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:

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"

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?

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