Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day023.02 Last-Modified: 2000/07/24 MR RAMPTON: The history file he should have tomorrow, because that helps his cross-examination of Dr Longerich. I will tell your Lordship how it is proposed to compose it. On . 10 one side would be in chronological order the German documents. So far as they are available, on the facing page will be an English translation of the key part. For the most part, that can be done just by removing. What I have done is to remove the page from the expert report and put it facing the German text. MR JUSTICE GRAY: As long as that is going to be available by tonight. MR RAMPTON: I will finish that tonight, it will be copied tomorrow morning and then distributed as soon as possible. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can than be accelerated? I think Mr Irving will want to use the whole of tomorrow, and indeed so will I. MR RAMPTON: I have about another 30 pages to get through. When I have done that, it will go off and be copied. Whether late tonight or early tomorrow morning, Mr Irving will get a copy. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Early tomorrow, yes. That is what we will do then. MR IRVING: I am very pleased to hear that, my Lord. There is one very minor point which then remains. I might either put it just as a factual point or put it to the witness in cross-examination. This is the fact that, very minor point, the 10 a.m. broadcast by Dr Goebbels as opposed to 4 p.m., I have been informed by Mrs Weckert, who heard it, that she heard it at her school. It was repeatedly . 11 broadcast during the day. She heard it as a school child and the German school only operated from 8.00 am until midday. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you are going to say that, you can certainly put it. There is a technical objection to be taken that you cannot really put it unless you have Mrs Weckert available. She is alive obviously because you have spoken to her recently. MR IRVING: A few days ago. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You could probably correct it by means of a Civil Evidence Act notice but, Mr Rampton, I think it is reasonable to put this. MR RAMPTON: If Mr Irving says it, Mr Irving says it. Whether Mrs Weckert is to be believed is quite another question. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Or indeed whether she can remember. I think that is a question in cross-examination and not a submission. MR IRVING: Very well. Professor Evans? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Professor Evans, you have been waiting patiently. Would you like to resume, now? PROFESSOR EVANS, Continued Cross-examination by Mr Irving, continued. MR IRVING: Good morning, Professor Evans. Are you aware of what time German schools operated during the war years? Was it on an all day basis? A. To my knowledge, German schools have never operated on an . 12 all day basis. They still do not. Q. Am I right in saying they start very early and end about lunch time? A. That is right, about 1 o'clock. MR IRVING: That is the only question that I can usefully ask. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have not put the thrust of it yet. You should. MR IRVING: I will have to then. In that case, if a Mrs Ingrid Weckert was to say that, as a school child, she heard the Goebbels broadcast as a school child, when it was broadcast to all the school children, on the morning of November 10th 1938, would you agree that in that case this would mean that she had heard it during the morning? A. The question is whether one believe her 62 years after the event, and given the fact that she is not to be believed in almost anything thing that she writes or says about these events. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is she the amateur -- perhaps amateur is wrong. MR IRVING: An amateur historian who is a right winger. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Who is accused of being anti-semitic by the Defendants? A. Whose book has been placed on the black list by the German government, my Lord, as anti-semitic and liable to stir up racial hatred in its account of the events of 9th and 10th November 1938. . 13 MR IRVING: Professor Evans, you rely quite heavily in your expert report on a book by a man called Dr Kogon. Is that right? A. Not very heavily, no. I do cite it in a number of places. It is not solely by him. It is written by him in collaboration with others. Q. Can I ask you to have a look at this little bundle of documents? Your Lordship also has this bundle, I believe. A. I have not seen this before, have I, Mr Irving? Q. No. It is a new bundle? A. Thank you. I have to say it is rather difficult being handed substantial bundles of material every morning by Mr Irving without any prior warning. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am sure you are going to be able to cope, Professor Evans. MR IRVING: This is the way it works, Professor Evans. I submit documents to you and invite you to comment on them. Is page 1 an extract from a report in the New York Times of December 26th 1987? A. It appears to be. It is not a photocopy though it is not an original. Q. Does it refer to the fact that a well-known renowned anti-Nazi writer and Resistance figure, Eugene Kogon has been listed by the United Nations as wanted for mass murder on the same list as lists Kurt Valtheim and various other Nazis? . 14 A. It does. It goes on to say, "Hermann Langbann, the co-author and long time associate of Dr Kogon said from Vienna this week that Dr Kogon had saved many prisoners at Buchenwald at great personal risk, and that the Commission's listing was a tragic error." Q. Yes. A. The New York Times story starts with a reference to inaccuracies and untested allegations in the files on which such listings appear to rest. Q. Yes. My Lord, just so you can know where we are going today, your Lordship might wish to know that I will certainly complete cross-examining the witness on the whole of the report up to but not including the Adjutants. Quite simply, I am still not certain whether the Adjutants are being relied on by the Defence or not in this matter. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that is fair because they disappeared from the picture at one stage and I think they have partially come back in. MR RAMPTON: No, not really. Can I say I rely on the Adjutants this far and I have already made the point in cross-examination. Professor Evans has already made it from the witness box. I rely on the Adjutants to show what one might call an uncritical credulity where they are concerned as contrasted with what one might call a critical incredulity where witnesses say things that Mr . 15 Irving does not like. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Particularly in Kristallnacht. MR RAMPTON: Exactly, and on Auschwitz. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. So, in other words, you are not really going to put your case in any greater detail than already has been done? MR RAMPTON: No. MR IRVING: In that case, I do not propose to waste much time on him. It is very interesting what the Professor has written, but we do want to press ahead. (To the witness): Professor Evans, will you go to page 397 of your report, please? A. Yes. Q. You touch there briefly on the gassings at Belzec, Treblinka and Sobibor, and you say that these events are not disputed by serious historians. A. I do not see that. Q. 397? A. 399. I say that in 399, yes. Q. Yes on 399? A. Yes. Q. I am sorry, paragraph 8. A. Yes, that is a very brief summary of what I take to be the existing state of knowledge as a background to what I say in this section of my report. Q. Yes. I am not going to question you in any great detail . 16 on those camps because, of course, for the purposes of this trial, we are accepting that gassings did occur in those camps. But again just going to the quality of your knowledge, are you saying that there is a broad consensus on these camps? This is another example of the broad consensus that you use sometimes as your guiding star? A. It is really for the orientation for the court. It is not just on the camps. I describe in the paragraphs as rapidly and economically as I can ---- Q. Did you form an opinion about what ---- A. --- Nazi policy in occupied Poland in a general sense. Q. Did you form an opinion about what kind of gas was used in those camps in your reading on the matter? A. That is not -- yes, on the top I do mention this in relation to Belzec on line 3 of page 398, carbon monoxide. Q. Are you aware that there has been dispute over that particular detail, whether it was carbon oxide or whether it was diesel engines or petrol engines or even steam being used? A. I have not heard steam, I have to say, but in any case it does not really make a great deal of difference as to whether the gas was poisonous or not. The point is, of course, that if it was not poisonous, then asphyxiation was the cause of death. Q. Has the position of the mass graves been fixed? There must be enormous mass graves of these, what, 1 million . 17 people were killed in these three camps. A. This is really just painting in the background. If you want to present me with documentation on this, Mr Irving, I will be happy to comment on it. Q. I am just asking the state of your knowledge. Are you aware if there has been any kind of archeological investigation of the sites because there are no remains on any of those sites, are there? A. You would have to present me with documentation to show that there were no remains before I agreed with you. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I am a bit puzzled by this in a way because you have accepted that I think hundreds of thousands of Jews were gassed in those three camps, so, in a sense, there is not much to be gained by asking about archeological investigation. MR IRVING: I was using that as an example really of exposing to your Lordship the rather shallow nature of the investigation made by this expert witness on matters of some moment, that I asked three or four questions, to each of which I got replies I can only describe as evasive. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, but if there is no issue about it, really it is beside the point. MR IRVING: It is not about the fact, but about the scale, my Lord, really, and that is how I would leave it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I think hundreds of thousands you have accepted? . 18 MR IRVING: Yes, of that order of magnitude. A. The problem is, Mr Irving, I am not prepared to accept statements of your about archeological remains and so on unless you can present me with documentation. Q. The question I asked you was were you aware of any archeological investigations. A. Well.... Q. And I was asking purely about the state of your enquiries. We will now proceed, my Lord. We will make very rapid progress today. We are going to go to the Goebbels diary entry of March 27th 1942 which begins on that same page, 399, of your report, Professor Evans. I am going to ask you to look at page 400 of your report, Professor Evans, line 3. This is the part that matters. I am going to read out the translation that you have offered to the court of these three or four lines: "The Jews are now being pushed out of the General Government". What is happening here? Has Dr Goebbels received -- -- A. The top line, yes. Q. Has Dr Goebbels received a report from the SD or from some Nazi authority which he is summarising here, is this what has happened? A. I am not saying -- he certainly has been informed about these events and he is putting down a summary of them. Q. A summary of them. Is there any indication known to you that that particular report went to Adolph Hitler? I have . 19 to ask that because that is an element of this trial. A. Then you would have to provide me with a copy of the report and we would have to look at it in detail. Q. If there had been an indication that it had gone to Adolf Hitler in the diary, then you would have referred to it, would you not? A. Yes, indeed, yes. I mean, if, or, rather, if Goebbels thought it worth mentioning that a report had been the basis of what he is saying here and that it had gone to Hitler and he had mentioned it, then I would have mentioned that too, yes. Q. You rely on this diary entry quite heavily as evidence that Goebbels was what, 100 per cent aware of the killings in the East, the killing of the Jews being pushed out of the General Government, that Goebbels was aware that this was going on? A. Yes.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor