Toronto, Ontario
‑‑- Upon resuming on Wednesday, December 9, 1998
at 10:05 a.m.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. Mr. Rosen, please.
RESUMED: MARK WEBER
CROSS-EXAMINATION, Continued
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Witness, yesterday we were dealing with your qualifications, so to speak. One of the things that came out in an answer to me was a reference to Arno J. Mayer. Is that right? You referred to him yesterday?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You say that Arno J. Mayer, first of all, is Jewish; is that right?
A. I said he was Jewish, yes; he is Jewish.
Q. And that he is a professor at Princeton; is that right?
A. That is my recollection, yes.
Q. He is a person whom you cited yesterday as being part of the legitimate historical debate on the issue of the Holocaust; is that right?
A. I don't know if I used those words. I think I cited him as someone who is part of this ongoing debate about Holocaust issues.
Q. And that he wrote a book that got him into a lot of trouble with his peers; is that right?
A. I don't know if it got him into trouble with peers; it got him into trouble with a lot of major Jewish organizations and others.
Q. You would agree with me that Mr. Mayer is a historian of some note?
A. He is a recognized historian at Princeton, I believe.
Q. At Princeton, yes. He is on the faculty and teaches history and has a Ph.D and is accredited not only as a teacher but as a researcher and writer of historical events. Right?
A. That's right.
Q. Sir, Mr. Mayer, in fact, finds his way into some of your material, does he not?
A. Yes.
MR. ROSEN: Could the witness have HR-2, please. HR-2, Mr. Chair, is the Book of Documents.
Q. I would take you, sir, to an article which you wrote and which is published here, at tab 33. This is your article that was published in the Institute of Historical Review's Journal. Right?
A. I don't think that is right.
Q. But you published it. You are the author?
A. I am the author of this article, yes.
Q. This comes off the Zundelsite. At the second-last page it says about halfway down:
"We wish to acknowledge that the above article was made available courtesy of the Institute for Historical Review."
Is that right?
A. Is what right?
Q. That you made it available?
A. No, I didn't even know it was on the site until after this Hearing began. I think it is just a kind of a general, pro forma acknowledgement. I don't think there was any formal request made for permission to publish the article. I think he took it, and he is just acknowledging that that is the source.
Q. Actually, he is not saying that. He is saying it was made available courtesy of the Institute for Historical Review in October 1983.
A. As I say, to the best of my recollection, there was no formal request or any kind of request made. He simply took it from our web site. We have a web site, and this article was on the web site, and I think he did that. If there was permission granted, it was not made specifically by me. That is not to say we would not have given permission.
Q. You would have given it.
A. I think so.
Q. Of course. Would you agree with me, though, that this also comes from the Journal?
A. As I said, I don't think it ever appeared in the Journal.
Q. But it is on the web site, on the Institute for Historical Review's web site.
A. I believe so.
Q. And it is an article that you wrote as a historian.
A. That's correct.
Q. And as a serious historian, you would want to be accurate in what you say and in the sources you cite. Right?
A. Of course.
Q. Because you know that there is the Latin maxim that you have often relied on ‑‑ and I may have it wrong because my Latin is not that good. It is Falsis in uno; falsis in omnibus. Is that what it is?
A. It's a Latin slogan, yes.
Q. And it means that, if it is false in one thing, then everything is false, or words to that effect.
A. What is the question, please?
A. Is that what that means?
A. That is what it means, yes. False in one, false in everything.
Q. And that is your credo as a serious historian; is that right?
A. I wouldn't say it is my credo.
Q. That is certainly one of the rules you live by. Isn't that right?
A. Everyone makes mistakes, but I try to be conscientious in what I write.
Q. Certainly, if you don't and if, in fact, you purposely misquote and purposely mislead, you cannot be considered to be a serious historian. Correct?
A. I think that is a valid standard that should apply across the board to historians on all sides of issues.
Q. Help me out then, sir. Let's go to the third page. at tab 33, of "Auschwitz: Myths and Facts" by Mark Weber.
About halfway down, under the heading "Many Jewish Inmates Unable to Work" on the previous page, in the last portion of that section you say:
"Princeton University history professor Arno Mayer, who's Jewish, acknowledges in a recent book about the 'final solution' that more Jews perished at Auschwitz as a result of typhus and other 'natural' causes than were executed."
Right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. Let's see what Mr. Arno Mayer actually says. If we go to Note 11 at the end, we see that what is quoted as footnote 11 is "Arno Mayer, Why Did The Heavens Not Darken?: The 'Final Solution' in History (Pantheon, 1989), p. 365. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. As you can see from the cover page, this is the inside of Mr. Mayer's book, "Why Did The Heavens Not Darken?: The 'Final Solution' in History" by Arno J. Mayer, Pantheon Books, New York. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. What we have photocopied begins at page 364 and running to page 367. Do you see that, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Let's see what Mr. Mayer has to say about what you say this quote is and what you have cited as authoritative.
He begins at page 364 ‑‑ and we have to look at the quote in context:
"The question of the identity of the prime mover or movers of the order to exterminate the Jews systematically at Auschwitz is closely linked to the question of when this order was issued and acted upon."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes, you have.
Q."All things considered, the command seems to have been given in the late winter of 1941-42 or the very early spring of 1942, in conjunction with the recasting of the concentration-camp system for war production."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. I believe so.
Q."If such was the case, then the decision and warrant were framed at the same time that Himmler upgraded the WVHA to be coequal with the RSHA, placing the former under the direction of Pohl, Clücks, and Maurer ‑‑"
Correct, sir? That is what he has written?
A. Yes.
Q. He goes on to say:
"Hereafter, Heydrich ‑‑ and following Heydrich's assassination Himmler himself along with Heinrich Müller and Ernst Kaltenbrunner ‑‑ worked closely with Pohl and his associates. There were, of course, constant strains between the symbiotically linked RSHA and WVHA. But these strains were due to normal bureaucratic competition rather than extraordinary personal rivalries, and not too much should be made of them. The chiefs of the security and policy apparatus fixed the quotas and timetables for the deportation of Jews to Auschwitz in consultation with the chiefs of the economic department of the SS."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. I believe so.
Q. He is talking about who were the prime movers, when the order was made, how the process was put in place, to summarize. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. The RSHA and the WVHA, what were they, sir?
A. The RSHA was the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, the central office for security in the Third Reich. It was a combined police authority and secret police authority. The Gestapo was part of it. It was headed by Heydrich and then after his assassination by Kaltenbrunner.
The WVHA is the Wirtschufts - und Verwaltungs Hauptamt, the economic and administration main office which was the authority responsible for the administration and operation of concentration camps, among other things. It also handled various economic enterprises run by the SS during the war.
Q. He goes on to say:
"Probably Höss ‑‑"
Höss, of course, was the Commandant at Auschwitz. Right?
A. For part of the period.
Q."Probably Höss was the last to be consulted. An ultra-Nazi, he was charged with building and running his combined production and death center at a pace that was set for him by others but that compelled and encouraged him to exercise enormous discretion."
Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes, you have.
Q."It was within the framework of both extreme urgency and latitude that Höss transmuted the ordinary practice of screening the transports arriving in Auschwitz for housing and work assignments into an execrable system of selection for either slow or instant death, for consignment to the perils of life in the camps or to the gas chambers."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes, except that I think you said "the" instead of "this," but that was generally correct.
Q."In any case, as previously noted, given the local conditions and needs, selection for death was already implied, even if not prescribed or specific, by the order to deport Jews unselectively ‑‑"
With emphasis on the "un."
"‑‑ from their points of departure. It is unclear what percentage of the incoming Jews was selected on arrival as 'unfit for hard labor'; estimates range between 60 and 80 percent. It is also uncertain how many of these 'unfit' ‑‑ the sick and infirm as well as healthy women, infants, children, and old people ‑‑ were sent to the gas chambers immediately upon arrival or shortly thereafter, how many were sent sometime later, and how many ultimately died a 'natural' death."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. It appears to be so.
Q. None of that, of course, is quoted or referenced directly in your article, is it?
A. No, it is not.
Q. He goes on to say:
"At Auschwitz the assembly-line selection did not really begin until the arrival of the first transports of unselected Jews from western Europe during the summer of 1942. By then the construction of Birkenau was well advanced. Unlike the main camp, which was and remained an all-male camp for about 15,000 slave workers, Birkenau was to become the major compound not only of forced laborers of both sexes but also for the nonworking inmates of the entire complex. Accordingly, upon their arrival after a grueling and dehumanizing journey in freight cars, all temporarily and permanently 'unemployable' Jews were summarily assigned to Birkenau, where housing and sanitation were disastrous, as they were throughout the Auschwitz complex."
Have I read that correctly, sir? Is that what he said?
A. Not completely.
Q. What did I miss?
A. You said "of" instead of "for", "not only for forced laborers." Generally, as you have before, you got it right.
Q. "‑‑ not only for forced laborers of both sexes ‑‑." Right.
Then he goes on to say:
"Half-starved and practically without medical care, the frail and the sick were particularly imperiled, the more so since at the journey's end the whole of Auschwitz was intermittently in the grip of a devastating typhus epidemic. The result was an unspeakable death rate, partly because the ailing and the dying were brought to Birkenau from both the main camp and from Monowitz. In addition to being the wretched and miasmic habitat for the least fit, Birkenau was the site of Auschwitz's main medical facility and quarantine center, as well as of most of its crematoriums and gas chambers."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. It appears you have.
Q. Dr. Arno Mayer is describing, to put a summary on it, the circumstances under which Jews and others found themselves in the Auschwitz complex faced with death by a variety of things, including starvation, lack of medical care, ultimately crematoria and gas chambers. Basically, that is what he is saying, isn't it?
A. That is more or less correct, I suppose.
Q. Then he says:
"There is a distinction between dying from 'natural' or 'normal' causes and being killed by shooting, hanging, phenol injection, or gassing. But quite apart from the vital importance of not allowing this distinction to be used to extenuate and normalize the mass murder at Auschwitz, it should not be pressed too far. The Nazi leaders decided to transport frail and sick Jews, and Gypsies, to Auschwitz in full awareness of the perils they would face, and they continued to do so once there was no ignoring and denying the deadly conditions there, including the endemic danger of epidemics. Besides, from 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called 'natural' causes than by 'unnatural' ones."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. I believe so.
Q. That last sentence is the sentence that you quote in your article, isn't it?
A. No, I don't quote that sentence.
Q. You reference it.
A. I cite it.
Q. And you cite it knowing all that came before it. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you cite it knowing what is coming afterward, don't you?
A. I probably did at the time, yes.
"Given the high death rate at Auschwitz, the corpses had to be disposed of quickly and without creating further health hazards. After burying the dead in pits for some time, the SS shifted to burning them, first on open pyres and then, above all, in crematoriums. Except for one crematory installed in the main camp, all the cremating facilities were clustered in Birkenau. The decision to order four modern crematoriums and multiple ovens for emplacement in Birkenau was made late in the winter of 1941-42 ‑‑ in other words, well before the arrival of the Jewish transports from western Europe. SS specialists worked closely with representatives of the two private firms that were commissioned to manufacture and install the new equipment, a task which was to take a full year. The four crematoriums, numbered II through V, began to operate at different dates between March 23 and June 25, 1943. Crematoriums II and III were built partly underground, each complex consisting of fifteen ovens and a daily capacity of 1,440 bodies. Crematoriums IV and V were entirely aboveground, each installation consisting of eight ovens for a daily capacity of 768 corpses. Located along the western fringes of Birkenau, the four crematoriums combined could dispose of 4,416 bodies every day. Taking account of the 340 bodies that could be burned in the crematorium of the main camp, which also operated off and on until the fall of 1944, Auschwitz's daily crematory capacity reached 4,756. In sum, from the summer of 1943 through the fall of 1944, provided they operated at full capacity and around the clock, the five crematoriums could incinerate 33,292 bodies per week, 142,680 per month, and 1,712,160 per year."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. It's a long passage ‑‑
Q. You followed with me?
A. I didn't finish my answer before you began speaking. It's a long passage, and I followed it fairly quickly. I think you got one word wrong, but generally I think you read it correctly.
Q. Knowing that ‑‑ of course, none of that is referred to or cited in any of this article, "Auschwitz: Myths and Facts", is it?
A. No, it is not.
Q. Then it goes on:
"But many questions remain open. To begin with, to what extent did the resolve to impress and decimate or exterminate the Jews influence the decision to equip Birkenau with four immense crematoriums? All in all, how many bodies were cremated in Auschwitz? How many died there all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a 'natural' death and how many were deliberately slaughtered? And what was the proportion of Jews among those murdered in cold blood ‑‑ among those gassed? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time."
Is that what he wrote?
A. That seems to be correct.
Q. From that almost-three-page excerpt, you took one sentence as a reference and concluded:
"Princeton University history professor Arno Mayer, who's Jewish, acknowledges in a recent book about the 'final solution' that more Jews perished at Auschwitz as a result of typhus and other 'natural' causes than were
executed."
And you think that is a correct and accurate reference to what I just read to you?
A. That's a good question, and I would like to explain that.
Q. I would like an answer to my question before you give your speech. It is a simple yes or no. Is that an accurate reference to what was quoted?
A. Is that an accurate reference?
Q. Yes. Do you think that is accurate? Do you? Do you or not?
A. First of all, what I quoted is exactly consistent with what Arno Mayer wrote. However, one of the most amazing things about this book ‑‑ and, if you have a copy, it will be very easy to consult this ‑‑ is that this entire book is written without any references whatsoever ‑‑ not one. He cites numerous numbers, figures, statements and documents in this book without ever providing any footnotes whatsoever.
It is not uncommon for historians to make statements and not provide any references whatsoever. I at least provided a reference to what Arno Mayer said. What I did cite was consistent with what Arno Mayer wrote. The importance of this is not this quibbling about this or that aspect. The importance is that what Arno Mayer writes. that from 1942 to 1945 certainly at Auschwitz but probably overall more Jews were killed by natural causes than unnatural ones, is a very important statement because it is completely inconsistent with what was claimed at the Nuremberg trials and what is claimed in numerous other historical texts.
There are many points about Arno Mayer's book that not only I but many other historians take exception to. I disagree with quite a lot of what he writes, but that one statement that he makes is so startling that he was widely criticized by many others for having made it. He got into a lot of trouble for making that statement. There are other sentences in this book that I quoted and that others have quoted that are really quite eye-opening because they are so inconsistent with what we have heard.
We have heard generally that there was an industrial policy to exterminate the Jews and that this industrial policy of killing the Jews was done by gas chambers in a very systematic way, not through natural causes or diseases.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, Mr. Weber. You are talking about an important point here. Is not the important point whether the citation of this quote from Arno Mayer's work is misleading? Would you not agree that it is misleading to quote it absent the context in which it was made?
THE WITNESS: What I cited was accurate and is consistent with what he said. It is not consistent with his overall thesis in some ways, but that kind of quotation taken out like that is done all the time and has been done here with regard to Mr. Zundel, in fact.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that Mayer's work is authoritative? I am getting a mixed message here. I take it that, because of the absence of citations, you have some misgivings about the authoritativeness of this work. If that is the case, why cite it at all?
THE WITNESS: Although I have some misgivings about this work, as do others, what is important is that Arno Mayer, a historian of this stature, would even make that statement that he did because it is so inconsistent with many other claims that have been made about Auschwitz. That is the importance of that.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead, Mr. Rosen.
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Sir, I stopped reading in a particular place but, in fact, Arno Mayer goes on to talk about how his use of the word "natural" causes was really part of the overall, planned, deliberate execution of these prisoners by the Germans, doesn't he?
A. Something like that.
Q. Let's see what he does say at page 367. He starts at page 366 and says right after I left off:
"The outright killings began in July or August 1941. Judging by their victims and the methods used, these early slayings were characteristic of the original mission of Auschwitz. The first to be killed were Polish and Soviet prisoners who were selected for being sick, unfit, or unruly. They were taken from Auschwitz to a half-dormant euthanasia establishment at Sonnenstein to be dispatched, individually, by phenol injection or gassing. Much like the SS after the outbreak of war in 1939, the cadres and operatives of the euthanasia program, stymied at home as we shall see, were eager to serve the Third Reich in eastern Europe. The next chapter will show how starting in mid-March 1942, these miscreants played a considerable role in Operation Reinhard at Belzec, Sobibór, and Treblinka. But even before then, several of them apparently went first to Poland and then as far east as Smolensk and Kiev in Russia to act as observers, consultants, and experimenters in the wake of special SS commandos. Though few in number and without clear authority, they proffered their know-how through informal connections that eventually reached into Auschwitz. In any case, on September 3, 1941, about six hundred Soviet prisoners of war were killed in a cellar of Block 11 in the main camp. A few days later another nine hundred POWs were put to death in the morgue next to the crematorium. It seems that both times gas was used. The second time the local executioners probably asphyxiated their victims with the insecticide Zyklon B. Although there may have been some Jews among these victims, the bulk was not Jewish. Nor is there any reliable evidence to suggest that these killings were rehearsals for the subsequent mass gassing of Jews."
Have I more or less read that correctly, sir?
A. More or less.
Q."At Auschwitz this mass slaughter did not start until the summer of 1942."
Of course, what he is talking about is the mass slaughter or the mass gassing of Jews, isn't it?
A. I assume.
Q." That was the time that Jews began to arrive to be consigned to work and die in Birkenau, whose inherent desolation just then was compounded by typhus. With the rates of sickness and death soaring, and with the installation of the new crematoriums many months away, the camp authorities decided to put together a gassing facility at Birkenau. Workmen converted two recently evacuated peasant houses into gas chambers by removing their interior walls, insulating their windows, and refitting their doors. These two converted dwellings, hereafter known as Bunker I and Bunker II, were of uneven size, and their respective killing capacities remain unknown. They became operative in mid-July 1942, possibly on July 17 or 18, during Himmler's second visit to Auschwitz. Presumably, these improvised facilities were intended to speed the death of the uncared for, failing victims of the epidemic, which could no longer be handled by phenol injections. No real effort was made to stem the epidemic: the local authorities, including the physicians among them, neither organized emergency evacuations nor requested that all incoming transports be delayed or halted. Instead, they sought to contain and control the epidemic by imposing what they must have known to be totally ineffective quarantine measures."
That is what he wrote, isn't it?
A. That is more or less what he wrote.
Q. The authorities "sought to contain and control the epidemic by imposing what they must have known to be totally ineffective quarantine measures."
That is how people died of natural causes at Auschwitz, says Professor Arno Mayer of Princeton University. Right, Mr. Weber?
A. Among other things.
Q. Yet, you in your article, "Auschwitz: Myths and Facts", say"
"Princeton University history professor Arno Mayer, who's Jewish, acknowledges in a recent book about the 'final solution' that more Jews perished at Auschwitz as a result of typhus and other 'natural' causes than were
executed."
And Note 11 references his book. Is that right?
A. That is why I cited the book, so that people can check for themselves.
Q. Do you know what sophistry is, sir?
A. I think I do.
Q. You think you do. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, "sophistry" is the use of sophism, and "sophism" is a false argument, especially one intended to deceive; a clever device.
That is what this is, isn't it? It's pure sophistry.
A. No, it is not.
Q. Let's see what else you did in this article, "Auschwitz: Myths and Facts", as an honest historian.
To complete the record, I wonder if we could have the excerpt from "Why Did The Heavens Not Darken: The 'Final Solution' in History" by Arno J. Mayer as the next exhibit.
THE REGISTRAR: The excerpt will be marked as SW-3.
EXHIBIT NO. SW-3: Pages 364-367 from book entitled "Why Did The Heavens Not Darken: The 'Final Solution' in History" by Arno J. Mayer
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Let's go on and see what else you did in this particular article.
One of the things that you say here under the heading on the same page, "Allied Propaganda" is:
"The Auschwitz gassing story is based in large part on the hearsay statements of former Jewish inmates who did not personally see any evidence of extermination. Their beliefs are understandable, because rumors about gassing at Auschwitz were widespread."
That is what you wrote; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. As part of that you go on to say:
"Allied planes dropped large numbers of leaflets, written in Polish and German, on Auschwitz and the surrounding areas which claimed that people were being gassed in the camp. The Auschwitz gassing story, which was an important part of the Allied wartime propaganda effort, was also broadcast to Europe by Allied radio stations. (note 12)."
Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Note 12 is: "Nuremberg document NI-11696, NMT green series, Vol. 8, p.606."
Have I read that correctly?
A. That's correct.
Q. What is the NMT green series?
A. That is the Nuremberg Military Tribunal green series.
Q. Volume 8, of course, would be of that series, and the page reference, and the document number is actually listed, "NI-11696." Right?
A. Right.
Q. In order to list it as a reference, you obviously went out and got the document and you noted this particular portion, Allied Propaganda, Note 12, as you have done. Is that right?
A. That refers to just one aspect of these paragraphs.
Q. Just one aspect of it?
A. There is a lot more evidence for other aspects of it, but I put that reference for the most striking aspect of it.
Q. I am going to produce to you, sir, Document NI-11696. Document NI-11696 comes in the form of an affidavit that was Prosecution Exhibit No. 1462 in the prosecution of the IG Farben case, among others. Right?
A. Right.
Q. It was also in the case of United States v. Karl Krauch who was one of the defendants at Nuremberg. Right?
A. I don't recall.
Q. The affidavit is an affidavit that was sworn to, after being interviewed, by Charles Joseph Coward of 133 Chichester Road, Lower Edmonton, London, who "herewith declares under oath the following facts." It is signed by Mr. Coward and sworn to before Benvenuto Von Halle, a U.S. Civilian Interrogator, on the 24th day of July, 1947 at London, England. Do you see that on the last page?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Charles Joseph Coward swore, and his evidence was accepted at the trial:
"1. I entered the British Army on 6/16/1937. I was captured on 5/26/1940, serving at that time with the 8th Reserve Regimental Royal Artillery. My rank was that of Battery Sergeant. After having gone through different Stalag camps, I arrived in Auschwitz in December 1943. Auschwitz was under the supervision of Stalag No. VIII B. The camp at Auschwitz at which we lived was E 715. It is one of the camps grouped around the IG Farben Plant at Auschwitz."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. I believe so.
Q. This was a British Sergeant who was captured presumably at Dunkirk, but at least in 1940, and who went through different Stalag camps which were prisoner of war camps, weren't they?
A. It stands for Stammlager, a prisoner of war camp.
Q. Yes, and ultimately wound up in Auschwitz which, of course, was a humongous complex of camps, wasn't it?
A. It was a large complex.
Q. He goes on to recount what the camp looked like, where he was, what he saw, and some of the things that he did, in this affidavit. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. To explain what he was able to see and do, at paragraph 5 he declares under oath:
"My work as liaison man and trustee ‑‑"
That is, the Red Cross liaison man and trustee that he explains earlier on.
"‑‑ gave me access to surrounding towns, including Auschwitz. Also I came into contact with Farben officials. For example, during the first 10 days I was there, I received complaints from our men about the food and conditions of work. The majority of them were laying cables and their clothing was not really good enough for the work they were doing. Particularly since this was the middle of the winter. I investigated the complaints myself and saw they were justified. I got back to the camp and explained to my chief the necessity for extra supplies, and I also spoke to the Germans and asked to see the directors of IG Farben regarding clothing. I was always put off, saying I should see the contractors, and the contractors would say that material had already been ordered."
Have I read that more or less correctly, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. He is doing this particular job and has basically, according to him, the run of the town and the complex, at least a fair amount of it. Is that right, sir? That is the thrust of what he is saying?
A. I won't disagree with that.
Q. Paragraph 6:
"Of course the treatment of the British prisoners could not be considered even in the same class with the treatment of the other groups, particularly the concentration camp inmates and the Russians. With respect to clothing, for example, the concentration camp inmates wore a striped pair of pajamas and wooden shoes; that was all the clothing they had. They would sleep in it, work in it, eat in it; there was no change of clothing. Whatever clothing of value they had when they came to the camp was taken away from them in exchange for the striped pajamas. Although I had heard that conditions were bad, I at first did not believe it. I made it a point to get one of the guards to take me to town under the pretence of buying new razor blades and stuff for our boys. For a few cigarettes he pointed out to me the various places where they had the gas chambers and the places here they took them down to be cremated. Everyone to whom I spoke gave the same story the people in the city of Auschwitz, the SS men, Concentration camp inmates, foreign workers everyone said that thousands of people were being gassed and cremated at Auschwitz, and that the inmates who worked with us and who were unable to continue working because of their physical condition and were suddenly missing, had been sent to the gas chambers."
Let's stop there. That is what he swears to as an eyewitness to those events. Correct, sir?
A. That is what it seems to be, yes.
Q. He says:
"The inmates who were sent to be gassed went through the procedure of preparing for a bath, they stripped their clothes off, and walked into the bathing room. Instead of showers, there was gas. All the camp knew it. All the civilian population knew it. I mixed with the civilian population at Auschwitz. I was at Auschwitz nearly every day. The population at Auschwitz was fully aware that people were being gassed and burned. On one occasion they complained about the stench of the burning bodies. Of course all of the Farben people knew what was going on. No ‑‑"
And then I think the word "one" is missing.
"No could live in Auschwitz and work in the plant, or even come down to plant without knowing what was common knowledge to everybody."
Is that what this British Sergeant of the 8th Reserve, Regimental Royal Artillery, swore to in 1947 about his experiences at Auschwitz?
A. Based on this document, that is what it says.
Q. This is Document No. NI-11696 that you cite in your article as footnote No. 12. Right?
A. That's right.
Q. Then he goes:
"Even among the Farben employees to whom I spoke, a lot of them would admit they knew about the gassing. Others who were pretty scared to say anything would admit that they heard about the gassing but then would say it was all propaganda. I am sure that Duerrfeld who was always walking around the factory knew about the gassings and the burnings. It would be utterly impossible not to know. Everybody knew from the civilians to the top dogs. It was common talk. Even while still at Auschwitz we got radio broadcasts from the out side speaking about the gassings and burnings at Auschwitz. I recall one of these broadcasts was by Anthony Eden himself. Also, there were pamphlets dropped in Auschwitz and the surrounding territory one of which I personally read, which related what was going on in the camp at Auschwitz. These leaflets were scattered all over the countryside and must have been dropped from planes. They were in Polish and German. Under those circumstances, nobody could be at or near Auschwitz without knowing what was going on."
Correct, sir? That is what he swore to?
A. That is what it appears to be, yes.
Q. From all of that description of the killing, the gassing, the cremation, the stench in the air and what everybody at Auschwitz knew and saw, you took one statement out of here that says:
"Even while still at Auschwitz we got radio broadcasts from the out side speaking about the gassings and burnings at Auschwitz."
You then go on and refer, I assume, to the fact that leaflets were scattered in Polish and German and that there were radio broadcasts by Anthony Eden himself, he says.
You take that bit and put it here in your article. Is that it?
A. This article was quoted or this document was cited for the sole purpose of establishing that leaflets were dropped by Allied planes in Polish and German stating that people were being gassed at Auschwitz. I didn't deal with the entirety of the article.
One of the most astonishing things about this declaration by this man is that the word "Jew" appears nowhere in the article; there is no mention of any policy of extermination of Jews. It is an astonishing thing that a man who talks about gassing and about all this mistreatment is apparently unaware that there is any special policy toward Jews. That is not even mentioned in the article.
There are other British prisoners who were at Auschwitz who disagreed with him about other aspects of it. It is a very common procedure among historians to cite a document which may be very lengthy, or even a book which may be very lengthy, to underscore and to prove one particular point, and that is all I was trying to do in this article which is not meant to be a complete or voluminous text.
Q. But you cited the document as authoritative, didn't you?
A. For this purpose, yes.
Q. And you cited the article as authoritative in the context not of Jews who were gassed at Auschwitz but of Allied propaganda, and you begin by saying:
"The Auschwitz gassing story ‑‑"
Which, of course, you are pooh-poohing all through the article.
"‑‑ is based in large part on hearsay statements of former Jewish inmates who did not personally see any evidence of extermination. Their beliefs are understandable because rumors about gassing at Auschwitz were widespread."
This man speaks about his own personal observations, his personal recollections. He was an eyewitness to the killings and the gassings and the burnings.
MR. CHRISTIE: If I may, this document does not indicate an eyewitness to killings or gassings or burnings. It gives hearsay evidence. My friend has no right to characterize it as firsthand evidence of those things.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He is an eyewitness to certain things. He walks around Auschwitz. I agree that he is not an eyewitness to killings.
MR. ROSEN: To the killings directly, I agree.
MR. CHRISTIE: To gassings or burnings. My friend said "eyewitness to killings, gassings or burnings."
MR. ROSEN: Let's not quibble, Mr. Christie.
MR. CHRISTIE: I am not quibbling; I am objecting.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I think your point is well taken to the extent that it is not an eyewitness account. The focus of this part of your article is to illustrate propaganda on the part of the Allied forces and thereby give the impression that propaganda, being propaganda, is exaggerated, et cetera. Your article does refer by implication, by your footnote, to the evidence of Charles Joseph Coward rather than to statements by former Jewish inmates.
THE WITNESS: Yes, that's right.
THE CHAIRPERSON: That seems to be the preamble of this section.
THE WITNESS: Right.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that not misleading?
THE WITNESS: It is an article; it is not a book. I have written much more extensively documenting many other aspects of it. I am only citing this one thing about the leaflets because that is the one thing that is perhaps most striking.
No historian would disagree that the Auschwitz gassing story is based primarily, or in very large part, on statements by Jewish inmates. One of the most amazing things is that we have very, very few statements by anyone who was at Auschwitz who says, "I saw someone gassed."
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not going to go too deeply into that. I am just focusing on what this article is about.
You keep referring to historians. I take it that you did not write this article as a historian but, rather, it is more a polemical article.
THE WITNESS: Yes. It is not meant to be a scholarly work or anything. It is to induce and provoke discussion.
THE CHAIRPERSON: When are we to know when you are speaking as a historian and to know when you are speaking as a polemicist.
THE WITNESS: That is always a difficult thing. For example, Arno Mayer doesn't cite any sources. Maybe if I had cited no sources, I wouldn't be in the situation I am in with Mr. Rosen today. I have cited sources because I invite people and encourage people to consult for themselves. In fact, I try to encourage people to do much more reading than that.
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Mr. Weber, with respect, I must take issue with what you just said to the Chair of the Panel. At the end of this article and as part of this article, your standard "About the author" portion is in here, isn't it? At the very last page:
"Mark Weber is editor of The Journal of Historical Review, published six times yearly by the Institute for Historical Review. He studied history at the University of Illinois (Chicago), the University of Munich, Portland State University, and Indiana University (M.A. 1977). For five days in March 1988, he testified as a recognized expert witness on the 'final solution' and the Holocaust issue in a Toronto District Court case. He is the author of many published articles, reviews and essays on various aspects of modern European history. Weber has appeared as a guest on numerous radio talk shows and on the nationally-syndicated 'Montel Williams' television show."
That is what appears with this article. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Back to this affidavit. The thrust of what Sergeant Coward is saying in his affidavit is not that there was Allied propaganda of leaflets being dropped in Polish and German and radio broadcasts about the Auschwitz gassing story; the thrust of what he is saying is that nobody at Auschwitz, German or prisoner alike, or in the town next to it, could not know about the gassing and the crematoria. Isn't that what he is saying?
A. I can't say what the thrust of his article is. I cited the article only to demonstrate one particular point which he makes. I stand by in that context what I wrote in that leaflet. What I wrote in the leaflet is true, and what Mr. Coward says backs up that one point that I am making in my leaflet on that one particular point.
Q. Mr. Weber, look at the bottom of the page where paragraph 6 is set out. He says:
"No [one] could live in Auschwitz and work in the plant, or even come down to plant without knowing what was common knowledge to everybody.
Even among the Farben employees to whom I spoke, a lot of them would admit they knew about the gassing. Others who were pretty scared to say anything would admit that they heard about the gassing but then would say it was all propaganda. I am sure that Duerrfeld who was always walking around the factory knew about the gassings and the burnings. It would be utterly impossible not to know. Everybody knew from the civilians to the top dogs."
Do you see that part up to that point?
A. I saw that part.
Q. In that context, he goes on to say:
"It was common talk. Even while still at Auschwitz we got radio broadcasts from the out side speaking about the gassings and burnings at Auschwitz. I recall one of these broadcasts was by Anthony Eden himself. Also, there were pamphlets dropped in Auschwitz and the surrounding territory one of which I personally read, which related what was going on in the camp at Auschwitz. These leaflets were scattered all over the countryside and must have been dropped from planes. They were in Polish and German."
Then he concludes, sir:
"Under those circumstances, nobody could be at or near Auschwitz without knowing what was going on."
Do you see that he says that? Do you understand, sir, that what I have read is what he says in his affidavit? Is that right?
A. It's a very common procedure, Mr. Rosen, that, when someone gives a statement in court or an affidavit, a historian or a lawyer or a judge will cite one particular sentence to make one particular point and not be concerned with what might be called the thrust of the entire thing.
I wasn't dealing with the thrust of his entire document. I was dealing with one particular aspect of what he said there to make one point in a leaflet; that's all. He does confirm the one point that I was making.
Q. Mr. Weber, Mr. Coward's evidence was a prosecution exhibit tendered, I suggest, to bring home to IG Farben and its employees, including this defendant, because it is "et al", that they knew about the gassings, they knew about the crematoria, because he did and so did everybody else. That was the context in which this was written. Isn't that right, sir?
A. I don't want to speculate on the context. I am commenting here on this particular use or the importance of this document for this leaflet, which is the reason this discussion began.
Q. This man is not a historian but a witness, and the context is to bring home knowledge. He is speaking of the knowledge of the people who were there with him as to what was going on. Isn't that right? Isn't that what you understand?
A. Mr. Rosen, other witnesses who were at Auschwitz have testified and gave very different testimony ‑‑
Q. You didn't cite them in this footnote. You cited this man and this document.
A. Because that is not the purpose of the footnote. You didn't ask me a question, but anyway that is not the purpose of my leaflet. That was not the purpose. It was to make this one particular point, and Mr. Coward makes that one point.
Q. Mr. Weber, as a serious historian, are you saying to this Tribunal, for this record, that the use of this footnote for this statement is not misleading?
A. For this particular statement, no, it is not misleading. In fact, that is why I invite people to consult the document for themselves and provide exact information about how they can obtain it.
Q. How many people do you think, reading this article by a ‑‑ how do you describe yourself here?
THE CHAIRPERSON: That would be a scholarly effort, wouldn't it?
THE WITNESS: It depends on how much time and effort one wants to put into it.
MR. ROSEN:
Q. How do you get this? I got it.
A. It is in larger libraries; it is on the Internet. It is not easy.
Q. It is not easy; that's right.
Let's look at the next footnote that plays a part in this.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to mark this?
MR. ROSEN: Yes, could we have that marked as the next exhibit.
THE REGISTRAR: The document will be marked as SW-4.
EXHIBIT NO. SW-4: Document NI-11696, Affidavit of Charles Joseph Coward, dated July 24, 1947
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Another note you cite is Note 14 under the heading "Survivor Testimony." Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. To put this in context, this is an article called "Auschwitz: Myths and Facts" and the purpose of the article is to demonstrate that the Holocaust story, as you refer to it, is myth rather than fact. Right?
A. No, I don't say that. I say "Myths and Facts." There are myths and there are facts. Some of the statements that have been made about Auschwitz over the years are widely acknowledged now to be untrue.
Q. Let's see what you did under "Survivor Testimony" at Note 14. You say:
"A Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from Hungary in 1944, when 25,000 Jews were supposedly gassed and cremated daily. She likewise testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of 'gas chambers' during the time she was interned there. She heard the gassing stories only later. (note 14)."
Right?
A. Right what?
Q. Is that what you have written?
A. You left out the month of July, but more or less that is it.
Q. The note that you refer to takes you to a book called "Voices from the Holocaust", Sylvia Rothchild, editor, New York 1981, pp. 188-191. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Let's deal with Sylvia Rothchild. First of all, her book is not a book of evidence, is it?
A. Excuse me...?
Q. It is not a book of evidence taken from court. As I understand it ‑‑ and I may be wrong ‑‑ it is a series of remembrances by a variety of people who recollected them in different circumstances. Right?
A. It has been some time since I saw the book, but I recall that it is a series of memoir essays.
Q. By individuals who were survivors of the Holocaust. Right?
A. I don't remember that, but okay.
Q. That is what she entitles it: "Voices from the Holocaust" Edited by Sylvia Rothchild. Right?
A. Right.
Q. One of the people who sets out her experiences during this particular period of time is a woman by the name of Marika Frank Abrams whom you refer to in your article. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. This woman, as she begins at page 186 of the book, notes:
"We were at a summer resort near Budapest in September 1939 when the war broke out."
A. Excuse me, what page are you on?
Q. Page 186. The editor of the book, Ms Rothchild, begins by a note:
"Marika Frank Abrams, in her own words, 'a very spoiled and protected child up to the time of deportation,' was sent with her family to the ghetto in Debrecin and then, at the age of nineteen, to Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen."
That is what it says?
A. That's correct.
Q. If we could go back for a moment to what you wrote, you said that this Jewish woman named Marika Frank arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau from Hungary in July 1944. Right?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You don't say how long she was there or where she was liberated from or what her time was to make her observations.
A. No, I didn't.
Q. You refer to it as testimony when, in fact, it is a series of recollections that this editor has collected. Right?
A. It's a memoir. It is written testimony by this woman.
Q. But it is not in court.
A. But it is her testimony.
Q. But the use of the word "testified" suggests that she testified in some sort of judicial proceeding and that, therefore, what she has to say was tested in the context of a court or judicial proceeding. Correct?
A. Not necessarily. The word "testify" or "testimony" many times is given for statements made outside of a judicial context.
Q. But the word you use is that she testified after the war that she heard and saw nothing of gas chambers. Right?
A. Right.
Q. Testified after the war.
A. Right. I am referring to ‑‑
Q. And you don't think that is misleading.
MR. CHRISTIE: Could he ‑‑
MR. ROSEN: I haven't finished my question.
MR. CHRISTIE: He was answering, and I heard him trying to give an answer and you interrupted him.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Leave a bit of space between you.
MR. ROSEN: Let me repeat my question.
Q. You chose to use the word "testify" as in testified after the war. Right?
A. That's right.
Q. And in that context you left the impression that she gave evidence as a witness in some sort of judicial proceeding.
A. No. I could have written "said" or "declared" or "stated." I could have written that as well. I wrote "testified" because this is a statement that has been edited and has been gone over. It is not merely something said in a newspaper or in an offhand way. It is done in a fairly serious context.
Q. The context in which it was done is under the heading "Survivor Testimony," not survivor statements or recollections and so forth, but "Survivor Testimony." Correct, sir? Is that the heading that you chose?
A. Right now there are numerous, hundreds, of statements made by Holocaust survivors that are collected by organizations. Perhaps the most famous right now is one headed by Spielberg. He calls them "Survivor Testimonies." He talks about survivors testifying. They are not doing it in any judicial context; they are making statements on videotape or others. Any reasonable person knows that this does not necessarily mean that it is given in a judicial context.
Q. Let's see what the context of your article is. First, "Survivor Testimony" is the heading. Correct?
A. Of course. I am citing this article to make this one particular point.
Q. The second thing that we note is that, after a one-line introduction, the first person you refer to without footnote is an Austrian woman, Maria Vanherwaarden who "testified about her camp experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988." Do you see where you have written that?
A. Not correct. I did have a footnote, and I do cite a source for what I say, so your statement is not correct.
Q. Do you, sir, agree that the first person that you refer to under the heading "Survivor Testimony" is Maria Vanherwaarden?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that you refer to her in the context of having testified about her camp experiences in a Toronto District Court in March 1988. Correct? Is that right, sir?
A. Right. I specifically state that she testified in a court, and I cite that court. In both cases I cite references so that anyone who is skeptical can check for themselves.
Q. Sir, having referred to the Toronto District Court, you then go on to use the words that Marika Frank likewise testified. You didn't say "testified" by itself; you said "likewise testified" as in a Toronto court room.
A. No, "likewise" in this case that what she said in this context is consistent with what the previous person said. That is the reason for the word "likewise."
Q. Would you not agree with me that to the ordinary reader of this article, when you use "testimony" in the title and the first person that you speak of "testified" as a witness in a District Court, and when you say "likewise testified" you are referring to the same proceedings or at the very least a court proceeding where she testified as a witness. Isn't that the ordinary meaning?
A. No. A person may have that interpretation, but "likewise" is meant here, and I think to a reasonable person "likewise" can mean that the testimony is similar to the other person's testimony.
Q. As a serious historian who relies on accuracy for what he says and writes, your position is that this is not misleading. Is that it, sir?
A. My position is not only that it is not misleading but that, if there is any ambiguity on the part of the reader, he or she is invited to check for him or herself, and that is why sources are cited.
Q. Let's see what Marika Frank Abrams was able to say.
THE CHAIRPERSON: If you are going to go into that, we will take our morning break.
‑‑- Short Recess at 11:28 a.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 11:49 a.m.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Rosen, how are we doing here? Are we getting to a point?
MR. ROSEN: We are, sir. I have just a few more of these.
Q. Sir, we were going to deal with Marika Frank, as you call her in your article, "Auschwitz: Myths and Facts" in Note 14.
A. I call her Marika Frank because that was her name at the time I am describing her here.
Q. She tells the story of her life from about September 1939 until she eventually makes her way to New York after the war. Correct?
A. I don't recall all of what you are saying, but she describes her experiences from 1939, including the Second World War. I don't recall her describing her experiences in New York, but I haven't seen it in a while.
Q. If you turn to the last page, she says at page 193:
"I met my first Americans in Zerbst ‑‑"
And so forth. Then that goes on through how she survives the post-war period until the last paragraph:
"It took a year and a half of waiting before we could leave...We finally got the visas, and we left in December from Bremenhaven to come to New York."
A. I see that.
Q. That is the period she is speaking of.
In her memoir she recounts her days in Hungary before the war and then when war broke out and finally the arrival of the Germans into Hungary on March 19, 1944. Correct?
A. What page is that again?
Q. You see the first paragraph on page 186:
"We were at a summer resort near Budapest in September 1939 when the war broke out. It did not break out in Hungary until June 17, 1941."
Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. Then she goes on to recount her experiences after the war broke out. Then at page 187 she says:
"And then the Germans came into Hungary on March 19, 1944, and this was the end of everything for us. All the Jews in Debrecin had to leave their homes and move into a certain part of the city they called the ghetto. This was a great circus. You can imagine: all the people living there who were not Jewish had to move out and all the Jews had to move in. It was actually accomplished by the end of May."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. So we now in May 1944. She goes on to recount here experiences in the ghetto until the end of June and the beginning of July 1944 when the Germans transported the whole population out of that town. Correct?
A. Where are you, please?
Q. I am now at page 188. She describes the transportation from Debrecin/
A. Right.
Q. She says:
"About four weeks after we came to the ghetto the whole population was taken to the brick factory and deported in three transports. The first included the political people ‑‑ the Zionists, the socialists ‑‑ and also people with large families. There were many children in that group. The second transport included the hospital, with all the doctors and nurses. We were in the third transport. Each had about five thousand people."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. I believe so.
Q."The first transport was very lucky. The tracks to Auschwitz had been bombed and they were sent to Vienna instead. My girlfriend was on that one and she said they were treated as prisoners of war, housed in school buildings and assigned jobs in the city. The second transport with the hospital went straight to Vienna. All the people on it came back to Hungary unharmed. The third transport went straight to Auschwitz. the tracks, by then, had been repaired."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. That's right.
Q. She goes on to say:
"When we arrived we were asked to come out of the boxcars and the men and women were immediately separated. This is a scene as clear in my brain as if it happened today. I wish I could describe it but I really can't....My father said goodbye to us in a very positive way. I was in a row with my mother. She was fifty-two years old. I'm almost that old now. She looked seventy-five. And there was my beautiful aunt, who must have been about thirty-eight, and her son, who was eight years old. I was holding the little boy's hand and my arm was in the arm of my mother."
Have I read her description of that event correctly, sir?
A. I think so.
Q."We had to form rows of five. That was the rule. And as we were walking by the selection officer, he asked me how old I was and I said nineteen. He put his hand on my shoulder and pushed me off to the left. I looked back and couldn't see the others anymore. And that was that."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. I think so.
Q. That describes her arrival at Auschwitz and her separation from her father first and then her 52-year-old mother, her 38-year-old aunt and her 8-year-old cousin whom she never sees again. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. Then she says:
"I was in Auschwitz a very short time and my survival there is truly miraculous. We came on July 1, 1944. Not very long ago I read a book (The Theory and Practice of Hell by Kogon) that had the numbers of Hungarian Jews killed in Auschwitz. Between May 1 and July 31, 1944, 140,000 were gassed in Auschwitz immediately upon arrival. I, however, was sent to Birkenau, which was a section of Auschwitz, not yet finished."
That is what she tells the editor in this essay. Correct?
A. Yes. It is very interesting that she believes that people were gassed at Auschwitz and not at Birkenau; whereas, according to the book you cited earlier and in most sources, the gassings were primarily at Birkenau and not at Auschwitz.
Q. This is a 19-year-old, as she describes herself, very spoiled and protected child up to the time of deportation, according to the editor, who is separated quickly and efficiently from her family and sent off by herself in a camp such as Auschwitz that had been in existence for some years before her arrival.
A. Right.
Q. She goes on to describe her stay at Birkenau, about sleeping on the floor and how horrible it was and so forth, and she eventually comes down with scarlet fever just before they set up the barracks for people with contagious disease and so forth. Correct?
A. Right, and apparently she was there for six months, it says.
Q. Six months, in which she had scarlet fever and suffering from that.
A. Apparently she went to some infirmary of some kind.
Q. Of some kind, right. Then she says at page 190:
"I was taken from Auschwitz to Bergen-Belsen. This trip across Germany in a boxcar was nightmarish."
Then she describes her trip into western Germany.
A. Right. You are on page 190 now.
Q. Yes. Then she describes how, after arriving at wherever they arrived, they were taken out of the trucks and taken to the edge of a beautiful forest, she calls it, marched through the forest in absolute silence and brought to Bergen-Belsen which, at the time she got there, was a large camp with huge tents and so forth ‑‑ far superior to the conditions at Auschwitz, she says.
A. She says:
"The conditions were so superior to Auschwitz we felt we were practically in a sanatarium."
Q. Right. Also, in comparison to Auschwitz I am sure they were, but that is an oft-quoted line by you and other revisionists, isn't it, about how the conditions were like a sanatorium.
A. I don't think it is oft-quoted.
Q. It is quoted.
A. I have quoted it, of course.
Q. Then she says:
"I was separated from my girlfriend when she was sent to the punishment barrack ‑‑ they were always making up reasons to punish people ‑‑ but I became friends with a younger girl."
Then she describes her relationship with this younger girl. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Then she describes why she thinks that Anne Frank was with her, although she didn't see her, in that paragraph. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Then she says, almost by way of interjection:
"Let me explain that even though I had been in Auschwitz I did not know about the gas chambers. Can you imagine that? We thought, when we were there, that our parents and the children were taken to camps which were much better. We assumed that they couldn't live through the camp we were in. It was not until a large contingent from Auschwitz came to Bergen-Belsen that I had to give up that idea that they were safe. I met two women in their thirties who spoke Hungarian and they asked if it was true that the Hungarian transports were so severely selected ‑‑ people to the camps and the others to be gassed. I said, 'What are you saying?' And they looked at me as if I were foolish, but they didn't want to destroy my hope and so didn't try to explain.
I ran back to the tent and collapsed. I think I cried for weeks. I finally realized that everybody was killed."
Have I read that portion correctly, sir?
A. I think there was one error, but more or less correctly.
Q. From that description of her memoir which, by the way, are of a 19-year-old, reminisced when she is 52 years old, as indicated at page 188 when she describes her mother as being 52 at the time, "I am almost that old now," she says that she didn't know in her brief time at Auschwitz that there were gas chambers and crematoria. Right?
A. I cite not merely that one section that you are quoting. In the note you will note that I cite pages 188 through 191 ‑‑ that is, the entire section here. That is a pertinent portion of it, yes.
Q. What you do, sir, is cite this for the proposition that former inmates have confirmed that they saw no evidence of extermination at Auschwitz. Correct? That was the proposition that you put forward in your paper.
A. I stated:
"Former inmates have confirmed they saw no evidence of extermination at Auschwitz."
Q. That is under the title "Survivor Testimony" in an article entitled "Myths and Facts." This is what you cite and give two specific examples, one of which I just read to you from this book. Right?
A. There are many other examples, too, but yes. I could have cited others as well.
Q. But what you don't cite, sir, in this article is Note 11, Arno Mayer, who is acknowledged by you to be a reputable, accredited historian who speaks of "the evidence of extermination at Auschwitz." You don't cite that, do you?
A. Not only do I not cite that; I don't cite the fact that Arno Mayer has such respect for the Institute for Historical Review and revisionist writing that he cites in the bibliography of his book that you and I have been discussing two books published by the Institute for Historical Review, include "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" by Arthur Butz and "The Holocaust Legend" by Paul Rassinier, one of the most important revisionists.
Arno Mayer is an important person in this kind of ongoing debate, a debate in which not everyone agrees but in which Arno Mayer at least recognizes the importance of the work of the IHR and its role in this debate.
Q. Mr. Weber, he cites those two books as examples of Holocaust denial ‑‑
A. Absolutely not.
Q. ‑‑ and twisting the truth.
A. Absolutely not. If you consulted the book, you would find that he cites those books in the bibliography in exactly the same way that he cites every source that is given in that bibliography. In fact, Arno Mayer gives no footnote references whatsoever in his book, so that no one is actually able to check the sources of all the various facts that he gives except the books that he cites in the bibliography, including two books published by the Institute for Historical Review.
Q. Mr. Weber, while we are talking about testimony, one of the pieces of testimony that you leave out under the heading "Survivor Testimony" is the evidence of Sergeant Coward in NI-11696 from Nuremberg.
A. I might have cited Sergeant Coward as an example of someone who was at Auschwitz who himself saw no evidence of gassings.
Q. But he saw evidence of crematoria and saw all the circumstantial evidence that you need, as we read in paragraph 6 of his affidavit, of the gassings and the cremations. Isn't that right?
A. No historian and no revisionist historian denies or disputes that there were crematory facilities at Auschwitz and at Birkenau, especially at Birkenau. It is not surprising that Sergeant Coward would be able to confirm the existence of crematories from his own personal experience.
Q. Sir, to continue with what I suggest to you is the twisting of the truth to your own gains, let's look at Note 15 under "Inmates Released". You say in this article:
"Auschwitz internees who had served their sentences were released and returned to their home countries. If Auschwitz had actually been a top secret extermination center, the Germans would certainly not have released inmates who 'knew' what was happening in the camp. (note 15)."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. No, you read it very incorrectly. I wrote a question. I said: "If Auschwitz had actually been a top secret extermination center, would the Germans have released inmates who 'knew' ‑‑"
Q. No, you have just misquoted yourself.
A. I am quoting from my own leaflet. I am not quoting from the Zundelsite; I am quoting from the original. It is possible that it has been changed in the version that the Zundelsite has given.
MR. ROSEN: Could we make this the next exhibit, please.
THE REGISTRAR: "Voices from the Holocaust" will be marked as SW-5.
EXHIBIT NO. SW-5: Excerpt from "Voices from the Holocaust" edited by Sylvia Rothchild
MR. ROSEN:
Q. I have a copy of your article in its original form with your picture on it.
A. There are several different editions of this same piece, so it is possible that this does reflect an earlier version correctly.
Q. The way it reads in the article that I have is exactly the same as it has been reprinted on the Zundelsite, which is:
"Auschwitz internees who had served their sentences were released and returned to their home countries. If Auschwitz had actually been a top secret extermination center, the Germans would certainly not have released inmates who 'knew' what was happening in the camp."
Then Note 15: "Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret (Boston, 1981), p.169."
A. That was an earlier source for that. I have since found a source which I think is even more substantive, and that is reflected in the latest version of this leaflet. I have changed also the text, as you can see.
Q. I am dealing with what you wrote and what was published and what is now before this Tribunal, which Mr. Zundel has reproduced on his web site.
A. I stand by the text as it appears on the site.
Q. And you stand by the note as well as authoritative for that proposition. Correct?
A. I haven't seen the source in some time. As I say, I have found a source that I think is better, among others.
Q. Let's look at the one we are dealing with. Just so that I understand it, part of the thesis of "Auschwitz: Myths and Facts" or part of the evidence that shows that this is more myth than fact is the fact that you say:
"Auschwitz internees who had served their sentences were released and returned to their home countries."
That is fact one that you are citing.
A. I don't say something is more myth than fact. Whatever is fact is fact and whatever is myth is myth. I think we can establish that many claims made about Auschwitz over the years are, in fact, not true.
Q. Mr. Weber, the point is that in this article that you wrote you are citing a fact of the return of Auchswitz internees who had served their sentences to show that Auschwitz was just a camp where there people were detained, that it wasn't an extermination camp.
A. I am not saying it was just a camp where people were detained. I have said and I have written that Auschwitz was a very horrendous place. Many, many people died and were killed there.
Q. But it was not an extermination centre.
A. It is inaccurate to call it an extermination centre in the way that it is usually described, yes.
Q. And as proof of that you have, first of all, that internees were sent home, presumably to talk about whatever they saw.
A. That is only one aspect of it. It is instructive and illustrative that in many cases, in thousands of cases, people who had been interned at Auschwitz were in fact released and sent home, even during the period when supposedly millions of people were being killed there.
Q. And secondly, if it was such a top secret extermination camp, the Germans would certainly not have released inmates who knew what was happening in the camp, so that they would go and blab it all over the place. Right?
A. That is a logical kind of conclusion.
Q. Of course, authority for that statement is Note 15, Walter Laqueur's "The Terrible Secret", at least in this version. Correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Now let's see about your credentials. I am going to produce to you the pages that you reference in this document. It is taken from the chapter entitled "World Jewry from Geneva to Athlit."
Mr. Laqueur writes in his book, starting at page 168, in the first paragraph:
"Given the isolation of the remnants of European Jewry, how much could those have known who got away? A great deal, as the example of the exchange transport of November 1942 shows; it played, as will be demonstrated, a crucial role in persuading the Zionist leadership in Palestine that the extent of the 'final solution' had not been exaggerated. Furthermore, someone would always get away at the time of a massacre. The Einsatzgruppen and their local assistants were in a hurry, there was so much more work to be done. Some Jews pretended to be dead, and then, during the night, crawled away; others jumped from the cars or trains leading to the place of execution; some succeeded in hiding in the most unlikely circumstances. Those who had miraculously been saved would try to reach the nearest remaining Jewish community and they would, of course, report what they had witnessed."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. I believe so.
Q. Of course, what he is talking about there initially are the mass killings of Jews by Germans, particularly the SS group, the Einsatzgruppen. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. Then he turns his attention to the camps and he says:
"Nor were the death camps escape-proof. The first escapes from Chelmno and Treblinka took place within a few days of these camps beginning to operate. The most difficult place for escapers was Belzec, but there was one escape even from there, and in any case, the place had been visited by Kurt Gerstein who talked about it to several German friends and foreign diplomats."
Then he has a footnote. Do you see that?
A. I see that.
Q. And that is what he writes, that these places were not escape-proof. Correct?
A. That's correct. That is what he writes.
Q. He goes on to say: "Auschwitz ‑‑" That is what your article talks about, that Auschwitz had been a top secret extermination camp, et cetera.
"Auschwitz was the largest of the camps, and there were 667 escapes. 270 of the escapers were subsequently caught, but almost 400 got away. In 1942 there were 120 escapes, the year after 310. Among those who fled there were at least 76 Jews; altogether there were probably more. In many cases the camp authorities did not fully identify in their records those who fled. In his autobiographical notes Rudolf Hoess, commander of Auschwitz, wrote that it was virtually impossible to stop news from the outside world reaching Auschwitz and vice versa. When Himmler visited Auschwitz he complained about the 'high, unprecedented numbers of successful escapes from Auschwitz' and asked the commander to use every possible means to put an end to them. But the escapes continued."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. I think so.
Q. So he has gone on to talk about escapes from camps, particularly Auschwitz, and how these people would carry the reports of what was going on and how the Germans wished to stop them, basically. Right?
A. That's right.
Q. Then he comes to this part:
"Some Auschwitz inmates were actually released by the German authorities. There were 952 releases during the first half of 1942 and 26 during the subsequent six months. There were releases from Auschwitz even in 1943. In early 1944 a considerable number of Jewish women were freed from the camp owing to the intervention of Oskar Schindler. A German who ran a factory in Cracow, Schindler saved the lives of many Jews; he is remembered in Israel as one of the 'Righteous among the Nations'."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. I think so.
Q. That, of course, is the basis for your statement:
"If Auschwitz had actually been a top secret extermination center, the Germans would certainly not have released inmates who 'knew' what was happening in the camp. (note 15)."
Right?
A. I would like to deal with that.
Q. Is that the part that you were relying upon to make this note or this statement? Yes or no?
A. Only in part. I had much more evidence of this, and that is why I cited this particular book and source, because I thought it would be more available to people seeing this leaflet. However, there are many other documents and other sources that confirm that in detail. Subsequently, I changed that section of the leaflet to give more detail and to cite a source which documents it in a more authoritative way than Laqueur does here.
That is one of the things I try to do, to make these sources as available as possible and as authoritative as possible.
Q. But, Mr. Weber, let's remember what we are doing here. We are talking about your accreditation as an expert.
A. Right.
Q. As somebody who would research, read material and accurately use it as support or reference it as support for statements made by you for public consumption. Right?
A. Right.
Q. The reference to the note ought not to be misleading or false.
A. It shouldn't be false; that is correct.
Q. And it shouldn't be misleading either, should it?
A. It shouldn't be.
Q. Yet, the tenor of your article is:
"If Auschwitz had actually been a top secret extermination center, the Germans would certainly not have released inmates who 'knew' what was happening in the camp."
Right?
A. Right.
Q. In other words, here is evidence that people were actually released ‑‑ so the thought process would go ‑‑ and, therefore, it was not an extermination camp because these people would talk about what they saw and would report what they saw if, in fact, it was an extermination camp.
A. Indeed, I even say "released and returned to their home countries." In fact, that is what happened, and Laqueur should know that. People who were at this place, a supposedly top secret extermination centre, were released officially by the German authorities, hundreds of them, and sent back to Holland, Poland and other places after their terms were over.
THE CHAIRPERSON: But we are not dealing with those other sources; we are just dealing with what you have quoted here.
THE WITNESS: That's right.
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Let's see what Mr. Laqueur says about those who went home. He goes on to say:
"Those who had escaped from the camps had no reason to keep silent, and those legally released were also not unduly worried by the undertaking they had signed ‑‑ never to reveal anything."
Let me stop there. Did he write that?
A. He may be ‑‑
Q. Did he write that, sir?
A. This point about escape is a very different one from release. Released people are not the same as escapees.
Q. First of all, sir, he says ‑‑
A. And I didn't refer to escapees; I referred only to people who were released.
Q. Of course. Let's talk about those who were legally released. He says:
"‑‑ those legally released were also not unduly worried by the undertaking they had signed ‑‑ never to reveal anything."
Correct? That is what he says?
A. Yes.
Q. In other words, those legally released were obliged to sign an undertaking never to reveal anything that they saw at Auschwitz or any of the other camps. Correct?
A. That is what he says.
Q. He goes on to say:
"But if they were believed as in the case of those who came to Warsaw from Chelmno or Treblinka, there was much more scepticism in Western Europe and also in Hungary. The story of the two young Roman Catholics from Holland who were released from Auschwitz on 12 May 1942 is not untypical. One of them told Louis de Jong: 'The worst thing was that you simply could not get through to those closest to you. That gave you a terrible sense of isolation, as if a steam-roller was about to run you over. You felt like screaming it from the housetops but knew it was just a waste of your breath ‑‑ no one would believe a word you told them.'"
A. Right.
Q. Then he goes on to say:
"The year after, 1943, four Dutch women, Jehovah's Witnesses, returned from Auschwitz to Holland and faced the same reaction: 'Most people refused to believe us.' In many circles it was only in late 1943 and perhaps even in 1944, with the evidence piling up from many sources, that news about the camps was finally accepted. One cannot stress too often that the evidence had been available for a long time but it was not believed."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. Yet, you cite this as authoritative for your proposition that, if Auschwitz had actually been a top secret extermination centre, the Germans would certainly not have released inmates who knew what was happening in the camp. Right?
A. That's right.
Q. And you cite that believing that it was not misleading and not false to cite that reference. Is that right?
A. I stand by that.
Q. You stand by it.
A. Yes.
MR. ROSEN: Could that be the next exhibit, please.
THE REGISTRAR: "The Terrible Secret" will be marked as SW-6.
EXHIBIT NO. SW-6: Excerpt from document entitled "The Terrible Secret" by Walter Laqueur
MR. ROSEN:
Q. According to your CV, you say that you have been working full-time for the Institute for Historical Research since January 1991. Correct?
A. Not correct.
Q. I quote from the exhibit:
"Weber has been working full-time for the IHR since January 1991."
That is what you wrote on your CV.
A. That's correct.
Q. I may have misspoken myself.
"He has been editor of the IHR's acclaimed Journal since April 1992 and a Director of the IHR since March 1995."
Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. In that period of time you came to know one Theodore O'Keefe; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Theodore O'Keefe is a person who has published numerous articles on historical and political subjects, he says. Right? That is how he describes himself?
A. That's correct.
Q. And he is a previous editor at the Institute of Historical Review. Correct?
A. At the Institute for Historical Review.
Q. So you know him.
A. Yes.
Q. Was he the editor before you became the editor?
A. Yes, he was the editor and I was associate editor before I became the editor.
Q. Then, when you became the editor, did he continue to contribute stories and so forth?
A. He continued to contribute after the time that he was editor.
Q. One of the things that he contributed after he left that post was an article entitled "The 'Liberation of the Camps': Facts vs. Lies." Correct?
A. I don't remember if it was contributed after he left or not, but he did write a piece with that title.
Q. Around that time. It would have gone through the Editorial Board of which you are a member. Is that right?
A. As I say, I don't remember when it was that he wrote that. I think it was actually written before I even began working with the IHR, but I don't have a clear memory of that.
Q. Is that a person whom you took your lead from in terms of telling the truth?
A. I don't think so.
Q. You don't think so?
A. No. I didn't take a lead from Ted O'Keefe about telling the truth.
Q. You worked for him at some point?
A. I worked with him, yes.
Q. He was, in fact, your superior. He was the editor. Right?
A. That's right.
Q. And he set the standard for the Review, as the editor. Correct?
A. He set the main standard, yes.
Q. And you followed that standard.
A. I was subordinate to him as associate editor during the time that he was the editor.
Q. You didn't change the standard or go against it, did you?
A. No.
Q. At tab 32 of HR-2 is the article as reproduced on the Zundelsite, "The 'Liberation of the Camps': Facts vs. Lies" by Theodore O'Keefe. Do you have that in front of you, sir?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Just as an example, one of the things that Mr. O'Keefe wrote on the third page, "No lampshades, no handbags, etc." is the title. In the last paragraph he says:
"In reality, while camp commandants in certain cases did inflict physical punishment, such acts had to be approved by authorities in Britain (sic), and it was required that a camp physician first certify the good health of the prisoner to be disciplined, and then be on hand at the actual beating (note 10)."
Correct?
A. No. The authorities were in Berlin, not in Britain.
Q. Did I say that, sorry? Authorities in Berlin.
Of course, you support that position, don't you?
A. Every issue of the Journal of Historical Review makes a note that the IHR does not necessarily agree or disagree with articles that appear in the Journal. Ted O'Keefe is responsible for this article; I am not.
Q. But it was published under the banner of the Institute of Historical Review. Right?
A. Right, and I have enough respect for Ted O'Keefe that, when he says that, I have pretty good confidence that he has some valid reason for saying what he states.
Q. Because he set the standard of scholarship that you worked under while he was the editor. Right?
A. That is a kind of simplistic way to put things. He and I have, I think, similar standards, yes.
Q. Note 10 says:
"Cited in The Theory and Practice of Hell, Eugen Kogon, Berkley Books, New York, pp. 108-109."
Is that right?
A. That is what it says.
Q. Of course, Mr. Kogon's book is the same book that Marika Frank referred to in her memoirs of her experiences at Auschwitz and other camps. Correct?
A. Yes. It has been a very widely printed book. I have read it. It has gone through many, many editions in different countries.
Q. In fact, you have even cited it on occasion for authority for one of your statements in one of your many articles. Is that right?
A. I don't have any specific recollection of that, but it is possible.
Q. Let's see how it was used in this case. In fact, sir, I have a downloaded copy of the article, "The 'Liberation of the Camps': Facts vs. Lies" by Theodore J. O'Keefe on the letterhead of IHR, the Journal of Historical Review. Do you recognize that letterhead?
A. No, I don't.
Q. Have you ever been on your web site?
A. I have looked at it very superficially, maybe once or twice. I am not responsible for it.
Q. It says:
"A lengthier version of this essay with complete reference notes and source citations was published in the Journal of Historical Review July-August 1995, Volume 15, Number 4."
Does that refresh your memory that Mr. O'Keefe wrote this article in 1995 or, at least, that it was published in 1995?
A. It doesn't need to refresh my memory. I remember that the article was published in the Journal. I was the editor at that time. The article was written quite a bit before that time. I am not familiar, to answer your question, with the posting on our own IHR web site.
Q. Fair enough, but you do remember that it was published in the Journal at a time when you were the editor.
A. I do now, yes. It was written some years ago, and I decided to publish it in the Journal at a later time.
Q. In 1995.
A. Right.
Q. This book, "The Theory and Practice of Hell, the German Concentration Camps and the System Behind Them" by Eugen Kogon is actually translated from the German, isn't it? It was originally published in German.
A. Yes.
Q. If we go to the reference at page 108-109, let's see if we can put this in context. The chapter that this occurs in is "Chapter Nine, Discipline," as shown at page 105. Correct?
A. Please repeat the question.
Q. The chapter that this comes from is "Discipline" at page 105.
A. Yes, I see that.
Q. In describing the discipline regimen at the camps at page 108, this is what Mr. Kogon had to say:
"Theoretically camp headquarters had to apply for confirmation from Berlin when corporal punishment was to be administered, and the camp physician had to certify that the prisoner was in good health."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Right. Those were the orders that were given.
Q. Those are the words that were written in this authoritative text that was cited.
A. Authoritative for some things, yes.
Q. Let's compare that to the text of Mr. O'Keefe's document. He doesn't say, "Theoretically camp headquarters had to apply;" he says, "In reality, while camp commandants in certain cases did inflict physical punishment, such acts had to be approved by authorities in Berlin," et cetera.
A. Right.
Q. But the author says, "Theoretically camp headquarters had to apply for confirmation from Berlin when corporal punishment was to be administered, and the camp physician had to certify that the prisoner was in good health." Right? That is what is written?
A. Mr. O'Keefe may have cited this as a fairly accessible source for people who wanted to consult it, but we know that the orders were from Berlin that in the case of physical punishment approval had to be obtained from Berlin and a camp physician was to be present.
Q. At least theoretically.
A. That was the order from Berlin, not just theoretically; that was the order. It is also true, or likely, that these orders were violated on many occasions, but those were the orders.
Q. But what Mr. O'Keefe said was that in reality that is what happened.
A. He says: "In reality, such acts had to be approved", and that is true.
Q. But what Mr. Kogon said is: "Theoretically they had to be approved," and he goes on to say:
"Down to the end, however, the procedure widely practiced in many camps was that the prisoner went to the whipping rack immediately, while on receipt of confirmation from Berlin the punishment was repeated, this time 'officially.'"
A. That is what he writes. Indeed, I don't think anyone would dispute that, in fact, orders from Berlin very often were disregarded or evaded in precisely this way while keeping the letter of the order intact but, in fact, violating its spirit.
Q. But that is not the message that is in the article, is it?
A. The message he writes is:
"In reality...such acts had to be approved by authorities in Berlin."
Q. Where is the "..."?
A. I am making the "..." because, in reality, while camp commandants in certain cases did inflict physical punishment, such acts had to be approved by authorities in Berlin. That was, in fact, the order; that was the law or the requirement.
Q."‑‑ and it was required that a camp physician first certify the good health of the prisoner to be disciplined, and then be on hand at the actual beating. After all, the camps were throughout most of the war important centers of industrial activity. The good health and morale of the prisoners was critical to the German war effort, as is evidenced by a 1942 order issued by SS-Brigadefuehrer Richard Cluecks, chief of the office which controlled the concentration camps, which held camp commanders' personally responsible for exhausting every possibility to preserve the physical strength of the detainees.'"
Right?
A. There is no question ‑‑ and we have written this ourselves and it has appeared in the Journal ‑‑ that commandants violated many of the orders that were given from Berlin, including orders to maintain the health and the physical strength of the detainees.
Q. As the editor of the Journal, when you chose to reproduce this, you did not correctly state what Mr. Kogon had to say, did you?
A. This thing doesn't try to say, "This is what Mr. Kogon says." It tries to show that Kogon at least confirms the accuracy of that statement, and that statement is true and Kogon in his own way confirms its accuracy.
Q. Let's see how accurate it is. Not only was it theoretical that they had to do that, but he says that down to the end what they used to do was issue punishment and then, when the okay came back from Berlin, they did it again. He goes on to say:
"Submission to Berlin depended on the 'gravity' of the offense in the first place. In 'minor' offences, headquarters simply went ahead and imposed the punishment on its own."
That is not cited in the article either, is it?
A. Mr. Kogon also does not cite that dozens of camp officials were arrested by the SS internal authority for violating precisely such orders and two camp commandants were executed by the SS for violating precisely these kinds of orders.
Q. And you don't add that either, as the editor, do you?
A. That is not the point of this particular essay by Ted O'Keefe.
Q. Precisely. The point of the essay is to put the lie to the Holocaust story, isn't it?
A. No, no. He doesn't try to deal with the Holocaust story. He deals with one specific aspect of this part of history.
Q. "The 'Liberation of the Camps': Facts vs. Lies."
A. He deals only with liberation of the camps.
Q. Let's see what Mr. Kogon then goes on to say:
"SS sergeants were detailed to administer the whippings, unless they volunteered with a show of enthusiasm. If one of them showed any trace of sympathy or lack of vigor, an 'expert' would take over. "Expertness' consisted chiefly in unerring kidney blows. The camp physician had to witness the estrapade. Only a very few cases have become known in which they intervened on behalf of the prisoners. On the other hand, it did happen that they painted the torn buttocks with iodine! After receiving the whipping, the delinquent usually had to execute from 50 to 150 knee bends ‑‑ to 'strengthen the muscles.'"
None of that is reflected in that part of this essay, is it?
A. That is not reflected in this particular essay, no, because that is not the point of the essay.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You are familiar with this work?
THE WITNESS: It has been some years, but I read it some years ago.
THE CHAIRPERSON: In essence, what is the work about?
THE WITNESS: Kogon was a fairly important prison official in Buchenwald especially; he was a so-called trustee. He had a role as a prisoner in the camp administration. He had a lot of access to records. He had a kind of semi-official status although still a prisoner.
The book is very, very widely cited; it has been published many times. There is a lot of very valuable information in it. Not everything he writes, I think, is accurate, but that is typical of what historians try to do. Every book has to be evaluated carefully on its own merits.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Does the so-called order from Berlin cover executions or just punishments?
THE WITNESS: It also covers executions. One of the most amazing things ‑‑ and this has been dealt with in a number of stories, although Kogon doesn't go into it ‑‑ is that SS officials who violated these laws and were later found out were punished, and two commandants were executed for violating precisely these orders.
For example, it was forbidden for SS officials to steal anything, to take any belongings of the prisoners. Also, it was forbidden to kill prisoners arbitrarily. SS officials were executed for violating precisely these kinds of orders.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to mark this?
MR. ROSEN: Yes, could that be the next exhibit, please.
THE REGISTRAR: "The Theory and Practice of Hell" will be marked as SW-7.
EXHIBIT NO. SW-7: Excerpt from "The Theory and Practice of Hell" by Eugen Kogon
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Kogon also reports in the same exhibit at page 109 ‑‑ he goes on to describe, among other things, right at the bottom of page 109:
"Often, of course, the SS officers administered whippings merely as a form of private pastime. When they suddenly assaulted prisoners in this fashion it was impossible to take the precautions that were otherwise often employed ‑‑ extra-heavy underwear, or some protective layer next to the body. Anyone caught trying such an expedient was beaten on the naked buttocks. To the credit of the prisoners working in the hospital it must be said that they did everything within their power to heal and restore the victims who were often left in a very bad state."
Do you see that, sir? That is what he reports.
A. Those kinds of atrocities or violations of orders take place and have taken place in American prisons and in other prisons as well.
Q. Mr. Weber, what is not anywhere in his book is the fact that SS officers were arrested and executed, is it?
A. It is not in this particular one; it has been in other things that have been published by the IHR.
Q. By the IHR, right.
A. And by others, too.
Q. Let's talk about the IHR, sir. We have seen how you use your statements and, in defence, you point to the fact that Arno J. Mayer, as an example, has cited with approval two books published by the Institute of Historical Review. Is that right?
A. Institute for Historical Review. He cites them at least as reliable or authoritative or worthwhile.
Q. He does no such thing.
A. He puts them in his bibliography.
Q. Thank you. He puts them in his bibliography.
A. He doesn't let us know how they are to be evaluated.
Q. Along with, as an example, such things as "Hitler, Adolf" who wrote, among things, "Mein Kampf, Volume 2," "Monologue in Führer Haupt Quarters, 1941-44", "The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Boermann Documents." He cites all of this.
A. Of course.
Q. It is part of the bibliography.
A. Right, because he is trying to show what Hitler's mindset was and how this fit into this larger scheme. He is citing original sources. He is citing the books by the IHR for their value as historical sources.
Q. No, I suggest that he cites them for their value as misleading sources.
A. No. In fact, part of the proof of that are these astonishing statements that Mayer makes elsewhere in his book that you didn't cite and bring out in this testimony here today about the lack of evidence for gassings at these camps or the paucity of evidence.
Q. Not the paucity, sir; the fact that most of the people who saw it are dead.
A. No, that is not what he says.
Q. That is what he says.
A. We should probably find out what he says if there is a dispute.
Q. Mr. Weber, we already know what the American Historical Association says about Holocaust denial.
MR. CHRISTIE: I think that is not fair to the witness. I know it is not going to be much use to object, but it seems to me ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Don't be so pessimistic, Mr. Christie.
MR. CHRISTIE: I have been pessimistic for quite some time, and it never did me any harm. Optimism only disappoints me.
The result of these questions was to attack this witness' credibility by saying: Arno Mayer doesn't say there was no gas chambers or that there is a paucity of evidence because of anything credible but because there are no witnesses. Then the witness was going to say, "No, that is not why he said this," but he wasn't allowed to explain why he says that Arno Mayer believes there is a paucity of evidence.
I thought it would be appropriate to at least allow the witness the opportunity to explain the basis for his statement.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to do that?
THE WITNESS: I think I have said enough on that subject.
MR. CHRISTIE: That's the last time I object.
THE WITNESS: I think I made the point I wanted to make.
MR. ROSEN:
Q. We know what the American Historical Association has to say about Holocaust denial; we have been through that yesterday. The document speaks for itself.
A. The document speaks for itself. It doesn't refer to the IHR. We don't call ourselves Holocaust deniers. I am not a Holocaust denier. The American Historical Association's statement deals with some organization that I have no contact with or association with.
Q. But we did also speak of the Organization of American Historians yesterday. Correct?
A. We did mention that yesterday, yes.
Q. The Organization of American Historians, in fact, made a statement specifically on the issue of the IHR in 1992, and it was passed by the Executive Board on October 31, 1992. Correct?
A. I don't recall that specifically. It might help if I had something to refresh my memory.
Q. Of course. I am producing to you a document received from the Organization of American Historians which is the OAH Executive Board. It is entitled "OAH Statement on the IHR Controversy passed by Executive Board on October 31, 1992." It begins:
"The Institute of Historical Review has presented as scholarship ‑‑"
THE CHAIRPERSON: Can this witness acknowledge this document?
MR. ROSEN:
Q. This is from the Organization of American Historians. You are familiar with that organization?
A. This is a poor copy. I have seen this, yes, but it's a poor copy.
Q. Do you have a better one?
A. I have it in my files probably at the office back in California, but not with me.
Q. Let's deal with this one.
"The Institute for Historical Review has presented as scholarship accounts of the Holocaust that have outraged scholars and journalists and provoked disagreement about the relative claims of our commitments to free expression and our commitment to historical accuracy. As a group that has wrestled with this controversy, the Executive Board of the Organization of American Historians hopes that an account of its experiences may be of value to other organizations that are confronted with similar issues."
You recollect that that is what the resolution said, as I have read it?
A. I acknowledge that you are reading it accurately. I don't remember specifically the wording of it.
Q. You told us that what happened was that you sent in an announcement to be published and there was a controversy that arose over it. That is what this is all about.
A. That's right.
Q."In the summer of 1991 the IHR submitted an announcement for publication in the Notice columns of the OAH newsletter, inviting historians to contribute articles to the IHR's Journal of Historical Review. In August 1991 a majority of the OAH Executive Committee which consists of past president and future OAH president and several other officers of the organization voted to print this announcement in the newsletter. One factor in the Executive Committee's decision was language that appeared above the Notice column stating that the newsletter is 'open to all points of view.'"
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes, I think so.
Q. In fact, that is initially what happened. Your request for publication was submitted and it was initially passed by the Executive Committee. Correct? It was accepted.
A. As I recall, yes.
Q. The Board is giving the reasons why the Executive Committee passed it for publication, one factor being that indeed the newsletter of the association is "open to all points of view." Right?
A. Right.
Q."In November 1991, by which time the IHR notice had already appeared in the newsletter, the issue was presented to the full Executive Board, a larger group which consists of members of the Executive Committee plus other elected members. The Executive Board, after a spirited debate, voted that in the future the newsletter should exclude advertisements and announcements from the IHR."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I think so.
Q. In fact, that is what happened. Isn't that right?
A. As I recall.
Q."In the aftermath of the November 1991 vote some members of the board and several attorneys with whom the OAH staff consulted expressed concerns about the legal implications of a resolution that singled out a particular organization for exclusion. As a result the Executive Board re-opened the issue at its April 1992 meeting in Chicago and again after spirited debate voted by a one-vote margin to establish a policy by which the newsletter would accept notices and announcements only if they were 'consonant for the purpose of the organization'."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. I think so.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am going to interrupt you.
MR. ROSEN: I am almost finished, if you could give me about two minutes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I have a commitment which I hope will not delay me beyond 2:30. I will do my best to be back by 2:30.
‑‑- Luncheon Recess at 12:59 p.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 2:35 p.m.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you within a few minutes of concluding, Mr. Rosen?
MR. ROSEN: I am, but before I do that, I have been asked to make a request. We have a scheduling problem.
Today was supposed to be motions day, and Ms Zayid is going to argue the second motion which is a rather substantive one. She cannot be present tomorrow, so I would be prepared to stand down and let that proceed today, or we could do the motions on Tuesday, whichever you prefer.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Christie, do you want to address the second motion now? Or we can deal with it on Tuesday, whichever we find most consistent with our schedule here.
MR. CHRISTIE: It doesn't really matter much to me. If only one of counsel for the Commission can present the position, I guess that is the way it is going to have to be.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will proceed with Motion No. 2. We don't have anything before us on that motion.
MR. ROSEN: Perhaps the witness could stand down.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
‑‑- Witness Withdraws
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
MR. CHRISTIE: Section 49(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, Criminal Code and Human Rights Amendments, 4647 Elizabeth II states in subsection (2):
"Upon the receipt of a request, the Chairperson shall institute an inquiry by assigning a member of the Tribunal to inquire into the complaint, but the Chairperson may assign a panel of three members if he or she considers that the complexity of the complaint requires the inquiry to be conducted by three members."
The Chairperson apparently conducted an inquiry and assigned three persons under the old Act. I believe it is correct to say, as we set out in our motion pertaining to the other matter, that the two present members were reappointed under the new provisions in June 1998.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, do I have a motion?
MR. CHRISTIE: I am simply making an oral motion.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought you said "in my motion."
MR. CHRISTIE: On the previous occasion, when I indicated what the motion was, I basically said what it was.
THE CHAIRPERSON: That is fine. I thought there was some documentation that I didn't have.
MR. CHRISTIE: There is no documentation except the Act of which you may take judicial notice. That is, the amendments to the Canada Evidence Act, Criminal Code and Canadian Human Rights Act.
I just read subsection 49(2) which identifies the nature of the Tribunal as consisting of either one member or three members. It makes no provision for two members.
Since this Tribunal was appointed under the new Act, we have referred to in our earlier motion ‑‑ and when I speak of an earlier motion, I mean the first motion which we put in writing and brought on November 27. We identified in the affidavit to Mr. Zundel at that time that, to the best of our knowledge, information and belief, Claude Pensa and Reva Devins were appointed to this new Tribunal effective June 30, 1998 by Order in Council published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on July 18, 1998.
If that is the case ‑‑ and, in my submission, it is the case ‑‑ the two members present are appointed under the new provisions. There is no provision in the new legislation for a panel of two members, in which case this panel would be functus officio unless it could be established that it can continue legislative authority with two members. In my submission, there is no such authority. The transitional provisions, as far as I can see, do not provide for this situation.
Those are my submissions. I gave you one case the other day where a panel of two people divided. The reason why, in my submission, a panel of two is impossible is simply because there is the ever-present possibility of a division and the result being of no legal consequence.
MEMBER DEVINS: Mr. Christie, if in fact there is a division and the two panel members hold contrary views, given that the burden of proof is on the Commission, doesn't that simply work to the benefit of the Respondent?
MR. CHRISTIE: That is why, in my submission, a mistrial is appropriate at this time. We should not have to endure any ongoing proceedings where that possibility exists. If that were not a possibility and we were not obliged to endure, the legislation would have made a provision for that possibility.
MEMBER DEVINS: I think I perhaps missed a step in your argument, and that is how it is that this Tribunal is constituted under the new Act.
MR. CHRISTIE: By virtue of the appointment of yourself and the Chairperson with the new requirements of section 48.1(2).
MEMBER DEVINS: My understanding, Mr. Christie, is that the amendments to the Act say quite explicitly that any Tribunal appointed prior to the enactment of the amendments continues as if the amendments had not been made, number one, and it could have been equally possible that neither the Chairman nor myself would have been appointed to the new Tribunal. It so happens that in fact we have been.
I guess I am not quite sure how that then converts this Tribunal Panel in this Hearing into one appointed under the new Act.
MR. CHRISTIE: I think you said yourself that it could have been that you were not appointed under the new Act, but in fact ‑‑
MEMBER DEVINS: But I understand that to be with respect to the option of not being appointed or Mr. Pensa being appointed to future tribunals, not with respect to any ongoing cases at the time of the enactment.
MR. CHRISTIE: It would have been possible for you not to be appointed under the new Act and to have continued and operated under the old Act in the existence of the transition provisions. You would have had the legal jurisdiction to continue with an existing hearing even though at some future point you might have been appointed after the end of that hearing. Then the provisions of the old Act would have applied.
MEMBER DEVINS: I understood that what the new appointments really represented was that those members named were eligible to be appointed to future tribunals, but that the act of appointment to establish a tribunal was at the moment when the President assigned those members, obviously related to the new Act. That is where I am having some difficulty with the line of argument that you are advancing.
MR. CHRISTIE: In effect, you are saying that you are sitting with two hats. You are sitting with the hat of your appointment under the old Act and you are sitting with your hat of appointment under the new Act, but you are really not sitting with your new Act hat. You are actually sitting with your old Act hat.
It would seem to me that that is arguable, but not as logical as the proposition that, when you sit as two members of a panel, having been appointed under the new Act and have acquired at least the obligations that exist under the new Act ‑‑ and I might say that these are procedural amendments. Substantive amendments, as I understand the law, cannot be applied retroactively, but procedural ones do catch and bind existing proceedings.
MEMBER DEVINS: Thank you. That is helpful.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fromm, is there anything you want to say on this motion?
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION INC.
MR. FROMM: Mr. Chairman, I concur with the submission of the Respondent. It seems that section 49.1(1) and (2) envision one of two possibilities: a one-person tribunal or a three-person tribunal. The judgment was made at the beginning of these proceedings that it would be a three-person tribunal. Because of circumstances beyond anyone's control, former Member Jain had to resign, and that leaves us with two. That doesn't seem, from a layman's reading anyway, to be contemplated under the legislation. It doesn't seem, in my submission, that the Hearing should continue.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Zayid, please.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
MS ZAYID: I would like to go back to the provisions that were in effect at the time that this Tribunal was appointed. In my submission, those are the provisions which are relevant to your consideration on this motion today. I have copies of that.
Mr. Chairman, you will see first of all that in section 48.1 the Act establishes a Panel, and I draw your attention to the name which is the Human Rights Tribunal Panel. It goes on to say certain things about the composition of that Panel. Then following on at section 49 it deals with appointments from the Panel to a Human Rights Tribunal once a complaint has been filed and a request is received from the Commission.
First of all, at section 49(1), you will see that the Commission may request the appointment of a Tribunal and then following on 1.1 that the President shall proceed and appoint a Tribunal. The only specific provision with respect to numbers is contained in section 49(2) which provides that a Tribunal may not be composed of more than three members.
Just to be very clear, if you look at sections 5.1 and 5.6, it talks about, for example, the President sitting as a member of a Tribunal. In my submission, it is quite clear that the Act contemplates that a Tribunal may be composed of only one member but, in any case, no more than three members. There is no provision in the Act that would provide that, if you start with three, you must continue with three. That is simply not dealt with in the Act.
In my submission, we can find assistance on that point in decisions that have been dealt with in other Tribunals in other situations similar to this where a Tribunal which has already begun loses a member of the Tribunal and carries on. That is really the question before you today.
I would like to refer you to the case of Prescott. That is a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. I don't want to spend too much time on the facts of this case, but you will see that it was a discipline matter involving a member of the Law Society of British Columbia.
At the bottom of page 453 of that decision you will see that what was being argued there by the Appellant was:
"The appellant has urged that fourteen Benchers were present at the start of the hearing and that justice required that the same fourteen should have remained throughout the whole hearing and have participated in the final decision."
In essence, that is what Mr. Zundel and Mr. Christie are submitting here today. There was a separate issue having to do with the composition of the committee, but that does not concern us here.
Turning to page 457 of the decision, in the middle of the page, it states:
"It is common ground that all of the seven members who sat in final judgment were continuously present from the inception and during the long proceedings which continued until the early morning hours of the second day. In reality, the appellant complains that there were fewer Benchers participating in the decision than were present at the start and for a good part of the proceedings. Counsel for the Law Society counters with the proposal that the statute constitutes seven Benchers as a quorum."
Turning over to page 458, the conclusion of the Court is stated in the middle of the page:
"The statute here, in effect, provided for a court of seven. The appellant had a court of seven."
In my submission, it is quite clear that so long as at the end of the day the panel hearing the case satisfied any quorum requirements that were set out in the Act and that those members had been present throughout and participated, then all of the procedural requirements had been met.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What are the quorum requirements here, one, two or three?
MS ZAYID: One, two or three, in my submission. The Act clearly contemplates that.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So we could lose one more.
MS ZAYID: I wouldn't urge it, but that would be possible, yes, Mr. Chair.
I want to deal just for a moment with Mr. Christie's argument. As I understand it, he is asking you to have regard to the provisions of the Act which are now in place and which deal with the appointment of Tribunals as would occur today. He has pointed you to section 49 of the Act. I don't have copies of that because I thought we would have dealt with it on Motion No. 1. For your reference, the current provisions of the Act provide in section 48.1 that there will be established a Tribunal known as the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This is, in effect, a new Tribunal that is being established.
As was suggested earlier, in my submission, members are to be appointed to that Tribunal and from that Tribunal may be appointed to future panels hearing future complaints in accordance with section 49. The provisions of section 49 would govern complaints that are brought forward from the date that this legislation goes into effect, and the appointment would have to follow the procedures there. Any requirements of membership and so on would follow the provisions of the new Act, but those could not possibly have effect for Tribunals which are already in place and which have already been appointed under the existing legislation.
Mr. Christie suggested at the end of his argument that this is a procedural change and that somehow the procedural effects of the new Act should apply to a proceeding that is already under way. In my submission, that cannot be right for a number of reasons.
First of all, this question of who is seized of the matter and who has jurisdiction over this complaint is not a procedural matter; it is a substantive matter. The Act specifically deals with that question. If you look at the motion materials that have been filed on Motion No. 1, you will see this dealt with in more detail. In the Revised Statutes 1985, Chapter 1, at section 33(3), it specifically states:
"The members of any Human Rights Tribunal appointed under the Canadian Human Rights Act before the commencement day ‑‑"
That being the day that the new amendments come into effect.
"‑‑ have jurisdiction with respect to any inquiry into the complaint in respect of which the Human Rights Tribunal was appointed."
In other words, it makes it very clear that the jurisdiction rests with the Tribunals that were hearing cases at the time that this went into effect. In my submission, it is specifically dealt with in the Act, and there is no question.
In addition to that, I want to draw your attention to a couple of authorities for the proposition that a statute that modifies a court's jurisdiction in one way or another is not generally applicable to pending cases. In my submission, that is what Mr. Christie's submission would amount to.
I draw your attention to the case of The Royal Bank of Canada and Concrete Column Clamps which is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1971. I take you to the headnote first of all just to give you a quick summary of what the factual situation was.
This is a case where the appellant had been ordered by the Superior Court to pay a particular sum of money. It says that the proceedings were instituted before 1970 when the Act to amend the Supreme Court Act came into force. It was a question of where the appeal from that decision lay, and you will see that the headnote summarizes that jurisdiction is not a procedural matter and that no reason has been shown for holding that it becomes a procedural matter when a transfer of power rather than increase or decrease is involved.
The reasoning for that is set out at page 1040 of the decision, and I draw your attention the last paragraph on that page:
"‑‑ it is well established that jurisdiction is not a procedural matter, and no reason has been shown for holding that it becomes a procedural matter when a transfer of power, rather than an increase or a decrease, is involved."
In my submission, the question of jurisdiction is not procedural. This is a matter that should be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Act as it existed at the time that this Tribunal took jurisdiction over this complaint. That permits you to continue in the situation we have here where one of the members has left the Panel. The new amendments very specifically provide that you should continue with your jurisdiction in that regard.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do any other counsel wish to speak?
Mr. Christie, please.
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
MR. CHRISTIE: The argument is not a jurisdictional argument; it is an argument that goes to the interpretation of the Act as to constitution of the Panel. It is not to say that you don't have jurisdiction at all; it is just to say that it does not make provision for the continuation of a Panel of two members. That would be in contravention of the Act, and our position is that it would result in a mistrial just as much as if more members of a jury were unavailable than were allowed under the Jury Act. It would not mean that there was no jurisdiction to conduct a trial, but it means that the conditions of that trial are no longer met. That is what causes mistrials.
MEMBER DEVINS: Mr. Christie, is it cured if a further member resigns and you have a single member?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will reserve on that.
Please continue, Mr. Rosen.
MR. ROSEN: In answer to the question you posed when you first came in, the answer is: Yes, very close.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Would Mr. Weber return to the stand, please.
‑‑- Witness returns to the stand
CROSS-EXAMINATION, Continued
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Mr. Weber, before we broke for lunch, I was taking you ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: You asked me that question, and I answered it abruptly without thinking.
If the provisions, as I say, are retrospective and not retroactive and if the President of the Tribunal, or whatever he or she is called now, had made the decision that the case was sufficiently important to require three members, then it would not automatically follow that the departure of one could satisfy the requirements of the appointment by virtue of the fact that it could continue with the departure of another and would be constituted by one member.
MEMBER DEVINS: Could it ever be cured, then? If somebody dies in mid-Hearing or there is a resignation for a variety of reasons, is it your submission, Mr. Christie, that in every case ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: There should be a mistrial. A mistrial is the only solution unless there is to be an amendment to allow for this possibility.
MEMBER DEVINS: Does it matter if it occurs at any stage ‑‑ if it occurs, for example, after the conclusion of a hearing but prior to the release of the decision?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, it would be equally applicable. If the Chairman of the Human Rights Tribunal Panel decides that a case is sufficiently important to warrant three members hearing it and one member departs, then the conditions under which that appointment existed have disappeared, just as if a jury loses more than the statutory minimum membership. It doesn't matter whether it is one or more, if the factual conditions for the legal authority for the exercise of its power disappear.
I don't see how it could be remedied by just going to the other possibility which the Chairperson did not conceive at first instance to be justified.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is there not something in the Interpretation Act about that?
MR. CHRISTIE: Not that I know of. I haven't looked.
MR. ZAYID: If I might, Mr. Chairman, just on the question that Member Devins addressed, in our submission, the President of the Tribunal did not have to turn her mind to the question of how important or not important it was, because we were operating under the old Act. In our submission, there would be absolutely no prejudice to the member in continuing with two, and two is no different from one. If a decision cannot be made by a majority of this Panel, there will be no discrimination and no prejudice.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr. Rosen, please continue.
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Just before the break, I was about to finish on this article, sir. We had gotten to the point in the first column at the bottom that, as a result of the controversy that arose, the Executive Board re-opened the issue at its April 1992 meeting in Chicago and, again after spirited debate, voted by a one-vote margin to establish a policy by which the newsletter would accept notices and announcements only if they were "consonant with the purposes of the organization," and you agreed that that had happened. Right?
A. I agreed to the best of my recollection that that happened, yes.
Q. In this statement by the Board on the IHR controversy, the Board went on to note:
"The Board believed that such a policy would effectively exclude a notice such as that appearing in the November 1991 issue of the newsletter inviting historians to contribute articles to the IHR's Journal of Historical Review from the newsletter. Some, including several members who favoured excluding the IHR notice but opposed the language of the resolution, feared that the new policy might lead to the arbitrary exclusion of material from other groups."
That is what they said in that?
A. That is what it appears to be, yes.
Q."Then the members of the Executive Board expressed a wide range of opinions on this issue, and no summary can do full justice to the diversity of their views. We have tried nevertheless to offer a brief account of arguments on both sides that suggest at least something of the principal arguments."
Then what follows in two paragraphs is a summary of those who opposed and those who didn't oppose, basically. Is that right?
A. That is what it seems to be.
Q. Then they conclude at the bottom of the middle paragraph:
"All of us, however, agree on several important things. Our debate was never over how we evaluate the arguments of the IHR. We all abhor on both moral and scholarly grounds the substantive arguments of the Institute for Historical Review. We all reject their claims to be taken seriously as historians."
Is that what it reads, sir? That is what the Board of the OAH Executive Board ‑‑
A. I would like to comment on that if I may.
Q. Am I correct, sir, that that was the position of the Organization of American Historians?
A. That is what this says.
Q. And that position has never changed, has it?
A. I don't have any knowledge that it has changed.
Q. Sir, the Institute of Historical Review, of which you are the Director and the Editor of its newsletter, was directly rejected by the Organization of American Historians, according to this. Isn't that right?
A. The IHR is mentioned specifically in a very unclear way. If I might, one of the most astonishing things is that it says that "we abhor the substantive arguments of the Institute for Historical Review."
The IHR makes quite a few substantive arguments. It says, for example, that artificially maintaining the hatreds and passions of the past prevents general reconciliation.
Q. You are reading from one of your pamphlets, are you?
A. Exactly. It promotes historical awareness, understanding and mutual respect among nations. Those are substantive arguments made by the Institute for Historical Review.
Q. Mr. Weber, those are not the arguments. That is your advertisement. The arguments are in the articles, aren't they?
A. Let me finish. I didn't finish what I was saying.
Q. I am asking a question.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Let him finish what he is saying.
THE WITNESS: We all know, I think, what the OAH statement is referring to, but it doesn't make any specificity as to what those arguments are.
The arguments that the IHR makes, as an institute ‑‑ not individual articles that may appear, but as an institute ‑‑ is to stress the need for truth and accuracy in history, to stress the importance of not having propaganda in history, and to stress the importance of mutual understanding and reconciliation among peoples. Those are substantive arguments of the IHR.
In its Journal many articles appear on a number of subjects, making many different claims. To say that they all reject our claims to be taken seriously as historians is also absurd. Many historians have either spoken at IHR conferences or have been published in the Journal and could by no stretch of the imagination be rejected as historians. They are recognized as historians by any rational and equitable standard.
This statement itself reflects one of the very problems we are talking about ‑‑ a double standard, an inexact and unspecified standard. In a letter that I wrote to the OAH after this statement appeared I pointed out that in the very issue in which this statement appeared an advertisement also appeared for books published by International Publishers who for many decades has been the publishing arm of the United States Communist Party. To single out the IHR in this way does indeed show a bias. It shows a lack of equity. That is something which the IHR has had to deal with time and time again ‑‑ a standard applied to the IHR is not applied to other organizations.
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Mr. Weber, would you not agree with me that the standard that is being applied is that an organization that dates back to the early part of the century says: "We all reject their claims to be taken seriously as historians." Have I read that statement correctly, sir?
A. As I said, who is "their claims?" There is a number of historians who have been published in the Journal and who appear in the masthead in support of the Journal who are members of the OAH, or have been, who are best-selling historians, who are Pulitzer Prize winning historians. To say that they reject their claims to be taken as historians shows not only a lack of specificity, but a blatant bias.
Q. But we also talking about your claim to be taken seriously as a historian, aren't we?
A. That is what you have been talking about, sir.
MR. ROSEN: Thank you, sir. Those are my questions.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do any other counsel have any questions? Mr. Kurz, please.
MR. ROSEN: I don't know if it has been marked as an exhibit, but I would ask that the Board Resolution of the Organization of American Historians be marked as an exhibit.
MEMBER DEVINS: It is my recollection that it was marked on the cross-examination of a previous witness.
THE REGISTRAR: It has been marked as Complainant's Exhibit C-1.
MR. ROSEN: Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
MR. KURZ:
Q. You mentioned in your earlier evidence that David McCaulden was the first Director of the Institute for Historical Review. Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. One of the things that Mr. McCaulden did when he first assumed his position was that he offered a $50,000 reward to anyone who could prove that Jews died in gas chambers during the Holocaust. Isn't that correct?
A. I don't remember the exact wording; I don't remember if it was specific to Auschwitz, but he offered a kind of reward like that, yes.
Q. It wasn't at Auschwitz. It was the Holocaust. If someone could prove that Jews died in gas chambers in the Holocaust, the Institute would pay a $50,000 reward.
A. I wasn't involved at the time and I don't have personal knowledge of it. I don't remember the exact nature of the reward offered.
Q. As the Executive Director right now of the Institute and the Editor of its Journal, you have knowledge of the institutional history of the organization that you now represent, don't you?
A. Yes. As I say, I remember that a reward was given. I don't remember specifically ‑‑
Q. No reward was given; it was offered.
A. Excuse me, it was offered, yes.
Q. Not only was it offered at large; a letter was sent to a Holocaust survivor living in California named Mel Mermelstein. Is that not also correct, sir?
A. I don't recall that.
Q. You don't recall whether a letter was actually specifically sent to Mr. Mermelstein?
A. No, I don't recall that. I wasn't there at the time; I wasn't involved at the time.
Q. Are you aware of the fact that Mr. Mermelstein, in fact, drafted an affidavit and sent it to Mr. McCaulden in which he provided proof with regard to the Holocaust?
A. I remember that Mr. Mermelstein responded or sent something to the IHR in response to this offer. I don't remember that it was proof, but I remember that he responded with something that he regarded as proof.
Q. And he asked for payment of the $50,000 reward based on the proof that he supplied, did he not?
A. I think that is true.
Q. And the Institute refused to pay that reward, did it not?
A. That's true.
Q. In fact, Mr. Mermelstein had to sue for that reward, did he not?
A. No, I don't think he did have to sue. I think he did sue; that was his choice. I don't remember what his motives were or whether he felt compelled to, but I remember that he did bring a lawsuit against the IHR.
Q. He wouldn't have been paid the $50,000 reward had he not sued. Is that not correct?
A. I don't remember. I assume, but I don't remember.
Q. In fact, he succeeded in that lawsuit, did he not?
A. There were several lawsuits involving the IHR and Mel Mermelstein. He won that lawsuit and lost a subsequent lawsuit.
Q. That is not what I am asking you. That was a different lawsuit. I am talking about the lawsuit related to the $50,000 claim. He sued in Los Angeles Superior Court and he won, didn't he?
A. I believe I answered your question.
Q. Not only did he win $50,000; he won $90,000. Isn't that right?
A. He didn't win $50,000. He got a settlement payment, I think, of $90,000.
Q. It wasn't settled out of court. There was a court order made in his favour.
A. The court order was just part of the settlement that was reached between the two to settle the case without continuing the trial.
Q. I am sorry, you and I might be at cross-purposes. This matter was heard at trial by Judge Robert Winke of the Los Angeles Superior Court, and he heard a trial and he rendered a decision, did he not, sir?
A. I don't remember specifically; I wasn't involved in the trial. I can't confirm the specifics of what you are saying. I don't have anything to refresh my memory. I wasn't in California at the time.
Q. Let me assist you. You were with the Institute in 1985, were you not, sir?
A. I was not an employee of the Institute at that time.
Q. I am not asking whether you were an employee.
A. I was a member of its Editorial Advisory Committee, as I recall, at that time.
Q. As a member of the Editorial Advisory Board, you were not aware of what was going on with this lawsuit?
A. I followed it as well as anyone. I just said that I don't remember specifically the name of the judge, the date and these details that you are giving to me.
Q. What I am going to do is provide you with two excerpts of newspaper articles. One appears to be from The Toronto Star and one from The Globe and Mail, both they are both AP stories, Associated Press stories. Let's deal with the one on the right side that says "Holocaust denial groups must pay survivor $90,000." The heading is "Los Angeles (AP)."
"A man whose family was exterminated in Nazi death camps will receive $90,000 and an apology from groups that claim the World War II Holocaust is a myth."
Is this refreshing your memory?
A. Certainly.
Q. That first paragraph that I read to you is accurate, is it not, Mr. Weber?
A. Again, my memory is the same as this newspaper article. I wasn't involved in the matter.
Q. That's all I need to hear from you, that your memory is the same as that newspaper article. Let's continue on.
"'This is definitely a total, unconditional surrender. I refer to it as a victory for all civilized people,' Melvin Mermelstein said yesterday of the Superior Court judgment two days earlier.
Mermelstein, of nearby Long Beach, sued in 1981 for $17 million, alleging emotional distress after the California-based Institute for Historical Review failed to pay him a $50,000 reward it had offered to anyone who could prove Jews were sent to gas chambers at the Auschwitz camp."
I know that you did not hear what Mel Mermelstein said, but this next paragraph is accurate, is it not?
A. Possibly, but it is at variance with what you said earlier in characterizing the reward. Here is specifies Auschwitz, and you said it was for the Holocaust as a totality. That is one of the things that I remember, that it was specific to Auschwitz.
Q. Fair enough.
"Among defendants in the lawsuit were the Liberty Lobby of Washington, D.C., and Willis Carto, founder of the institute."
Does that accord with your memory as well, sir?
A. I acknowledge that this is what this says here, yes.
Q. I know that is what it says. I am asking whether that ‑‑
A. I remember that Liberty Lobby and Willis Carto were co-defendants in the case.
Q. Liberty Lobby is an organization that Willis Carto founded and supported, as well as the Institute. Right?
A. Willis Carto, as I testified earlier, was a co-founder of the IHR.
Q."Judge Robert Winke ordered the groups to make three payments totaling $90,000 by Oct. 1. The first $50,000 is due Aug. 1, said Mermelstein's lawyer, Gloria Allred."
I am not going to ask you whether that is what Ms Allred said. but whether that again accords with your memory of what happened in the course of the decision rendered by the judge.
A. I have no more special knowledge of it than what I read here. I don't have any memory myself of the name of the judge or the amounts or the dates given in this aspect of the thing.
Q. What I am asking, though, is whether it refreshes your memory that in fact the sum of $90,000 was ordered by the judge, whether you remember his name or not.
A. As I said, my memory is that there was a settlement involving the payment of $90,000.
Q."The groups also apologized to Mermelstein, a camp survivor himself, for 'the pain, anguish and suffering he and all other Auschwitz survivors have sustained relating to the $50,000 reward,' Allred said."
Does it accord with your memory that, in fact, as part of the decision the three defendants that we have mentioned were required to apologize?
A. I don't remember if all three were. I remember that there was an apology given and, as I recall, that is the wording of part of that apology.
Q. By the Institute.
A. Yes.
Q. You may not remember whether Mr. Carto and the Liberty Lobby had to issue an apology, but certainly the Institute for Historical Review had to issue such an apology.
A. I do recall that.
Q."The defendants also agreed to ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, is the point not made in this matter? The witness has said that what he has read here accords with his memory. Do we have to read the whole thing?
MR. KURZ: There was just one other point that I wished to get out of this. It may well be that it is not necessary to use the article.
Q. In fact, in the course of this hearing, the trial judge took judicial notice of the fact that the Holocaust occurred. Is that not part of what happened?
A. No, that is not my memory.
Q. I am suggesting to you that part of the apology was an acknowledgement that the Holocaust occurred.
A. No, that is actually contrary to my memory.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you want this marked?
MR. KURZ: Yes, please.
THE REGISTRAR: The newspaper articles will be marked as BN-10.
EXHIBIT NO. BN-10: Newspaper articles from Toronto Star entitled "Holocaust denial groups must pay survivor $90,000" and from The Globe and Mail entitled "Holocaust survivor wins case over revisionists"
MR. KURZ:
Q. When Mr. Christie examined you in-chief, he was asking you about, as it were, the credentials of the Institute for Historical Review, and you were talking about the fact that not only are you the Editor of the Journal but that it is published six times per year. I just want to make sure I have the comment correctly.
You were talking about how the Journal is acclaimed in several ways, and the several ways are the Editorial Board and the subscriptions. Those are two of the ways that you indicated to Mr. Christie that the Journal for Historical Review, of which you are the Editor, is acclaimed. Is that correct?
A. The subscriptions really go more to the fact that it is regarded as important enough to have and to be read. It is read and subscribed to by important academic and university libraries in many different countries.
Q. I remember you mentioned Harvard, Yale and NYU; is that correct?
A. I don't know if I said NYU. I said Harvard, Yale and, I think, the New York City Public Library. I would have to check. I remember Harvard and Yale, La Bibliothèque Nationale in France, Institute for History in Munich, and so forth.
Q. I had a note that you said New York University as well.
A. It is possible.
Q. I just want to be clear on this. Either you say that it is or it isn't, and that is important for me to know.
A. My memory is that there is a subscription at New York University, yes. I don't remember if I said that.
Q. I am going to suggest to you that in fact that is not the case.
A. I don't remember about New York University.
Q. NYU does not have a subscription.
A. It may have had one and it lapsed. I don't remember.
Q. I will tell you that I have a letter from a librarian at NYU, the Director of Collection Services. It says that, in fact, they don't have a subscription.
A. I may have confused that with the New York Central Library. Again, I don't have my records here.
Q. So you will concede that NYU doesn't have a subscription.
A. No, I won't concede that at all. You say that you have a letter, and I will concede that it may not have a subscription now. It may be that my memory is that it had a subscription and it has now lapsed.
Q. I will just tell you that the letter says ‑‑ and I am happy to show it to you:
"This is to inform you that New York University Libraries does not subscribe to the IHR newsletter, Institute for Historical Review."
A. It says IHR newsletter?
Q. Yes.
A. That is easily understandable. The IHR hasn't published the IHR newsletter in quite some years. The Journal of Historical Review is the periodical that we send out. To say that they don't have a subscription to the newsletter doesn't say anything. I testified about subscriptions to the Journal of Historical Review.
Q. There is a separate newsletter?
A. There was at one time; there isn't any more. The letter actually doesn't go at all to the point of my testimony.
Q. When was the IHR newsletter ‑‑
A. The newsletter was suspended in 1992.
Q. It may well be that the letter was sent out in error. Let's move on here.
In your CV I notice that you published an article in the Spring 1981 issue of the Journal of Historical Review called "The Japanese Camps in California." Do you remember that?
A. It has been some time, and I haven't seen it in quite a few years, but I do recall writing such an article and it was published in the Journal. That was what, 17 years ago?
Q. Obviously, and it is in your CV.
A. Yes.
Q. That article was, in fact, about the Japanese concentration camps in the United States during World War II.
A. That's correct.
Q. And it included as well a comparison of the situation with regard to the Japanese concentration camps and the concentration camps that interned, among others, Jews during World War II. Do you recall that?
A. I don't recall it specifically, no.
Q. Do you recall that in a general way?
A. In a general way.
Q. Let me see if what I say is a quote from that article refreshes your memory. I am saying that this is a quote from what you write, and I am going to ask you to confirm whether in fact you wrote this:
"Actually, the Germans had far greater cause to intern the Jews of Europe than the Americans did to incarcerate the West Coast Japanese."
Do you recall that?
A. Not specifically, no.
Q. But in a general sense, saying that?
A. In a general sense, but I don't specifically recall it.
Q."The Japanese were sent to camps solely on suspicion of what they might do. Not a single Japanese had committed an act of espionage or sabotage."
Do you remember that?
A. In a general way.
Q. I take it that you still agree with the sentiment of the quote that I have read to you thus far?
A. I think it is factually true that the FBI at the time said that there were no cases of espionage or sabotage and that the round-up of the West Coast Japanese took place in spite of that fact.
Q. So I take it that you do, in fact, acknowledge that what I just read to you is still your view.
A. That is my view.
Q."But many thousands of Jews throughout Europe had committed countless acts of murder, destruction, sabotage, arson and theft before the Germans began their general evacuation."
Do you recall writing that?
A. Not specifically.
Q. Do you recall it in a general way?
A. Vaguely.
Q. Whether you recall it specifically, would you agree that what I just read to you still represents your view?
A. I would have to see it in print. I would like to see that.
Q. I don't have a copy of the article itself, so I can only read it to you rather than give you the whole article. I will read it to you again if that will assist you.
"But many thousands of Jews throughout Europe had committed countless acts of murder, destruction ‑‑"
MR. CHRISTIE: Could we find out what it is that my friend is reading from?
MR. KURZ: I am being quite frank. Maybe we should ask this gentleman to step outside while I talk about this.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Would you please step outside.
‑‑- Witness Withdraws
MR. KURZ: What I have is a report that was prepared some time ago that includes a quote. I have not been able to get a copy of the particular issue. What I am doing is putting to him what I am told in this report is a verbatim quote from that article.
THE CHAIRPERSON: A report in your preparation?
MR. KURZ: I was given this report in the context. Somebody else did a report for some other purposes, and this report was handed to me.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is a quote from what source?
MR. KURZ: It claims to be a quote from the article that I described earlier which is "The Japanese Camps in California." That is an article written by Mr. Weber in the Spring 1981 issue of the Journal of Historical Review. I am reading to him what I understand to be an excerpt from that.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He is labouring a bit in trying to identify it. If he can't identify it, I think that is the end of it.
MR. KURZ: I understand that.
MR. CHRISTIE: We would like to know the name of the author of the report and where it comes from.
THE CHAIRPERSON: The author is this witness, as I understand it.
MR. CHRISTIE: The author of the report is not this witness.
THE CHAIRPERSON: The author of what you are quoting is this witness?
MR. KURZ: Yes.
MR. CHRISTIE: The author of the report from which he is quoting is not this witness. He doesn't even know if what he is quoting is authored by this witness. This witness doesn't know. That is not an honest answer, that the author of what he is quoting is this witness; he doesn't know that. We want to know the author of this report.
MR. KURZ: How is that relevant?
MR. CHRISTIE: Because, if it is a source from which quotes are attempted to be introduced into evidence, we have a right to know, Mr. Chairman.
MR. KURZ: Mr. Chair, I agree with what you said. I can put it to him. He can say, "You know what? I didn't write it," and I am stuck with the answer.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You have put it to him once. I am going to allow you to put that one portion to him one more time and, if he does not acknowledge it, that is the end of it.
MR. KURZ: May I ask, Mr. Chair ‑‑ there is another paragraph. I could perhaps read him the whole thing, and he can either say yes or no.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Fine.
‑‑- Witness returns to the stand
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Weber, Mr. Kurz is going to put something to you and he is going to ask if you recognize it. Just answer that question.
MR. KURZ:
Q. I will re-read the part that I was asking you about before and then I will read you the next paragraph:
"But many thousands of Jews throughout Europe had committed countless acts of murder, destruction, sabotage, arson and theft before the Germans began their general evacuation.
The Germans moreover had greater legal justification for their policy. A great majority of the Japanese internees were U.S. citizens and legally entitled to full protection under the law. The Jews of Germany had not been full citizens for several years before the war began. Elsewhere in Europe the Jews were evacuated from militarily occupied territories or by countries allied with Germany."
Do you recognize this quotation, sir?
A. Not specifically; in a general way I recognize it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you recognize it as yours or someone else's?
THE WITNESS: I recognize it generally as mine. I don't specifically remember it word for word or even close to it, but I recognize that I wrote something like that in the context of that article.
MR. KURZ: May I proceed, Mr. Chair?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR. KURZ:
Q. What I am going to ask you is whether the sentiments expressed ‑‑ let me step back. If I am suggesting to you that these are sentiments that you would have expressed in a general way in 1981, would you agree with me?
A. I don't remember. I wouldn't express things quite that way today. I think there is substance to the argument that is made there.
Q. Is there substance to this?
"But many thousands of Jews throughout Europe had committed countless acts of murder, destruction, sabotage, arson and theft before the Germans began their general evacuation."
A. Yes, I would say that is true.
Q. Would you say that that is true in a way that would give the Germans greater justification to intern Jews in concentration camps than Americans had to intern Japanese in their camps?
A. I think an argument can be made for that.
Q. I am not asking whether an argument can be made; I am asking you for your personal opinion.
A. I think especially in hindsight in history there was just about zero justification for rounding up the Japanese on the west coast of the United States during that time. I think it is a historical fact that before the period that the Germans began the general evacuation of Jews in the fall of 1941, many Jews, thousands of Jews in fact, had been involved in cases of arson, murder, sabotage and so forth, especially in eastern Europe.
In that way, if there is even any justification for rounding up an interning Jews, that would be more justification than the rounding up and interning of Japanese for which, I think, historically there was none.
Q. If I can take this a step farther, the Germans then did have some justification to round up the Jews and intern them in concentration camps.
A. Yes, they did have some justification.
Q. Another of the distinctions between the treatment meted to the European Jews and the American Japanese was that the Japanese were citizens and certainly the German Jews were no longer German citizens.
A. Two things. First, certainly in comparison to the rounding up of the Japanese, by their own standards anyway, the Germans had more justification. It's a bit of a legalistic argument. Jews in Germany had not been full citizens for some years but, more important, the Jews of Europe overwhelmingly were very hostile to the National Socialist regime even as it first took power, before any measures were actually taken legally in Germany against Jews.
There was a tremendous hostility by Jews not only in Germany but throughout the world. There was a worldwide economic boycott organized by Jewish organizations against Germany. This was called for even before the first legal measures against Jews were introduced in Germany.
There was this overwhelming sense not only in Germany but in many of the countries that were allied with Germany in the war that the Jews constituted not merely an alien but also a hostile and enemy population.
Q. So the Germans had some justification then in treating the Jews as they did.
A. In treating them differently. "As they did" is an open-ended thing. I don't think they were justified in doing quite a lot of things that were done, but they had some justification for treating them separately.
MR. KURZ: Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Kurz.
I should have called on you when this witness was being examined in-chief.
MR. ROSEN: Actually, I think you did, Mr. Chair.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fromm says "no." I don't recall calling on him.
MR. ROSEN: I think after Mr. Christie finished you specifically raised that before I spoke.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Did you want to ask this witness some questions?
MR. FROMM: I do, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Can you do so reasonably briefly?
MR. FROMM: Like Charlie in "Death of a Salesman," I am a man of few words.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Since you are going to be brief, we will take our afternoon break now.
‑‑- Short Recess at 3:40 p.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 3:55 p.m.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fromm, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
MR. FROMM:
Q. Mr. Weber, over the last two days a couple of terms have been used extensively: Holocaust denial, Holocaust revisionism and historical revisionism.
This Journal of which you are the Editor, the Journal of Historical Review ‑‑ how would you classify that among those three terms?
A. We call the Journal of Historical Review a revisionist periodical. Revisionism is a well-established, respected branch of historical inquiry.
MR. FREIMAN: I was worried that I would have this problem. I thought I had better talk about it early rather than late.
The fact that Mr. Fromm is now up to examine the witness and is raising new issues that were not raised with him in-chief puts the Commission, the Intervenors and the Complainants of the other interest at a great disadvantage. We have no opportunity to cross-examine on these new issues.
My recollection is similar to Mr. Rosen's, that Mr. Fromm was asked yesterday whether he had questions.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I wish we could confirm that from the record because I have no recollection of asking Mr. Fromm whether he wanted to examine. If I didn't, I am the author of the problem here because he has the right to ask some questions.
MR. FREIMAN: I wish we could confirm that. If Mr. Fromm is going to be asking new questions, I would simply like to reserve on behalf of the Commission the ability to cross-examine on new issues that were not raised before.
MR. CHRISTIE: In effect, they are not new issues. They were raised in cross-examination. Mr. Weber was called a Holocaust denier not by me, but in cross-examination, and he was in the process of giving answers about that for the last day and a half, almost two days.
That is why, in my submission, this attempt to clarify the difference between Holocaust denial and Holocaust revisionism is obstructed by my learned friend's unnecessary objection. I think my friends would like to avoid clarification of the difference and identification of precisely where the witness says his publication is in that spectrum. In my submission, the objection is not well-founded.
MR. ROSEN: In fact, Mr. Christie's comments are totally out of order. With respect, following the rules of procedure is not an obstruction.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I wonder if it would be difficult for the Reporter to go to the end of Mr. Christie's examination-in-chief of this witness to see what was said immediately after that.
THE REPORTER: I can check.
MR. FROMM: Mr. Chairman, you turned to Mr. Freiman at that time and he said that he was going to defer to Mr. Rosen. At that point Mr. Rosen began his cross-examination of Mr. Weber.
MR. ROSEN: But I think it was before Mr. Freiman was called on that the issue came up. I stand to be corrected.
THE CHAIRPERSON: My colleague confirms my memory that I did not ask Mr. Fromm. What I propose to do is allow Mr. Fromm to ask some questions and, if new issues are raised which other counsel want to cross-examine on, we will allow that, and then we will call on Mr. Christie.
MR. FROMM:
Q. To go back to my question, I am not asking for your evidence. This is certainly not an opportunity to test what your qualifications are.
Three terms have been used: Holocaust revisionism; Holocaust denial; and historical revisionism. This Journal of which for the last number of years you have been the Editor, could you categorize that for us.
A. The Journal prides itself on continuing what we call this tradition of historical revisionism. Historical revisionism is a well-established, respected field of history, and it has to do especially with what we call revisionist historians after the end of the First World War, such as Harry Elmer Barnes, Sidney Bradshaw Fay and others who tore down many of the justifications for entry of the Allies in the First World War, and so forth. That caused an enormous stir during the 1920s and 1930s.
We try to continue this. Harry Elmer Barnes in particular is kind of an honoured figure with the Institute for Historical Review which has published a number of his works.
Holocaust revisionism is, in a sense, a subset of that. Revisionism itself is absolutely essential to all proper historiography. It just means to look again, to take another look on the basis of new evidence and new insights at history.
The issue of the Journal of Historical Review that you have in your hand there has as its main focus nothing to do with the Holocaust but, rather, has to do with the American bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. The thrust of the articles is that the bombing of Hiroshima was militarily not justified. Many of the articles, in fact the majority of articles, in the Journal of Historical Review over the years do not deal with the Holocaust issue. The Holocaust issue is, of course, the issue that gets the most attention because it is the one that plays such a large role in our society, that people feel so strongly about because it is so emotion-laden.
The IHR and I personally reject very strenuously this label or epithet, Holocaust denier. It smacks of almost something religious, to deny God or something. In fact, in the State of Israel there are laws that make it a crime to deny God and to deny the Holocaust. Interestingly enough, the punishment for denying the Holocaust is five years in jail and the punishment for denying God is only one year in jail. It has that kind of aspect of the thing.
The IHR and the writers who write for the Journal of Historical Review reject this term "denier." We try to discover what did happen.
Q. If we can dismiss the term "Holocaust denier," you would identify the Journal of Historical Review, of which for the last few years you have been the Editor and with which you have been associated, according to your CV, somewhat longer, as a journal of historical revisionism.
A. That's correct.
Q. Would it be fair to say with a considerable subset focus on Holocaust revisionism?
A. That's correct.
Q. How would you identify yourself?
A. I reject being called a Holocaust denier, or a denier of anything. In fact, it's a loaded term. For one to identify oneself as a denier is, in effect, to concede that what one is denying is true. Of course, that's silly.
I identify myself as a historian. I think all historiography is revisionist in the sense that it tries to look at the past on the basis of the latest and best evidence and new insights.
Q. I would like to show you this issue of the Journal for Historical Review, Volume 16, Number 3, the issue for May/June 1997.
Can you identify that as the Journal of which you were the Editor at that time?
A. I was the Editor at that time and I contributed to it.
Q. I have reproduced here the cover and the inside page, the masthead with the Table of Contents and the Editorial Advisory Board. Do you recognize these as accurate copies?
A. I do. I don't have the copy actually; I have the original.
Q. This is not your evidence but, just to clarify, could you give us the very briefest executive summary of the articles. The first one here is "President Clinton's Distortion of History." What was that about?
A. That was an essay by me as Editor discussing what I believe is a gross distortion of 20th century history by President Clinton in his second inaugural speech. He dealt with the First and Second World Wars in a way that I thought was completely inaccurate, and I went on to say that it is a shame that this kind of historical misrepresentation is not pointed out by others and that it is especially distressing when it comes from a President who claims to pride himself so much on the importance of knowledgeable education in American society.
The second article deals ‑‑
Q. That one is called "Was Hiroshima Necessary?" and you wrote it?
A. I wrote that article. Basically, the conclusion of the article is that the terrible bombing of Hiroshima, the first time that nuclear weapons had been used in warfare, which killed at a blow hundreds of thousands of people, was militarily not necessary; it was unjustifiable.
Q. The next article is "American Leaders Planned Poison Gas Attack Against Japan." What was the substance of that?
A. The substance of that is based on some research by American historians who established or found in the American archives years later evidence that in the planned American invasion of Japan the Americans fully intended to use poison gas on a massive scale against the Japanese civilian population.
Q. The next article is "The Ethics of War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki After 50 Years" by Gregory P. Pavlik. What was the substance of that article?
A. That is an article dealing also primarily with the ethics and morality and the military justification of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by a young historian who has written for other periodicals.
Q. The next item on page 19 is "Zaverdinos, Platonov and Graf Join Editorial Advisory Committee".
A. That is an announcement that three writers have joined the Editorial Advisory Committee of the Journal.
Costas Zaverdinos is a professor of mathematics at the University of Natal in South Africa.
Oleg Platonov is a Russian historian who is the author of numerous well-regarded books on history, some of them used as textbooks in Russian high schools and universities. He had joined the Editorial Advisory Committee.
Jürgen Graf, a Swiss historian, educator and linguist, had also joined our Editorial Advisory Committee.
Q. The next article is "Capitalism in the New Russia" by Daniel W. Michaels. What was the substance of that?
A. That is an article by a man who just recently retired after 40 years as an analyst for the United States Defense Department. It deals with the problems of society and capitalism in Russia in recent years during this very tumultuous time that Russia is going through.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Does this journal have an established circulation?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What is it?
THE WITNESS: It is down from what it has been, but it is about 3,000 right now.
MR. FROMM:
Q. Just to be clear about "Capitalism in the New Russia", this was not an article on Holocaust revisionism.
A. It had nothing to do with the Holocaust, no.
Q. "Defense Department Booklet Targets Holocaust Revisionism."
A. That does deal tangentially with a booklet that the United States Defense Department had put out attacking Holocaust revisionism. The article is based in part on lengthy conversations I had with the author of the booklet who is Jewish, a rabbi in fact, who was a chaplain with the U.S. Army.
It deals with the fact that the U.S. Defense Department had issued what I felt was ‑‑ I think by its own words ‑‑ a kind of alarmist piece about Holocaust revisionism.
Q. The next article is entitled "Thies Christophersen."
A. That is a short item that notes his passing. He died. During the Second World War he was a German officer stationed at Auschwitz, in 1944 during the period that is claimed to be the major extermination period. He wrote a booklet and many other writings afterward, stating that during the time that he was there he saw no evidence. He talked with many people and saw no evidence of gassings or of mass extermination.
Q. The next article is "Italian Scholars Defend Free Speech of 'Holocaust Deniers'".
A. That is an article about a public statement signed by a number of Italian scholars who were defending free speech for Holocaust revisionists or those people who take issue with the Holocaust. This public statement was made in response to the tremendous debate in Italy and in other European countries about laws which, in fact, make it a crime to contest or call into question the kind of orthodox, official view of history that we have on this issue.
Q. The next article is "An Italian Voice for Freedom".
A. That is an article ‑‑ the next one actually was ‑‑
Q. You are right, "Critical Study of Holocaust Story Published in Japan".
A. That is an article, a kind of review also of a book published by a Japanese writer named Aiji Kimura, entitled "Auschwitz Debate." The book is based in large part on material that had been published by and supplied by the Institute for Historical Review.
Aiji Kimura, incidentally, is something of a leftist. He has been very active for many years in the Japanese labour movement. He is very anti-militaristic. He stresses very strongly the importance of Holocaust revisionism in promoting peace and understanding among nations.
He visited the IHR in preparation for writing this book. He has been interviewed on Japanese television. This article describes the book that he wrote.
Q. Then "An Italian Voice for Freedom".
A. That is a short item about an Italian journal entitled "The Free Man" or "l'Uomo libero" which has been very friendly to the Institute for Historical Review and has devoted an entire issue to Holocaust revisionism, a large part of it treating very sympathetically the work of the IHR.
Q. Is that a scholarly publication?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. The next article is "Why the Holocaust Must Remain a Dogma". What was the substance of that?
A. That is a reprint of an editorial or an article from this magazine, "l'Uomo libero", from Milan by the editor to give the reader an idea of the thrust or the tone of this magazine as it relates to Holocaust revisionism or historical revisionism.
Q. The next article is "German Television Report Features IHR Interview."
A. That is an item by me about a report that appeared on German television. It was very hostile to the IHR, but it was based in part on an interview with me conducted at our offices by German television reporters who came to California to carry out this interview.
Q. "Internet Web Site Offers Instant Worldwide Access to Revisionism".
A. That is a short item that we run sort of routinely that describes how one can get access to IHR material on the Web. Since then we now have a domain web site. This is a kind of routine item.
Q. I would like to come back to that in a moment.
If I could refer you to your CV and the list of articles which you have published over the years on page 3, obviously from your previous questioning a good deal of your writing and research has had to do with what is sometimes called Holocaust revisionism. I would like you to look over those articles which you have here and indicate any to us that deal with revisionism in general rather than with the Holocaust in particular.
A. With subjects other than the Holocaust?
Q. Yes, subjects other than the Holocaust.
A. The second one does not deal with the Holocaust. "The Boer War Remembered" does not. "The Civil War Concentration Camps" does not.
Q. Which civil war was this?
A. The American Civil War, the war between the states in the United States.
"The Fateful Year 1898" is a fairly extensive piece dealing with the debate over the United States becoming an Imperial power in 1898, especially with regard to the war against Spain.
"Goebbels' Place in History" does not deal with the Holocaust.
"Historical Revisionism and the Legacy of George Orwell" does not deal with the Holocaust. There may be a tangential reference.
"History's Little-Known Naval Disasters" does not.
"International Historians' Meeting reflects 'Politically Correct' Academic Agenda" does not.
"The Japanese Camps in California" does not.
"Jesse Owens: Myth and Reality" does not.
Q. That was the Black athlete, was it?
A. The American Black athlete in the 1936 Berlin Olympics.
"The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution" does not deal with the Holocaust at all.
"The Legacy of Rudolf Hess" does not.
"New Biography Assails Churchill War Record" does not.
"The Organization of American Historians: Faithfully Reflecting Academic Standards" deals with a report by me on the Annual Meeting of the Organization of American Historians which I attended as a member, in fact. It deals only very tangentially with the dispute that we had with the OAH at that time.
"President Clinton's Distortion of History" does not.
"President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe" does not.
Q. That was Franklin Roosevelt?
A. President Franklin Roosevelt, yes.
"Rauschning's Phony 'Conversations with Hitler'" does not.
"Reviewing a Year of Progress" does not.
"Reviews of IHR Books Show Greater Acceptance of Revisionism" may, in part. It is really just a listing of reviews that have appeared in various periodicals of books published by the IHR.
"Roosevelt's Secret Pre-war Plan to Bomb Japan" does not deal with the Holocaust issue.
"Sebastian Haffner's 1942 Call for Mass Murder" does not deal with the Holocaust question.
"Swiss Historian Exposes Anti-Hitler Rauschning Memoir as Fraudulent" does not deal with the Holocaust issue.
"Was Hiroshima Necessary" which is in this issue does not deal with the Holocaust issue.
"Zionism and the Third Reich" does not specifically deal with the Holocaust issue. It deals with the collaboration or the agreements that were made between Zionist organizations and the Third Reich government prior to World War II, during the 1930s. You could say, arguably or not, that it deals with that.
Q. Might it be fair to say that, while you have a major interest in Holocaust revisionism, you are not fixated on it?
A. That's right. In fact, I wish I was less fixated on it. I deal with it as much as I do in large part because it plays such a big role. This thing comes up all the time and, in a way, I feel responsible that, if we don't do it, it doesn't get done.
Q. I call your attention back to the Journal of Historical Review, particularly the Editorial Advisory Committee.
What is the function at the Institute for Historical Review of the Editorial Advisory Committee?
A. It is two-fold. It is an advisory committee. Some members of the Advisory Committee more than others do give advice, sometimes strongly worded, sometimes less so. The main purpose of the Editorial Advisory Committee, like similar advisory committees on other journals of this type, is to show the support for the Journal and the Institute for Historical Review by individuals who have some standing or some credentials.
Q. Would all these individuals listed here identify themselves as historical revisionists?
A. As revisionists ‑‑ I think they would, yes.
Q. Would they all share the same point of view?
MR. KURZ: There is only so much leading. I know that Mr. Fromm is not a lawyer, but there is only so much leading he can do.
MR. CHRISTIE: Isn't he cross-examining?
MR. KURZ: No.
MR. CHRISTIE: I thought he had a right to cross-examine this witness.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He is in the same interest as you are.
MR. CHRISTIE: Is he?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he is.
MR. CHRISTIE: Why is he? I represent Mr. Zundel; I don't represent the interests of the Canadian Association for Free Expression. The issue of freedom of expression is broader than just the issue of my client's interests.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I thought we crossed this Rubicon long ago. All of the people to your right and behind I have not allowed to cross examine anybody because they are identified with the interests of the Commission.
MR. CHRISTIE: That would be true, then, of Mr. Rosen. He is identified with the interests of the Commission. Why is he any different? He could cross-examine as could the Commission.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He was leading the evidence.
MR. CHRISTIE: He was leading the cross-examination.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He was leading the cross-examination.
MR. FREIMAN: Mr. Chair, if I may, it comes down to this.
Mr. Fromm is standing at the rostrum examining this witness with the purpose of assisting in his qualifications as an expert. That is exactly the position that Mr. Christie took. Therefore, even if hypothetically Mr. Fromm on some issue might not be of an identical interest, on this question he is clearly, unabashedly and unambiguously of the same interest and, therefore, ought not to be allowed to cross-examine.
MR. CHRISTIE: If that was the criterion, there is absolutely no distinction between the B'nai Brith and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, both of whom had their ample opportunity to cross-examine as long as they wanted and very vigorously. Then after all that, if Mr. Freiman for the Commission felt they had not done enough, he reserved his right to add a few more questions.
If that isn't identity of interest, I don't know what is. If there is any rule that applies to that side of the argument, it should equally apply to this side of the argument.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What am I missing here? We have roughly two interest groups here, one supporting the Commission's case and one opposing the Commission's case. The people who oppose the Commission's case can all cross-examine the Commission's witnesses or any other witness. The people supporting the Commission's case do not have a right to cross-examine Commission witnesses.
MR. CHRISTIE: These are not Commission witnesses, for one thing; these are my witnesses.
MEMBER DEVINS: I think that is the point, Mr. Christie.
MR. CHRISTIE: It makes no difference. Why would one side have three opportunities to cross-examine my witnesses, but the, as you call it, other side ‑‑ and I don't think it is fair to say that ‑‑ has only one opportunity to examine.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am just trying to explain a situation that exists. We have two groups who are in an adversarial position here.
MR. CHRISTIE: No, I don't quite agree. For one thing, I am not an adversary of Mr. Fromm and Mr. Fromm is not my associate. He represents an independent position. If he wants to cross-examine or examine this witness for the purposes of asserting that the interests of freedom of expression are best served by qualifying him, which is a position he could take, it does not depend on my position which may be similar, but there may be different reasons for it.
It seems totally unfair that one side of this debate can have three opportunities to cross-examine and I can have one opportunity and one opportunity to re-examine.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I agree that that would be unfair, but that is not the procedure that we are following.
MR. CHRISTIE: I take it that the position you are going to impose on Mr. Fromm is that he cannot cross-examine this witness.
THE CHAIRPERSON: No, and neither can any of the other interested parties who are allied with the Commission's position cross-examine witnesses. They have not been allowed to do that.
MR. CHRISTIE: They have been allowed to cross-examine this witness.
THE CHAIRPERSON: They have been allowed to cross-examine witnesses that you call, yes.
MR. CHRISTIE: So that is fair, as you see it.
MR. KURZ: Since it was my objection, I just point out that it becomes compounded because the main cross-examination, especially by Mr. Rosen, has already been completed. This could almost take the form of re-examination and rehabilitation. That makes the injunction against cross-examining of a witness who is on your side, as it were ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Don't complicate it for me. I am surprised at this late stage that we still have a misunderstanding of that. At the beginning of this whole procedure, Mr. Fromm made it clear that he was supporting the interests of the Respondent, that he was representing the organization which he says he represents but that he was here to support the position of the Respondent, and I have proceeded accordingly. It accords with my understanding of the rules of practice on the civil side, and that is how procedures of this kind are governed.
Mr. Fromm, you can ask this witness questions, but you can't cross-examine him. You can't lead him or cross-examine. You have to be satisfied with his answer to the extent that your ingenuity may allow you to any farther than that.
MR. FROMM: It reminds me of one of those three computer games that children play, where every time they click on a square there is a chance that there is a mine there. I have never yet won that game.
MR. CHRISTIE: And you won't win it here.
MR. FROMM:
Q. Mr. Weber, on the inside page of the Journal of Historical Review that I have shown you, could you explain not the matter about subscriptions but what your understanding is of the very last paragraph in the small print beginning with "All rights ‑‑".
A. It means that we encourage others to reprint things from the Journal freely as long as credit is given to the Journal of Historical Review and a proper citation is made.
Q. So anybody may reprint from the Journal as far as you are concerned as long they acknowledge it.
A. Right, and that they don't cut it in some distorting way. The IHR exists as a public service, and it is trying to do this for the greater good. It doesn't try to make a profit.
Q. How long have you personally been involved in writing and researching as a historical revisionist?
A. As I said, I think all good historians are revisionists in a sense. As long as I have been a historian ‑‑ and I don't know what objective standards there would be with that, except that I have been studying and involved with history, at least as a student, since the 1970s.
Q. You are being asked to assist the Tribunal, subject to confirmation, in a number of areas. One area is to assist the Tribunal in understanding what historical revisionism and what Holocaust revisionism is. How do you feel you are in a position to do that?
A. I think I am well qualified to do that because I have perhaps more experience with what Holocaust revisionism is and its role in society as anyone perhaps in North America, because of my involvement with the IHR and my background in history. I think I can explain pretty accurately for the benefit of the Commission what the role and place of Holocaust revisionism is not only in historiography but also in the larger ongoing debate that is taking place around the world.
THE CHAIRPERSON: On the one hand, I don't want to constrain you, but on the other hand we don't want a lecture on the subject.
MR. FROMM:
Q. I am not trying to get at the ins and outs of Holocaust revisionism or historical revisionism, but what your qualifications are to assist the Tribunal.
A. The short answer is that, based on my experience and my knowledge, I have more familiarity than just about anyone I can think of in North America to speak on what Holocaust revisionism is and its place in society.
Q. I didn't want to try the patience of the Tribunal by asking you to identify all the individuals on the Editorial Board, but you have said that most of these are historical revisionists.
A. Right. Some are qualified or certified historians. Others are academics in other fields who nevertheless have lent their name and prestige to the Journal of Historical Review.
Q. You have indicated, I think, in your responses to Mr. Rosen that they are not all of one mind.
A. That is certainly true.
Q. Would it be fair to say that you ‑‑
MR. KURZ: I apologize, but I can see where it is going. Whenever you hear "would it be fair to say ‑‑"
MR. FROMM: You are smarter than I am; I don't know where I am going.
MR. KURZ: ‑‑ there is a leading question coming.
MR. FROMM:
Q. I was about to ask you whether it is fair to say that in that area ‑‑
MR. KURZ: No ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: Let him finish the question. Is it going to pollute the atmosphere if he finishes the question? The witness can be advised not to answer the question until there has been an objection. What kind of behaviour is this? He can't even get the question out. It is just abusive.
MR. KURZ: It is not abusive.
MR. CHRISTIE: It is. Let him finish the question.
MR. FROMM:
Q. In terms of historical revisionism, do you know a fair number of the players?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. It has been stated a number of times in the past two days that there is a debate about Holocaust revisionism and perhaps historical revisionism as well.
You are the Editor of the Journal of Historical Review. Other than editing and writing, have you in any way participated in this debate on Holocaust revisionism?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Through what?
A. One of the most dramatic things is that I participated in a public debate specifically on this issue, as I mentioned, with a professor at Occidental College who is also the editor of Skeptic Magazine.
I also participate in the debate through letters. I write to newspapers and magazines that have been published, in interviews, in newspapers, radio talk show appearances in which I have debated, and on television.
Q. Am I correct in assuming that this has been over a period of time?
A. Yes.
Q. It was not a one-time debate.
A. Right.
Q. I don't want you to give a detailed answer; I just want to know whether you could give an answer to this question.
In the 20-some years you have been involved in writing, editing and debating, have you seen any changes in the positions of the various parties ‑‑ and I don't know whether there are two or many? Has the debate moved ahead or is it still one group screaming it's long gone and the other group screaming it's a trinity. I don't think it is appropriate to ask you what the answer is, but could you give such an answer?
A. I could give an answer to that.
MR. FROMM: Those are my questions.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Does anyone wish to cross-examine?
MR. ROSEN: I would just like to see the Journal. May I ask just a few questions?
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Mr. Weber, in this Editorial Advisory Committee you list Arthur R. Butz, Ph.D, Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Arthur R. Butz is the author of a book called "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century"?
A. That's correct.
Q. You also list as one of your members of the Editorial Board Robert H. Countess, Ph.D from Huntsville, Alabama?
A. That's correct.
Q. A noted revisionist.
A. He is somewhat noted, yes.
Q. someone that you certainly would count as an expert in the area sufficient to put on your Advisory Committee.
A. I am not sure about that, no.
Q. He is there.
A. The question is misleading. He is qualified enough to be on the Advisory Board, not necessarily qualified enough as a Holocaust revisionist.
Q. I see, but enough to be on the Board.
A. Yes.
Q. Then, of course, you have Robert Faurisson from the University of Lyon-2 in Lyon, France, a Ph.D. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Of course, Robert Faurisson is a person who has been convicted on multiple occasions of offences in France of denying the Holocaust. Correct?
A. In France it is a crime under the Gayssot law to contest crimes against humanity as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Q. Right. And he has been convicted, fined and I think he has been jailed.
A. I don't think he has been jailed, just fined.
Q. And he is barred from entering the United States?
A. I don't believe that is true, no.
Q. You also have on there a number of people who are primarily in fields other than history. I would say the majority of them; would you agree?
A. No, I would say that most are historians.
Q. George Ashley is shown as retired from the Unified School District.
A. He is a retired high school teacher, yes.
Q. Enrique Aynat is a lawyer from Torreblanca, Spain.
A. For example, Raul Hilberg is the author of one of the best known books on the Holocaust. He does not have a degree in history, but he is a historian because he has written several books of history.
Q. I wasn't asking about ‑‑
A. Enrique Aynat is a historian, although he has a degree in law.
Q. We have been through Mr. Butz. He is an electrical engineer.
Boyd Cathey ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: Why don't we go about it ‑‑ if we are going through this list ‑‑
MR. ROSEN: Why don't you go about it in re-examination?
MR. CHRISTIE: Okay, I will. Thank you.
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Boyd Cathey from The Southern Partisan ‑‑ that is a newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina, isn't it?
A. It's a magazine. He holds a Ph.D in history, but he is on the Editorial Advisory Committee of the Southern Partisan, yes.
Q. Right, which is a magazine.
A. Yes.
Q. Some of these are totally unknown to me. R. Clarence Lang?
A. He is a retired professor. He holds a Ph.D in history and also a Master of Divinity degree.
Q. A Master of Divinity.
A. Yes, but he also holds a Ph.D in history. He lives now in Seguin, Texas; he is retired.
Q. And Wilhelm Stäglich is a lawyer, a Doctor of Jurisprudence.
A. He was actually a judge in Germany. He holds a law degree.
Q. Also retired?
A. Also retired, yes.
Q. Udo Walendy has a diploma in ‑‑ what is that?
A. It is European certification as a historian, as a scholar.
Q. Of course, Zaverdinos is a mathematician.
A. He is a mathematician, but he has written pretty widely on history as well.
Q. This article "Capitalism in the New Russia: Internationalism vs. Nationalism in the Former Soviet Union" by Daniel W. Michaels ‑‑ that is one of the articles in here?
A. That's right.
Q. He is cited to be a retired Defense Department analyst who lives in Washington, D.C. Is that correct?
A. That is what he is.
Q. After graduating in 1954 from Columbia University (Phi Beta Kappa), he studied in Tübengen, Germany (1957), with a Fulbright scholarship, before he went to the Defense Department.
A. That's right.
Q. When he is writing this article about the Soviet Union, he has a title here, "Crucial Jewish Role":
"No one can really understand Russia's tumultuous social, political and economic situation, with its complex contending forces, without an awareness of the role of Jews, both in the past and today, and the popular attitude toward them."
That is what he has written.
A. I don't have it in front of me, but that is my recollection.
Q. He goes on to say:
"During the Soviet era, Jews played a prominent, perhaps dominant, role in the ruling Communist Party and in economic, cultural and academic life. [See M. Weber, "The Jewish Role in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Early Soviet Regime," Jan-Feb. 1994 Journal, pp 4-14]."
Right?
A. Yes, and that article is listed on the CV.
Q. Yes, and he is quoting you as authoritative for that statement.
A. No, that is not quoting me. It just means for more information on that aspect of things, a person may wish to consult that article.
Q."Today Jews hold conspicuous positions of great wealth and authority. Although they make up perhaps three percent of the total population, Jews wield power vastly disproportionate to their numbers."
Writes Mr. Daniel W. Michaels. Is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. He goes on to note:
"Anti-Semitism was strictly illegal during the Soviet era. Today anti-Jewish sentiment is not only widespread, it is openly and sometimes forcefully expressed, in spite of Yeltsin government disapproval. Russian newspapers frequently and often emotionally discuss their country's national-ethnic questions, the re-awakening Russian nationalism, and the role of Jews in society, in terms of an ongoing struggle between nationalism and internationalism. 'Isn't it a pity that anti-Semitism is flourishing in Russia today like 'chrysanthemums in a garden',' the frankly nationalist paper Zavtra ('Tomorrow') sarcastically comments (No. 47, Nov 1996)."
He reports. Right?
A. Right. It's a report that is consistent with reports that have appeared in numerous daily newspapers and magazines.
Q. He goes on to say:
"Reflecting the widespread bitterness of many Russians is a front-page article in Zavtra (Nov. 1996, No. 48), which charges that a group of '13 banker apostles' has gained control of the country. It went on to warn readers: ' ... The Constitution has been one-third torn to pieces right under your nose in the last five years, and from this day on you will live under the jurisdiction of the Jewish bankers whose wallets protect the thugs of [television stations] ORT and NTV."
He reports. Correct?
A. I don't have any recollection of that specific thing, no. I don't even have a copy of it in front of me.
Q. He goes on to say:
"Informed Russians are quite aware of American's special relationship with Israel, with the Jewish lobby's mighty influence in the United States, with the preferential treatment given by the US immigration agency (INS) to Jewish immigrants, and with the zealous US concern for Jewish welfare in general. Accordingly, Russian nationalists tend to view Jewish capitalists in their country as quasi-agents of the United States."
He writes. Correct?
A. I don't know if that is correct. I don't have the article in front of me.
Q. I know, you only brought one, but let's see what he says.
A. No, I didn't bring it at all.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Rosen, we are going to adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow.
‑‑- Whereupon the Hearing was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
to resume on Thursday, December 10, 1998
at 10:00 a.m.