. What do you say: I denied it. They will print there lies and say: Mr Irving said he denied it. They will print there lies what ever you do. So I send this brief letter back to Clear Bisikal: "Dear Clear, March the 10th, Dear Clear, thank you for your fax and I appreciate your enquire. Yes, you do have excellent sources. Neunazi nature, nazi banners and nazi salutes the lot. As I marched in an orchestra struck up the Slaves cur from Verdis opera Aida. Later the orchestra played the first bards of Frans Lizts Slave prelude and it concluded with Lizts over 63 strings quartet. Mean whiles such slice batteries stationed around the Goodward city centre lit up. There Crystal been and enjoining the cathedral of ice 10 000 feed about the side. A thousands hands were once more flung a loft in a holy salute. And a thousands throats road the horse esume. A video is available directed by Lenie Refenstaaf. I hope the above materials suffices for what you have in mind."
That's the way to deal with journalists. So you see I am not the journalists favour person around the world either. But we have to use them. We have to learn to manipulate them. And I develop my own techniques of dealing with the journalists. And twice this year I've come under there scrutiny. Entirely throw no doing with my own.
The first accession with the Eichmann papers that I will talking about shortly. The second accession with the papers of doctor Joseph Goebbels. I show you the Joseph Goebbels papers because they have arouse enormous interest. It came about like this: On March the 6th this year when I was researching in Munich. Once again totally illegally on German soil. But I was researching in the archives in Munich and a very good friend of mine who I have known for 30 years, came up to me and said: "David, I've been working in the Moscow state secret archives and I found the glass-plates on which are microfilmed the entire diaries of doctor Joseph Goebbels." And this of course is spectacular. Because any historian worth his soul, will tell you that the Joseph Goebbels diaries is a complete except for everything that matters. And all the most important material, I thought it was delivered, but it turned out to be by chance. All the most important material has not been published so far. The night with broken glass, the Rome purdish, the night with the long knifes, the outbreak of the war, Pearl Harbor, you name it. It wasn't on the published volumes that came out in the 1950th or in the 1970th or in the 1980th. Published by this sources only institute in fact. They haven't got everything that mattered. And we thought, it was because they were holing on, that the good staff, to sell it for really top dollar later on. But it wasn't. It was just a typical communism, Marxists, Leninists chaos. They didn't knew themselves what they had. It was house in boxes. Here, my colour photographs of the original boxes. Agfa glass-plates. Here is one of the boxes here. An Agfa glass-plate with the handwriting on it of doctor Richard Otto, who is Goebbels' own secretary. Which my source immediately recognise. Because if you dealt with this matter at all, you knew that there was the legend that toward the end of the war, Goebbels fearing that his fragile diaries might get burnt to a fusel. They might get bombard encase in some sophist British air-raid. He took the precaution of having them microfilmed on this glass-plates. A totally new system. And we been looking effectively for this glass-plates ever since. You can't look for them. You don't knew where to look. But if you stumble across them, you knew what they are. You knew that they exist, rather like the diaries of Edward Canaries. And here suddenly this source of mine. You knew that I does not mention any names. It's because I don't wont to identify him or her. Because I don't wont to get him into any trouble. But here are the boxes. And my source stumbled across them in the Moscow archives and recognise them for what they where. The sources own institute in Munich. The Institute of History in Munich. My deadliest enemies now. They refused to finance a further expedition to go back and purchase this 1600 glass-plates. There in fact 92 boxes of this glass-plates. Just loosely bonded up with strings. The glass-plates are not in a very good condition. They got fragments of glass splinded between them. They are terrible scratchily entirely legible.
And my source suggested that I should raised the money to go to Moscow to get them. The last time I was in Moscow 15 years ago, when conditions were very different. I contacted my American publisher Even Box McMillan. And for 10 days they acted very enthusiastic. Suddenly the bubble puppet. The word came down from the affable levels of McMillan's that they were not going to finance my trip to Moscow to get this glass-plates. I said we need about 20 000 dollars to buy them. I wouldn't have buy the glass-plates from the archivist. They need money in Moscow. They need money just to keep the archives running. They were going to sell up the family silver, seart of speak. Bit by bit. And I thought 20 000 dollars is a very reasonably price. So I approach my British publisher. And in with two hours I got the same answer. Probably connected with the fact that my British publisher McMillan the manager directories name is now Phyllis Robenstein. Well I came my lowers name Phyllis Robenstein. And I have nothing against them. But once again, they have things against me. And she may have decided that she wasn't going to do anything to provide David Irving with this scoop. So I approached The Sunday Times. The Sunday Times is Britain's biggest most serious and most respected newspaper. I had nearly said presides.
But watch that word presides, ladies and gentlemen. Because it doesn't mean what you think. It is rather like homely. I once called the wife of the director of the national archives in Washington homely. In England homely means pleasant, congenially, good nature, humorous. All the things that homely not mean in the American language. So watch that word presides. Presides, if you look in the big dictionaries means fraudulent, deceptive. It comes from prestidigitation, condignering, deceptive. Only a secondary entirely means the word presides, means bedazzling. And in that particular way, it comes to me in some exceptionally good.
Anyway, the presides Sunday Times decided that: Yes, they will go into business with me. And they would finance an isolation expedition. An expedition to Moscow by me to have a look on this glass-plates. And I came back a week later haven't any looked at them. But I have them copied. Hundreds of pages of the glass-plates. Everything that matter except from a few gaps. And I did a deal with The Sunday Times. And The Sunday Times of course made an element of the deal, that I shouldn't spread a word to anyone that we were doing this. Because as the editor of The Sunday Times Andrew Neil said: "Irving, my strafe were not happy with that we're doing a deal with you." I said: "You got no choose, have you? Because it is my project." When you read the newspapers afterwards you got the expression that it was The Sunday Times project. And they picked me, because I was the only guy who could read Goebbels handwriting. Well they were all right by In patter of course later on when the big fight started. Because the fight in Britain got horrendous and hairy.
If you wonted to upset the Jewish population of Britain. What will you do? Well the first thing I would do is: I would go out to all the Jewish ghettos of London, like Stanford Hill or Goldes Gream, and would put 16 foot long posters up, in the nazi colours. With 15 foot vestiges. With a photograph of doctor Goebbels and the slogan run right across in gothic script: "The world will tremble when we have left". Which is precisely what The Sunday Times did. To advertising David Irving seriously. The Jewish community frantically organised 10 mans strong gangs to go out and deface and desecrate this posters. But as fast they desecrated, The Sunday Times went round for renewing them. And this went on for a week, until finally the community concerned, our tradition enemies, brought there traditional pressures to bear on The Sunday Times and a man which Mark Webber mentions. They admitted it themselves, not only the English community but also the American community.
Because The Sunday Times has particularly valuables. Because much of their finance comes from the American emergent banking system. And much of the advertising in Britain is depending on this particularly community. And the community left Andrew Neil, the editor no doubt at all of their displeasure.
He told me, at that the high of this crisis, that he has never been through such a nightmare in his life. And in consequence of that, they had to turn the entire campaign round against me, there own centripetal, trying to pretend that there was there material they were blushed to let me read. Because I was the only person who could read the handwriting.
Here, let me just show you what the glass-plates produce. The micro fit, the doctor Goebbels diaries were recorded on glass-plates. And that's a contact print on one of the glass-plates. So you see it is 50 pages of the diaries in handwriting. Very very small. The first week that I was there, I had no means of reading them. There was no microfilm-reader in Moscow. No micro fit reader. But by chance, I've taken a tiny little magnifying glass, with 12 times magnification, as big as my finger-nail. And with that I could read for the first week this glass-plates. Some of them we borrowed with the permission of the archivist. And we have them blown up to produce this photographs. You could see later on, those of you who can Germans, that the handwriting is truly eligible. You have to, it has taking me 2 years to read Goebbels' handwriting. I can read it now.
Our rivals scoffed, when The Sunday Times said Irving is one of the 3 people in the world who could read Goebbels' handwriting, our rivals scoffed and said: "This is alterable lone. Anybody who, any German of that generation can read his handwriting." So I send pages of this to the people who said it. The rival journalist and said: "Well, I pay you a 1000 pounds if with in 2 weeks you can supply me with a transcript of 1 page with fewer than 50 percents errors." 50 percent errors. And not one of them took me up. Not one. The rival for The Sunday Times, The Daily Male, then thought there scrubbed us by paying 20 000 pounds to peerages a few pages of the diary from The Munich Institute of History. Who were determent to spit me. They did a deal with The Munich Institute of History. And they paid 20 000 pounds for a few pages of the handwriting. Hurry then off back to London to get to work on them. And find to there horror they couldn't read the pages they paid 20 000 pounds for. I had some happy moments during July as you can believe. Mark mentions the publicity that surrounded this. And this is true. I collected in those 2 weeks alone, 2000 press-clippings from around the world, 2000.
And it was exactly the same back in January when the Eichmann-papers scandal broke. You see, when I was in Argentina, in October, delivering lectures in English and Spanish to about 10 audiences down there, is one of this strokes of luck that happened. When you are an international known historian or when you a notorious, people come up to you and say: Are you interested in this? Somebody wrote to me a few weeks ago saying: "I got Heinrich Himmler's 1939-diary. Would you like to have a look at it?" An American, an autograph-collector. This kind of thing happens. If you go to London at present. You go to London and look around the West End of London or Mayfair where I live, you find every parking-meter, every lamppost, every traffic standard, every traffic-light has got sticks on it saying: "Smash Irving", "Stop Irving", "Restock and burn Irving's speaks" or "Irving's speaks and restock". It's the CAFE, some campaign, something fascists, something. Which in fact The Daily Express tells me is a front for Mossad. They've gone round putting up this sticks all over the West End of London. Advertising mass meetings outside my home and very kindly giving my address. I'm grateful because I got letter from Greek publisher saying: "Mr Irving, I have been trying for a year to astatine your address from your publisher. So I can make an offer for the rights in your Adolf Hitler-biography. And your publisher, I am willing to, let us have your address. As I was in London shopping a few days ago I happened to noticed a sticker on which your phone and address. So I happy to use the address now, to make an offer for your book." This is what happens.
Well, when I was in Argentina in October, a man came up to me at the end of the meeting, who have writing to me beggarly a couple of years before, mentioning papers that he thought I ought to see. And the next day he came back. And he gave me 2 thick brown-paper pastels. Which turned out to contain the writings of Adolf Eichmann, when he was in Custedy, not in Custedy. When he was hiding in Argentina in the 1950th. Now Adolf Eichmann of course is now the man with whom I'm suppose to public most associate, what they called the Holocaust.
I hate that word. That's a word I don't like using. People say to me: Mr Irving, do you believe in the Holocaust? Do you deny the Holocaust? And I say: I don't use that word. Words with a capital letter I'm mistrustful of. They look like a trademark, don't they? We don't trust them. No matter how much advertising they put into tile and oil, you always see a little bit of psychologist of this stuck some where cant. And so it is with that word Holocaust. You get the impression that it's neatly package, highly professionally promoted operation. And I don't trust it.
Now Eichmann was an SS überstrombanführer, who was born on the 19th of March 1906. He was specialised in the Jewish questions. And advei early age in fact he learned Hebrew. Which gave him something of an edge over this people that he regarded both as friends and foes. He looked upon the Jews with that same mixture of admiration and fears, that most of the non-Jewish populations of the world implies. But he more than any others. He went to an extent of the problem that none of us in this room has gone to. He went to the extend of learning Hebrew. And he went to Palestine in 1937, after he was very high ranking officer in the SS. And he actually, we have his own record of this, he actually ended a negotiation with leading Zionists, underground fighters in Palestine. Some of whom went on after the war to became members of Ben Gurion cabinet. Non of this was admitted by them at the time. But of course the records of theirs in the files of the SS in the archives in Washington.
He was head of the office 4 roman 4, B4 of the Gestapo. This was the branch, the desk of the Gestapo which was a signed to deal with Jewish questions. B3, B2, B1, this were branches to deal with the Catholics, the Protestants and freemasons. B4, subjects B4 under Heinrich Müller, the head of the Gestapo, was the desk that handle exclusively the Jewish questions. And Eichmann headed this desk. So he came under Müller. Müller again came under Reinhard Heydrich, Heydrich came under Himmler, and Himmler came under Hitler. Although much further under Hitler then you will imagine from subsequent historical propaganda. Himmler and Hitler, there relations were not place. They sell them for each other. Himmler with a little bit of loose scanning. He operated very much at short arm lend from Hitler. He took his own decisions. He acted as he wonted. Hitler couldn't be bothered with much that Himmler was up to. I think there were a certain luck of affinity between the two. And this became a crisesantly evident when it went on. And I suspect from Eichmann's own writings that Eichmann gain this expression also.
Eichmann denied to the foreign governments from which the Jews would be collected. He denied that the Jews would been killed. But from his papers we can suspect the he knew or suspected different. Eichmann's papers, staff that I got. The 600 pages who was handled to me in Argentina, they were all tight script, on very very flimsy paper on what you Americans call onion skin-paper. Legalese sides. Probably many many carbine copies have been made.
We know have they originated. They actually donated in collaboration with a Flemish journalist, who was also hiding in Argentina called Willhelm Sussens von Elterlow. Willhelm Sussens was a rather dubious character. I think he his is still alive down in Argentina now. But he is gone into hiding again. Largely because he is fearfully for his life. And probably with reason because there is good reasons to suspect that he turned over the walk of this papers, which he addressed up to the purpose to Times magazine, to Life magazine in 1959 and in 1960. And there when Life magazine published them, this were the direct course of Eichmann's capture and kidnapping by the Israelis in the following year. So Sussens is a very dubious character.
Sussens as we know from an eyewitness, in fact from a German who wrote to me a very long letter after the scandal brook. He was present during a lot of these sessions between Eichmann and Sussens. Sussens persuaded Eichmann to talk at very great lengths on tape-recordings. There were 67 tape-recordings all together. Another version talks of 72 tapes. In those days, in the 1950th, there was a very primitive tape-recorder of course. Real to real tape. The tapes once used would then be extinguished and reused. So unfortunately, very few of the original tapes survived. There's certain not all 67 tapes or 72 tapes survived. They had present in the custody of Dite Eichmann. The son of Eichmann who lives down in nearly Consins. In fact as a result of the scandal that arose over my discovery of this Eichmann-papers. I tried to protect Dite Eichmann from the embarrassing by the newspapers. I said to the journalists that I wasn't going to identify were they could find him. Because I didn't feel that is was right for his family to be manifested by the journalists and newspapermen. But eventually, I did put one journalist in contact with him. A journalist of the Swiss newspaper Die Welt Woche. And with in a space of a few days Die Welt Woche, which is a very well found Swiss weekly newspaper, did a deal with Dite Eichmann were they purges all this surveying tapes-recordings and all the surveying papers. And Die Welt Woche now has all the rights. Because the next thing I had was a letter from Die Welt Woche's layer, warning me to not make use of any of the materials that I had. Which is fear enough. Because I wasn't intended to make any use of it, except as a source materials for my books anyway.
Sussens had the 67 tape-conversations with Eichmann in the 1950th. We can be pretty specific about when the conversations take place. Because occasionally Eichmann refers in the transcripts which appear to be complete, the verboten transcripts, which makes them very useful. And as such they differ greatly from the books that were published by Eichmann in 1985, "Ich Adolf Eichmann", the German version or "I Adolfo Eichmann", which is the Spanish languages version. Because those books contain no transcript conversations. They contain just mark, edited text of what Sussens himself put together, von Sussens. The transcript of the conversations is very interest because you see that Eichmann got very irritable with Sussens. And he constantly interrupt him and said: "I can't see what you are getting at. And you are very dike. And why do you keep on asking me about who was giving the orders? How was I suppose to know?" And So this kind of thing. So it's the backchat which is interesting in the dialogues.
I have now turn over all this papers, in fact, at the beginning of this year to German archives. In fact before I even read them I turned them over. Because they are obviously a historical source of very substantial importance for anybody who investigate in the Holocaust. Ever since 1965 I think, I've been periodically turned over my private papers and my research papers to the German federal archives. Largely because this is huge volume of papers. And I wont to get rid of it. And I turned it over to the archives, immediately said that other historians can use it. After a while I started giving it to the Institute in Munich, were they have a collection call "die Sammlung Irving". But since 3 years ago professor of the Institute of History in Munich, professor Helmud Albach, decided to write a letter behind my back on institute headed not paper to the German public prosecutor, denouncing me. I decided no longer to donate my papers to that institute or to depose it to any archives. And I said that until they apologise on what track in that liberys-letter, they could say goodbye to receive any of the rest of my collections. So all my subsequent papers haven't got to the German federal archives.
When I came back from Argentina, I hadn't to been perfectly honest had time even to open this brown packages. It wasn't until Christmas came which when your living in London is an endlessly boring and tedious and desolate festival, that I decided to in live in my festival by reading Adolf Eichmann's papers. And I began on Christmas evening and I carried out throe Christmas day and I decided very rapidly you couldn't read this papers because they were to flimsy. You might damaged them. So I decided to copy them. You could only copy them page by page by page, because they were to flimsy for the automatic feed. So I worked all away throe Christmas just coping this pages. But I ends up with a much better set, when I eventually donated to the archives.
And that's when I began reading them, around about January the 2nd or 3rd. Every evening I would read 30 or 40 pages of this transcripts, at the end of the rest of my days work. An entirely by chance about January the 15th, a Friday, The Sunday Observer, one of the other Sunday serious newspaper in Britain, great rivals to The Sunday Times, telephoned me to ask me for a quotation about a meeting coming up in the following week in London. On January the 20th there were going to be a big Jewish Holocaust meeting at the Vienna-library in London. And the Vienna-library they issued a statement, a press release dealing with certain figures. And a statement by Yehuda Bauer whose gone take place from the Yed Bashim Institute, whose gone take part in that meeting. And I hadn't any comments. It was just an routine journalist call. I do make this point, because I am not publisher seeker. And I don't go out my way to seek publicity. Publicity is innocence. And believe me, I had long ago ceased to believe the journalists are going to do me any favours at all. They are not. But they telephone me and I said: "Well, I can't tell you my own impression about these figures. But what I will tell you it is that Adolf Eichmann himself said that Rudolf Höss' figures were grossly inflected. And Eichmann consider that Höss was an ingrates liar." "How do you know this?" said this The Observer's journalist. And I said: "Well nobody knows this, but I got hold for the last 2 months of all Adolf Eichmann's private papers. They were donated to me by a mutual friend in Argentina. He didn't know what to do with them and he thought they were safest in my hands. And I donated them to the German archives. And I am busy resurgent through them now. By this time I had read 3 quarters of them I think." And the journalist of course flept. He said: "Do you mean to say you have Adolf Eichmann's diaries?" And I said: "Not his diaries, just his memories, and everything he dictated and his conversations, and his all pure gold." And the journalist said: "How you treat any conclusion?" And I said: "Well there is one sentence which has giving me course for thought." I mention that later on in this talk. And the journalist then wrote an article which appear the following day in The Observer with the headline: "David Irving recants." Okay, well that's the kind of harmless thing that newspapers do.
And the following morning is wrapping form of fish and chips. Not in this case. Because the following morning it was wrapping fish and chips, all away around the world. As the globe spun, as the sun ruse in the east and sunk in the west, so my fax-machine sheared out press-clippings from all my agents and sources and friends in New Zealand, in Australia, in South Africa, in Europe, then on the east coast in United States, then across Canada, then finely to the west coast, then down in Hawaii, in China, in Hongkong. Right away around the world, that one Observer article had instantaneously been spread: "David Irving recants", as Mark Webber stated. It was interesting to see that my original statement, what ever I supposed to have recanted had not gone around the world with a speed of light. Had not been splashed. And yet my recanting was officially news worldly for the canting quotation marks. The official news worldly do going around the world and been giving this tremendously publicity splash.
To late the Jewish community realised that they had scored a menthe own gold because the phone than began ringing from television stations around the world and radio stations wanting live interviews, telephones interviews, would I go to the studio with a satellite interview with Sidney? And of course every time I did. I said: "Eichmann said this, Eichmann saw the following, Eichmann witnessed mass shooting in Russia but Eichmann's papers a quite claim, there is no mentions at all of gas chambers." So I was able to get the messages across.
Under this our traditional enemies went berserk. In a very impressive example of damage control. They then called out the fire brigades with the following message: "What David Irving has published is not new. David Irving has nothing that the excepted academic reliable dissent serious professional historian haven't always known all along. The Eichmann papers are not new. We have always known about this papers. There is nothing in David Irving's find which marriage seriously consideration." Do which I said: "How do you know? The papers that I have donated to federal archives in Germany are subject to an embargo by me. Which prevent anybody from seeing them. And nobody has seen them except me and the archives in Germany. So how do you know what I have is what you lotit known all along?" An interesting point. Oh well it's quit obvious, they said. And they went in to a kind of damage control on the damage control. But it was to late because this was a very obvious point. I had the papers and they hadn't. Then the German Institute of History in Munich, they also announced that what I had was nothing new. That it was well known that it had been published and didn't David Irving realise that Eichmann's book had been published in 1985? And I said: Not only did I known that Eichmann's book is published in 1985, I was the person who engineer the publication, after no publisher on the world wouldn't touch Eichmann's book. I personally organise contacts with Eichmann's son, who had those manuscripts and Planeto, the publisher in Argentina. And between Eichmann's son and Druffel Verlag, the publisher in Germany. So that they at least get some kind of earring. So of course I knew about it. But what I had was totally different. I had the transcripts of the conversations which had never been published. So the Jewish community in fact there line at defence was: What I had was not as serious. And please no further publicity.
And this was what made me begin to wonder. What was it that they didn't wont published? Why was it, I then asked myself, when the Eichmann's memories came out in 1985. First of all nobody was willing to publish them except this publishers like Druffel Verlag in Germany and Planeto in Argentina. But no main stream publisher in Europe or in United States. Here after all, the memories of the biggest mass murderer of all time apparently. And yet for some reason there been swept under the carpet. And why was it that the traditional enemies had gone into this frantic damage control excise, when of all people David Irving got hold of the original transcripts. And who put them into archives. Martin Gilbert, my deadly rival and enemy, the Churchill biography in Britain, Martin Gilbert said: "Is it not just typical. First of all he spend all his life saying it doesn't happened and he get publicity. And then he now comes out and said it did happened so he got all publicity over again." But I didn't say the first and I didn't say the second.
But what I do say now is: Can we analyse this papers. This transcripts, which disorganise and chaotic and non index and in rather entail mess. Can we analyse it in some way and ask ourselves, why it is that they were swept under the carpet in 1985. And why people was so anxious that the press should pay no attention to the papers that have been giving to me in Argentina in 1991? Well, here is some of the contains.
First of all, Adolf Eichmann is quit clam throe out this papers that the word, "endlösung", finally solution, meant only one thing to him. And that was Madagascar. What ever he had in the 1930th, the late 1930th and the early 1940th, addressed his mind to the final solution of the Jewish problem, it was quite clam to him that it was only this plan to sweep all the Jews of Europe aboard boots and transport them locked stock in barrow down to Madagascar, where they be on an island where they couldn't bother any of the neighbours and non of the neighbours could bother them. And I always said and I say it here again. You now are making some enemies, but I think that would be an ideal solution, the Madagascar solution.
A second interesting thing that images from Eichmann's own papers, that he is showing over in his mind the fight for the epediteve. He keeps on coming back again and again in his manuscripts and in his conversations to the: Who is behind it? And what was behind it? What was behind the Holocaust? We can used that word loosely here now. And he keeps coming back to the appalling thought: Did they manage to use us? Did they use us? Did the Zionist use us nazis, in order to further there own ends? Was the Holocaust something that they themselves inflicted on there own body, in order to bring about the Zionist course in the long run? This was Eichmann's theory. At the end of his life effectively. Because a year or two later he was kidnapped. And a year after that he was at the end in a rope in Israel. Did they manage to use us? And he keeps on coming back to it. And every time he comes back to it becomes more and more plausible to him. And perhaps this is a reasons why the Eichmann's papers was not supposed to see the light of days.
Thirdly, when he's justifying the cruelty of what he himself have seen, and I going to some of the details in a minute of what he himself saw, he says: But compere to what they were doing to us at that time, this was nothing. Compere to what they were planing to do with us, this was nothing. He said: "I remember in Berlin in an air-raid, afterwards going to the streets of Berlin and I going passed a house that have collapsed. And hearing the screams of a couple who have been trapped there. An elderly couple been trapped by falling debris. And the woman pleading to be but out of her misery by anybody with a gun." He said: "When you here a screams like that, you never forget them for the rest of your life." He describe that two or three times in his memories. Now, it's not justification. One crime doesn't justify another crime. This is clam. But this is in the memories. And he also says: "Besides, we had by this time already learned of the Jews plans for Germany. The book by Theodore Kaufmann, 'Germany must purge'." He mentions it explesidly. It is an interesting thing because in the Goebbels diaries in August 1941, which has also not been published, Goebbels also mention the Theodore Kaufmann's book, "Germany must purge". It's a book which does exist. If you go to the libraries and you find the book. Published in the United States by an American Jew. A crazy plan for liquidating millions of Germans after the war. Published in August 1941. Refer to by Goebbels in 1941. A few weeks before Goebbels himself authorises the, introduces the plan for Jews to wear yellow star. You can see a logical sequence of evens. And Eichmann himself refers to this book, as being one reasons why in his own mind, he could justify to himself the crimes that he was seeing committed. And he then also mentions the Morgen Tower plan. But of course, here you got to be careful. Because the Morgen Tower plan was anysult by Churchill and Roosevelt, until middle September 1944. Only a few weeks before Himmler ordered Auschwitz closed down. So that's an monarchism.
Eichmann's mind is rather confused and muddled, by the time he is writing this in midnight in -50th. We knew it is midnight in -50th because he refers sometimes to things like: "Why was it a crime for us to invade Poland when it isn't a crime for them to do what they are doing now in Suez." So it must have been around 1956 that he is dictating this passages. And round about 1958, he then gets hold of the Rudolf Höss' memories. The so called memories of Rudolf Höss. There were published by The Institute of History in Munich in 1958. Rudolf Höss wrote this memories while he was in Krakow in Polish captivity. They've allays been a problem.
Let's be frankly about that. They've been a problem to revisionists, the Rudolf Höss' memories. Eichmann's comments on the Rudolf Höss' memories are a naeliting. At the stages were Rudolf Höss is saying that: 2 and a half million Jews had been liquidated in the Auschwitz. The camp on which he was commandant. Adolf Eichmann's comments: "Were does Höss believe that he go this 2 and a half millions Jews from? Not from me. Because to liquidated 2 and a half millions decrepit, elderly, unworkable Jews, I must have to feed to him 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 millions Jews in that space of time. And from the transport point of view alone, this would have been totally impossible." You see the memories of Eichmann are very useful in this aspect. He was the transport specialist, whose job it was to round up the Jews in Hungary and Slovakia and ship them off to Germany for slave labour and for dissipation to other labour camps. And he knew that shipping off millions of Jews to Germany wasn't something you do with a snap of your fingers. You had to have meetings and conferences with railway-officers and the road-officers and with the guards and the electricity and everybody else who was going to be involved in all this. You have to provide the food for the transports. They were going to be on the rails for 4 or 5 or 6 days. All this had to be prepared in plan with typical German bureaucracy and method. And this took meetings and conferences. And Eichmann said: "If you are going to ship 5 or 6 millions Jews across Europe at that time to Auschwitz, let me tell you how many trains that would have taken." And he worked out how many trains it would have taken. Because he knew. And he said: "But wait a minute. You're not only going have trains going that way full of Jews, you are going to have empty trains coming back. And you're going to have a circulation time. A time when they are unloaded at one end, and a time when they are loaded at the other end. You are going to need so many millions of wagons of rolling-stock." He worked out exactly how much rolling-stock you would been needed in his memories.
And he said: "This alone proof that Rudolf Höss is talking through his hat. This figures are totally fantastic. And what the hell is Höss up to, writing this kind of garbage?" That is the brief loured summary of what Eichmann writes as he sitting, as he believes, safety in the underground in Argentina, reading this memories of Rudolf Höss, published in 1958. 2 years later of course Eichmann is kidnapped. So it's in this 2 year that Eichmann is writing this.
He mentions also in his memories, how he received an indirect approached from Nahum Goldmann. Nahum Goldmann, one of the great Zionist leaders. He was born In Beveria. One of the Zionist leaders, one of the great Zionist or politician in the post war era. He was the person who negotiated with Konrad Adenhover, the billions of Deutsch marks that went to Israel subsequently. Eichmann mentions in his memories, how he receives what purported to be undirected approached from Nahum Goldmann, feeding with him to back up the 6 million figure, to back the 6 million figure. Anything Zionists could do to support the 6 million figure. Because the Zionists needed it. So you're beginning to suspect now why this memories should not be published.
He inspected Auschwitz. He went to Auschwitz several times. He describes that in his memories. He describes being met by Rudolf Höss, the commandant. And he describes several grisly scenes. He describes going paste an open pit where bodies who have being burned. And he says it was an infernal seit. The like that he would never forget. He describes how the commandant Höss tells him that there doing this things on Himmler's orders. And that it is an secret task that had been in post on the SS. He describes many things. But what he does not once mention, during this vivid descriptions of his visit to Auschwitz, is gas chambers. He doesn't mention gas chambers. He does mentions the disposal of body in open pits by fire. And the comments to him by the commandant Rudolf Höss. I find that is a very significant mission.
Because Eichmann, let's face it, when you read this papers, he is not exactly being modest about what he have seen. He describes how in July 1941, if we piece together the exactly month and the dates, he describes how he his is summon to Berlin to visit Reinhard Heydrich. And Heydrich arctic to him the fatal words: "I come from the Reichführer of the SS, Heinrich Himmler. Der führer has giving the order for the physical destruction of the Jews." And that of course in quotation marks in the manuscripts, is what gave me pose for thoughts. I've always said Hitler wasn't involved what ever happened. Hitler gave no orders. There's no proof of it. Here we have Eichmann writing something very specific, indeed. Was is the explanations? Well, if I can address here, and look just at that sentence and say: You've only gone change one or two words and you get a completely different meaning. If it wasn't: "The führer has order the physical destruction of the Jews." You only change the word by a fraction and yet you got a totally different meaning. And you got something which is much more familiar to those who are familiar with Adolf Hitler's public art and to his speeches. "The destruction of Judaism." It's something totally different. You don't do that by gas chambers and the machine guns. Anymore than it destroying Christianity or destroying jusery would be done by the gas chambers and the bullets. It is a different concept. So why should Eichmann have writing this and not that?
Well by 1958, he is well aware that since Höss' memories has been published and Eichmann is mention on 20 or 30 pages of Rudolf Höss' memories, the hogging cry is up. They're out looking for him. He knows that his days maybe numbered. Although I am shore that giving his German dissent bureaucratic mind, he is not doing this consciously. The mind has a wonderful synthetic and analytical function. And the mind has habit of suppressing and distorting and indelithing in a manner which the owner of that mind would which. And I am shore that Adolf Eichmann's mind is already laying awake at night, feverishly looking for extenuating circumstances. And what more extenuating circumstances would that be for an Adolf Eichmann then that, the führer has ordered the physical destruction of the Jews. So his mind may well have adapted the sentence that Reinhard Heydrich actually attic to him. It's in material one way or another, because we must never overlook one fact:
This is a post war document. And there is no overlooking the basic fact, that any historian can now confirm, that nowhere in all the archives of the world, has yet been found one war time document referring to a führer's order to destroy the Jews. Or for that matter, one war time document referring to the gas chambers or gassings. All the documents that refers to führer's orders and gas chambers are post war documents. Statements by people in the dock in Nürnberg, memories written by commandant at Krakow in Poland and the life.
And you can't overlook this basic watershed between war time and post war, when you come to look for documents. If there is no war time document that says, there was a führer order, no war time document talks of gas chambers, then there has to be some explanation for that. So that's why I say I'm think I'm entirely to believe that Adolf Eichmann's mind is synthesising here. He is looking unconsciously for extenuation circumstances, which would get him perhaps off the hook. Something he may need when the time comes. You see, he makes no, he doesn't try to avoid describing what he seen. In Auschwitz he describes the pits, he describes the crematories.
Just the same as Albert Hoffmann. Albert Hoffmann, a man I never had heard of. It turn out to, he was the deportee guiltier. During throw the archives In Suitland Maryland, 4 or 5 years ago I came across the interrogation report of Albert Hoffmann who was the deportee guiltier of Salisia. The gau where Auschwitz is situated. And I thought it's no important man. Because I didn't realise he was in Salisia. But the British interrogating Hoffmann, asked him what ever he has visiting a concentrations camp. And Hoffmann's reply was: "Yes, I visiting 2 concentrations camps in my life. One was in Dachau in 1936 which was organised, clean, dissent and discipline and the prisoners were well feed." And then again he said in 1941 or 1942. I think in fact in both occasions, he said: "I visited Auschwitz concentration camp with my gauliter Brucht and with the Rechführer SS Heinrich Himmler." And he said: "Auschwitz was totally different from Dachau. The description of what I saw there, the scenes, beggar description. Brutality on the worst possible scale. I saw prisoner being biting. I saw cadavers being cremated in the crematorium." And you think well this is it. He is describing it. And you return the page thinking: Now you got it. But then Hoffmann says: "But what allied propaganda is now claiming, that is totally untruth." So again rather like Eichmann, you got somebody who is prepare to describe, to degree what he actually have seen. Which god knows isn't exactly dissent. But he will not go the final 100 yards and say gas chambers too. Neither Eichmann, no Albert Hoffmann eyewitness describe haven't seen the gas chambers. So why does Höss describe the gas chambers?
I come back to Rudolf Höss and his papers in a minute and other people like him. What else is there in Eichmann's papers? Well, he describes after Heydrich called him to Berlin and after this sentence about the führer has giving the order, Heydrich said: Himmler has ordered Globocnik, who is the police-chief in Loblin, to carry out this task. And he said that: Himmler actually ordered that the Russian anti-tank defences are to be used for disposing the bodies. And you ought to go out and check what Globocnik is doing. This was Heydrich's order to Eichmann. Which he describes. Eichmann then went out to the eastern front. And rationally analysing Eichmann says: "From this I assume that the conversation with Heydrich must have been sometime in the late summer. Because that would have to be after the double battle of Minsk and Berlistock. Because that's were the anti-tanks didges concerned where." He said: "I went out to Minsk and I saw myself the mass shootings going on."
Now you probably know this. But I am a revisionist to degree but I am not a revisionist to the accent that I say there were no murderers of Jews. I think we have to accept that there were mildly type massacres where SS officers did machine gun hundreds if not thousands of Jews into pits on the eastern front. At Riga, at Minsk and at other locations. This kind of thing did happened. And Eichmann himself, for I wasn't surprise find it in his papers, actually witness this. He went to see one in Minsk. And been a proper SS officer, he went right to the front. And he went to make shore that everything been carried out. And he got so close in fact that he saw with his own eyes how the victims who been made to go into the pits and stand in the pits and waiting to be shot. He all had this descriptions of it. And I have seen some terrible descriptions from sources that I find, incredible. And he says that one woman was holding a little child in her arms. Petrified. And the woman is instinctively held the child out to him. And he, he said right in his memories, he said: "I'm a father too. I was a parent too. And I instinctively steeped forward as though to take the child, before I realised what I was doing. But at that very moment the salve was shot, rang out, both were killed only a few feet away from me. The child's brain was stuttered over my leather great coat. And my driver had to clean the mess off."
It's a kind of detail that, I don't know why he wrote it in his memories. It's in the conversations. It's an ugly peace of circumstantial evidence what a right a course, very semelitude, edlens, credibility and all intlusity to do this kind of descriptions. It didn't surprise me. He also describes, and I have to say this being an honest historian, going to another location a few weeks later. And being driven around in a bus. And then been told by the bus driver to look throe a pip hole into back of the bus, were he saw a number of prisoners being gazed by the exhaust fuels. So I accept that this kind of experiment was made on a very limited scale. But that it was rapidly a banded as being a totally official way of killing people. But what I don't accept, is that the gas chambers excited. And this is well known. I have seen no evident at all that the gas chambers excited. I will not going to the reasons here why I don't believe in the gas chambers. I will remain loyally fatherly with the Eichmann papers.
In the papers we see Eichmann loyally standing up to his superior Himmler and Heydrich. He's constantly wondering were the order came from. If there was an order. At one occasion he goes so far, a rather paranoid way to say: "If there was such an order, then it could only had come from outside Germany. And why?" Which is bringing us back of that other track of were we ducked by the Zionists in some way. Eichmann constantly robersis the memories of Rudolf Höss as I mention. Which this again, this is another reason not to publish the Eichmann's memories and not to groan them any credence. Because the Höss' memories are a keystone. A basic foundation of the Holocaust legend. He describes the refusal of the government of Slovakia and other countries where he operated to intercede on the half of the Jewish people. They were glad to get shot of them. And that again, is something that people wouldn't wanted to be published. He also describes an case in Theresienstadt. He describes how one train of Jews who have been shipped off to Auschwitz, one of the girls on the train protested loudly and persiferly that she wasn't Jewish. And giving here the benefit of the daubt she was unloaded at one station and taken to Theresienstadt instead. Which was a prominent lager for the Jews in Czechoslovakia. And the Jewish leader of the Theresienstadt concentration camp protested noisily about having a non-Jew foisted on them. And this again is a rather ugly picture of the way that man behaves unto man. It is a luck of neighbourliness.
But worst of all in this Eichmann's papers, and I suppose it taking up over 50 percent of the volume of the Eichmann papers, is the description by Adolf Eichmann of his negotiations with the Zionists. After he arrived in Hungary in March 1944, after the German invasion of Hungary, Eichmann was sent there to around up the Jews and shipped them off. And 2 Zionists leaders came forward. Juel Brand and Reso Castner. And they offered a dial with him. A trade with him. To rescue the Jews of Hungary and in fact of Slovakia. And to do a dial with him by: Okay, they could have the Jewish mob. The Germans could keep the Jewish mob. And in fact the Jewish community in Hungary would be glad help them round them up. If in return Eichmann would guarantee to spare 20 000 of the fittest, the best, the Jewish elite, the toughest once, who were needed in the new Zionist state of Israel. And Eichmann describes this conversations, his conferences in great details. He has almost total recall. He describes this confronts with Brand and Castner, in a manner which reveals all the coning and the cynicism of the Zionist leaders at that time, at that part of the war 1944. In a manner which I think the Jewish community today would find deeply destressing. This I think, is why the Eichmann's memories had to be suppressed. Because of the details. The Juel Brand was subsequently assassinated in Israel a year later.
But there's no doubt about what happened. Because working in the British archives now I come across the British records, relating to the British end of this negotiations. Eventually it became the famous Jews for tracks dial, if you remember, where Brand were send out to negotiate with the British and Turkey and Palestine and Egypt. And the dial been that in return for thousands of Jews, the world community was to provide the Germans with trucks and motor-equipment for fighting on the Russian front. Not on the western front of course. You have to be on the trucks used on the Russian front. And in return for that, then the SS guarantee to release a number of Jews. Eichmann was a partner, handing this dial in Hungary. And Brand and Castner were handling the dial for the Zionists. It's a fascinating story. Perhaps one day I write a book about it. Because now I got, in the British archives, all the records relating to the British end of this deals, including all the undicepted letters. Who undicepted by British post centre ship, between Brand and Castner and the Jewish agency of Zionist leaders in Palestine. A fascinating, but deeply ugly story. And people, well, it certain wouldn't bring me any friends if I do.
In the introduction Eichmann writes that he is not a murderer. That he is innocent. That he does regard himself rather roughly as been an a complicit to a murderer. That he helped round up the Jews who were there and shipped off. To effete that he could only some ice. We have to accept of course that, what he writing in his memories by the midnight in -50th, he is no longer just a pure product to his recollections and his memory. But also to a certain acted in symbiosis of what he has read in other people's memories. In the memories of people like Rudolf Höss and Gerald Reitlinger. Which he also had read. So Eichmann, his memories are an important element of the reputation of the Holocaust story.
But purely by chance, I save this up to the end and again because I am notorious, and again because my name is on stickers around London now, "Smash Irving", "Irving's speaks and restock burn". Another man came and visited me in London a few weeks ago. And he unwrapped an emboli. And inside the emboli was a book. And I recognise the book. Because it was a well-none book which we all are consulted with. It is actually a copy of memories of Rudolf Höss. The commandant of Auschwitz. Published by The Institute of History in Munich. And he said: Yes well, this is a well none book and he said: "I bought this book in a German flea market only a few months ago. And I wont to ask you how much it is worth." I said: "How much did you paid for it?" He said: "No, no, it got handwriting all over it." And here is some pages of it. You can see the handwriting. You probably going to suspect now who's handwriting it is. You see it got handwriting notes. Marginal notes all over it. Here. One notes: "That is a lying destroying of the facts." The handwriting is Adolf Eichmann. This book is Adolf Eichmann's own copy of the Rudolf Höss' memories. And this man came and offered it to me. He show it to me. I don't now how much money he wanted for it. But I am not a rich man so I couldn't make an offer. I know who it is. I got his address, one day I go back for it and make an offer for it. Every where through here he is writing his own comments. When Rudolf Höss says: "I had a meeting under four eyes alone with Adolf Eichmann and we discussed the program. We discussed the Eichmann program for the ships." Eichmann crosses his heart: "A shameless lie. I was never alone with Höss." So those of us who always doubted the integrity of the Höss' memories, we wonder why Höss should have writing this things. Here in Eichmann's own handwriting we got yet one more piece of proof, that the Höss' memories are totally untrustworthy as a source.
I've writing a reason letter to Die Seit in Germany a week ago in fact which is devoted 2 hole pages to dialling with first of all the Auschwitz controversy and another article a week later till the Fred Leuchter report. And I wrote in that readers letter: "A swine is the historian who's release only on the Höss' memories." Now, we can't relay on the Höss' memories.
Because bit by bit you see, the truth does come out. You can ban historians. You can have them arrested. You can find them 10 000 dollars. You can make life hell for them. But one thing is quite clam. You can't declare the truth to be a prohibited person. The truth gets in. Thank you very much.