Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day016.07
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20
Q. Yes. To recapitulate, for the first 20 years after World
War II there was no real investigation into the decision
making process by which this appalling crime had been set
in motion?
A. There were not studies focused on that, but they focused
on a great deal about the Holocaust. One could not say
the Holocaust had not been subjected to careful study.
The decision making process in the 1930s was subjected to
very careful study by Karl Schleunes and Adam and Adam
also did venture into the field up to 1941 and came up
with a very late date by those times. He said Hitler did
not decide until the fall of 41, which to historians at
that point seemed to be shockingly late. It is now a
figure that many of us would agree with but at that point
it was quite a revolutionary proposal.
Q. To cut straight to the bottom line, nobody has ever found
a single document indicating a Hitler decision or a Hitler
will in this direction. We have had to do a lot of
extrapolating and reading between the lines. Is that
. P-46
correct?
A. A lot of it comes from a collection of documents from
which one draws inferences, from which one looks at
circumstantial evidence and how one construes the Nazi
system of work. But we do not have what we would call the
smoking pistol document; your thousand pounds is still
safe in your bank account in that regard. We do not have
a signed order by Adolf Hitler or a document that
explicitly refers to him taking the decision in that kind of way.
Q. Are you surprised at that?
A. No, because we have -- one area in which we have a record
of how a decision was made was when Himmler goes to Hitler
in late May of 1940, when he wants to revalidate the
ethnic programme that Frank and Goering had more or less
slowed down in the spring 1940 on the grounds of priority
of military concerns, and then, when it seemed clear that
victory in France as very near, Himmler goes back,
presents his memorandum to Hitler.
Q. May 25 1940, is that right?
A. Yes. What Himmler then records is that Hitler read the
memorandum, found it very good and correct, and said to
Himmler, "You may show this to the others and tell them it
is in my line of thinking".
Q. How do we know that?
A. That is because we have a second memorandum by Himmler
. P-47
recording the conversation.
Q. Yes, but he does not actually quote those words, does he?
You have rather embroidered them.
A. This is how Himmler records the conversation. He does not
have a quote, Hitler said, quotation mark.
Q. Do you remember one particular phrase in that Himmler
memorandum of May 1940 in which Himmler says something
like, "There can of course be no question of the wholesale
extermination of the Jews"?
A. At that point he considers what he calls a Bolshevic
solution as unGerman and impossible. Yes, I have quoted
that many times.
Q. How would you interpret that particular phrase?
A. I would interpret that, that Himmler is not the one who
would propose such things, that if he eventually did that
it could have to have come from someone with greater
authority than him.
Q. Let us take it in stages.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, do you mind me interrupting you?
Are we now on the general perspective? Are you going to
come back to these individual documents?
MR IRVING: You will notice that when I start referring to page
numbers of his report, my Lord. If I could take that
piece by piece, if Himmler wrote in his May 25th 1940
memorandum that sentence saying "There can be no question
of a Bolshevic solution of the Jewish problem", in other
. P-48
words, just liquidating them ----
A. Liquidating a whole people.
Q. There is no indication of course, either on that document
which Himmler actually marked in his own handwriting, or
in the subsequent memorandum that he wrote, that Hitler
had overruled him and said, "Oh, on the contrary", is there?
A. What Himmler wanted to get from Hitler was backing for his
renewed ethnic cleansing, and that Himmler comes away with
the affirmation that he can cite Hitler's backing if Frank
and Goring and others try to block him again.
Q. Of course, you would agree that there had been a lot of
killing of the Jews in the Polish campaign and afterwards
had there not? .
A. The greater focus I believe, was on killing of Polish
intelligentsia but certainly, given the Jews are about 10
per cent of the population I think that the percentage of
fatalities percentage wise is greater among the Jewish
population than the Polish.
Q. In the conferences conducted by Heydrich in the autumn
1939 and over that winter, of which we have the records,
the Jews are also mentioned as being a category to be
exterminated, are they not?
A. There is a series of different quotes. I do not think
there is a global reference to killing all Jews. There is
one to killing Polish intelligentsia.
. P-49
Q. The Jews, the clergy?
A. They list this as a category of people. It is not a
global killing of all Jews but Jews are among the groups
that can be killed. No one is going to get into trouble
killing Jews.
Q. Were they to be killed because they were potential
leadership material, or potential trouble makers, or
what? Was there a reason giving for the killing given on
that occasion?
A. No.
Q. Or was it purely ideological?
A. I do not remember the exact document in its entirety so
I would hesitate to say something.
Q. There is a string of documents September and October 1939.
A. There is a collection of references. Sometimes these
references refer to different categories. They are not
the same categories each time. Sometimes Jews appear
among that category. I do not recall that they give a
detailed justification of why each of those categories is
mentioned at this time.
Q. I do not know if you familiar with my book Hitler's War at all?
A. Not very familiar.
Q. Will you accept that -- and I can be proved wrong by
Mr Rampton -- I refer in great deal to these particular
. P-50
September and October 1939 conferences at which the Jews
were to be killed and the orders were given?
A. I cannot answer that because I have not read that section.
Q. Very well. Have not the Jewish people throughout this
century, in fact long before World War II and since World
War I, constantly proclaimed that they were in danger of
being exterminated, or indeed that they were already being
exterminated?
A. I could not say yes to that.
Q. It has been a kind of an ongoing story, has it not?
A. No. When you say "the Jews have said", I am afraid that
is the kind of formulation that it is impossible to
answer. You may find one Jew or another, but that does
not mean "the Jews" have constantly said that.
Q. Can I hand you this book to have a look at? Can you read
the title on the jacket of that book?
A. "The Yellow Spot, the Extermination of the Jews in Germany".
Q. Can you see who has published it?
A. With an introduction by the Bishop of Durham.
Q. If you look on the back of the spine, you will see the
initials VG, Victor Gollantz.
A. I see the Gollantz written at the bottom.
Q. So the book has been published by a reputable English
publisher. Can you rapidly flutter inside and see what
. P-51
year that book called "The Extermination of the Jews" was published?
A. In 1936.
Q. Three years before World War II we are already hearing
books on this subject.
A. If one looks right below the title page, it says "The
Yellow Spot, the outlawing of half a million human
beings". It does not say the murder of them, but it does
say "the outlawing".
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is it confined to 33 to 36?
A. It is published in 36.
Q. I wonder what the events are it describes. It may be it
is only the last three years?
MR IRVING: It is a very good history, actually, of the Nazi
persecution of the Jews up to that time.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: You mentioned the first world war. It does
not go that far back?
MR IRVING: I could have gone back to similar publications back
at the First World War but it is a rather arcane
exercise. It is an odd thing that the word
"extermination" at that time can be taken to mean
something which means something totally different to the
way we understand it now, is it not?
A. It seems a fairly hyperbolic title.
Q. Do we have the same problems with word in German? Words
like umsiedlung and ausrotung?
. P-52
A. The conventional use is turned into a specialised use.
Language changes that way all the time. Before 1971
"destabilization" meant one thing. After Kissinger uses
it, it takes on a second meaning because of historical context.
Q. Of course, "pot" and "grass" and things like that change
their meaning, do they not? Is there any indication that
words used even at the same time in the Third Reich can
have totally different meanings depending who is using
them, who they are speaking to? For example, an
apparently innocent word like umsiedlung, which means
resettlement, can take on a totally different sinister
meaning when uttered by Heinreich Himmler?
A. Yes. If you are referring to ethnic Germans, it generally
means that you are removing them from one place to
another. In documents referring to Jews after 1942 it
usually means sending them to a camp.
Q. Without wishing to pre-empt the logical flow of this
examination in a way, can I direct your attention to one
document in the bundle which is probably next to you,
H3(i)? Footnote 54 is the one I am after.
A. Where do I turn?
MR IRVING: If you look at the bottom there is FN 54 in black felt pen.
A. Which tab? FN 54.
Q. You will remember the episode because it is the umsiedlung
. P-53
of 20,000 Jews at ----
A. Yes, and then two pages later it becomes a different word.
Q. You have got it. You are absolutely right. Two pages
later they are quite plain that they were shot?
A. Yes.
Q. So in this document umsiedlung refers to killing?
A. Correct.
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.