IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
1996 -I- No. 1113
B E T W E E N:-
DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING
- and -
PENGUIN BOOKS LIMITED
- and -
DEBORAH E. LIPSTADT
Table of Contents
Preface - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pages 7-16
Mr. Rudolf's affidavit focuses on Auschwitz, and raises the question of the centrality of Auschwitz to Holocaust deniers. After a short discussion of the curious epistemology of Holocaust deniers, I consider Rudolf's credibility as an expert witness.
Re: Rudolf's Affidavit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -pages 17-24
Rudolf ignores the bulk of the Auschwitz historiography in general and my own expert report in particular. In response to Mr. Justice Gray's Judgment, Rudolf produces some unrelated and mutually contradictory attacks on selected parts of the evidence in which he makes factual errors and is unable to produce a coherent and plausible alternative narrative for the established history of Auschwitz.
Re: A. Gassing Cellar for Delousing (10-13) - - - - - - - - - - - pages 25-30
Rudolf makes a valid point of criticism concerning an observation in Mr. Justice Gray's Judgement that deals with the means of introducing Zyklon B in a delousing chamber; but Mr. Justice Gray's mistake is of minor significance and does not challenge the validity of his conclusions.
Re: B. Stairs and Slides (13-17) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pages 31-35
Rudolf attacks the evidentiary significance of a blueprint showing changes in the basement of crematorium 2 that seem to indicate, when considered in the context of other evidence, the transformation of one of the basement cellars into a gas chamber. In response, I show that Rudolf's attack is based on errors of fact and reasoning.
Re: C. Dummy Shower Heads (18-27) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -pages 36-43
Rudolf attempts to exploit a plan to install showers in crematorium 3 as a way to show that the so-called dummy showers seen by eyewitnesses in the gas chambers were in fact real, and that therefore the alleged gas chambers were in fact real shower rooms. In response, I argue that the evidence concerning the showers must be interpreted in the historical context, and that it is in no way incompatible with the evidence that shows that the gas chambers were in fact functional killing installations.
Re: D. Ventilation System (27-29) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -pages 44-48
Rudolf argues that the capacity of the ventilation system of morgue 1 of crematoria 2 and 3 was such that it was not powerful enough to extract the hydrogen cyanide from that room in the time described by the eyewitnesses, and that therefore morgue 1 only served the function of storing corpses. In my response I show that the various pieces of evidence contradicts Rudolf's suggestion that the morgue only served as a storage place for corpses, and I refer to Richard Green's affidavit for detailed calculations to show that the ventilation system was powerful enough to make the gas chamber accessible to people some 40 minutes after the end of a gassing.
Re: E. Preheating the Morgue (30-31) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -pages 49-55
In response to Rudolf's argument that the plan to pre-heat morgue 1 of crematoria 2 and 3 ought not to be considered evidence of the transformation of that space into a homicidal gas chamber, I show that if Rudolf were right, plans to pre-heat that morgue would have been developed much earlier. I also point out that if Rudolf were right, than the verb used would have been "to heat," and not "to pre-heat." The latter verb clearly suggests that the act of pre-heating will be followed by an event. I then review, once again, the various pieces of evidence which, together with the suggestion to pre-heat morgue 1, point to the use of that space as a homicidal gas chamber.
Re: F. Krema IV & V (31-35) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pages 56-60
Rudolf accepts that crematoria 4 and 5 contained gas chambers, but argues on the basis of a linguistic premise that these were not homicidal gas chambers. I show his premise to be untenable, and also show that his subsidiary argument concerning the lights in those crematoria are based on errors of fact and logic.
Re: G. Sonderaktion (36-41) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pages 61-86
Rudolf challenges an important piece of evidence concerning the construction of crematoria 4 and 5 for genocidal purposes on the basis of an argument that the term "special action" does not refer to killing. He also suggests that the designation "SB," commonly known to refer to Sonderbehandlung or "special treatment," which also means killing during the war, in fact refers to some infirmary. In response, I show that the proof Rudolf puts forward to make this case confirms the more sinister connotations of SB, and also provide various pieces of evidence to support the homicidal significance of the term "special action" and "special treatment."
Re: H. Eye Witnesses (41-46) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -pages 87-112
On the basis of a long and largely irrelevant discourse about the post-war trials, Rudolf seeks to make the argument that eye-witness evidence concerning the Holocaust can not be trusted. He also makes specific allegations that important witnesses testified to events that are, in Rudolf's judgement, physically impossible. I show that, in fact, the events witnessed by the eyewitnesses are possible, and that the Rudolf's attempt to poison the well consequently fails.
Re: I. The Central Construction Office and Himmler's Dismantling Order (174-175) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pages 113-116
Rudolf produces a completely implausible argument that the lack of evidence concerning a "benign" use of Auschwitz is due to Soviet "culling" of the evidence. In response, I point out that there is no evidence for Soviet "culling," and that this would not explain the lack of such evidence in Polish archives. Furthermore I demonstrate that there is explicit evidence that the Germans destroyed documents produced to organize the mass killing of people in Auschwitz.
For a response to Rudolf's attack on the evidence and his defence of Leuchter I refer to the affidavit of Dr. Richard Green.
For a response to Rudolf's attack on the credibility of the scientific investigations done by the Forensic Institute in Cracow I refer to the affidavit of Dr. Richard Green.
Re: L. Holes in the Roof of Morgue 1 at Crematorium
Following the argument made by Mr. Irving during the trial, Rudolf argues that the lack of holes in the ruined roof of morgue 1 of crematorium 2 shows that the eyewitnesses who testified that morgue 1 had been a gas chamber lied. In response, I refer to the report on the holes written by Dr. Daniel Keren, Jamie McCarthy and Harry Mazal OBE, attached to this affidavit, and argue that the issue of the holes has been resolved.
Re: M. Undressing Rooms (282-283) - - - - - - - - - - - - - pages 121-126
Rudolf attacks the evidentiary value of documents stating that the basement of crematoria 2 and 3 contained "undressing cellars" by stating that these could have an innocent explanation. In response I show that his own alternative explanations do not make sense, and that if the evidence is taken in the context of other evidence, it is clear that these undressing cellars were part of a killing installation.
Re: N. Gas Tight Doors (283-305) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pages 127-136
Rudolf attacks the evidentiary value of documents showing that morgue 1 of crematoria 2 and 3 were equipped with a gas-tight door. He states that, with a felt lining, these doors were not "truly" gas-tight, and that their presence therefore does not indicate that morgue 1 was a gas chamber. I show errors of fact and logic in his reasoning, and with due consideration for the historical context, demonstrate that Rudolf's suggestion that the SS would have used special steel doors for homicidal gas chambers does not make sense.
Re: O. Air Raid Shelters (305-317) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pages 137-157
On the basis of errors of fact and errors of logic, Rudolf tries to resurrect the thesis presented by Irving in court that the presence of gas-tight doors in morgue 1 of crematoria 2 and 3 can be explained if one assumes that these spaces were used as air raid shelters. In response I demonstrate that all the evidence points at the fact that a first concern for air-raid precautions in Auschwitz dates from late 1943, that is more than half a year later after the documents were produced that Rudolf and other Holocaust deniers try to explain through reference to air-raid shelters.
Re: P. The Quantity of Zyklon-B Required (317-318) - - - - -pages 158-180
Rudolf asserts, without any evidence, that all the deliveries of Zyklon B to Auschwitz could be explained as material used for delousing, and he makes some errors in fact in trying to discredit my own report on Zyklon B use in Auschwitz submitted to the High Court in January 2000. In response, I set the record straight, and review once again the method and conclusions of my report on Zyklon B.
Re: Q. Coke Consumption and Crematory Capacity - - - - - pages 181-201
In an attempt to neutralize the evidentiary significance of Topf patent T 58240 Kl. 24 for a "Continuous Operation Corpse Incineration Furnace for Intensive Use," which suggests that the Auschwitz incinerators could have operated with little extra fuel if operated continuously (which they in fact were), Rudolf argues on the basis of errors of fact. In response, I set the record straight.
Conclusion - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -page 202
In my conclusion I show that Rudolf's affidavit does not does not deal with the established historiography on Auschwitz, and it does not deal with the evidentiary foundations of our knowledge of Auschwitz, and neither with the historiographical principle that was central to my report. Instead Rudolf offers a number of unrelated nihilistic attacks on some selected parts of the evidence that do not revise the history of Auschwitz because they do not create even the beginning of a plausible narrative that one can engage with.
Last modified: July 27, 2002