Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day008.20
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20

   Q.   Exactly, including including the solution of the
        mischlinge problem.  Do you follow?
   A.   Can we stand back from these trivia and look at the
        overall effect of the document?  This is a high level
        diamond document of unquestioned integrity, stating that
        Hitler wants the solution of the Jewish problem postponed
        until after the war is over and that is what the document
        states.  We do not have to read between lines any more
        unless you want to try and devalue the document.
   Q.   No.  I am not trying to devalue the document.  I am trying
        to help you, if I may put it so patronisingly, to see the
        light because you just will not, will you?  Here you have
        a document which refers to Hitler having said he wants the
        solution of the Jewish question postponed until after the
        war. If you extract it from all its historical, rip it off
        the wall, take it out of its historical context, then
        yes, of course, it is a sort of diamond or golden sword
        that you like to brandish.  But, if you put it in its

.          P-180

        historical context, your interpretation makes no sense
        whatsoever, does it?
   A.   Equally less does your interpretation make any sense, if
        I may say so.
   Q.   Now, consider another possibility.
   A.   You are putting the narrowest possible definition on this
        extraordinary broad phrase, the solution of the Jewish
        problem.  We have been hearing for days how the Final
        Solution of the Jewish problem was the Holocaust.  Here is
        a document saying he wants it all postponed until after
        the war is over and suddenly you say this document is of
        no value at all, and all your historians have never
        mentioned it until now they are forced to because I have
        put it in this court.
   Q.   Did you write to Professor Jekel?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Who I think actually found this document?
   A.   When I pointed him where to find it.
   Q.   He wrote an article in a German newspaper first off about
        this, did he not?
   A.   If you remember, I found the staff evidence analysis sheet
        which pointed out the document had once existed.
   Q.   The fact is, whenever you have said, as you so frequently
        have, that all the other historians have ignored this,
        Abraham Jekel is, I suppose, is a historian?
   A.   When does he claim to have found it?

.          P-181



   Q.   I do not know.  I thought you just conceded that he did.
   A.   If it is a question of who was first.
   Q.   But he certainly has not ignored it, has he?
   A.   Yes, he cannot ignore it now.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We are fencing a little bit.
   MR RAMPTON:  I am not interested in defending Professor Jekel
        any more than I am Professor Evans.  I am sure they can
        both fight for themselves.  On 28th February 1978 you
        wrote to Professor Jekel in German from London, saying
        that you thought that this document could date
anywhere
        between October 1941 and March 1942, did you not?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   That is actually a recognition of yet another
explanation
        of this curious document, is it not?
   A.   In the meantime, of course, I have checked on the
        interrogations of everybody who was present at that
        session in 1942, so we know much more narrowly when
the
        document originates from.
   Q.   So you say, but one reasonable interpretation of this
        document----
   A.   You say so I say, that is why I am standing here in
the
        witness box.
   Q.   I know. I am only saying that because I have not read
        those things myself.  I do not actually have to say
that I
        need to rely on what you say in the witness box.
   A.   Mr Rampton, I would not say something in the witness
box

.          P-182



        under oath if I was not speaking the truth.
   Q.   I have to say, I am afraid, Mr Irving, on a number of
        occasions in this court you have said things from the
        witness box which I do not accept as being the truth
and
        which I will characterise it at the end of the case as
        being knowingly untrue.
   A.   There is of course a solution for that kind of problem
        known as the Aitken solution and, if you want to go
that
        road, you can, but I think you will find it very
        difficult.
   MR RAMPTON:  I do not know what that is.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can I ask two questions, first of all,
        Mr Irving?  Would you or would you not accept that the
        theory that Mr Rampton is propounding, namely that
this
        Schlegelberger note is really confined to the problem
of
        the mischlinge, is a feasible one?
   A.   It does hold water but it is an alternative theory, my
        Lord.
   Q.   It is alternative?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   And a viable theory?
   A.   Except for the fact that the document does not say
this
        Jewish problem, it says the solution of the Jewish
        problem.
   Q.   Apart from that fact, would I also be right that in
        Hitler's War you have espoused 100 per cent the theory

.          P-183



        that it is in fact a highly significant statement
because
        it is referring to postponing the Jewish question
        altogether until after the end of the war?
   A.   My Lord, with respect, I would draw attention to the
fact
        that in that very paragraph you are alluding to, I
refer
        to the fact that it came immediately after the
discussion
        about the half Jews and the mixed Jews.
   Q.   That is true.  You think that is enough to tell the
reader
        that this may not really be a very significant
statement?
   A.   Well, it tells the intelligent reader the kind of
context
        in which this document was found.  It has taken
Professor
        Evans, I think, eight pages to analyse the value of
this
        document.  I did not have eight pages.  I have one
        paragraph or less.
   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, I must say I happen to believe his
        Lordship is right, that is very, what I shall say,
weasley
        reference to the mischlinge question in Hitler's War.
   A.   His Lordship did not say weasley reference.  I do not
        think he used those words.
   Q.   I interpret what I hear or see, Mr Irving.  I suggest
to
        you that the reference to the mischlinge question in
        Hitler's War is not apt to lead the reader to suppose
that
        you are saying, which you are plainly not, that the
        so-called Schlegelberger note has anything to do with
the
        mischlinge question.  Not directly.
   A.   I will not read it out, my Lord, but it is the third

.          P-184



        paragraph on page 464.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I know.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I have it well in mind.  I have in mind
what
        you say in the last sentence of that paragraph.
   A.   I rely simply on that paragraph and my own comment on
it.
   MR RAMPTON:  I think I have it here.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Rampton, if it helps -- it probably
will
        not -- I think I have got the picture on the
        Schlegelberger note because I have read Professor
Evans
        and I have heard Mr Irving.  You may say there are
lots of
        other points to take, but I thought I would say that
to
        you.
   MR RAMPTON:  But there is one other main point, or two
other
        main points.  Whatever one may think of what was
written
        in Hitler's War in 1991, if one were inclined to be
        generous to Mr Irving and say, well, he has mentioned
the
        two in juxtaposition, therefore, one might think,
though
        it is not explicit, what he has had to say about it
since
        then and before is very much more categorical about,
in
        his mind, the importance, or at any rate in his
expression
        the importance, of this document.  My Lord, I give an
        example from 1984:
                  "Finally, I think the most cardinal piece of
        proof in this entire story of what Hitler knew about
what
        was going on, is a document that mysteriously vanished
        from the Nuremberg files in 1945.  It is clear", and
then

.          P-185



        there is a lot of stuff about the files.  It says ----
   A.   Can I enquire what this is that you are reading from?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, can I ask that too?
   MR RAMPTON:  I am sorry.  I was trying to save time.  It is
        file D3(i), tab 20, page 101.  Has your Lordship got
it?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am going to wait to hear you read it
out.
   A.   What was the page number again?
   MR RAMPTON:  It is page 101.
   A.   I have it.
   Q.   It is one of these reprints I think of an Irving
speech or
        presentation or lecture, whatever you call it.  It is
tab
        20, Mr Irving, with page 101 stamped at the bottom,
the
        right-hand side which is page 281 of the document.  My
        Lord, I will start again, I am sorry:
                  "Finally, I think the most cardinal piece of
        proof in this entire story of what Hitler knew about
what
        was going on, a story of what Hitler knew about what
was
        going on is a document that mysteriously vanished from
the
        Nuremberg files in 1945.  It is clear that it was in
the
        files in August 1945 when they were sighted by the
        Americans in Berlin and catalogued". "Sighted", my
Lord,
        is spelt with an S, it is "sighted".  " ... when they
were
        sighted by the Americans in Berlin and catalogued,
because
        it appears as item 4 of a five-item list.  It then
        vanished from the files by the time they reached
Nuremberg
        for the Nuremberg trials, and so could not be produced

.          P-186



        there as evidence, and then reappeared now in the
files of
        the Federal archives in Koblenz.  That is the file
that it
        is in, Reichsminister of Justice.  The heading is:
The
        Treatment of the Jews."
   A.   The heading of the file.
   Q.   Oh, the file, not the document?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   It is a document.  What is the German, the treatment
of
        the Jews, on this file?
   A.   "Behandlung des Juden", not "Behandlung Mischlinge".
   Q.   No, it is a general file no doubt.  The Justice
Ministry
        had problems to resolve in relation to the Jews, I am
        going to come to that in moment, but that is it right,
is
        it not?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   "It is a document, a memo, on a telephone conversation
        inside the Ministry of Justice.  From its placing in
the
        file we know that this conversation is about March
1942,
        two months after the notorious Wunzie conference when
all
        is supposed to have been put in train by Adolf Hitler.
        The Reichsminister, Hans Lammers, was the Chief of the
        German Civil Service.  He would be rather like the
Prime
        Minister in a normal society.  The memo says:
        Reichsminister Lammers informs me that the Fuhrer has
        repeatedly told him that he wants a solution of the
Jewish
        problem postponed until after the war is over.  And it

.          P-187



        goes on about the fact that for this reason all this
talk,
        all this jaw that is going on at present, is
completely
        superfluous." Then in italics, and these are Mr Irving
        words: "Hitler has repeatedly said:  He wants the
solution
        to the Jewish problem postponed until after the war is
        over."  Out of italics, new paragraph:
                  "Again this is a document which is of
extreme
        embarrassment for the rival school of history.  They
        cannot talk their way around it.  They cannot talk
their
        way out of it.  They close their eyes and when they
open
        them it is still there.  It refuses to go away.
Believe
        me, from this moment on right through to 1943 there
are
        further documents showing Hitler interceding, acting,
        trying to stop preventing ..."  My Lord, I will stop
        there.
                  You agree, Mr Irving ----
   A.   Excuse me, you rather hinted that there is nothing
more.
        There is another telephone conversation from Himmler
to
        Heydrich on 20th April 1942, again from Hitler's
        headquarters.  Himmler telephoned Heydrich:  "No
        destruction of the gypsies".  It is not without
        significance that you stopped just before I could read
        that out.
   Q.   It is 20th April.
   A.   Yes, it is all part of the sequence.
   Q.   It is a bit like Himmler's telephone call to Heydrich
of

.          P-188



        30th November 1941, is it not?
   A.   But what quality my records are, Mr Rampton, compared
with
        the quality of the records that you are producing
against
        me.
   Q.   Mr Irving, can we try to keep on the rails.  We have
not
        got much longer this afternoon.  I want to finish this
        topic this afternoon.
   A.   Are you implying I am going off the rails?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think we can move on.
   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, that is characteristic, what I just
        read, of the importance which you attach to this
little
        document, I mean little in terms of significance, not
of
        size, this little document as evidence of, as you
propose,
        the fact that Adolf Hitler neither ordered nor knew
about
        any massacring of Jews, at any rate up until late
1943?
   A.   It has taken Professor Evans eight pages to waffle his
way
        out of it.
   Q.   That is cheap rhetoric, Mr Irving.
   A.   It is not cheap rhetoric.  It is exactly correct.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Let us pass on.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor