Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day016.11
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20

   Q.   Yes.  Well, will you accept that that particular page
        comes from a file of over thousand such pages, just one
        file, and I do not know how many reports are on
that one
        page, there are about 15 items on that one page,
so?
   A.   Seven.
   Q.   Would it surprise you to
hear that in the British archives
        we have, I suppose, several hundred thousand
intercepted
        SS and police messages?
   A.   I would not challenge the
figure.

.          P-76



   Q.   Do you know from the works
of Richard Brightman, like this
        book here, 'Official Secrets', that we, British,
and the
        Americans also through us, were familiar with the
killing
        operations being conducted by the SS on the
Eastern Front?
   A.   We -- as I understand
Brightman's book, we were getting
        the Police battalion reports which were in a lower
code
        between late July and early September or mid
September,
        which Daluege instructed them to send things by
courier
        and not by radio.
   Q.   1941 you are talking
about?
   A.   1941.
   Q.   Yes.  Is it known to you
that the reason why Daluege
        ordered the code change is because Winston
Churchill
        actually made a speech in 1941 relying on the
intercepts,
        talking for the first time about these appalling
        atrocities being conducted by the SS?
   A.   I have no single document
that establishes a causal
        connection but there is a chronological meeting --
        chronologically, it is a possible interpretation.
   Q.   Have you seen intercepted
messages passed, intercepted by
        the British, intercepts by the British of messages
passed
        by Himmler to the Einsatzgruppen chiefs, like
Jeckeln or
        Stahlecker?
   A.   There is the August 1st
telegramme, I think it is -- I do
        not believe it is a radio message -- in which he
instructs
        them to kill the men and chase the women into the
swamps.

.          P-77



   Q.   There is that one, but I
am still concentrating on just
        these British intercepts, these tens of thousands
of
        intercepted Nazi SS and police messages.  You
suggest this
        was just at police battalion level?
   A.   The reports on the
killings that I read in Brightman were
        police battalion reports back to Daleuge.  Now,
whether
        these -- and he first saw them in the United
States which
        may have gotten part of, I do not know to what
percentage
        of the British intercepts were available to him in
the
        United States and how much he may have included of
London
        records, since I just do not know what he has
looked.
   Q.   But if these tens of
thousands of messages contained,
        shall we say, a random selection of intercepts,
there was
        no methodological reason why it should only be
intercepts
        relating to shootings rather than to anything
else, would
        it surprise you to hear that there are only
references in
        these tens of thousands of messages to shootings
and no
        references whatsoever to gassings?
   A.   It would not surprise me
because we have no intercepts
        that I know of between Himmler and Globocnik, that
this
        was not the way in which they communicated to the
Soviet
        Union.
   Q.   Are you familiar with the
fact that the British official
        historians, Sir Frank Hinsley, summarized these
and
        similar messages in the British Official History,
this was
        the first clue that we had that these existed?

.          P-78



   A.   I believe he said he
looked at a few of them, that he did
        not study that issue in detail, but that he did
write
        books that were on the British intelligence and
referred
        to these, yes.
   Q.   Do you know that he read
the reports, the daily reports,
        from the Kommandants of the seven principal
concentration
        camps, Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald, and so on,
back to
        Berlin for a number of months over the winter of
1942 to
        1943?
   A.   I did not know that, but
again I would say that Operation
        Reinhardt was not part of the concentration camp
system
        and would not have been in the same chain of
command.
   Q.   What archeological
investigations have been conducted in
        recent years at any of the camp sites that you are
        alluding to, like Treblinka, Maidonek, Sobibor and
Belzec?
   A.   At the moment, I
understand that they are doing
        archeological excavations in Belzec, that I do not
believe
        at the moment they are doing them in Sobibor or
        Treblinka.  They have made memorials there.
Chelmo, they
        have created again in the forest where the graves
were a
        series of memorials that represent where the
trenches
        were.  Whether that was based on somebody that
knew or
        whether that was just placed there, I just do not
know.
   Q.   So there has been no
systematic effort to try to quantify
        the scale of killing that went on in these camps?
   A.   Belzec, I believe it is
the first time at which they are

.          P-79



        doing, which was the most -- the one that does not
have a
        developed memorial is the one which they are doing
at the
        moment archeological excavation.
   Q.   Just finally on your
paragraph 3.2, you said there that as
        far as the shootings go, we have a lot of
documentary
        evidence, but for gassings we have to rely on
eyewitness
        and circumstantial evidence.
   A.   For the three camps of
Operation Reinhardt.  We do have
        some documentary evidence concerning Zemblin(?)
and the
        gas vans working with the Einsatzgruppen and
documents, a
        few documents, relating to Chelmo.  The documents
relating
        to Operation Reinhardt, I have argued, presents
the case
        that lots of people went here and were never seen
again,
        but the written documents do not specify why they
were
        never seen again.  They do not specify a method of
        killing.
   Q.   Do the documents specify
that they were killed or do we
        have to conclude that?
   A.   Well, if 20 miles or 20
kilometres from Treblinka the
        Kommandant complains that the Jews are not buried
well
        enough and that they have got a pestilential smell
20
        kilometres away, it would indicate a large number
of Jews
        had been killed.
   Q.   Do you find that credible,
plausible eyewitness evidence,
        that people can smell something 20 kilometres
away?
   A.   If the wind was blowing
the right way from Treblinka, I

.          P-80



        would think that was very credible.
   Q.   Do you have no problem
with any of the eyewitnesses, with
        accepting the evidence that they have given, the
various
        eyewitnesses, whether evidence given in court
procedures
        or afterwards, more recently, do you not suspect
that they
        may have been subjected to some kind of duress or
bribery
        or promises of better conditions or promises of an
        alleviated sentence if they would just sign the
document?
   A.   I think one has to assume
there is potential problems with
        all eyewitnesses, but this is one of the materials
we
        have.  It is a kind of source the historians have
always
        used and must be used with care, but I would argue
that
        one does not write it off categorically because it
has
        potential problems.
   Q.   So, as an historian, it is
your duty to weigh evidence
        then?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   To look at it and say,
"This one I accept and that one
        seems implausible"?
   A.   Or accept parts of this
because he was in a position to
        have seen this himself.  The second part of it may
be
        hearsay and, therefore, it is no more reliable
than what
        somebody else told him.  So you can have parts of
        testimony that have greater evidentiary weight --
I would
        give them greater evidentiary weight than other
parts.
   Q.   You have to rely on your
own integrity and your own

.          P-81



        judgment in deciding what to select and what to
omit?
   A.   Historians are always
making decisions about selection of
        documents.  We are in a constant process of
selection.
   Q.   And, obviously, in a
constant process of compression too
        because you start off with an immense shelf of
documents
        you have to compress into a reasonable length of
        manuscript?
   A.   Yes.  We always have to
make decisions about what is more
        important than something else.
   Q.   Yes, and you would be
indignant if somebody called you
        perverse or manipulative or if you were accused of
        distorting because you left out a paragraph that
just
        repeated what the paragraph above had said?
   A.   It would depend entirely
on the context.  If I had made a
        very egregious mistake and was caught out, I guess
I would
        not have a right to be indignant.
   Q.   Have you ever made
mistakes?
   A.   Of course historians make
mistakes, yes.
   Q.   Indeed.  But nobody has
accused you of wilfully distorting
        or manipulating because you have made a mistake?
   A.   I have been accused of
wilfully distorting.
   Q.   Have you misread words in
handwriting sometimes, in German
        handwriting?
   A.   I may have.  I do not know
that anyone has called it to my
        attention but I certainly have been accused by
someone who
        wished me no good will of manipulating evidence.

.          P-82



   Q.   Have you ever read the
book by, I think it is, Mr Paget QC
        who was the Defence counsel of Manstein?
   A.   No, I have not read that
book.
   Q.   Manstein, of course, was
put on trial for war crimes?
   A.   By the British, yes.
   Q.   By the British, yes.  I
cannot ask you about what it
        contains.  The Jager document, the Jager report
now -- I
        am now on page 7, paragraph 4.4, my Lord -- is
this a
        document from the Moscow archives, was it a
Nuremberg
        document?
   A.   I believe it is a Riga
document, the Jager report.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Are you on 4.5?
   MR IRVING:  4.4, my Lord.  We are looking at the
Jaeger
        document which is item 1944.  You seem to prefer
to
        work  ----
   A.   I am sorry, it is a Moscow
document.
   Q.   You seem to prefer to work from printed volumes of documents?
   A.   That will depend.  If I am doing a detailed study of
        something like the Vehrmacht role in the shootings in
        Yugoslavia or the Police 101, I work in the original sources.

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