Irving, from his trial with Lipstadt, one of the Posen speeches is brought up and he points out that the incriminating page was retyped, it "has been typed by a different typist": http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/tran ... day006.htm
Code: Select all
Q. My googlies are I think a little bit more subtle than you sometimes think, Mr Irving. Can you turn on just for reference in this bundle to the next document which is after page 49 of Himmler's Posen speech. My Lord, it is footnote 187.
A. My Lord, would be it be helpful if I pointed out that after making this speech Himmler had everybody who was present sign a list to agree that they had hear the speech, or if they had not heard it to agree that they had read it subsequently. All the SS Generals who were present were required -- I have never seen that on any of Himmler's other speeches.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: What do you say is the significance of that?
A. It is very interesting to speculate, my Lord. I think he was making them into accomplices in his own mind. He was saying: "There you are, now I have told you. Now we are all in it together." It is a very interesting historical document. I have never seen that on any of Himmler's other speeches, that he listed all SS Generals present and made them sign that they had been present and heard the speech or if they not been present that they had read it subsequently.
MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving, Heinrich Himmler kept copies of these speeches, did he not?
A. In various versions. There was the original raw
transcript and then a corrected transcript.
Q. I know, I happen to have for the 5th May which we are coming to in a minute, I happen to have both versions.
A. Yes. There are also his handwritten notes on the basis of which he spoke.
Q. Yes, Mr Irving, your knowledge is extensive. I want to know why you think it is that Himmler kept copies of his speeches?
A. I keep copies of me speeches.
Q. But you do not talk about having given the order for the extermination of millions of Jews, do you, in your speeches?
A. I have not exterminated millions of Jews, Mr Rampton.
Q. Mr Irving, maybe it is late in the morning or something. Heinrich Himmler's speech is not just this one. We had the one earlier, the 4th October at Posen. We have this one here. We have two more in May 1944, which are quite explicit, at any rate about his role in the extermination of the whole Jewish race?
A. Letting them vanish from the face of the earth, brutally explicit.
Q. Yes, by killing them?
A. Brutally explicit, yes. As he says, by murdering, and not just the men but the women and children too.
Q. Yes, I know that. Why would he keep those admissions of guilt, particularly in 1943 and 1944 by which time he must
have known that the German world was probably going to come to an end?
A. Why would he have kept it to himself?
Q. Yes. Why did he commit these things to writing and then keep them after he had uttered them to his Generals or his Reichsleiters or whatever they are?
A. I think the problem is we are so often on exactly the same side, Mr Rampton. Have I not frequently allowed in all my books that from this point on Hitler had no reason not to know?
Q. Hitler did know, come on.
A. On precisely this point I have said Hitler had no justification for pleading ignorance, because everybody else immediately around him had been informed, but also you have to set this kind of speech in the context. This is 5th October, 4th and 6th October 1943 rather, at the height of the bombing campaign. There is a reason why Himmler is making a speech like this to the disgruntled SS Generals. Morale is at a low ebb and he is saying, "Hey, we are hitting back, we're doing this to them".
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am really puzzled. Can I explain why, Mr Irving. When Mr Rampton was putting that passage from the October 1943 speech, 4th October 1943 speech, you were at pains to point out that Himmler was saying that it was he who would have taken the decision, but if you are accepting, as you have throughout, that by October 1943
Hitler knew about the extermination policy ----
A. I say "from this point on", my Lord, because on the following day ----
Q. But what is the significance of emphasising that it was Himmler's decision if you accept Hitler was in on it?
A. Because Himmler is accepting the responsibility for the job which has now been completed. Himmler is kind of reporting ----
Q. I see, ex post facto.
A. Yes, saying, "We've done it all, the job has been done, I had to take the decision, it was a difficult job for us, but we done it, and I am proud of you, my SS men, for having carried out such a difficult task."
Q. So the knowledge you say Hitler had from October 1943 did not include knowledge of what had been going on in 1942, is that what you are saying?
A. I am saying it is quite likely that he will have ex post facto have learned about all these things, particularly the Gauleiters who went to see him the next day and the SS Generals who went to see him. The same audience went effectively to see Hitler where he lectured them, and it would be stretching the bounds of probability too far to say that not one of them went up to Hitler, one of the old veterans, and said, "Mein Führer, we heard something yesterday which rather disturbed me", but I do not think it did disturb them. I think they rather liked
it. The eyewitness accounts we have of one of these speeches says that there were roars of applause.
MR RAMPTON: It was ----
A. The Germans were like that.
Q. If you are right, it is something of which Himmler was very proud, is it not?
A. He was proud of his men for having carried out those extremely distasteful tasks.
Q. But he was pleased, if your interpretation is right, and I am going to suggest it is not, but he was pleased to announce to this august gathering that he personally had made the decision to carry out this difficult task?
A. Would it not have been wonderful for him if he had said: "The Führer gave us this task and look how well we have performed his duties for him.
Q. Of course he did.
A. The great temptation would have been there, but he does not say this.
Q. He does not?
A. He says specifically: "I was the one who took the decision".
Q. So that being so you would not expect that in May 1944 he would reveal that he done what he did in consequence of an order, and the only person of course who could have given an order is Hitler?
A. Mr Rampton, shall we get to that document when we get to
it and look at the precise wording?
Q. Very well. Let us doing that now. I have it open.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is page 187.
MR RAMPTON: Page 187.
A. There are of course about ten such speeches and you have just picked out two of them. In none of the others does he make any suggestion that there is a Führer order. So it is not just one speech where there is no reference. It is many speeches.
Q. He makes another such reference later the same month, about three weeks later. We will come to that probably after the adjournment.
A. Are we also going to look at Adolf Hitler's speech of I think it was June 26th 1944?
Q. Yes, indeed I certainly am. Let us start with 5th May 1944. On page 18, tell me who this speech is made to, if you will?
A. I think it is the military leader, the leadership, the top brass, shall we say.
Q. The top brass.
A. I know the names of a number of people who were present. General Stumpff was Air Force; General Reinecke was Germany Army.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Generals of the Wehrmacht.
MR RAMPTON: These are not SS creatures. These are proper soldiers; these are Generals of the Wehrmacht, are they
A. Yes, the top brass of the German armed forces.
Q. On page 28 it has been altered. One can see how these pages evolve sometimes. Page 28. My Lord, it looks like an 18, so one has to look at page 27 at the top, page 5 of the file.
A. This is one of the most interesting pages I have ever looked at.
Q. You can tell us everything you know about this page in just a moment when I have referred you to the relevant passage, which I think begins in the middle of the page: The Jewish question has been solved within Germany itself and in general within the countries occupied by Germany". Is that roughly right?
Q. I am going to read on in the English from Dr Longerich's version. "It was solved in an uncompromising fashion in accordance with the life and death struggle of our nation in which the existence of our blood is at stake." Yes?
Q. Then ellipse, if you do not mind. Have you got that?
Q. "You can understand how difficult it was for me"?
A. "You can feel with me how difficult it was" yes.
Q. "To carry out this soldatischen Befehl". What is that?
A. Soldierly order or military order.
Q. "And which I carried out and went through with a sense of obedience", which word is that? Translate the last part of the sentence for me?
A. "Which I obeyed and carried out from obedience and from a sense of complete conviction".
Q. Obedience to whom, Mr Irving, Hitler or his own sense of what was necessary for the sake of the thousand year Reich?
A. I think the sense of what is coming out of that paragraph is a sense of duty.
Q. So it is the sense of duty, is it, that gives him the soldatischen Befehl?
Q. A very odd choice of words, is it not, this soldierly order?
Q. The only person who can give Mr Himmler a soldierly order is Mr Hitler?
A. Absolutely right.
Q. He is saying: "I did what I did because Hitler told me to"?
A. Yes. I refer to this of course in my Hitler biographies. I quoted this with the ----
Q. Let me put to you the sort of expression you might use. How do you get yourself out of that one then, Mr Irving?
A. By counting.
Q. By what?
Q. Counting what?
A. Can I ask you to look at the previous page?
A. Can you see the number of the page at the top of the page?
A. It is typed.
Q. The next one is an altered type. I already drew attention to that.
A. All the following pages have been written in in handwriting.
Q. So what?
A. And so what? Can you continue to count, please? Will you count down on page 27 nine lines to the beginning of the new paragraph.
Q. "In Deutschland"?
A. How many spaces is that paragraph indented by?
Q. I have absolutely no idea. I am not a typist, Mr Irving.
A. I will count for you. Five spaces indented.
Q. You stop interrogating ----
A. Tap, tap, tap, tap, tap.
Q. You stop interrogating me, if you will, Mr Irving and give me your explanation why, as I now apprehend, you are saying we cannot trust the page we have been looking at?
A. Because it has been typed -- I have looked at the original of this document, Mr Rampton, you are looking at a photocopy. I have looked at the original in the archives. It is typed on different, here onwards it is typed on a different typewriter, this page, the page 28.
Q. Where was it found?
A. What do you mean "where was it found"?
Q. Where was this speech found, Mr Irving?
A. Can I just complete what I am saying?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I would like you to because I want to know exactly what you say about ----
A. It is very important, my Lord. It has been typed by a different typist.
Q. Page 28.
A. And this frequently happened. I spotted many diaries that had been fumbled with subsequently or pages of documents. This had been typed by a different typist. They use different ways of typing. You will notice that there is more space after the first line on page 28, after the
"Reichsführer SS", it has a double space after that instead of a single space on the previous page. She has indented by five spaces at the beginning of each paragraph. I am assuming it is a she.
Q. So what do you infer from that?
A. We do not, my Lord. All we can say is that for some reason this page was retyped at a different date. We do not whether it was retyped during the war, which is the likelihood. We do not know what has been inserted or taken out. On this occasion we do not have the other transcripts of that speech. So that is a page that I am unhappy about pinning a capital issue on. You do not often find a document that has been so clearly tampered with as that.
MR RAMPTON: Oh, yes, there is, for example, at least two versions of the next speech we are coming to.
A. We are looking at this speech though are we not, the fact that change just occurs on this page.
Q. I wish you would sometimes let me ask you a question.
A. I have not really finished what I was speaking abut.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us pause. Finish your answer and then the next question.
A. About the falsification of this particular page, the fact that this particular page has been clearly retyped at a different date and that this is the one page that contains, as I quite agree, a pivotal sentence, makes me
very unhappy about just relying on this version of that sentence. I am not saying it is a post-war forgery. I think it is unlikely. I think it is the kind of fumbling that goes on during the war, when people have spotted they have said something wrong and so they have put something else in instead. For example, just for one minute I would say I found exactly the same in the private diary of Henry Stimson, who was the American Secretary of War who retyped the pages just before Pearl Harbour to cut out incriminating material, and as he said later said to Henry Morgan: "I have gone through my diaries cutting out everything that incriminates President Roosevelt", you can spot that if you look at the originals, as I always prefer to, rather than looking at printed versions on in this case microcopies.
MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving, we will see when we get to the next speech similar things have happened?
Q. I am not the least bit resistant to the idea that that particular page, like others of no particular significance, was retyped.
Q. How many versions of a speech or of pages of a speech do you think you go through before you reach the final version if you type them out or draft them beforehand?
A. Well, I have looked at very many of the original Himmler
speeches. As I said, I have must have looked at about ten of these kinds of transcripts, and there are transcripts, there is a whole published volume of Himmler speeches, so you end up with a large number of transcripts to look at. This speech I think is the only one where I found a discrepancy of this magnitude which has not been remarked on by the historians. I am very uneasy that it is this page of all the pages that shows the signs of I would wartime tampering.
Q. Not wartime tampering. Can I suggest a natural human process for the production of one amongst several pages that look different? For example, if you look at page 7, the next page, the number at the top of the page has not been typed; it has been handwritten.
A. From thereon they are handwritten, yes, in the entire speech.
Q. Yes, but what is baffling me, Mr Irving, is why you will not actually use your knowledge of the world to advance the most likely explanation of this phenomenon, is that somebody types version one, Himmler looks at it and he says, "Oh, I don't think like that very much", and in those days of course you do not have word processors, so it has to be retyped on a different typewriter, perhaps the same day, perhaps on another day, it matters not. This is Himmler's words in Himmler's speech in Himmler's own private file.
A. This is the man who also wrote on another occasion: "Let us do this for camouflage purposes. I like the new version, it's going to the Führer. Excellent for camouflage purposes." We cannot trust him, unfortunately. When we find a speech has been tampered with in this way, then frankly I mention it, in fact I think in Hitler's War I drew attention to the discrepancy in the numbering and the typeface and the paragraph indent and so on.
Q. You did, and in such a way as to suggest that there is clear evidence of an order from Hitler to Himmler to carry out the extermination programme could not be relied upon.
A. Is this a hanging document?
Q. Oh, yes.
A. Would you hang somebody on this?
Q. I would not hang anybody for anything, as it happens, Mr Irving, not even Adolf Hitler if he were here, though some people in this room might. This is not a prosecution of Adolf Hitler. This is in your mind, should be, not setting out to prove something, seeing what the evidence suggests.
A. Yes, but this is precisely the same situation, to my mind, as where a court is shown a so-called confession and then when you look at the original you find out that one page of the confession has been rewritten and inserted at a later date. The court would then throw out the whole confession, frankly.
Q. This has been put in by the Allies to incriminate Hitler, has it?
A. No. You are putting it in to make your point.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton, I think we probably ought to pause. You have not finished with this and it may be it would be worth looking perhaps after the adjournment at how this is dealt with in whichever of Mr Irving's books it is dealt within.
A. Yes, I did try to find it, my Lord.
MR RAMPTON: Yes.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Shall we say 5 past 2? (Luncheon Adjournment) MR DAVID IRVING, continued. Cross-Examined by MR RAMPTON, QC, continued.
MR RAMPTON: Now, Mr Irving, will you please tell us slowly and carefully why it matters, in your view, if it be right, that this page of this speech by Himmler has been retyped?
A. Well, I have had the advantage, of course, that I have refreshed my memory from reading my own book.
A. So I will give the same explanation or speculation now as I did in my book.
A. First of all, I have had the advantage that I have seen the original and I work from the original paper of this transcript. From the original paper, it is evident that
the original in the archives is a carbon copy, which means that the ribbon copy went somewhere else. It is reasonable to suppose, as this is typed on the large typeface, that the ribbon copy went to Adolf Hitler. All we can say, however, is that at some time, somebody considered it necessary to retype page 28 which contains the pregnant sentence about the order. I speculate in my book that it is reasonable to assume that the version that went to Adolf Hitler did not have this retyped page in. It went in with some different formulation.
Q. There is the leap into space which, I am afraid, I do not follow.
A. Well, the alternative -- I would be interested to hear what your alternative explanation would be.
Q. No. I do not see anything in the evidence before my eyes. Assuming you are right it was retyped, certainly the page numbering has been changed.
A. And the indenting is different.
Q. There does not seem to be anything in what I see before my eyes to tell me that it was done after or before the other pages. There is nothing which I see in this document which leads me to think that if it was altered, it was altered for any other reason than that Himmler had changed his mind about precisely what he wanted to say.
A. He did not read from this. This is a transcript of what
he said -- if you appreciate the difference? This is not a script that he read from. This is the typed version of what he said taken from a shorthand note.
Q. Well, can you look at this document? My Lord, this is another version of the same page which I am told comes from the archives. It was obtained for me yesterday because I thought we might get to this today. There is one for his Lordship and one for Mr Irving. We have in front of us a typescript, not in Führer's size type, have we not, Mr Irving?
Q. With a lot of manuscript alterations on it?
A. Editing, yes.
Q. In the top right-hand corner the typewritten No. 17 which has not been changed.
Q. If you look at about nine lines down, you see the same passage beginning that we were discussing before the adjournment, do we not, "Die Judenfrage" at the end of the line?
Q. It still has seven lines below that or eight, six to seven: "Dieses mir gegebenen soldatischen Befehls war"?
Q. I should read the whole thing, "Wie schwer •• [German -
document not provided] -- mir gegebenen soldatischen Befehls war". That is the same phrase as appears in the other version?
A. That is absolutely correct. Exactly the same, no editing on that passage at all.
Q. But we can, can we not, infer from the page number that the speech was at that stage a good deal shorter because in our other version the page number finally winds up as being 28, I think, does it not? That may be a function of the different size.
A. Different size typeface.
Q. But I ask you to notice that the top right-hand corner of the one we have got in the bundle ----
Q. --- appears to have been changed from a number in its teens, does it not?
A. Hard to say on the basis of that copy.
Q. In manuscript.
A. I can only say it is hard to say on the basis of that copy.
Q. It is hard to say, but the first of those digits looks a bit like a 1, does it not?
A. I can only say it is hard to say.
Q. You see, I do not make these observations in order to lead to a particular conclusion. All I say is you do not find in these different versions and different numberings of a page containing the same words, do you, any suggestion
that this page was added at a later date, after some sanitised version had been given to Hitler?
A. That is not the suggestion that I made.
Q. Well, what is it?
A. I am perfectly content with the suggestion and, in fact, with the clear proof that Himmler actually used these words when speaking to this audience of military gentlemen who were accustomed to accepting orders from above. What I am suggesting is that in the version that he then sent to Hitler he retyped that page and replaced it by another page that is not before us.
Q. But why do you say that?
A. Because something has happened to this page. Quite clearly something has happened to this page.
Q. But people make alterations to their drafts all the time. Look, do you agree that this smaller typeface probably represents an earlier generation of the same ----
A. Quite clearly. It is almost certainly the original shorthand version.
Q. So what leads you to suppose then that the speech was made in these terms, let us suppose this is an earlier draft?
Q. With the manuscript alteration, that is not Himmler's writing, an earlier draft, the speech is not made in those terms, it is recorded in these terms as they were recorded, were they not?
A. Sometimes they are recorded.
Q. Yes. Then comes a transcript or a version anyway?
Q. To be put before the Führer?
Q. And for some reason or another the page which we have here and which is in the draft is removed?
Q. And replaced by something else?
Q. What is the evidence for that?
A. The fact that this page has clearly been retyped at some stage.
Q. So what?
A. And renumbered from there on.
Q. Perhaps it was badly typed in the first place.
A. That is another, third possible alternative, but it is the funniest thing, is it not, that this is the one page that it happens on. The one page that contains the pregnant sentence has clearly been retyped at a different date by a different hand on different paper.
Q. Why do you say a different date?
A. Well, because it is on different paper. It is not taken from the same wad of paper that the rest of the speech is typed on.
Q. But suppose the secretaries do a shift job or something
later in the same day, perhaps the evening, I do not know what time of the day the speech is made, nor do we know what dates these were drafts were on, do we?
A. No, we do not.
In the trial, Irving's theory regarding the motivation for the retyping was Himmler concealing the Holocaust from Hitler. This theory was criticized, but the retyping itself was not denied by the prosecution.
I find the transcript for this trial very interesting. I haven't read all of it, but I've read parts of it.
The admission from from what they don't say is always a good sign. If there was a time and place to deny what Irving claimed it would've been there. This pretty much confirms it. The typescript is fake and it's probably not a stretch to assume the recording is too. I think that more on this will come out when Irving releases his book on Himmler.
In the link Lamprecht the transcript isn't complete. But here's the section, you can CTRL F to search for the specific entries. https://www.hdot.org/day06/#https://web.archive.org/web/20190921115316/https://www.hdot.org/day06/https://archive.fo/CQLoN
Although I must say Irvings answer doesn't sit well with me. Particualrly:
Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: So what do you infer from that?
6 A. [Mr Irving]: We do not, my Lord. All we can say is that for some
7 reason this page was retyped at a different date. We do
8 not whether it was retyped during the war, which is the
9 likelihood. We do not know what has been inserted or
10 taken out. On this occasion we do not have the other
11 transcripts of that speech. So that is a page that I am
12 unhappy about pinning a capital issue on. You do not
13 often find a document that has been so clearly tampered
14 with as that.
15 MR RAMPTON: Oh, yes, there is, for example, at least two
16 versions of the next speech we are coming to.
17 A. [Mr Irving]: We are looking at this speech though are we not, the fact
18 that change just occurs on this page.
19 Q. [Mr Rampton]: I wish you would sometimes let me ask you a question.
20 A. [Mr Irving]: I have not really finished what I was speaking abut.
21 MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us pause. Finish your answer and then the
22 next question.
23 A. [Mr Irving]: About the falsification of this particular page, the fact
24 that this particular page has been clearly retyped at a
25 different date and that this is the one page that
26 contains, as I quite agree, a pivotal sentence, makes me
1 very unhappy about just relying on this version of that
2 sentence. I am not saying it is a postwar forgery.
3 I think it is unlikely. I think it is the kind of
4 fumbling that goes on during the war, when people have
5 spotted they have said something wrong and so they have
6 put something else in instead. For example, just for one
7 minute I would say I found exactly the same in the private
8 diary of Henry Stimpson, who was the American Secretary of
9 War who retyped the pages just before Pearl Harbour to cut
10 out incriminating material, and as he said later said to
11 Henry Morgan: “I have gone through my diaries cutting out
12 everything that incriminates President Roosevelt”, you can
13 spot that if you look at the originals, as I always prefer
14 to, rather than looking at printed versions on in this
15 case microcopies.
16 MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving, we will see when we get to the next
17 speech similar things have happened?
18 A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
19 Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am not the least bit resistant to the idea that that
20 particular page, like others of no particular
21 significance, was retyped.
22 A. [Mr Irving]: Yes.
Irving also makes the claim that it was redone during the war, not by the allies. At least he says it's likely. This confuses me for one reason, why bother explaining it was re-typed if it was by a German with no proof that anything specifically incriminated was added or removed? It doesn't entirely confuse me, because Irving as we know holds the belief the Holocaust has merit and Himmler was behind it. Earlier in this transcript which you've posted makes that much clear when he's talking about implicating the other SS men. The part I do find confusing is that Himmler, as stated by Rampton, say's he's working on orders, the obvious conclusion being orders from Hitler. Why would this part be changed? And why would Irving seemingly accept this document as being tampered by Germans themselves with minimal likelihood that these incriminating parts would be changed. And why would we accept it's more likely to have been re-typed by the Germans anyway? For what purpose? If they were going to remove incriminating information they surely did a poor job of it. This to me would indicate a post-war touch up not the other way around.
I don't buy the idea that Himmler saying he was working on orders presumably from Hitler to be convincing, it's always these ridiculous unverifiable accounts that we have to link Hitler to anything related to the alleged Holocaust claims. It could easily be said Himmler lied to gain the support of the SS men so they didn't think it was illegal what they were doing.
This answer also seems to differ from the one he gave during the Zundel trial, where he very clearly insinuates how suspicious it is that these incriminating phrases are only to be found on these re-typed pages. It's the smoking gun to many, and it couldn't be more suspicious.
And again, there's more I have problems with. Rampton doesn't deny that it's been fixed, he just pulls out of his ass a reason why the document is still applicable.
10 Q. [Mr Rampton]: Not wartime tampering. Can I suggest a natural human
11 process for the production of one amongst several pages
12 that look different? For example, if you look at page 7,
13 the next page, the number at the top of the page has not
14 been typed; it has been handwritten.
15 A. [Mr Irving]: From thereon they are handwritten, yes, in the entire
17 Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes, but what is baffling me, Mr Irving, is why you will
18 not actually use your knowledge of the world to advance
19 the most likely explanation of this phenomenon, is that
20 somebody types version one, Himmler looks at it and he
21 says, “Oh, I don’t think like that very much”, and in
22 those days of course you do not have word processors, so
23 it has to be retyped on a different typewriter, perhaps
24 the same day, perhaps on another day, it matters not.
25 This is Himmler’s words in Himmler’s speech in Himmler’s
26 own private file.
1 A. [Mr Irving]: This is the man who also wrote on another occasion: “Let
2 us do this for camouflage purposes. I like the new
3 version, it’s going to the Fuhrer. Excellent for
4 camouflage purposes.” We cannot trust him, unfortunately.
5 When we find a speech has been tampered with in this way,
6 then frankly I mention it, in fact I think in Hitler’s War
7 I drew attention to the discrepancy in the numbering and
8 the typeface and the paragraph indent and so on.
Like what....? Are we still talking about the same incriminating speech? How does this make sense? Why would Himmler show Hitler a speech transcript that incriminates him into the extermination of the Jews? Obviously Irving isn't claiming that was done with this specific speech, but that's the implication...So it begs the question. What on earth does it camouflage?
Seemingly nothing at all! Am I missing something here?
Using common sense, I couldn't imagine why you'd have retyped such obvious incriminating passages about an act that was to be secret and kept among only a very very small group of people. I also think it's funny how Rampton just assumes a different typewriter would need to be used.
I'm imagining the very funny scenario of Himmler standing at the desk of a female typist as she fucks up the transcript, writing the incriminating details as she forgets to type in a line insinuating Himmler was working on orders. At that moment Himmler says 'no I don't like that' and so she comically knocks the typewriter to the floor and whips out a new one, with different paper and writes the line “Which I obeyed and carried out from obedience and from a sense of complete conviction”
. Himmler looks at is, smiles and says 'perfect'.
Of course that's now how Rampton suggests it happened, instead, for whatever reason, the speech is typed and then retyped day(s) later to give the speech the desired effect after someone showing it to Himmler. Again the question is.....Why? For what purpose was the trouble gone to type the script and retype it?
The fact that as alleged by Irving and Rampton this was done is monumentally stupid on Himmler's part, neither of them appear to be applying 'real world knowledge' to come to the obvious conclusion that this speech was doctored to be used against the National Socialists. It doesn't square even with Himmler denying the holocaust.
In order to stop the epidemic, we were forced to cremate the bodies of the many people that died of the disease. That was the reason we had to build the crematoria, and now, because of this everybody wants to tighten the noose around our neck. - Heinrich Himmler