On the morning of Saturday April 23, 1983, the very morning that Trevor-Roper's article announcing the discovery of the Hitler Diaries was published in "The Times", he spoke to the editor, Charles Douglas-Home, on the telephone and told him that he could no longer stand by the judgment he had made. Though the "Sunday Times" was due to start serialising the diaries the next day and planned a banner headline headed "World Exclusive", Trevor-Roper's volte-face was not transmitted to its editor Frank Giles, who had been Trevor-Roper's friend for more than 30 years, or to anyone else on the newspaper, until Giles telephoned him at 7pm on Saturday. Trevor-Roper's admission that he had changed his mind caused consternation at the "Sunday Times" offices, where the presses had already started to roll. Two days later, Trevor-Roper attended a press conference in Hamburg at which "Stern" announced its discovery to the world's press. The event, which became chaotic, was excruciating for him. When, after the press conference, the documents were swiftly proven to be forgeries he was humiliated and his reputation damaged.  

To Frank Giles, July 10, 1983

The Master's Lodge, Peterhouse

My dear Frank

At Steven Runciman's birthday party I got a formidable drubbing from Kitty [Lady Katharine Sackville, Frank Giles's wife] for not having apologised to you personally over the unfortunate affair of the "Hitler diaries". I was in rather a weak state at that party. I have had a prolonged and disagreeable crisis in this college which reached its climax at a long college meeting on Monday. Immediately after that I had to fly to Hamburg to give evidence to the tribunal investigating the part played by Stern in that same affair of the diaries. I returned from Hamburg on Wednesday afternoon so exhausted by events, and so enervated by the heat, that I tried to get out of that party; but Xandra was determined to go. So I felt in no state to argue or resist, or, after that, to discuss so inappropriate a matter with you: I decided to reserve it for a letter.

I have genuinely forgotten some of the details and order of events in the hectic period 22-25 April; but let me begin, without ambages  or qualifications of any kind, by expressing to you (since my public apology was evidently insufficient) my great regret that, through an initial error of mine, which I have admitted, you were, most improperly (as I believe), put in an embarrassing and indeed impossible position. I think you were treated very badly, and you certainly deserve an apology from those who put you in that position. I thought that I had sufficiently apologised to you, but if not, let me do so now. I apologise very sincerely, ex animo. That said, let me explain the reasons which have governed my action or inaction hitherto. I was asked to look at those diaries by The Times, not the Sunday Times; I reported to The Times; and on the basis of my first report (which I had never expected to have to give by telephone within a few hours of seeing the stuff) the management of The Times took over and thereafter forced the pace. At the request of The Times I wrote (under great pressure) my first article. In none of the history was the Sunday Times involved. What I understood is that Rupert Murdoch, having acquired the rights from Stern on — I think — 21 April, imposed (if that is not too strong a word) the stuff suddenly on the Sunday Times, which had no opportunity of examining, considering or criticising it. If this is true (for I speak from hearsay), then it is my opinion that you were badly treated, though not by me, and were owed an apology, though not directly by me. 

In fact I believe that I too was badly treated, both by Stern, which misled me with false evidence of fact (which I could not doubt unless I was to accuse them of bad faith) and, to some extent, by The Times, which did not allow me the conditions which I had at first been promised to check the material (i.e. a typed transcript of the German text on which I was to make a written report). However, I have refused to make any complaint or excuse on these grounds, for I recognise that I should have been firm and have refused to commit myself in the circumstances which actually obtained. So, when I first doubted the authenticity of the material, I decided to take the whole blame on myself-and I must admit that The Times and the Sunday Times were very happy to place it there. I apologised in writing to Rupert Murdoch (who wrote very civilly in reply, accepting part of the responsibility), and in print to the editors of The Times and the Sunday Times. 

Kitty suggested that I owed you an apology for not having made it possible for you to stop publication of the articles on 24 April. I was quite unaware of this situation. Perhaps my memory is at fault. My recollection is that, after my return from Hamburg on 20 April, the pace was suddenly quickened by Stern's action in bringing the publication date forward. This obliged me to write my long article for The Times under great pressure. My doubts then began and by the morning of 23 April I had to face the fact that the documents might be forged. But this entailed such large consequences — grossly unprofessional standards, even bad faith, by Stern — that I could not, at that stage, call them more than doubts. I telephoned Charlie Douglas-Home early on Saturday morning and told him the position. I understood that my doubts would be passed on to you. Charlie's attitude was that so long as there was any chance that the diaries were genuine, we should keep to our course: I should go to Hamburg next day (Sunday) for the Press Conference on Monday, and handle the matter as best I could. In fact, by the time of the conference in Hamburg, I had grilled Heidemann [the Stern journalist who claimed to have found the diaries] (on Sunday night) and my doubts had been confirmed; so I spoke more explicitly than I would have done in London. If I had thought that I could have stopped — or postponed — the publication in the Sunday Times on the Saturday, I would certainly have done so; but matters were out of my hands.

All this is vieux jeu now. It was a horrible experience for me: I was savaged by almost the whole press — the Observer went on for five weeks — and was powerless to answer because I did not wish to say anything that might make the position worse for The Times or the Sunday Times. It was a horrible experience for you too — and less deservedly, for I at least must admit to an error, which you need not. If my understanding of events is correct, the Sunday Times alone comes out of the affair quite blameless. There are still many problems to be solved, and Stern is going through an agonising reappraisal which I have seen at close quarters. There are also some general conclusions which I dare not express even in this letter which I prudently send to your private address. 

yours ever 

Hugh