Irving v. Lipstadt

 1    Now, what is important in this second copy, and
 2it is not a very clear copy, but I think the essential
 3information is the same. I mean, the information is the
 4same but the formatting is different. We see when we look
 5at this particular copy, we see at the top it says
 6"Abschrift" which means this is a typed copy. There was
 7no photocopy machine in it. So while the original, the
 8Moscow copy No. 1 is a carbon copy of the original, the
 9second one is actually a newly typed copy, and with all
10these newly typed copies there would always have been a
11note at the bottom. It should be signed. It says: "Fur
12Die Richtigkeit der Abschrift which means for the correct
13----
14Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     Accuracy?
15A. [Professor Robert Jan van Pelt]     --- the correctness of this copy and then there is an
16initial there. It is very difficult even in my copy to
17see who actually signed this.
18    The reason that I think this is quite important
19is that this is a different copy of the Moscow one which
20is in a different archive. So we have now two different
21objects, both talking about an incineration capacity of
224,756 persons in the camp. If, indeed, the Moscow --
23I mean, I think it is very, very unlikely that somebody
24who would have falsified this document, made it up
25afterwards, would have created both a carbon copy of one
26and then have made a new kind of Abschrift of that same

.   P-6

---

 1document, and then placed it into two different archives.
 2Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     Well, on the contrary, I thought that might have been what
 3a determined forger might have done.
 4A. [Professor Robert Jan van Pelt]     So that he actually make two different versions of the
 5same copy?
 6Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     I understand your point.
 7A. [Professor Robert Jan van Pelt]     I disagree with your Lordship on that, but your opinion in
 8the end is more important than mine on this, I think.
 9Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     Your are rather better informed than me.
10A. [Professor Robert Jan van Pelt]     This very much takes the format of a typed copy as you
11find in the Auschwitz archive. So I think that in this
12case there is a convergence of two different objects,
13showing in two different archives, that, indeed, we have
14here, you know, as far as I say with absolute certainty in
15the original document. But there were other challenges
16made and, in order to deal with the other challenges,
17I would like to go to a very short review of the way
18documents in the Auschwitz archive, both letters and also
19copies, are dated, and the way the code which shows which
20file it has to go in is done.
21    So when I go to No. 3, which is a letter from
22Bischoff, the chief architect to the chief doctor in
23Auschwitz, of 30th June 1944, about the building of small
24morgues in Birkenhau, they were built in the existing
25barracks -- every camp in Birkenhau would get one morgue
26-- we see basically that the heading says Auschwitz, 30th

.   P-7

---

 1June, "den 30.Juni 1944". It would be the normal accepted
 2way of dating a letter, and then we see the brief type of
 3book number. We see there two numbers and then we see
 4"Jo" which is for Jotam who was at that moment the chief
 5architect, and "Go" without dots, without periods.
 6    If we go to No. 4, this is a record of a
 7meeting. We see that the date is again Auschwitz, 30th
 8January 1943, but we see that the secretary who typed this
 9letter in this case has a period behind the initial.
10    If we go to No. 5, which is a letter to Topf u.
11Sohne, a carbon copy of a letter to Topf u. Sohne, which
12was done on letter head, we see that there is no place.
13It says simply 28th February 1943. In this case there are
14no periods behind the initials of both Jahrling and the
15secretary.
16Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     When you say "no place" do you mean no "den" ----
17A. [Professor Robert Jan van Pelt]     No period. It does not say Auschwitz den 28th February.
18Mr Irving yesterday challenged the authenticity of the
19Moscow document because there was no place. So this one
20does not have a place given.
21    Then we have No. 6 which is one of these typed
22copies, Abschrift, which does not have a place which
23probably would be, you know, probably would also not have
24been in the original. But what we see here is that the
25secretary has again a period behind her name, but the
26Jahrling thing, we see in this case Jahrling is typed JA

.   P-8

---

 1umlaut H, while in other ones he is only typed as JAH,
 2umlaut, which means now they have added an H. So there
 3seemed to be at least also the way the name has been
 4shortened, there seems to be no kind of agreement on it.
 5    Then we go to No. 8 because No. 7 is the ----
 6Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     Second page?
 7A. [Professor Robert Jan van Pelt]     --- the second page of that letter. We see that again the
 8secretary has a period and then Dr E has a period. He is
 9one of the doctors in the camp. No. 9 we see again, no
10place. This is a letter to Hoess from Bischoff and one
11would have expected this to be probably correct, following
12the correct format. We see that there is no place
13indicated. It says 12th February 1943. Again, the
14secretary has a period but not the Sturmbannfuhrer Pollok,
15who dictated the letter. But, when we go to No. 10 and
16No. 11 ----
17Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     There is a point on 6. I just wonder whether it is a good
18point or a bad point? Tell me. The tagebuch number is in
19typescript, not manuscript.
20A. [Professor Robert Jan van Pelt]     Sometimes it is typescript, sometimes manuscript.
21Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     That was another point Mr Irving made, I think.
22A. [Professor Robert Jan van Pelt]     Yes, I am sorry, I had forgotten that. We see again that
23sometimes it is handwritten and sometimes it is typed.
24Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     Yes. Sorry, that was taking you back.
25A. [Professor Robert Jan van Pelt]     Yes. Now we come to No. 10 and there we see that in fact
26both the person who dictated the letter and the person who

.   P-9

---

 1typed the letter in this case have a period behind their
 2initials, and in fact behind the person who typed it there
 3is even a dash. No. 11, the letter of 19th July 1944, we
 4see that this is a letter dictated by Steilv.Bauleiter
 5Teichmann. We see there is a period behind the shortened
 6form of his name and a period behind the letter indicating
 7the secretary.
 8    So I think that the only conclusion one can draw
 9out of this is that there was no standard procedure in the
10Zentralbauleitung.
11    I have added two other documents and this has to
12do really with a challenge Mr Irving gave in his letter to
13me which was posted on the web. I do not know if I can
14address that, but it is an alternative way of dating a
15letter, which says "am" instead of "den". So sometimes it
16says "Auschwitz den" and then the date comes, but
17sometimes it also says "Auschwitz am" 14th May 1943.
18MR JUSTICE GRAY:    Mr Irving, I do not think that was
19Mr Irving's, if he will forgive me, best point. They are
20both used, are they not?
21MR IRVING:    I accept his point on that.
22MR JUSTICE GRAY:    I think you did.
23A. [Professor Robert Jan van Pelt]     Then there was one other thing which came up yesterday and
24I do not know if I am allowed to give testimony on that,
25which was the number of 2.5 million and 1.1 million which
26were given by Hoess.

.   P-10

---