Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day021.11
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24

   Q.   A document showing Adolf Hitler intervening at 2.56
        through his deputy, through the office of his deputy,
        ordering a halt to whatever, or a stop, a veto on however
        narrow a front you wish to portray it, did not deserve any
        kind of comment by the entire assembled body of historians
        around the world?
   A.   Mr Irving, you have already said that the telex of
        Heydrich at 1.20 was the result of discussions between
        Hitler and Himmler, the Muller telex earlier in the
        evening was also on Hitler's orders, and all of these
        things say roughly the same thing.  We can look at the
        other telexes, if you like.  They all, taken together,
        represent the attempt by Hitler to make sure that German
        property was not damaged, and that foreign -- it is not in
        this one, but it is in the other ones -- that foreign Jews
        were not to be harmed because of the diplomatic
        consequences.   None of these documents, certainly not
        this one, puts it in any way -- attempting to put the
.          P-96



        whole action to an end.
   Q.   So why have other historians not quoted it?
   A.   This is part of a stream of documents.  There is
nothing
        surprising or new or novel or shocking about this one.
   Q.   Why have other historians not quoted a brief telegram
        which is on the authority of the very highest level in
a
        matter of such importance?
   A.   You will have to ask them.
   Q.   Well, I am asking you as ----
   A.   I do not think it surprises ----
   Q.   --- the expert on historiography.  You have written
books
        on the way people write history.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Professor Evans, can I just ask you this
        question?  If, indeed, the telex or the message,
whatever
        it is, had said, "Stop everything", would you then
agree
        that it would be surprising that historians have
ignored
        it, as Mr Irving suggests?
   A.   I do not think that historians would have deliberately
        suppressed it, had it said that.  I mean, I can only
        assume that ----
   Q.   That is not quite an answer to my question.
   A.   I know.
   Q.   What I am really saying is that if, indeed, Hitler had
        decided at 2.56 in the morning that everything must
        stop  ----
   A.   Yes.

.          P-97



   Q.   --- would that be something that you would expect
somebody
        giving an account, an historian giving an account, of
        Kristallnacht would include in his account or her
account?
   A.   Yes, most certainly because it would change our entire
        picture of the whole series of events, and you would
then
        have to explain, of course, why lower police officials
        sent out orders for the actions to start later in the
        morning, why the Reichskristallnacht events only
really
        began in the morning well after this of the 10th
November
        in Vienna, for example, and this would cast very
        interesting light on why Hitler's orders were not
followed
        if that was the case.
                  I mean, I should also say I am here simply
        accepting Mr Irving's suggestion that other historians
        have not quoted this, although he himself says he does
not
        read other historians, so...
   Q.   Yes, well, assuming that.
   A.   If may well be that if I had time to check up in
detail
        through the literature of other historians, I might
find
        that they had quoted this before 1977.
   MR IRVING:  But we assume that you have read all the
literature
        on the Reiskristallnacht because you are an expert
witness
        on this.
   A.   Well, I would have to -- this is one small document,
and I
        would have to go back and check it all.  I do not have
a
        photographic memory.

.          P-98



   Q.   It is small in as much as it contains only three
lines,
        but it does rely on the authority of the very top
level in
        the Third Reich in the middle of the night on the
Night of
        Broken Glass ----
   A.   Yes, but so ----
   Q.   --- and yet nobody else quoted it except me?
   A.   Well, how can you say that if you do not read other
        historians' work, Mr Irving?
   Q.   Well, I am asking you as the expert on historiography.
   A.   And you are just telling me, and I am telling you that
you
        have no right to say that.  You do not read what other
        historians have written on the subject.  You have no
idea.
   Q.   Well, I believe that we would have had an echo by now.
        I have been waving this document in the air for the
last
        25 years, saying, "Look what I found.  Why have you
not
        quoted it?"  I remembered a mass meeting at the
University
        of Bonn saying precisely this, and advising the
students
        to ask their professors afterwards why they were
hearing
        it from me for the first time.  So, surely, somebody
would
        have said, "Mr Irving, you are not first"?
   A.   Yes, I am not sure I believe you, Mr Irving, I am
afraid.
   Q.   You are not sure you believe me?
   A.   No.  I would have to go up and check the literature to
see
        whether this document was quoted and it would not
surprise
        me if it was.
   Q.   Will you accept the proposition that if my
interpretation

.          P-99



        of the document is correct, that Adolf Hitler was
hereby
        acting on the information that he had received during
the
        previous hour as described by the Adjutants, the three
of
        whom I have related earlier this morning, he was
        determined to stop this nonsense and he telephoned
Rudolf
        Hess and said, "Send an immediate message to the
        Gauleiters", that if this signal meant that, this
would be
        an embarrassment to the historical profession?
   A.   Too many ifs there, Mr Irving.  I do not accept a
single
        part of your premises, I am afraid.
   Q.   But that, in a way, answers my question, does it not,
        because it is an embarrassing document for the
historians
        to have a look at?
   A.   It is not an embarrassing document at all.  It does
not
        really say very much.
   Q.   So it does not say all the things you said earlier,
about
         "Go out and burn the synagogues and arrest the
20,000",
        you said that you could read all that into it.
   A.   All it says, Mr Irving, is that there should be no
arson
        in Jewish shops or similar premises under any
        circumstances.  That is all it says.  This is in the
        middle of the evening where all over the country
        synagogues are being burned down.  Everybody knows
that
        synagogue are being burned down.  I do not see any
mention
        of synagogues here, and I do not think you can
describe
        them as being like shops, although I am not very
familiar

.          P-100



        with synagogues.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, my feeling is that we could
        probably move on.  I think we have really explored
this
        issue.
   MR IRVING:  Except, my Lord, that he said this was the
middle
        of the evening and, of course, that is not.  It is the
        middle of the night.  It is 2.56 a.m. which fits ----
   A.   Sorry, night, yes.
   Q.   --- in precisely with the timetable that I have
adumbrated
        from the very start of my writings on the
        Reichskristallnacht.  That is why i attach such
importance
        to it.
   A.   That is a completely phoney timetable, Mr Irving,
based on
        the manipulation and falsification of the material
that
        you have got before you and the acceptance of lies
told by
        people involved after the war simply because they
support
        your belief or your attempts to show that Hitler did
not
        order all these goings on and was not cognizant of
them
        and tried to stop them when he found out about them.
It
        is a tissue of your lies on your part, Mr Irving,
based on
        the shameless manipulation of documents like this
whose
        meaning is absolutely obvious to anybody with even the
        most elementary knowledge of German.
   Q.   Well, you accept that I do not have just an elementary
        knowledge of German, do you not?
   A.   Quite.

.          P-101



   Q.   Yes, but you still feel entitled to trot out all those
        adjectives again, the tissue of lies, the
manipulations,
        the distortions and so on, because that is the only
kind
        of language you can use to confront a document like
this,
        is that right?
   A.   I am not confronting a document like this.  It is the
use
        you make of it that I am commenting on which I find
quite
        extraordinary.
   Q.   Which do you find more extraordinary, the fact that no
        other historian has quoted that document or the fact
that
        I do quote it?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, do you remember a few moments
ago
        I said that I thought we ----
   MR IRVING:  You said we should move on, my Lord, yes,
right.
        (To the witness):  What is the evidence that we do
have
        for the fact that Adolf Hitler initiated the pogrom
        therefore?
   A.   The Goebbels speech to the Party at the 10th -- at 10
p.m.
   Q.   What transcript do we have of that speech, if any?
   A.   It is in his -- well, that is -- there are two, I
think
        two relevant documents there, in particular, one is,
of
        course, Goebbels own diary, and the other is the Party
        tribunal investigation.
   Q.   The Party tribunal, of course, only refers to the fact
        that Goebbels triggered the events ----
   A.   Well ----

.          P-102



   Q.   --- according to the ----
   A.   All right.  Can we have a look at the Party tribunal
        report then, please?  It is very brief.
   MR RAMPTON:  Tab 2, my Lord.
   A.   Tab 2 of this?
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes?
   A.   I seem to have a loose leafed folder here.
   MR RAMPTON:  Tab 2 of L2.
   A.   Right.  In the first very opening paragraph it says,
if I
        may translate:  "On the evening of 9th November 1938,
        Reichs Propaganda Minister Party Comrade, Dr Goebbels,
        informed the Party leaders gathered for a comradely
        evening in the Old Town Hall in Munich that there had
been
        anti-Jewish demonstrations in the Gals, Hessner,
        Nanteburg, Anhaut, and thereby Jewish shops had been
        smashed up and synagogues had been set on fire.
                  The Fuhrer had" -- this is reported speech
of
        what Goebbels was saying -- "the Fuhrer had decided on
his
        report that such demonstrations, these kinds of
        demonstrations, should neither be prepared by the
Party",
        I mean "should neither in future", as it were, "be
        prepared by the Party nor organized by it in so far as
        they emerged or arose spontaneously, but they were not
to
        be opposed".
   MR IRVING:  Now was Adolf Hitler present when Goebbels made
        these remarks, allegedly?

.          P-103



   A.   No, the Party court accepted that this was the case,
of
        course, that these remarks were accurate.
   Q.   Accepted that what was the case?
   A.   That Hitler never intervened to say, as surely he
would
        have done, that he had not given this permission.
        Goebbels had dinner with Hitler on the evening of the
9th
        November, immediately before the speech, and what he
said
        in his speech was, essentially, what Hitler told him
at
        the dinner, as you agreed under cross-examination.
   Q.   Would you answer my question?  Was Hitler present when
        Goebbels made these alleged remarks to the Gauleiters?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  He has answered that question.
   MR IRVING:  In other words, he was not present?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  He said no.
   MR IRVING:  Yes.  The only evidence we have, therefore, for
        there having been such a conversation between Hitler
and
        Goebbels is Goebbels' reported speech, as reported
four
        months later by the Supreme Party court, in other
words,
        it is a third party source?
   A.   I think it is in his, well, this is an investigation
of
        the events of that evening by a Party court ----
   Q.   Does the report ----
   A.   --- under the chairmanship of a man who -- Buch, I
think
        his name was.
   Q.   Walter Buch?
   A.   Walter Buch who was rather hostile to Goebbels.

.          P-104



   Q.   I was about to come to that point.  What was the
        relationship between the Chairman of the Party court
and
        Dr Goebbels about whom he is writing?
   A.   It is not very good.
   Q.   Not very good at all, were they?  In fact, if you read
the
        Goebbels diaries, there was most outspoken hostility
        between them.  They loathed each other.  Is that
correct?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Is it correct towards the end of the same report it
        justifies the actions of a number of the criminals
        involved in the outrages on the basis that they
believed
        that they were acting in accordance with the Fuhrer's
        wishes?
   A.   That is right.  Let us have a look at that passage,
can
        we?
   Q.   Does that not imply that ----
   A.   Can we have a look at that passage, please?
   Q.   --- in fact they believed wrongly?
   A.   Where is it?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think I would like to see the passage,
if
        that is what you are saying, Mr Irving?
   MR IRVING:  I am stating this from memory, my Lord.  I do
not
        have it in front of me, but I am familiar with the
        document.
   A.   Can someone provide Mr Irving with the document,
please?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Is it part of the same report?

.          P-105



   MR IRVING:  It is.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So it is a question of finding it.
   MR RAMPTON:  He needs L2, my Lord.
   MR IRVING:  I am pretty certain that the tenor of the
report
        was that these outrages and crimes had been ----
   A.   It is the final sentence in the report.  Do you want
me to
        wait until you have it?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I think you had better because the
        suggestion is that when it says that they believed
they
        were acting on a Hitler order, it is really implying
that
        they knew they were not.  Is that the suggestion?
   MR IRVING:  Well, my suggestion is that the document casts
        doubt on whether there was actually such an order.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I see.

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