Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day006.19
Last-Modified: 2000/08/02

   Q.   Please, Mr Irving.  Calm down and let me finish my
        question.  You will find all of this laid out with great
        care and detail (which I am certainly not going to go
        through now) ----
   A.   Has he mentioned the staff evidence analysis sheets?  I do
        not think so.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Rampton, does it simplify matters if I say
        I am prepared to accept that there is good internal
        evidence that it is March or thereabouts 1942?
   MR RAMPTON:  No, I really think that would be unsafe.  There is
        some internal evidence.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  All right.  Just assume that, but really then
        it may become a question of what the Judenfrage was?

.          P-168



   A.   I agree.  But even that I am not ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am not clear, sorry, you are getting it
        from every direction.
   MR RAMPTON:  I am sorry.  Your Lordship was interrupted by
what
        I call harassment from my right.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can I harass you and just ask you, where
does
        one find the material on which Professor Evans bases
his
        proposition, namely that the Jewish question that is
being
        discussed is the problem of half-Jews, as I think they
        were called?
   MR RAMPTON:  This is one of the things that one can see if
one
        goes back to page 464 as a starting point in Mr
Irving's
        book, he himself draws attention to that.
   A.   Oh, yes.  What was at that time actuel was the
question of
        who is a Jew, which I think they still cannot decide
        really.
   Q.   Your Lordship can see the first part of the main
paragraph
        in the middle of page 464 makes reference to this what
is
        called the "Mischling" question.  It says, quite
        correctly, that Heydrich held a second conference all
        about that on 6th -- it does not give the date, but
the
        date is 6th March.  You will find that, my Lord, on
page
        375.  It may be one should start earlier, but this is
a
        long and detailed part of Professor Evans' report and
I do
        not believe that it is going to help anybody if I read
out
        great chunks from it at the moment.

.          P-169



   A.   But is it not a reasonable inference that this
document,
        therefore, came after that conference?
   Q.   It is certainly one of the available inferences and it
is
        one which Professor Evans himself has said in his
report
        that he thinks is the likeliest?
   A.   So we have wasted an awful lot of the court's time ---
-
   Q.   No, we have not, Mr Irving, because there are problems
        with that interpretation, and this is my whole point.
You
        will not face up to the problems of the documents
which
        you embrace so enthusiastically.  You will just have
to be
        patient until I tell you what I believe the problems
may
        be.
                  My Lord, I wonder if your Lordship might
read
        from paragraph 7 on page 374 and going down to
paragraph 9
        on page 376?  We have the source documents here.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  To the end of 9?
   MR RAMPTON:  Sorry, my Lord, end of 9, yes, if your
Lordship
        pleases, yes.  That will do fine.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I had read that before.  That is what I
would
        be interested to know what Mr Irving says about that.
   MR RAMPTON:  So would I, particularly since, as one can see
        from the original document -- I am not asking your
        Lordship to look at it -- the conference about the
        Mischling and the Mischeyer is actually headed  "Ent
        Losung der Judenfrage" whereas one notices that
Lammers'
        statement, or the note of Lammers' statement, refers
only

.          P-170



        to the "Losung".
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, there would be many Juden frager,
would
        there not?
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, precisely, of which I have no doubt the
        mischlinge one was a knotty one, because I think the
        evidence is that Hitler himself did not think that it
was
        a good idea to split marriages and send what might be
        called half and halfs off on the trains.  That is
right,
        is it not?
   A.   If you were to pursue this line of argument, the
document
        would say that the solution of this Jewish problem
would
        need to be postponed.
   Q.   Exactly, Mr Irving.
   A.   He is talking about the solution of the Jewish problem
        postponed.
   Q.   That is another problem with the document.  You would
have
        expected it to say diese Juden frager?
   A.   Of this Jewish problem, but it does not, of course.
   Q.   I quite agree.
   A.   So that does not help you very much.
   Q.   I am not looking for help, Mr Irving.  You see, you
have
        completely the wrong end of the stick.
   A.   I am trying to help you because I am enjoying this.
   Q.   You are not helping me at all because you are always
        punting to the same end of the pond.  I am not.  I am
in
        the middle and I am looking at all the lily pads
around me

.          P-171



        and wondering what the answer is.  I do not think it
is
        clear that this is a general statement by Hitler in
the
        context of the file in which it was found, which would
be
        a floating statement of no significance at all, that
        Hitler has said yesterday, "Stop all this talk about
        mischlinge because I have said that the whole Jewish
        question is to go off to the end of the war".  I do
not
        think that is the only possible explanation.  I think
        anybody who leaps on that band wagon and ignores all
the
        others is not being a respectable and competent
historian.
   A.   You are not, with respect, being a respectable and
        competent counsel if you ignore the document that
        immediately precede this note, which is Schlegelberger
        writing to Lammas, saying that ugly things seem to be
        looming ahead, I really think I ought to talk about
this
        with you before we go any further.  Lammas then writes
        back to him saying, no, the Fuhrer does not want to be
        bothered with this kind of thing.  He wants all the
Jewish
        problem postponed until the end of the war.
   Q.   You say, write back.  Where is Schlegelberger's
signature
        on that thing?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Could I see it, because are you assuming
        I know.  What is this note about ugly things going on
        because that would be very relevant, it seems to me?
   A.   It is immediately preceding this in the file.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  In the web site?

.          P-172



   A.   Well, it is certainly in the actual file, which is the
        file here.  While they are looking for it, I will just
get
        it to the front.  It would be on the web site
definitely.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It may not have been reproduced.
   MR RAMPTON:  I am certainly not aware of it.
   A.   It is probably page 1564 of the web site just off the
top
        of my head.  Yes, here it is.  If I can just read it
        straight out while you are looking for it, my Lord, it
is
        March 12th 1942.  This is six days after the
conference.
   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, I have the original German here,
        I think.  Can you just identify it and then give it to
his
        Lordship to look at?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think we have found it in the web site.
   MR RAMPTON:  I have not got the web site file.  I just want
to
        make sure that we are talking about the same document?
   A.   It is from the same Justice Ministry file.  It is
        paginated in that series 01/109, in the original
wartime
        series, it is just two documents ahead of the
        Schlegelberger note, dated March 12th 1942:
                  "Dear Reichs Minister Dr Lammas, I have just
        been briefed by my personal assistant on the outcome
of
        the conference of March 6th concerning the treatment
of
        Jews and mixed race Jews.  I am still awaiting the
        official protocol.  After the briefing by my personal
        assistant there appear to be decisions in preparation
        which for the larger part I consider to be quite out
of

.          P-173



        the question, quite impossible, as the outcome of the
        conferences at which an adviser or a personal
assistant of
        your house has also taken part will form the basis for
the
        Fuhrer's decision.  I would urgently request that I
can
        have in good time a conversation with you in person, a
        personal conversation with you, about the matter.  As
soon
        as the protocol of the session is in front of me, I
will
        allow myself to telephone you and to ask you whether
and
        when we can have that talk."
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, that seems to me to run quite
        counter to the proposition for which you contend
because
        that is dealing entirely with the problem of Juden and
        mischlinge?
   A.   Jews and mixed race.  "The Jews and" I think is
        significant there.  But, be that as it may, my Lord,
even
        if you are right, and I am sure your Lordship is
right,
        I hesitate to say that your Lordship is wrong in that
        matter, but, even if you are right, what I am saying
is,
        and I have reason for saying this, that the outcome
was
        the note from Lammas to Schlegelberger, which
effectively
        says that the Fuhrer does not want to be bothered
about
        this, he wants this whole thing, he wants the solution
to
        the Jewish problem postponed until the war is over.
If
        I just continue that, we also know from interrogations
of
        people who were at the conferences that Lammas came
back
        to them and said he had mentioned it to the Fuhrer
with

.          P-174



        precisely that outcome.  The Fuhrer said he did not
want
        to be bothered with this kind of stuff, postpone it
all
        until the war is over.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  All of that points, so far as I see it at
the
        moment, to this having been the narrow question of, if
one
        can call it, mischlinge?
   A.   Juden und mischlinge.
   Q.   I follow that that phraseology is used, but that does
not
        seem to me to be tremendously significant, given the
whole
        context of the reference to the conference on 6th
March.
   A.   I appreciate this is one possible interpretation if
you
        ignore the fact that the Schlegelberger memorandum
says
        die losung der juden frager (?), the solution of the
        Jewish problems, not this Jewish problem.
   Q.   I have the point about der rather than dies.
   MR RAMPTON:  That points in one direction, Mr Irving.  The
        other considerations point in the opposite direction,
        including, if I may -- I do not know, I am completely
        ignorant but I am told that this is a good point by
those
        like you that have inspected the file.  The file
number on
        the top right-hand side of what you call the
        Schlegelberger memo, I prefer for safety sake to call
it
        the Freisler document, is 153.
   A.   Yes, with the handwritten number 153 on it?
   Q.   No.  There is stamp on the one I have.
   A.   Yes, but the one I am looking at is stamped on the
left.

.          P-175



   Q.   I know you are looking at your web site copy.
   A.   No.  I am looking at the one on the left. This is the
        original document with the stamp on the left.
   Q.   So you say, but the other document with 12th March
1942
        has the stamp number 155 on it.
   A.   Well I do not have ----
   Q.   You will find it in H1 (vii) at page 371.
   A.   Previously, of course, you could not find it.  Now you
can
        find it.  Yes.
   Q.   There is no evidence, is there, that these file page
        numbers are contradictory?  One is 109 followed by
111.
   A.   This is why we cannot be absolutely certain as to
exactly
        which sequence within the month they are shuffled.
   Q.   You cannot assert with any confidence that the
anonymous
        undated Freisler document was generated or prompted by
the
        dated and signed note of the 12th March 1942, can you?
   A.   Within the space of a month you can be pretty certain.
        You can say it was after March 6th.
   Q.   If this relates to the question of the mischlinge at
all?
   A.   Well, it was within this file and we know where it is
        placed in the file, and there are no documents outside
        that time frame, so on a high degree of probability
that
        is the time, and we know when, reasonable from other
        documents, you know when the conversation took place
        between Schlegelberger and Lammas.
   Q.   Now, Mr Irving, consider a problem of real substance.

.          P-176



   A.   The problem of real substance is that I am the only
        historian to mention these documents.  Everybody else
        pretends they do not exist, although they have ----
   Q.   Mr Irving, you have grasped it with your usual boyish
        enthusiasm because you think it acquits Adolf Hitler
of
        any hand in the mass murder of Jews.
   A.   Which is precisely why the other historians have not even
        mentioned it.
   Q.   Mr Irving, that was not what I was going to ask you
        about.  The problem you do not seem to have faced up to is
        this.  I am going to ask you a question first.  What in
        your version of history was in Hitler's mind the entlosung
        (?), and we notice this document does not use that word,
        to be put into effect after the war in Hitler's mind in
        March 1942?
   A.   Well, at this time, of course, as you know, I will say he
        was talking about deportation overseas, or deportation
        beyond the pale.

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