Institute for Historical Review
- Upon resuming on Thursday, December 10, 1998 at 10:03 a.m.
RESUMED: MARK WEBER
MR. ROSEN: Mr. Chairman and Member Devins, I want to apologize for sort of rambling yesterday. I think I was just getting tired, and I am glad you stopped as early as you did. I will try to be a little more succinct today.
One of the matters that I wanted to raise was this publication. Rather than read it into the record, since it has been raised, I was wondering if we could just mark it as an exhibit on this voir dire type proceeding. I am not going to ask the witness any more about it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR. CHRISTIE: Did I hear that right? He is not going to ask the witness anything about it?
MR. ROSEN: Any more about it.
MR. CHRISTIE: I didn't understand that this required filing of the whole document.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It was referred to in evidence. Let me just review what was done with it.
You read from portions of it.
MR. ROSEN: I did.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I have a general concern about the scope of the record here.
MR. ROSEN: Also Mr. Fromm in his cross-examination, so to speak, of this witness referred to every single article in the Index and didn't refer to the articles. I also went over the Editorial Advisory Committee, and you have the list.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are there certain things that you anticipate referring to in argument?
MR. ROSEN: Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will mark if then.
THE REGISTRAR: The Journal of Historical Review will become SW-8.
EXHIBIT NO. SW-8: The Journal of Historical Review, Volume 16, Number 3, May/June 1997
MR. ROSEN: The only other area I wanted to deal with is as a result of Mr. Fromm's questioning.
Q. Sir, you have obviously been in Toronto since the weekend.
A. I think I arrived here on Monday. No, I arrived here on Saturday, excuse me.
Q. And you have met, obviously in preparation for your evidence, with counsel for the Respondent, Mr. Christie. Is that right?
A. I have met with Mr. Christie.
Q. And with Mr. Zündel?
Q. And with Mr. Fromm?
A. I haven't met with Mr. Fromm.
Q. At all?
A. Only in the court room here.
Q. Just in the court room.
A. Just to say hello.
Q. In preparation for Mr. Fromm's examination, I take it that you spoke with him about the production of one of these Journals.
A. No, I did not.
Q. Whom did you speak to about it?
A. I didn't speak with anyone about it.
Q. The reason I ask is that Mr. Fromm, when he was asking you questions, had the document in his hand and you seemed to be well versed in anticipation of his questions about the document and what he was going to ask you about it and what was in it. I take it that you spoke to Mr. Christie or Mr. Zündel or Mr. Fromm about that.
A. What is your question, please?
Q. You spoke to any or all of them about what you were going to be asked by Mr. Fromm. Is that right?
A. No, that is not right.
Q. Tell me what happened.
A. What happened was what you saw happen.
Q. In anticipation of re-examination, I take it that you have met with Mr. Christie as well to talk about your re-examination?
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. Where have you been staying, sir?
A. I have been staying at the Zündel house, Mr. Zündel's residence.
MR. ROSEN: Thank you. Those are my questions.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I have just a couple of questions, Mr. Weber.
You have contributed an article to the Zündel publication which has been referred to. Do you regularly contribute to it or was that a unique occasion?
THE WITNESS: I am glad you asked the question, and I want to make something very clear.
I never, in the sense, contributed anything to the Zündelsite. Someone, I don't know who, downloaded some material from our IHR site and put it on the Zündelsite. We freely make material available to anyone who wishes to reprint or otherwise circulate it.
I don't recall or even know of any specific permission that was asked to reprint material from our site or from the Journal on the Zündelsite. It is a matter of standing policy that we invite and encourage anyone to reproduce material from our site or from the Journal as long as credit is given. To the best of my knowledge, there was no specific inquiry made by anyone to have the material that comes from me or from our site put on the Zündelsite.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I see. In the past have you ever been asked to contribute anything to the Zündelsite?
THE WITNESS: I have never been asked to contribute anything to the Zündelsite. In fact, I was surprised to learn, I forget when it was, that there even was some material by me on the Zündelsite. I didn't know about it ahead of time.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. How long have you known Mr. Zündel?
THE WITNESS: In person, I guess, since 1988 when I testified at the time of the trial.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You are the Director of the IHR.
THE WITNESS: That's right.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It has a publication, the Journal. What other activities does it have?
THE WITNESS: It publishes books. It holds meetings. It distributes video and audio tapes and distributes books. Most of the books that the IHR sells are not published by the IHR; they are published by other publishers. Many of the books sold by the IHR are published by the IHR as well.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it fair to say that its predominant activity is in relation to historical revisionism and the Holocaust?
THE WITNESS: It is important to make a distinction between historical revisionism and Holocaust revisionism. I think it is fair to say that the majority of the activity of the IHR is not devoted to the Holocaust. The majority of the books that are published or distributed by the IHR and the tapes we distribute do not deal with the Holocaust.
It is a very large part of what the IHR deals with, as was brought out yesterday. In this issue of the Journal that is being submitted here, most of the articles do not deal with the Holocaust issue.
THE CHAIRPERSON: In my examination of the Index and perhaps I am wrong it seems to me that of the roughly 12 articles six were devoted to Holocaust revisionism. Is that fair?
THE WITNESS: It may be that that is the number. The major articles deal with the Hiroshima bombing.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You mean in terms of scope of the individual articles?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I would say that the percentage of material dealing with the Holocaust in the Journal is higher by far than the percentage of books and tapes that we sell through the IHR on this one issue.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Concerning what is being advanced as your expertise in historical revisionism, this is all self-taught, is it not?
THE WITNESS: Absolutely not. I see what you are saying; you mean just with regard to the Holocaust issue.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is not in relation to your formal qualifications. Your formal qualifications are as a historian, and your thesis was on the Hapsburg regime.
THE WITNESS: It was actually on 1930s and 1940s Hungarian intellectual themes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is about European history.
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You are being held out as an authority on historical revisionism, including Holocaust revisionism.
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE CHAIRPERSON: And that is something that you have undertaken from your studies since your formal qualification.
THE WITNESS: That is not unfair. That is similar to a number of other historians who have written on this subject, who are, as it were, self-taught. Raul Hilberg, arguably the leading Holocaust historian in the United States, is entirely self-taught on this issue. He has no formal education in the Holocaust issue; he did this entirely on his own. His degree and his background is in political science.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand; I am not testing that. There are schools where historical revisionism is on the curriculum?
THE WITNESS: Historical revisionism is really just a way of looking at history. It just means that one takes a critical look at history. All history is revisionist in the sense that history is looked at critically or from a new point of view.
Historical revisionism is not a special school that is taught. It is just part of how we look at history. The distinction is that historical revisionism was a distinct trend, especially in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s with regard to the origins of the First World War, and it came to be applied to a dissident or non-governmental look at world wars in general.
For example, historical revisionism includes a look at the Vietnam War which is contrary, you might say, to the official view. Historical revisionism with regard to the Hiroshima bombing is only historical revisionist in the sense that it rejects the official view of that.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am speaking of places of learning where the specific rubric of revisionism is used.
THE WITNESS: It is not used as a specific rubric, no. In fact, I have some qualms about using it because I like to feel that all legitimate and serious historical scholarship is revisionist.
There is no question that all over the United States, all over the world, many, many historians take views on issues similar to the ones that we do.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am talking about historians who use the term "revisionism." You use it, and I suppose other historians use it as well.
THE WITNESS: It's a little bit, sir, like saying there might be a historical journal that says that it is a conservative or a liberal historical journal. There is no specific branch of historiography in universities that would say, "We are liberal historiography or conservative or Marxist historiography." It is not divided that way.
There may be journals that present a view of history that might be either Marxist or liberal or conservative, but it is not divided that way in the academic world.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is there anything arising from that, Mr. Rosen?
MR. ROSEN: Not from me, thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Christie, please.
Q. In your cross-examination yesterday you were accused of sophistry by Mr. Rosen for the way you cited portions of documents or books to support statements made in some essays that you had written.
Is it or is it not a common practice for professional historians and other scholars to cite sources in this way?
A. It is a very common practice to cite sources in the way that I cited them, as I did in the case of the affidavit by Sergeant Coward. I am quoting it as a kind of admission against interest.
Very often, in citing testimony in a trial or citing works of history, one will take a portion of a book or a testimony and cite that as evidence for one's own point of view, even though the person making the argument in a book or in a testimony may have a point of view very different from the one that I or another person is holding in citing that. That is very commonly done.
Raul Hilberg in his major work on the Holocaust issue cites any number of sources, including the memoir of Otto Eichmann or Mein Kampf to say, "This is what Hitler or Eichmann says on this particular issue," but he doesn't quote the entire context of the thing because that is not the point he is trying to do.
A better example might be citations from the testimony of witnesses at the Nuremberg trials. A person will cite testimony by one of the German defendants to make a point, but they don't cite all the other things that are said by the defendant on that point because that is not what the purpose of it is.
It is a very common practice in historiography to cite a portion of a document or a testimony in validation of a particular point. It is not at all unusual. In fact, it is more fair to do that in that way than it is to make a statement without any supporting justification or references whatsoever, as I mentioned that Arno Mayer did in his book on "The Final Solution" in which he provides no footnotes whatsoever.
Q. In relation to the affidavit of Sergeant Coward, it was pointed out to you that in other parts of his affidavit he had said that everyone knew and that certain people knew, and that the portion you quoted, although it was there, was contradictory to the suggestions made in other parts of the affidavit. You were asked if that was misleading, and you said "no."
Why is it no misleading?
A. It is not misleading because I am only citing one portion of his affidavit which, in fact, does justify what I said in this short leaflet, that there were leaflets dropped on Auschwitz in Polish and German saying that people were being gassed there. What Coward says at that point does justify what I said.
It is not misleading; it is just not. It does support what I said it says.
Q. What is your position regarding all the other things that he said in the affidavit?
A. I could spend a great deal of time analyzing the entire document, but it is an affidavit issued several years after the events took place, in the context of a trial in which clearly he is trying to make as strong a case as he can against the defendants. I think the main defendant was a man named Duerrfeld whom he refers to in the document.
As I think was brought out the other day with specific reference to gassings or gas chambers, what Coward says in his affidavit is entirely hearsay. He doesn't have any personal knowledge of gassings or gas chambers.
As I mentioned the other day, one of the most striking things about the affidavit is that, even though he spent this time at Auschwitz, he seems totally unaware that there was any special treatment or mistreatment of Jews as Jews in the Auschwitz complex.
Q. Was the portion that you quoted, where Sergeant Coward refers to seeing leaflets, hearsay?
A. No, that was one part of the affidavit which is not hearsay. He says he personally read and saw leaflets that were dropped by Allied war planes around the camp in Polish and German, stating that people were being gassed there at the camp. That was the one significant portion of the affidavit that was not hearsay.
Q. You were asked about Walter Laqueur's book and references you had made to it where you cited evidence there that persons were released from Auschwitz in support of the proposition that, if there were exterminations there, there would not be releases.
You said that you cite other evidence for that now. Could you tell us what other evidence you cite for that now.
A. I cited Laqueur's book primarily because at that time it was a fairly readily available source in English. Laqueur's own evidence for that statement is an article that appeared in the German historical quarterly, Vierteljahresheft fuer Zeitgeschichte. Because it was in German and because this was a leaflet for English-speaking readers, I cited Laqueur.
Since that time I have revised the leaflet to refer to that specific point by citing a book called "Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp" which gives more detail on that particular point. It gives more specifics about the numbers of releases and where they were released to. Again, that is a leaflet.
The other day a good question was asked: How does one know whether a piece of writing should be evaluated as scholarly or as polemical? That is a difficult thing to say, but generally one just trusts the reader to understand that, when something is fairly short, it is not a scholarly book and that a book that is scholarly and lengthy and detailed should be evaluated differently from a short leaflet.
Q. In being confronted with the Laqueur book, it was brought to your attention that some parts of the book referred to undertakings never to reveal anything on the release from prison and that no one believed those who were released.
Did you examine that and consider it in relation to your quoted portion?
A. Yes, of course, but it is entirely understandable that the Germans had prisoners who were at Auschwitz sign such a statement because the work of Auschwitz was a military secret or very important in the German military effort. Auschwitz 3, one of the important camps at Auschwitz, was an important centre for the manufacture of synthetic gasoline during the war made from coal, for example. Just a routine thing, the Germans insisted that prisoners who were in facilities like this sign these statements that they were not to reveal it.
However, the importance is that a person who is at Auschwitz and may be released back to Holland, for example, even though his neighbours may not believe him, certainly had the opportunity if he wished to write up a lengthy statement or paper about his experiences and send it to representatives of neutral countries that were in Europe during the Second World War, a point that Laqueur goes into in great detail in other portions of his book.
Contrary to the impression that many people have, it was very hard to keep secrets in Europe during the Second World War. Neutral countries like Switzerland or Sweden had not only embassies but consulates all over. The International Red Cross had representatives. The Vatican had representatives. In addition to prisoners that were released, there were many German civilian labourers in the Auschwitz complex who went back and forth, in and out of the camp.
It is very difficult, as Laqueur himself points out in another portion of the book, to reconcile the notion on the one hand that Auschwitz was this top secret extermination centre and, on the other hand, that it was so accessible during the war to so many people.
Q. You were confronted in cross-examination with Sylvia Rothchild's book in which what you referred to as Marika Frank's testimony was reported.
First of all, you were accused of misleading by referring to it as testimony. What method would you say would exist to distinguish between court testimony and verbal accounts in your own bibliography?
A. I don't understand. You mean in the source references?
Q. I guess so.
A. I suppose anyone can see that the reference in my footnotes to each of those two statements or testimonies, if you will, makes a distinction. The first one refers to court testimony, and the second one refers to a book. One can see that.
The word "testimony" is commonly used in a context outside of a judicial hearing.
Q. It was put to you that Marika Frank Abrams was writing 52 years after the fact and that you should have referred to that in her lack of recall or reference to or knowledge of gas chambers. Did you have any reason for not mentioning that it was written 52 years after the fact?
A. Partly, I suppose, space. One of the most incredible things is that generally the tendency after a period of time is to, as it were, "remember" things in exactly the opposite way. Many people and this has been pointed out by a number of Jewish historians as time goes on imagine themselves having been at places that they were not or imagine things often as being worse than they were, rather than the other way of actually conceding, "I didn't really know at the time that people were being gassed."
In fact, there is a tendency usually of survivors of any kind of experience in wartime and so forth to embellish or exaggerate the horrors of what they underwent rather than to diminish them.
Q. If she had experience or knowledge of gas chambers, would she have forgotten after 52 years?
A. It would be hard to believe, especially in light of how much it has been talked about since that time, that she would forget such a thing.
Q. You were accused of misleading in relation to the reference to Arno Mayer's book. In Arno Mayer's book was there any reference to gas chambers or reference to proof of their existence?
A. Arno Mayer, it should be understood, came under tremendous criticism for having written
MR. ROSEN: I have to object, with respect. This is not proper re-examination.
MR. CHRISTIE: Let me understand.
I understand that there was an accusation that he had misled in citing Arno Mayer's book in some article. At page 365 he is alleged to have misled by citing. That was, as I recall, a reference to maybe I should look at the exact article.
I think it is SW-3. That is the accusation of misleading in relation to the statement that more died of natural causes than unnatural causes. In my understanding, the distinction is between dying from natural and normal causes and being killed by shooting, hanging, phenol injection or gassing.
Therefore, I was inquiring as to whether the witness had any knowledge of evidence that would contradict that or if he had misled by withholding such evidence in his knowledge of Arno Mayer's position respecting gassing, which was one of the
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will allow it.
MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.
Q. From your knowledge of Arno Mayer's book, would it be misleading to have presented the portion of his book which says that more people died of natural than of unnatural causes, specifically in relation to the unnatural cause of gassing?
A. I don't remember what page it is on, but in that same book Arno Mayer makes the astonishing admission that evidence for gassings at Auschwitz is, I think he says, rare and unreliable. This is in stark contrast to the claim that was made for many decades, including at Nuremberg, that evidence for gassings was supposedly not rare and unreliable but, to the contrary, abundant and very reliable.
In that regard, Arno Mayer's skepticism or his revisionism, if you will, of the claims that people were killed by the millions supposedly at Auschwitz in gas chambers is a very striking one. It is a great contrast to the story we have been told. Precisely for that reason Arno Mayer came under tremendous criticism from Jewish organizations and Jewish writers for making this, as it were, concession to the revisionist view of the subject.
It is not just on the one page that was cited by Mr. Rosen.
Q. You were also accused of misleading in that in the portion you cited from Arno Mayer's book, and it was read to you, it referred to cremation statistics. Why did you not quote or refer to the cremation statistics in your article?
A. Arno Mayer's references to the number of people who were or could have been cremated at Auschwitz are completely wrong. Anyone familiar with and who studied the cremation facilities at Birkenau and who knows about cremation can readily establish that these figures, which are not unique to Arno Mayer they are quoted elsewhere are entirely impossible.
I was really struck that the Director of the Calgary crematory facility who testified in the Zündel trial in 1988 dealt with precisely those claims and said they were preposterous or impossible.
Cremation is a complicated and involved process, and the facilities at Birkenau were simply unable, as Jean-Claude Pressac and a number of other anti-revisionist historians have conceded in recent years.
Q. In your evidence yesterday assertions were made that the Institute for Historical Review and I don't mean to misquote is basically a bunch of quacks and that no reputable historian gives them any credence. There was a suggestion that there was no support from recognized scholars at all. You went through the masthead, and it speaks for itself.
What persons of recognized historical scholarship have either identified with, spoken at, or in any way supported the IHR and its work?
A. In addition to the scholars who are listed on the masthead, I would mention that one speaker at an IHR conference was John Toland who is the author of numerous respected works of history and for one of them he received a Pulitzer Prize in the United States for non-fiction for a work of history he did. He spoke at an IHR conference.
David Irving has spoken at several IHR conferences. He is the author of numerous best-selling and highly acclaimed works of history dealing with the Second World War, modern 20th century history.
Another speaker was Ideo Mikei. He is a retired professor at Japan's National Defence Academy. He spoke at an IHR conference.
One of the books published by the IHR, written by Henri Roques it was a doctoral thesis that was translated was praised by Hugh Trevor Roper who is recognized as one of the outstanding or most prominent British historians on Second World War history. Hugh Trevor Roper called it an entirely legitimate, praiseworthy work of
THE CHAIRPERSON: Which work?
THE WITNESS: This is a book called "The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein" by a Frenchman named Henri Roques. It was a doctoral thesis that was translated into English, and we published it.
Kurt Gerstein has been widely cited as one of the main sources or witnesses about gassings. Henri Roques' thesis dealt in great critical detail with the so-called evidence or confessions of Kurt Gerstein who committed suicide in 1945.
Hugh Trevor Roper praised this work.
In addition to that, a number of recognized scholars have been published in the Journal of Historical Review, including Jewish scholars. One I might mention is a professor in Oklahoma named Howard Stein who wrote an essay for the Journal on how the Holocaust campaign is used for self-serving purposes and that it is actually dangerous to Jewish interests in the long run, he feels.
In addition to that, I regularly receive and have received many letters from scholars and historians who support the work of the IHR but are very afraid of making that support known publicly, precisely because of the tremendous climate of intimidation that exists in the United States and especially in Europe affecting anyone who publicly supports Holocaust revisionism in particular.
As you know, in a number of countries it is actually illegal to publicly contest the official Holocaust extermination story. That is why it takes great courage and bravery for scholars to publicly express support for the Institute for Historical Review. The support of the IHR by recognized scholars is much greater than even the public support that has been given would indicate.
Q. You mentioned Henri Roques. Has he anything to do with the Journal of Historical Review?
A. Yes, he is on the masthead of the Journal of Historical Review. He has spoken at IHR conferences.
MR. FREIMAN: I have to rise at this point. I don't know how a litany now of supposedly famous historians can possible arise on re-examination, complete with the setting out of their credentials in circumstances where no one can now cross-examine.
THE CHAIRPERSON: The entry point that he placed before us is in connection with the course of cross-examination which tended to question the integrity of the IHR as an organization of reputable historical renown, I suppose. I am going to allow this within limits.
MR. CHRISTIE: That was my last question in that area anyway.
Q. It was asserted to you in cross-examination that Holocaust revisionists constitute pariahs, to put it as succinctly as I can, a group of very unusual eccentrics who either from a level of reasons or from delusion claim to false beliefs. I am not misphrasing what I think the presented arguments were. It was stated at one point that they are a very small percentage of scholars. Is that true?
A. It's a small percentage, I suppose, as would be true of any group of historiography that is dissident. What is extraordinary is how much support we get despite the tremendous involvement
Q. I didn't ask you that, so I don't you had better go into that.
A. It is not a large percentage of historians in general, but it is a significant one.
Q. In your view, does the percentage of numbers affect the validity of historiography?
A. It is irrelevant whether the percentage of scholars and historians supporting a given view is a high one or a low one. Historiography scholarship would never make any advance at all if there was constantly an evaluation of the merits of a given view of history according to what the popularity of it is among historians.
Historiography and scholarship of all kinds must take place within an atmosphere that permits even a single historian who presents a startling different view to express it and argue it. Charles Darwin and Darwinism would never have been accepted if Charles Darwin had not been a single man to put forth a thesis that at the time was considered outrageous. That is what happens throughout all of not only historical but scholarship in other fields as well.
Q. In one part of your cross-examination you were asked there was an allegation, I think, with regard to the work of Eugen Kogon, and there was some discussion about an article in the Journal of Historical Review about Japan. At some point you said there was more justification for interning Jews in Nazi Germany than there was for interning Japanese in America. You said that there were hundreds of murders and sabotage and arson carried out by Jews against Germans prior to September-October 1941.
Specifically, what were you referring to in relation to that what murder, what sabotage and what arson are you talking about by Jews in Europe?
A. I know that for many people it sounds extraordinary or amazing that one can say that there was some justification by German authorities for rounding up Jews and treating them as a separate group and putting them in concentration camps. I don't support that necessarily, but in times of war governments often do very brutal, very sweeping things, treating groups of people in a very harsh and separate way.
Specifically in this regard, the treatment of the Jews has to be understood in the context of an ongoing struggle that was taking place between Jews and Germans. In 1933, as I alluded, as soon as Hitler came to power, major Jewish organizations organized a worldwide economic boycott and declared a kind of war against Germany. In March 1933 the London Daily Express ran a report on this under the headline "Judaity declares war on Germany."
In 1936 a young Jew named David Frankfurter assassinated a German official in Davos, Switzerland. In 1938 another young Jew named Hershl Gruenspan went into the German embassy in Paris and assassinated a German diplomat there.
That may seem like not much to justify very much, but just in that one regard in 1982 the Government of Israel carried out an invasion of Lebanon on the pretext that their ambassador in London had been the victim of an assassination attempt by a Palestinian.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We are getting pretty far afield here. Let's not talk about Lebanon in 1982. The specific question was in relation to 1933. We take the point that you have made, but I don't think we need to have a historical review.
THE WITNESS: In addition, there were many other acts of partisan or underground warfare, sabotage, attacks and so forth. I can go into detail about that; there is much more to be said on that subject.
Q. What were you speaking of when you spoke of alleged acts of murder, sabotage and arson carried out by Jews? Do you mean Frankfurter and Gruenspan?
A. Those are two, but more before September-October 1941 Jewish underground organizations and sabotage organizations had already been set up in France, in Poland, in the occupied Soviet territories, specifically Jewish ones, as any number of Jewish Holocaust historians have affirmed and have even expressed some pride about.
Q. In the first day of your cross-examination your entire article from 1978 was read, and I don't intend to go over it by any means. In the course of it, I think it is fair to say that you were accused of being a racist and a bigot.
What I would like to do is refer to Exhibit SW-1 and I would like to refer to page 6554, lines 10 to 23.
A. I don't have it readily ...
Q. You are not going to have it unless I am allowed to ask this question.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What are you going to be asking?
MR. CHRISTIE: I was going to ask him, in the context of his beliefs about race, did he say that?
We had a cross-examination line by line; we went through the whole thing to that point. I just want to ask him if this accurately reflects his beliefs about race then and now.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps the witness should step outside for a moment.
- Witness Withdraws
THE CHAIRPERSON: This is an answer which he gave; it is not a quote from his work.
MR. CHRISTIE: No, it is not.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It was an answer that he gave to a question put to him:
"Would you agree with me that the race ideology that you espouse in this article is the same one that Verrall espouses in "Did Six Million Really Die?"
And then he gives an answer. Isn't that leading? You are directing him to a specific answer he gave.
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, in a sense it is. The reason I say it is not improper is that, to put in context the whole of his evidence which arose out of that article, it would be unfair to exclude from his cross-examination those parts which he swore to at the time, which explain his views.
"I mean I believe I believe in cultural and racial integrity for all peoples "
MR. ROSEN: Let's not have the answer read. It is there to be seen.
MR. CHRISTIE: Why is there some hesitancy about this? I wonder why it is impossible to explain that what he said in this passage was that he respects the cultural and racial integrity of all people, and he said:
"I believe that for the Jewish people as well, and I do not hate or have any animosity toward any individual or towards any other race because they are different."
THE CHAIRPERSON: May you not have to gamble and ask the same question or a reasonable facsimile thereof and hope to get the same answer?
MR. CHRISTIE: I guess I have to gamble; I will accept that.
MR. FREIMAN: It is not a very high gamble.
MR. CHRISTIE: We will see.
- Witness returns to the stand
Q. In the article that was read to you and upon which you were cross-examined statements were made about race. Do those statements accurately reflect all your views about the subject?
A. No. This was written 20 years ago at a time when I held views that are somewhat different, I hope, now. It is important to emphasize that I have no animosity toward any other group as a group. With specific reference to Africa, for example, I have nothing but very fond memories of my relations with people when I lived in Africa.
I don't hate any other group. I don't want to hurt any other group, as a group. That has been my view, and it is even more emphatically my view today.
Q. At one point Mr. Rosen asked you, in relation to your statements about Munich being a friendly Bavarian capital, whether you had been there when Israeli athletes were murdered during the Olympics. Were they murdered by Germans, to your knowledge?
A. No. It is well known that the murders were carried out by Palestinians who felt that this was part of their struggle against occupation.
MR. CHRISTIE: Those are my questions. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We are ready for argument.
MR. ROSEN: Could I ask that the witness be excused, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.