Refuting Deborah Lipstadt’s Dream Team: Richard J. Evans, History On Trial
Editor: Deborah Lipstadt writes that her five expert witnesses in the David Irving trial—Richard Evans, Christopher Browning, Peter Longerich, Robert Jan van Pelt, and Hajo Funke– “constituted the historian’s ultimate dream team.” She says these professors were appalled by David Irving’s cavalier treatment of the historical record, and made an exceptional commitment in her defense against Irving’s libel suit.[i]
We at WearsWar agree with Lipstadt that her five highly-compensated expert witnesses made an exceptional commitment in her defense against David Irving’s libel suit. However, not one of these expert witnesses has been able to prove a German policy of genocide against European Jewry. Over the next four weeks, we will publish articles that refute the “expert” testimonies of Richard Evans, Robert Jan van Pelt, Christopher Browning and Peter Longerich.
[i] Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, pp. 307-308.
Richard J. Evans: History on Trial
British historian Sir Richard J. Evans is a former professor of Modern History at Cambridge University and a noted specialist of modern German history. Some people say that Evans’s expert report in David Irving’s 2000 libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt provides convincing evidence which proves Irving’s lack of objectivity as a historian. This article discusses some weaknesses in Evans’s research regarding two subjects: the “Holocaust” and the Dresden bombings.
David Irving was viciously smeared by the media after his testimony at the 1988 Ernst Zündel false-news trial in Canada. Irving’s books disappeared from many bookshops, he sustained huge financial losses, and he was ultimately labeled as a “Holocaust denier.”
The harassment campaign against David Irving included numerous arrests in various countries. These arrests do not seem to bother Richard Evans. Evans writes:
“One would not have expected a reputable historian to have run into such trouble, and indeed it was impossible to think of any historian of any standing at all who had been subjected to so many adverse legal judgments…”
Evans does not seem to be concerned that David Irving’s arrests were attributable to the fact that numerous countries make it a felony to dispute the so-called Holocaust. This reflects poorly on the countries Irving was arrested in rather than on Irving’s abilities as a historian. The question is: What kind of historical truth needs criminal sanctions to protect it? The Holocaust story would not need criminal sanctions to protect it if it were solidly based on historiographic evidence.
Deborah Lipstadt writes in her book Denying the Holocaust that “on some level Irving seems to conceive himself as carrying on Hitler’s legacy.” Lipstadt describes Irving as a “Hitler partisan wearing blinkers” who “distort[ed] evidence…manipulate[ed] documents, [and] skew[ed]…and misrepresent[ed] data in order to reach historically untenable conclusions.” David Irving filed a libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books Ltd. in British courts to attempt to end these and other similar statements.
Richard Evans was asked by Lipstadt’s defense team toward the end of 1997 to act as an expert witness for the defense. Evans was told his first duty as an expert witness was to the court, and that he had to be as truthful and objective as possible in his report. Evans accepted the assignment, and after 18 months of hard work, he completed his 740-page report at the end of July 1999. Nikolaus Wachsmann and Thomas Skelton-Robinson, who were both Ph.D. candidates of Evans, greatly assisted Evans in researching and writing his report.
Evans writes about the “Holocaust”:
Over a number of years, I have had direct experience of Holocaust denial in a variety of forms. At the turn of the century, I was involved as an expert witness in the libel action brought by the writer David Irving against Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, over her allegation that he was a Holocaust denier who manipulated and distorted the evidence for the Nazi extermination of European Jews. Researching the subject for the trial, which ended in Irving’s comprehensive defeat, brought me into contact with many varieties of Holocaust denial, many of them nauseating, all of them upsetting.”
Evans thus makes it clear that he detests what he calls “Holocaust denial.” However, Evans displays a remarkable ignorance of this subject. Evans writes about the chemical aspects of the Leuchter Report:
“[Fred] Leuchter had removed samples from the inner walls of Crematorium II at Auschwitz-Birkenau and had them analyzed, with the result that the concentration of cyanide residues was found to be slight, compared with the concentrations found in the delousing facilities, thus showing, he had triumphantly declared, that the crematorium was not used for gassing people. But he had taken great chunks out of the wall instead of scrapings off the surface, thus greatly diluting whatever residues were to be found there.”
The fact that Leuchter took great chunks out of the walls does not invalidate the chemical aspects of his report. Dr. James Roth testified at the 1988 Ernst Zündel trial that he received samples from Fred Leuchter in his capacity as an Analytical Chemist at Alpha Analytical Laboratories. The purpose of the tests was to determine the total iron and cyanide content in the samples. Roth said that the Prussian Blue produced by a reaction of the iron and hydrogen cyanide could penetrate deeply in porous materials such as brick and iron. Thus, according to Roth’s testimony at the Ernst Zündel trial, the fact that Leuchter took great chunks out of the walls did not invalidate the chemical aspects of his report.
Dr. Roth later changed his testimony in a documentary movie titled Mr. Death produced by Errol Morris. Roth states in this movie: “Cyanide is a surface reaction. It’s probably not going to penetrate more than 10 microns. Human hair is 100 microns in diameter. Crush this sample up, I have just diluted that sample 10,000; 100,000 times. If you’re going to go looking for it, you’re going to look on the surface only. There’s no reason to go deep, because it’s not going to be there.
Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom writes that Dr. Roth’s statements in Mr. Death are wrong:
The 1999 film about Leuchter features an interview with the chemist [Dr. James Roth] who had done the analysis of his wall-samples back in 1988. He had done this “blind,” i.e. with no knowledge of where they had come from, which was correct scientific procedure. During the second Zündel trial in Toronto in 1988 he testified under oath concerning the method used and what Leuchter had sent him. He said back then that hydrogen cyanide can easily penetrate into brick and mortar. But then, when he was interviewed again by Morris for his documentary, he suddenly stated that the results were quite meaningless, because the cyanide could only have soaked a few microns into the brickwork. Wow, that was quite a whopper. Mortar and brickwork are highly porous to hydrogen cyanide, obviously so because the delousing chambers were more or less equally blue inside and out, it had soaked right through. But you can watch him on video explaining this, as if he were confusing brick and mortar with rock. The latter will only absorb cyanide to a few microns of its surface.
Germar Rudolf, a certified chemist, gives numerous reasons why Dr. Roth’s statements in Mr. Death are incorrect. Rudolf concludes:
It is also revealing that Prof. Roth mentioned during this interview that, had he known where Leuchter’s samples originated from, his analytical results would have been different. Does that mean that Prof. Roth manipulates his result according to whether or not he likes the origin of certain samples? Such an attitude is exactly the reason why one should never tell an “independent” laboratory about the origin of the samples to be analyzed, simply because “independence” is a very flexible term when it comes to controversial topics. What Prof. Dr. Roth has demonstrated here is only his lack of professional honesty.
Chemists adhering to the orthodox Holocaust narrative have failed to explain why the walls of the delousing facilities at Auschwitz-Birkenau are permeated with Prussian Blue, while nothing of this sort can be observed in any of the alleged homicidal gas chambers. The only reasonable explanation is that Zyklon B was never used in the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Nicholas Kollerstrom writes, “[For] any alleged human gas chamber found in a German World War II labor camp let us merely measure cyanide in the walls: if it’s not there, it didn’t happen.”
The forensic evidence refutes the possibility of homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. In addition to the aforementioned Leuchter Report, articles, testimony, reports, books and videos from Walter Lüftl, Germar Rudolf, Friedrich Paul Berg, Dr. William B. Lindsey, Carlo Mattogno, John C. Ball, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Dr. Arthur Butz, Dr. Nicholas Kollerstrom, Dr. Robert Faurisson, Richard Krege and David Cole have conclusively proven that there were no homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The books The Real Case for Auschwitz by Carlo Mattogno and The Chemistry of Auschwitz by Germar Rudolf are probably the best books available for anyone wanting to make a thorough study of this subject.
Evans also disputes David Irving’s statements that the Wannsee Conference held on January 20, 1942 did not discuss the extermination of Jews. The documentary evidence of this meeting, however, shows that no extermination program existed. Instead, the German policy was to evacuate the Jews to the East.
Many Jewish Holocaust historians agree with Irving that the Wannsee Conference did not discuss the extermination of Europe’s Jews. Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer has declared, “The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at.” Likewise, Israeli Holocaust historian Leni Yahil has stated in regard to the Wannsee conference, “[I]t is often assumed that the decision to launch the Final Solution was taken on this occasion, but this is not so.…”
Although the Allies captured most of Germany’s government and camp records intact, Evans fails to explain why no order or documentation has ever been found to exterminate European Jewry. When asked in 1983 how the extermination of European Jewry took place without an order, Jewish Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg replied:
What began in 1941 was a process of destruction not planned in advance, not organized centrally by any agency. There was no blueprint and there was no budget for destructive measures. They were taken step by step, one step at a time. Thus, came about not so much a plan being carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus–mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy.
On January 16, 1985, under cross-examination at the first Ernst Zündel trial in Toronto, Raul Hilberg confirmed that he said these words. Thus, Hilberg states that the genocide of European Jewry was not carried out by a plan or order, but rather by an incredible mind reading among far-flung German bureaucrats.
Other historians have acknowledged that no document of a plan by Germany to exterminate European Jewry has ever been found. In his well-known book on the Holocaust, French-Jewish historian Leon Poliakov stated that “…the campaign to exterminate the Jews, as regards its conception as well as many other essential aspects, remains shrouded in darkness.” Poliakov adds that no documents of a plan for exterminating the Jews have ever been found because “perhaps none ever existed.”
British historian Ian Kershaw states that when the Soviet archives were opened in the early 1990s: “Predictably, a written order by Hitler for the ‘Final Solution’ was not found. The presumption that a single, explicit written order had ever been given had long been dismissed by most historians.” Thus, neither the Wannsee Conference nor any written document indicates a plan by National Socialist Germany to exterminate Jews.
Historians have made many conflicting estimates of how many people died from the Allied bombings of Dresden on February 13-14, 1945. David Irving in his book The Destruction of Dresden estimates that approximately 135,000 people died in Dresden from the British and American bombings. Richard Evans estimates that approximately 25,000 people died during these bombings. Predictably, Evans thinks that Irving intentionally inflated the estimated death figure at Dresden. Evans writes about Irving, “An honest historian would have taken due consideration of the convergence of the major authentic sources around estimates in the area of 25,000 dead.”
Historians agree that a large number of German refugees were in Dresden during the night of February 13-14, 1945. However, the estimates of refugees in Dresden the night of the Allied bombings vary widely, and this is a major reason for the discrepancies in the death-toll estimates. Irving writes concerning the number of refugees inDresden:
Silesians represented probably 80% of the displaced people crowding into Dresden on the night of the triple blow; the city which in peacetime had a population of 630,000 citizens was by the eve of the air attack so crowded with Silesians, East Prussians and Pomeranians from the Eastern front, with Berliners and Rhinelanders from the West, with Allied and Russian prisoners of war, with evacuated children’s settlement, with forced laborers of many nationalities, that the increased population was now between 1,200,000 and 1,400,000 citizens, of whom, not surprisingly, several hundred thousand had no proper home and of whom none could seek the protection of an air-raid shelter.”
Evans attempts to discredit Irving’s estimate of Dresden’s population at the time of the Allied bombings. One source Evans cites is Dresden historian Friedrich Reichert, who estimates that only 567,000 residents and 100,000 refugees were in Dresden on the night of the bombings. Reichert quotes witnesses who state that no refugees were billeted in Dresden houses, and that no billeting took place in Dresden’s parks or squares. Thus, Reichert estimates that the number of people in Dresden on the night of the bombings was not much greater than the official figure of Dresden’s population before the war.
Reichert’s estimate of Dresden’s population during the bombings is almost certainly too low. A RAF memo stated before the attack:
“Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester is also [by] far the largest unbombed built-up area the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium, not only to give shelter to workers, refugees and troops alike, but also to house the administrative services displaced from other areas…”
A woman living on the outskirts of Dresden at the time of the bombings said: “At the time my mother and I had train station duty here in the city. The refugees! They all came from everywhere! The city was stuffed full!”
Alexander McKee wrote in regard to Dresden:
“Every household had its large quota of refugees, and many more had arrived in Dresden that day, so that the pavements were blocked by them, as they struggled onwards or simply sat exhausted on their suitcases and rucksacks. For these reasons, no one has been able to put a positive figure to the numbers of the dead, and no doubt no one ever will.”
A report prepared by the USAF Historical Division Research Studies Institute Air University stated that “there may probably have been about 1,000,000 people in Dresden on the night the 13/14 February RAF attack.” I think the 1 million population figure cited in this report is a conservative minimum estimate of Dresden’s population during the Allied bombings. If Irving’s estimate of Dresden’s population is overstated, it is not overstated by very much.
“Even allowing for the unique circumstances of Dresden, a figure of 250,000 dead would have meant that 20% to 30% of the population was killed, a figure so grossly out of proportion to other comparable attacks as to have raised the eyebrows of anyone familiar with the statistics of bombing raids, as Irving was, even if the population had been inflated by an influx of refugees fleeing the advance of the Red Army.”
Contrary to Evans’s statement, a comparable attack to that of Dresden occurred at Pforzheim 10 days later on February 23, 1945. Since neither Dresden nor Pforzheim had suffered much damage earlier in the war, the flammability of both cities had been preserved. A perfect firestorm was created over both of these defenseless cities. These cities also lacked sufficient air- raid shelters for their citizens.
The area of destruction at Pforzheim comprised approximately 83% of the city, and 20,277 out of 65,000 people died according to official estimates. Sönke Neitzel also estimates that approximately 20,000 out of a total population of 65,000 died in the raid at Pforzheim. This means that over 30% of the residents of Pforzheim died in one bombing attack.
The question is: If more than 30% of the residents of Pforzheim died in one bombing attack, why would, as Evans suggests, only approximately 2.5% of Dresdeners die in similar raids 10 days earlier? The second wave of bombers in the Dresden raid appeared over Dresden at the very time that the optimum number of fire brigades and rescue teams were in the streets of the burning city. This second wave of bombers compounded the earlier destruction many times, and by design killed the firemen and rescue workers so that the destruction could rage on unchecked. The raid on Pforzheim, by contrast, consisted of only one bombing attack. Also, Pforzheim was a much smaller target, so that it would have been easier for the people on the ground to escape from the blaze.
The only reason why the death-rate percentage would be higher at Pforzheim versus Dresden is that a higher percentage of Pforzheim was destroyed in the bombings. Alan Russell estimates that 83% of Pforzheim’s city center was destroyed versus only 59% of Dresden’s. This would, however, account for only a portion of the percentage difference in the death tolls. Based on the death-toll percentage in the Pforzheim raid, it is reasonable to assume that 20% of Dresdeners died in the British and American attacks on the city.
If a 20% death-rate figure times an estimated population in Dresden of 1 million is used, the death-toll figure in Dresden would be 200,000. If a 25% death-rate figure times an estimated population of 1.2 million is used, the death-toll figure in Dresden would be 300,000. Thus, death- toll estimates in Dresden of 250,000 people are quite plausible when compared to the Pforzheim bombing.
The British were fully aware that mass death and destruction would result from the bombing of Germany’s cities. The British Directorate of Bombing Operations predicted the following consequences from its saturation-bombing program called Operation Thunderclap:
“If we assume that the daytime population of the area attacked is 300,000, we may expect 220,000 casualties. Fifty per cent of these or 110,000 may expect to be killed. It is suggested that such an attack resulting in so many deaths, the great proportion of which will be key personnel, cannot help but have a shattering effect on political and civilian morale all over Germany….”
Evans states that it would be impossible to remove 200,000 dead bodies in a short period of time at Dresden. He writes:
“And how was it imaginable that 200,000 bodies could have been recovered from out of the ruins in less than a month? It would have required a veritable army of people to undertake such work, and hundreds of sorely needed vehicles to transport the bodies. The effort actually undertaken to recover bodies was considerable, but there was no evidence that it reached the levels required to remove this number.”
Evans apparently does not realize that many of the dead bodies at Dresden were not incinerated at the Altmarkt or transported out of Dresden. A British sergeant reported on the disposal of bodies at Dresden:
They had to pitchfork shriveled bodies onto trucks and wagons and cart them to shallow graves on the outskirts of the city. But after two weeks of work the job became too much to cope with and they found other means to gather up the dead. They burned bodies in a great heap in the center of the city, but the most effective way, for sanitary reasons, was to take flamethrowers and burn the dead as they lay in the ruins. They would just turn the flamethrowers into the houses, burn the dead and then close off the entire area. The whole city is flattened. They were unable to clean up the dead lying beside roads for several weeks.
Other historians cite evidence that bodies were incinerated beyond recognition. These incinerated bodies would not have to be transported to another location. For example, Marshall De Bruhl cites a report found in an urn by a gravedigger in 1975 written on March 12, 1945 by a young soldier identified only as Gottfried. This report stated:
I saw the most painful scene ever….Several persons were near the entrance, others at the flight of steps and many others further back in the cellar. The shapes suggested human corpses. The body structure was recognizable and the shape of the skulls, but they had no clothes. Eyes and hair carbonized but not shrunk. When touched, they disintegrated into ashes, totally, no skeleton or separate bones.
I recognized a male corpse as that of my father. His arm had been jammed between two stones, where shreds of his grey suit remained. What sat not far from him was no doubt mother. The slim build and shape of the head left no doubt. I found a tin and put their ashes in it. Never had I been so sad, so alone and full of despair. Carrying my treasure and crying I left the gruesome scene. I was trembling all over and my heart threatened to burst. My helpers stood there, mute under the impact.
Evans also disputes Irving’s claim that bodies were still being recovered in Dresden. Marshall De Bruhl, however, agrees with Irving’s claim. De Bruhl notes that numerous other skeletons of victims were discovered in the ruins of Dresden as rubble was removed or foundations for new buildings were dug. De Bruhl writes:
One particularly poignant discovery was made when the ruins adjacent to the Altmarkt were being excavated in the 1990s. The workmen found the skeletons of a dozen young women who had been recruited from the countryside to come into Dresden and help run the trams during the war. They had taken shelter from the rain of bombs in an ancient vaulted subbasement, where their remains lay undisturbed for almost 50 years.
Thus, in regard to Dresden’s death toll, Evans does not have a legitimate basis for saying “all of Irving’s attempts to justify a high figure rested on fantasy, invention, speculation, the suppression of reliable evidence, the use of unreliable sources, or, most shockingly, the repeated deployment of a document that he knew to be a forgery.” Evans unfairly accuses David Irving of intentionally overstating the death-toll figure in the Dresden bombings. If anything, I think Irving underestimates the death toll from these bombings.
Evans concludes his expert report by stating that David Irving is not an historian. He writes:
I have understood that my overriding duty is to the Court. My paramount obligation, as I have been advised by my Instructing Solicitors, is to assist the Court on all matters within my expertise regardless of whom my instructions are from and who is paying my fees. I confirm that this report is impartial, objective and unbiased and has been produced independently of the exigencies of this litigation. I believe that the facts I have stated in this report are true and that the opinions I have expressed are correct.
In reality, David Irving is a legitimate historian who has done outstanding work uncovering new information in the archives. Irving’s books will be read as long as there are people interested in World War II history. By contrast, Richard Evans is a court historian whose expert report in the David Irving trial was designed to smear Irving as much as possible. Contrary to his statement, Evans’s expert report was not “impartial, objective and unbiased,” and was not “produced independently of the exigencies of this litigation.”
 David Irving Global Vendetta http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/Global/Vendetta.html.
 Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 14.
 Lipstadt, Deborah E., History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving, New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2005, p. xviii; See also Lipstadt, Deborah E., Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, New York: The Free Press, 1993, p. 161.
 Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp. xii, 7, 32, 39.
 Evans, Richard J., The Third Reich in History and Memory, New York: Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 225-226.
 Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 124.
 Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, pp. 362-363.
 https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mr. Death; Richard J. Green, “Report of Richard J. Green”, introduced in evidence during the libel case before the Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, David John Caldwell Irving vs. (1) Penguin Books Limited, (2) Deborah E. Lipstadt, ref. 1996 I. No. 1113, 2001, p. 16; http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/affweb.pdf,
 Kollerstrom, Nicholas, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth and Reality, Uckfeld, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, p. 66 https://shop.codoh.com/book/breaking-the-spell-en/376/.
 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers—A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017, pp. 342-345
 Kollerstrom, Nicholas, Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust, Myth and Reality, Uckfeld, Great Britain: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015, p. 70.
 Mattogno, Carlo, The Real Case for Auschwitz: Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed, 2nd ed., Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2015 https://shop.codoh.com/book/the-real-case-for-auschwitz-en/389/.
 Rudolf, Germar, The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers. A Crime-Scene Investigation, Uckfield: Castle Hill Publishers, 2017.
 Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp. 127-128.
 Canadian Jewish News, Toronto, Jan. 30, 1992, p. 8.
 Yahil, Leni, The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 312.
 De Wan, George, “The Holocaust in Perspective,” Newsday: Long Island, NY, Feb. 23, 1983, Part II, p. 3.
 See trial transcript, pp. 846-848. Also Kulaszka, Barbara, (ed.), Did Six Million Really Die: Report of Evidence in the Canadian “False News” Trial of Ernst Zündel, Toronto: Samisdat Publishers Ltd., 1992, p. 24.
 Poliakov, Leon, Harvest of Hate, New York: Holocaust Library, 1979, p. 108.
 Kershaw, Ian, Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2008, p. 96.
 Irving, David, The Destruction of Dresden, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964, pp. 11, 14.
 Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 177.
 Irving, David, The Destruction of Dresden, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964, p. 98.
 Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 174.
 Taylor, Frederick, Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945, New York: HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3, 406. See also River, Charles Editors, The Firebombing of Dresden: The History and Legacy of the Allies’ Most Controversial Attack on Germany, Introduction, p. 2.
 Ten Dyke, Elizabeth A., Dresden: Paradoxes of Memory in History, London and New York: Routledge, 2001, p. 82.
 McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil’s Tinderbox, New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 177.
 Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 158.
 Friedrich, Jörg, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany, New York, Columbia University, 2006, p. 94.
 Ibid., p. 91. See also DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden, New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 255.
 Neitzel, Sönke, “The City under Attack,” in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 77.
 DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden, New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 210. See also McKee, Alexander, Dresden 1945: The Devil’s Tinderbox, New York: E.P. Dutton, Inc., 1984, p. 112.
 Russell, Alan, “Why Dresden Matters,” in Addison, Paul and Crang, Jeremy A., (eds.), Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden, 1945, Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2006, p. 162.
 Hastings, Max, Bomber Command, New York: The Dial Press, 1979, pp. 347-348.
 Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 158.
 Regan, Dan, Stars and Stripes London edition, Saturday, May 5, 1945, Vol. 5, No. 156.
 DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden, New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, pp. 253-254.
 Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, pp. 176-177.
 DeBruhl, Marshall, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden, New York: Random House, Inc., 2006, p. 254.
 Evans, Richard J., Lying about Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, New York: Basic Books, 2001, p. 177.
 Richard Evans expert report https://phdn.org/negation/irving/EvansReport.pdf.