Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day024.18
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24

   MR IRVING:  One further question on the Muller document.  The
        subject of the Muller document is the provision of visual
        materials, is it not?
   A.   Yes.  Well, it says, in particular, visual material, it
        does not include -- it does not exclude, of course, other
        material.  It says [German - document not provided] so
        they should be continuously informed and, in particular,
        he is interested in visual material.
   Q.   Will you read out what the topic line of the telegram is?
   A.   Yes, the topic line is [German - document not provided].
        So the topic line is the visual material.  But, of course,
        if you look into this, I mean, if you really look into the
        text here, [German - document not provided] So you can
        read it as it is an established fact that Hitler should be
        on a continuous basis provided with reports, and for this
        purpose he needs, in particular, with the material, so it
        could be that this refers to an older, to an older,
        earlier order, and this is kind of common practice,
        established practice.
   Q.   What were the tasks of the Einsatzgruppen that are
        referred to in this?

.          P-157



   A.   Well, the tasks were basically the same, I would say, like
        the [German].  So they were, in particular, I mean, they,
        of course, had the explicit orders to execute enemies or
        potential enemies of the Reichs, particularly including
        the Jews, but also they had other tasks, in general, one
        could say intelligence work, for instance, to trace
        documents from the Communist Party, for instance.  But
        also you can see from the reports that they were dealing
        with all kind of matters; they were dealing with the
        situation of the churches in the Soviet Union and with the
        food situation, and so on.
   Q.   So these reports were sometimes, what, nine or 10
        paragraphs long of which only one paragraph concerned the
        killing of Jews?
   A.   One is, I think, in general, they had a kind of scheme and
        there is one paragraph concerning the fate of Jews and the
        other paragraphs were concerning other issues.
   Q.   So from the Muller telegram of 1st August 1941, is it
        plain what Hitler asked to be shown?
   A.   Visual material.
   Q.   Everything, visual -- would there have been visual
        material about the killings?
   A.   Well, it refers to posters.  We know that there were
        posters, for instance, demanding the Jews had to -- my
        English is running out.
   Q.   "Concentrate"?

.          P-158



   A.   --- concentrate somewhere a place.  It refers to other
        documents; photographs, there were definitely photographs
        of mass executions.  So from this, from this list of
        things, I would say, yes.
   Q.   Have you seen any photographs of mass executions in German files?
   A.   I have not seen photographs of mass executions in German
        files like the Ministry or something like that.
   Q.   Can I take you now to page 62 and we will move forwards
        from there?  This is the Goebbels diary entry of December
        12th 1941.  We keep coming back against it again.  The
        first two and a half lines on page 62:  "As concerns the
        Jewish question, the Fuhrer is determined to make a clean
        sweep.  He had prophesied to the Jews that if they once
        again brought about a world war they would experience
        their own extermination".   That is Goebbels reporting
        Adolf Hitler, is it not, what he said in the speech?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   "This was not just an empty phrase.  The World War is
        there, the extermination of Jewry must be the necessary
        consequence.  This question must be seen without
        sentimentality.  We are not here in order to have sympathy
        with the Jews", and so on.  The rest of that paragraph
        could be Hitler speaking, but it could equally well be
        Dr Goebbels' gloss on it, could it not?
   A.   I think it is -- I read this as a summary of Hitler's

.          P-159



        speech.  If you compare the words of Goebbels, the way he
        put it, if you compare it with the speech Frank gave four
        years, four days later in Krakau, you can see that they
        actually use the same words.  They both refer to the fact
        that one should not have compassion with them, that they
        both refer to the prophecy.  So I think this is a, I would
        interpret it as a summary of Hitler's speech which is
        quite detailed here.
   Q.   As you are a German, Dr Longerich, it is proper to put
        this question to you.  Would not that second part of that
        paragraph be in the subjunctive if it was referring to
        Adolf Hitler?
   A.   Yes, if one would assume that Goebbels always used the
        subjunctive when he refers to Hitler's speeches, but if
        you look into the Goebbels' diaries, we know that there is
        a mixture of the subjunctive and the present tense.  So he
        did not use this in a -- it was not...
   Q.   Consistent?
   A.   Consistent, exactly, yes.
   Q.   If it had been subjective, then that would have been a
        clear clue that he was quoting Hitler, would it not?
   A.   It would be a clue, yes.
   Q.   So we are not sure either way?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  When you say subjunctive, you mean reported speech?
   A.   Yes.

.          P-160



   Q.   Well, in German, for reported speech they use the subjunctive?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Because we do not and that is why I was a bit
        confused.
   MR IRVING:  They do in various other languages too, I think the
        Spanish also do and...
   MR RAMPTON:  Can I intervene?  I have not all the references
        I want, but I suspect this may be sufficient.  On day 4
        which is, because I think we can put a stop to all this
        now ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think, unfortunately, we have moved past it .
   MR RAMPTON:  I am so sorry.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is not your fault, but I asked for reference.
   MR RAMPTON:  It is not my fault, no, because, as a matter of
        fact, I do not have time to read the transcripts in this
        case at the moment.  I will have to do that in due course.
        17th January, page 95 -- this reflects and earlier
        concession which I have not presently found -- line 1,
        question by me:  "The probability that Hitler saw that
        report", that is report No. 51, "and was, therefore,
        implicated in the murder of all these 363,000 Eastern Jews
        is confirmed, is it not, by a subsequent knowledge of this
        document, by which I mean the Himmler note of the 18th
        December of that year?"  Answer by Mr Irving: "Yes, there

.          P-161

        is no contention between us on that point".
                  Then if one turns to page 106 on the same day,
        we find your Lordship asking some questions, and at line
        19, Mr Irving says:  "What authorized, my Lord?  The
        killing of Jews, the partisans?"  Question by your
        Lordship: "Yes, you accepted that, I thought, a few
        minutes ago".  Answer:  "The Jews to be liquidated as
        partisans, 16th December, the conversation, yes.  If we
        can expand that very meagre note, that skimpy note, into
        that interpretation which I think is a legitimate
        expansion, certainly Hitler sanctioned the killing of the
        Jews on the Eastern Front, all the rest of the Jews, the
        non-German Jews, and that has never been a contention for me."
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, that looks fairly clear.
   MR RAMPTON:  It is fairly clear.  The next day it becomes even
        clearer at page 10, day 5, again it is your Lordship, this
        is line 12 on page 10:  "Let us just keep an eye on the
        reality.  You did accept yesterday, as I understood it,
        the shooting of Jews and others on the Eastern Front was a
        programme which was systematic and co-ordinated by Berlin
        and Hitler was aware and approved of what was going on?"
        Mr Irving:  "The shootings of Russian Jews, my Lord, yes".
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Russian Jews?
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.  That means everybody but the people who were
        coming from Germany.  In other words, he is not conceding

.          P-162



        that the shooting of the Berlin Jews in Riga was
        authorized, but he is conceding that there was systematic
        mass shooting by the Einsatzgruppen of the Jews in the
        East which was authorized and approved by Hitler.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, well again that does look to be fairly
        clear, Mr Irving.  This is difficult for you because you
        are in the middle of your cross-examination, but I think
        you must pause and reflect about this because it seems to
        me that Mr Rampton is probably right in saying, although
        I recollect a lot of cross-examination going the other
        way  ----
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, I have made a note of the ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  --- Mr Rampton may be right in saying you
        ultimately did concede it.
   MR IRVING:  I have made a note of the page number of the
        transcript and I shall certainly attend to it, but I do
        not think this is the time or place to do it.  Certainly
        I cannot do it on the hoof like this.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, I think that is right.  The problem, of
        course, is that we do not want a lot of cross-examination
        which strictly really is not really relevant because it is
        a point you have conceded, but I think you have really
        moved on beyond the issue of whether Hitler had these
        reports about the shootings on the Eastern Front, have you not?
   MR IRVING:  It is not a vitally important point.

.          P-163



   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, leave on one side whether it is important.
   MR IRVING:  But I am certainly entitled to ask this witness who
        has seen the reports whether he has seen any evidence that
        they were shown to Hitler in detail, and I would certainly
        have to look and see what I had said or m alleged to have concede.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
   MR RAMPTON:  I just read it out.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But, Mr Rampton, he is in the middle of
        cross-examining.  I think it is difficult for him to - ---
   MR RAMPTON:  I know that, but I am anxious to save time.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So I am but ----
   MR RAMPTON:  I really am.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  --- I think and hope Mr Irving has moved
        beyond now whether Hitler knew through the reports of the
        shooting of Jews in the East.
   MR RAMPTON:  I just which I had been able to find this a bit
        more quickly and then I could have saved some time, but
        never mind.
   MR IRVING:  Then we would have missed out on some very
        important information which is that there is no evidence
        that Hitler saw the Einsatzgruppen report.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, but you have to take the witness's
        answer that it is inconceivable that he did not know which
        would mean that if you did concede the point you were

.          P-164



        right to have conceded it.
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, with the utmost respect to both yourself
        and to the witness, the fact that something seems
        inconceivable is not evidence or proof.  It is interesting
        and has to be put into the scale pans against which has to
        be set the fact that all the evidence is there, the
        documents are now in 55 years later and the evidence is
        still not there.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I know you have a lot of other things to do,
        but if you would be good enough to look at those passages
        overnight and perhaps indicate tomorrow morning what your
        considered stance is in relation to Hitler's knowledge  ----
   MR IRVING:  I will make a little written statement on it.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  --- of the shootings by the Einsatzgruppen.
   MR RAMPTON:  I am a bit cautious about that, if I may say so,
        because what it involves, if Mr Irving should back track
        on what I have just read, or tried to back track,
        Professor Browning has now gone.  I cannot bring him back
        without enormous expense and inconvenience from America to
        go through what he would have said if I had known that
        that position was challenged.  It means that I have to
        rehearse my quite long cross-examination of Mr Irving on
        this question.  I do not believe that in the interests of
        what one might call justice and proportionality that
        Mr Irving ought to be, if I am right about where I got him

.          P-165



        to in cross-examination.  In the face of the documents and
        what I might call common sense, I do not believe it is
        right that he should be allowed to reconsider his position.

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