Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day022.07 Last-Modified: 2000/07/24 Q.I will have to put it to you to in an "if" form, then, and on Monday bring the photocopy of the original. Professor Evans, if the 1935 or if the contemporary wartime edition of the Cassell's Dictionary says that the meaning of . P-56 "transport" in English is in this order of priority, "transport, transportation, carriage, conveyance, transfer and shipment", is it unreasonable to assume, in the absence of any contextual information, that this is referring to a transportation, rather than to a single train load? A.It is unreasonable, I think, yes, from the context here. "Judentransport aus Berlin. Keine Liquidierung" quite clearly means "the Jew transport from Berlin, no liquidation". I think it is likely that, had it said, had they meant there should be no liquidation of any transport, train loads of Jews from Berlin, then it would have said something, they would have said so in the plural, transporte, or he would have put down something like people, emigrants, or people who were deported, or whatever. Let us try and remember what it is that you actually wrote in Hitler's War in 1977. Q.I am trying to narrow this down to a simple matter. A.Which is that Himmler was summoned to the Wolf's Lair for a secret conference with Hitler, I am quoting from your book here, at which the fate of Berlin's Jews was clearly raised. "At 1.30 pm Hitler was obliged to telephone from Hitler's bunker to Heydrich, the explicit order that Jews were not to be liquidated". That is what you said in your book. You did not mention Berlin there at all. Q.Can we keep to the language problem, which is to say, that . P-57 if it was what you said---- A.I am sure you would like to, Mr Irving. Q. -- the Jew transport, would it not be "der Judentransport aus Berlin"? A.No, because his telephone log, as you know perfectly well, is in a very abbreviated form that generally leaves out the definite article. Q.Leaves out the context, is that right? A.No leaves out the definite article, is what I said. You can go two lines up, "Verhaftung Dr Jekelius". It does not say "Die Verhaftung Dr Jekelius". Q.What you are saying, this is your expert evidence, is that "Judentransport" could under no circumstances be translated as "transportation of Jews from Berlin"? A.That is not quite what I am saying. Q.Will you accept that it can? A.Just let me answer. Q.Just say yes or no. Will you accept that it can? A.No, I am not going to say yes or no, I am going to give you a full answer. Q.That is what I am trying to avoid, because we really are running out of time. A.I know you are trying to avoid it, Mr Irving. Q.We are familiar with your full answers, unfortunately. A.I did swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. . P-58 MR JUSTICE GRAY: It will not be very long, this answer, I do not think. A.It says "Judentransport aus Berlin". That is the context. Jew transport from Berlin. It is clear it means a single train load of Jews, "Keine Liquidierung". Q.Are you saying it is clear to because you are now familiar from the context of all the other documents we know, as indeed I am also now, that that is the correct translation. But my question to you is, if you are faced just with that one line in a document that you read back in 1970, knowing none of the surrounding documentation, right, that it would be totally improper and perverse to translate that as "transportation of Jews from Berlin", which was the sense that I gave? A.Yes. That is what I am saying. And particularly perverse to say that it is an explicit order which Hitler has told Himmler to transmit that Jews were not to be liquidated. No mention of Berlin at all there, Mr Irving. That is a clear falsification of this document. MR IRVING: Avoiding your renewed smoke screen which you are laying across the question I put ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am not going to have you saying that. The criticism is that you misrepresented this document in your book. MR IRVING: That is a separate criticism, my Lord, with respect. . P-59 MR JUSTICE GRAY: On the contrary, it is the whole point of the criticism. It would not be made unless you had misrepresented, as the Defendants say you did, this document. We not be looking at this document at all. MR IRVING: In that case I shall have to ask further questions on the question of the meaning of the word, which I thought I had established superabundantly to the satisfaction of the court and everybody present, that a primary meaning of the word is transportation and, when one has no other document to go by, and the court has not been shown that at that time I had any other document to go by ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: I know what your case is, Mr Irving. I really do, and I do not think you need spend any longer on the pure linguistics. MR IRVING: In that case I shall move on. A.In the contemporary dictionary you showed me, Mr Irving, the word "transportation" was not there at all. How can it be a primary meaning? Q.In both Cassell's and Langenscheidt "transportation" is given as the primary meaning after "transport". In the Langenscheidt case it is given as the primary meaning. A.I have not seen these dictionaries. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think we have really spent long enough. I know what the issue is. MR IRVING: When, in your view, did adequate contextual . P-60 material in this connection come into the public domain, which would have enabled me to correct the misreading, let me put it like that? A.The adequate contextual material is there in the document itself and consists of two words "aus Berlin". Q.Why, in your view, is that adequate contextual material as to the nature of the transport or transportation? A.You said adequate contextual material to correct your error. Your error was that you said it is an explicit order that Jews were not to be liquidated without any mention of the fact that we are referring to Berlin. Q.We are still concentrating on the word "transport" and I am not looking at the "aus Berlin". Will you now answer my question? When, in your view did adequate contextual material, and I am referring to other source documents, come to light, come into the public domain, which would enable one to put a proper meaning on that? I am referring, for example, to the police decodes. A.I have already given the answer, which is that there is adequate material in the document itself to make it quite clear that it means "Jew transport from Berlin". Q.As opposed---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, really we must move on. I think we are spending an absurd amount of time on an issue which is quite clear to me, and I know what your case is. You have put it perfectly adequately to the witness. You do . P-61 not gain anything by going on putting it to him time and time again. MR IRVING: I am trying not to go into the meaning of the word. I am asking about when I should have known. This is the question. A.You should have known when you read it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: The witness has said perfectly clearly that the context of the whole document, the document, makes it clear what is being referred to and that you misrepresented it in your book. MR IRVING: Which is, I respectfully submit, an absurd answer. Anybody looking at that one document in 1970 could not possibly have decided between different meanings of the word. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is one of the things I will have to decide. A.Mr Irving, you did decide. You decided that it meant it is an explicit order from Hitler via Himmler that Jews were not to be liquidated. You refer to it frequently. Hitler ordered on November 30th 1941 -- I am quoting you here -- incontrovertible evidence that Hitler ordered on November 30th 1941 that there was to be "no liquidation of the Jews". MR IRVING: I am not going to get dragged back into that argument again because his Lordship will not allow it. Can we now ask the following question---- . P-62 A.That is your interpretation of the document. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Professor Evans, you are ONLY provoking A continuation of what I think has become an exhausted topic. So let us move on. MR IRVING: When the appropriate material came into the public domain, by which I mean the police decodes, SS documents and other materials in the 1970s and the 1980s, did I make the appropriate adjustment in the publication of the book the Goebbels biography? MR JUSTICE GRAY: What page? MR IRVING: Well, this is the ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is about 379, I think. It says 379 towards the foot of the page. A.At the bottom? Q.Yes. A.Well, you made a partial strategic withdrawal, as it were. MR IRVING: A strategic withdrawal, was it, not an appropriate correction? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let the witness finish his answer, Mr Irving. A.I will read these two sentences from page 379, if I may. "According to one army colonel who witnessed it, a train load of Jews from Berlin -- those expelled three days before -- arrived in the midst of this; Aktion, this killing of the Riga Jews. Its passengers were taken straight out to the pits and shot. This happened even as . P-63 Hitler, hundreds of miles away in the Wolf's Lair, was instructing Himmler that these Berlin Jews were not to be liquidated.". So you accept in that text that it refers to a single train load of Jews, but you still maintain the falsehood that it was Hitler who ordered it, with no evidence whatsoever. Q.Would you now answer the question, which is, was this the appropriate correction to the matter of one train load as opposed to transportation? A.Yes. In that respect, it most certainly was. Q.Will you agree with me that historians or writers or scholars sometimes differ on the inference they draw from identical documents, that you will have one reading on it from your political standpoint and I will have another reading on it from mine? MR JUSTICE GRAY: We are now going back to what I have said we must leave. MR IRVING: Well, we now move on to the document of December 1st. I now want you to look at the handwritten page, please. Can I ask the witness please also to look at the original photocopy? That was the one from which I worked. Near the bottom there is a telephone conversation. You assume in your expert report that Himmler telephoned General Pohl, but in fact all we know is that there was a conversation. Is that right? . P-64 A.Yes. As I say, I have revised my views of that as a result of your pointing this out. Q.It refers at one point to "Verwaltungsfuhrer der SS haben zu bleiben". Those two phrases are on two separate lines, is that right? A.That is right, yes. Q.The words "haben zu bleiben" are pretty indistinct or could you read it easily? A.Of course, I have read this so often now, it is very difficult to say what I would see on first coming to it. The word "haben" is very distinct, it is very clear. "Zu" is pretty readable. The "bleiben" is a little less good, and the "SS" in the previous line is cut off by the edge of the page. But, on the whole, it is pretty readable. Q.That is not Latin handwriting, is it? Do you know the name for this German handwriting that is used? A.Italene. I am very familiar with it. Q.You are very familiar with it now, or as a result of having worked on it for many years? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think it really matters. A.I have worked on it for many years, Mr Irving. I published an edition of documents written in it. MR IRVING: You agree that not many modern Germans can even read that handwriting, can they? No, that is true. Q.So it is a difficult handwriting to read? A.No. Well, it depends. As an actual style of handwriting . P-65 you have to learn it. I train my PhD students in it. It does not take more than a few weeks and a little bit of practice.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor