Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day006.21
Last-Modified: 2000/08/02

   Q.   It is one of these reprints I think of an Irving speech or
        presentation or lecture, whatever you call it.  It is tab
        20, Mr Irving, with page 101 stamped at the bottom, the
        right-hand side which is page 281 of the document.  My
        Lord, I will start again, I am sorry:
                  "Finally, I think the most cardinal piece of
        proof in this entire story of what Hitler knew about what
        was going on, a story of what Hitler knew about what was
        going on is a document that mysteriously vanished from the
        Nuremberg files in 1945.  It is clear that it was in the
        files in August 1945 when they were sighted by the
        Americans in Berlin and catalogued". "Sighted", my Lord,
        is spelt with an S, it is "sighted".  " ... when they were
        sighted by the Americans in Berlin and catalogued, because
        it appears as item 4 of a five-item list.  It then
        vanished from the files by the time they reached Nuremberg
        for the Nuremberg trials, and so could not be produced

.          P-186

        there as evidence, and then reappeared now in the files of
        the Federal archives in Koblenz.  That is the file that it
        is in, Reichsminister of Justice.  The heading is: The
        Treatment of the Jews."
   A.   The heading of the file.
   Q.   Oh, the file, not the document?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   It is a document.  What is the German, the treatment of
        the Jews, on this file?
   A.   "Behandlung des Juden", not "Behandlung Mischlinge".
   Q.   No, it is a general file no doubt.  The Justice Ministry
        had problems to resolve in relation to the Jews, I am
        going to come to that in moment, but that is it right, is
        it not?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   "It is a document, a memo, on a telephone conversation
        inside the Ministry of Justice.  From its placing in the
        file we know that this conversation is about March 1942,
        two months after the notorious Wunzie conference when all
        is supposed to have been put in train by Adolf Hitler.
        The Reichsminister, Hans Lammers, was the Chief of the
        German Civil Service.  He would be rather like the Prime
        Minister in a normal society.  The memo says:
        Reichsminister Lammers informs me that the Fuhrer has
        repeatedly told him that he wants a solution of the Jewish
        problem postponed until after the war is over.  And it

.          P-187

        goes on about the fact that for this reason all this talk,
        all this jaw that is going on at present, is completely
        superfluous." Then in italics, and these are Mr Irving
        words: "Hitler has repeatedly said:  He wants the solution
        to the Jewish problem postponed until after the war is
        over."  Out of italics, new paragraph:
                  "Again this is a document which is of
extreme
        embarrassment for the rival school of history.  They
        cannot talk their way around it.  They cannot talk
their
        way out of it.  They close their eyes and when they
open
        them it is still there.  It refuses to go away.
Believe
        me, from this moment on right through to 1943 there
are
        further documents showing Hitler interceding, acting,
        trying to stop preventing ..."  My Lord, I will stop
        there.
                  You agree, Mr Irving ----
   A.   Excuse me, you rather hinted that there is nothing
more.
        There is another telephone conversation from Himmler
to
        Heydrich on 20th April 1942, again from Hitler's
        headquarters.  Himmler telephoned Heydrich:  "No
        destruction of the gypsies".  It is not without
        significance that you stopped just before I could read
        that out.
   Q.   It is 20th April.
   A.   Yes, it is all part of the sequence.
   Q.   It is a bit like Himmler's telephone call to Heydrich
of

.          P-188



        30th November 1941, is it not?
   A.   But what quality my records are, Mr Rampton, compared
with
        the quality of the records that you are producing
against
        me.
   Q.   Mr Irving, can we try to keep on the rails.  We have
not
        got much longer this afternoon.  I want to finish this
        topic this afternoon.
   A.   Are you implying I am going off the rails?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think we can move on.
   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, that is characteristic, what I just
        read, of the importance which you attach to this
little
        document, I mean little in terms of significance, not
of
        size, this little document as evidence of, as you
propose,
        the fact that Adolf Hitler neither ordered nor knew
about
        any massacring of Jews, at any rate up until late
1943?
   A.   It has taken Professor Evans eight pages to waffle his
way
        out of it.
   Q.   That is cheap rhetoric, Mr Irving.
   A.   It is not cheap rhetoric.  It is exactly correct.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Let us pass on.
   MR RAMPTON:  I am sorry if Professor Evans irritates you so
        much.  You can take your feelings out on him when he
is in
        the witness box.  The position was this, was it not,
at
        this time, Mr Irving, and this is my last but one
thing
        for you to think about if you ever come to reconsider
your
        position on this document.  There was at this time a

.          P-189



        squabble going on, and I am paraphrasing, I am using
        colloquialisms, so please forgive me, the hour is
late,
        between the SS on the one hand who wanted the
Mischlinge
        carted off and the mixed marriages split up, and on
the
        other hand the Ministry of Justice who probably for
        entirely practical reasons since they would have to
make
        all sorts of laws and decisions, wanted the question
left
        on one side?
   A.   That is absolutely right.
   Q.   Thank you.  It is quite natural that Lammers, having
        thought about it, should say:  "Well, I think if I
asked
        Adolf Hitler he would probably say, well, forget the
        Mischlinge question", and thought to himself:  "Well,
we
        all know that in the past Hitler said he wants to
postpone
        the entlosung until after the war.  I will just tell
        Schlegelberger to write that down"?
   A.   But that is not what this document says, Mr Rampton,
if
        I can ----
   Q.   It says: "The Fuhrer has repeatedly said" or "The
Fuhrer
        had repeatedly said".  We all know that the Fuhrer had
        repeatedly said that way back in 1940 and 41.
   A.   Well, if you attach importance to the tense there I
will
        take expert advice overnight and ask exactly what the
        English translation of that tense should be.
   Q.   Even if it has, a senior Civil Servant will be well
aware
        of the fact that the Fuhrer has in the past repeatedly

.          P-190



        said that he wants the thing postponed.  What the
document
        does not say is that Herr Lammers went into Hitler's
        office and said:  "Look, Mein Fuhrer, there is this
        squabble going on", and that Hitler said on that
        occasion:  "But you know perfectly well this can't
        happen.  I am not having the Jewish question solved at
        this stage.  It has got to be postponed until the end
of
        the war."
                  Now that last fanciful example is what you
have
        deduced from this document, is it not?
   A.   Mr Rampton, I am going to ask his Lordship's
permission to
        come in tomorrow with a little bundle say of, say,
four or
        five documents on this particular point, which I would
ask
        his Lordship's permission to put before the Court.
   Q.   If you would rather leave it now, I will leave it now.
I
        am just going to propose, you can think about it
        overnight, one other possibility to you.
   A.   It is just that I would like the chance to bring in
the
        documents which will support my position rather than
        yours.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, by all means.
   MR RAMPTON:  I think that is perfectly reasonable.
   A.   It will be a very small clip, and not one of my usual
        bundles.
   Q.   I may need time to consult them with my expert team.
I am
        not an expert.  Mr Irving, there is one other
possibility,

.          P-191



        is there not, that if this represents, this note, a
        contemporaneous statement by Hitler about his
intentions
        for the Jews in general ----
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   --- then it is quite possible that it is not a 1942
        document at all for this reason, that up to September
        1941, the beginning of the entlosung on Hitler's order
had
        not happened?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   So it is logically consistent with Hitler's known
        intentions and statements in the earlier part of 1941
or
        in 1940, that this document might emanate at that
date, is
        it not?
   A.   A vanishingly small probability that that was
possible.
        To suggest that this 1942 file of documents could
contain
        a stray document out of 1941, flies in the face of the
        German mentality.
   Q.   Before we stop tonight, Mr Irving, and you collect
your
        thoughts on the things I have been putting to you,
does
        the file which you are talking about, is it an
original
        Justice Ministry file in full integrity, or has it
been
        mucked around with by the Allies?
   A.   I can establish what condition it was in when it came
into
        Allied possession because we have the staff evidence
        analysis sheet of the contents of that file, listing
the
        contents.

.          P-192



   Q.   But the thing you have seen is not, therefore, an
original
        pristine, untouched Reichs Justice Ministry file?
   A.   No.  I would just comment, I do not intend just to
collect
        my thoughts tonight.  I know precisely where my
thoughts
        are, but I think it would be more useful if I can
buttress
        them with the actual paperwork which establishes that
        these are not stray thoughts.
   Q.   Is your Lordship content with that?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  That is a convenient moment, are
you
        saying, Mr Rampton?
   MR RAMPTON:  No, I meant is it convenient for me to stop
now?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, that is what I thought you mind.
Can
        I just mention one or two things?
                     (Administrative Discussion).
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Finally, Mr Rampton, can I just ask this.
        I thought I said something, but I may have forgotten,
in
        which case it is my fault, about maybe having half a
page
        of argument, just so I know what the issue is in
advance
        of tomorrow on this question of Auschwitz.
   MR RAMPTON:  It may only just be a question of my copying
out
        what I said from the transcript in that case.  I have
        nothing more to say.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Even that or the reference.  Could you
fax
        through the reference?
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.  The short point is this.  It seems to
        unarguable that on the pleadings, and whether you talk

.          P-193



        about the old pleadings or the new Statement of Case,
and
        on the discovery and everything else besides our case
is
        perfectly clear.  It is I hope accurately stated by me
        I think it was yesterday.  I cannot do any better then
        that.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is the convergence of evidence point,
is
        it?
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.  There are two separate things about it.
Let
        me take it stages.  I am not here to prove that
Auschwitz
        had gas chambers, homicidal gas chambers.  I do not
need
        to do that.  If you again you have an open mind and
you
        look at the convergence of evidence, eyewitness
testimony
        from victims.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I remember what you said.
   MR RAMPTON:  All of that, perpetrators, and the
contemporaneous
        documentary evidence and the archeological remains,
you
        are drink to conclude, as a matter of probability at
the
        very least, that indeed what the eyewitnesses tell us
is
        true.  I am not here to persuade your Lordship of
that,
        save as a preliminary first step to two things.  Mr
Irving
        on the back of a piece of so-called research which is
not
        worth the paper it is written on jumped up and said he
was
        perfectly certain that there were never any gas
chambers
        at Auschwitz, and he has said that statement, made
that
        statement repeatedly in circumstances where it is apt
to
        excite the hostility towards Jews of people who are
likely

.          P-194



        to be anti-Semitic, which is the political side of
this
        case which we will get to later on.  As an insight
into
        Mr Irving's credentials as a so-called historian, it
is
        extremely illuminating, and that is the whole of my
        argument.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The question which may be capable of
being
        narrowed is the extent to which Mr Irving contests the
        possible validity of the eyewitnesses' evidence, the
        survivor's evidence, the camp officials' evidence and
so
        on?
   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, I do not know what his case is.
His
        case could be twofold: No, Liechter is not rubbish, it
is
        jolly good and what is more there is a whole lot of
other
        stuff besides relating, for example, to coke
consumption
        and incineration capacity and goodness what else,
which
        converges towards the conclusion that everybody has
been
        wrong all this time, that leads me to the conclusion
that
        the eyewitnesses are mistaken or lying.  It could be
his
        case.  I just do not know.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think that may be sufficient.  We can
        debate that tomorrow.  10.30 tomorrow.
                  (The witness stood down)
                  (The court adjourned until the following day)

.          P-195

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