Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day024.11
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  Mr Irving, have you got N1?  Were you
        able to follow all that?
   MR IRVING:  I am going with your Lordship's view that what Hans
        Frank's use of the word means is really not of much
        relevance, having gone to all that trouble.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The way it is put is, and just decide whether
        you want to ask a question, is that Frank had just come
        back from Berlin where he had heard Hitler speaking, so he
        is not harking back in all of what he says to 1939 but to
        four days before.
   MR IRVING:  Yes.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think the way it is put is that vernichtung
        is used fairly unambiguously in Frank's speech as a record

.          P-93

        of what he had been told in Berlin.  It is really that one
        phrase, is it not, Dr Longerich?  "In Berlin we were told
        why all this trouble, we cannot use them in the Ostland or
        the Reichskommissariat either, liquidate them yourselves"?
   A.   Yes.  That is I think the main paragraph, the main
        sentence.
   Q.   It may be that you do not want to cross-examine about
        that, Mr Irving?
   MR IRVING:  Not really, because it is not the word vernichtung
        unfortunately.
   A.   It is the words Juden vernichtung.  That is in there, in
        the German text.  (German spoken).  The term vernichtung
        the term vernichtung is clearly in here. When he is not
        sure about the means how to vernichtung the people, he is
        saying we cannot liquidate, we cannot execute them, we
        cannot poison them, so what shall we do?
   MR IRVING:  That is the problem we have with that particular
        passage, of course, my Lord, is it not Frank says earlier,
        we cannot poison them, we cannot shoot them.
   A.   Yes.  We are looking -- this is on page bold 7, second
        paragraph.  So they are looking for a kind of solution,
        how to vernichtung the people.
   MR IRVING:  Without shooting or poisoning them?
   A.   Yes.  Poisoning could be a possible method.  They are
        looking for a kind of solution to this problem and then it
        is explained here that we will have a meeting in Berlin,

.          P-94



        and this is obviously the Wannsee conference.  Then it
        becomes clearer what would happen in the
        Generalgouvernement.
   Q.   If you went back to the Klauserwitz example and somebody
        said to a German general, we have Eisenhower's armies in
        front of us, we cannot shoot them, we cannot poison them,
        how are we going to destroy them?  The answer is, cut off
        their water supply, cut off the power, deprive them of the
        shipping lines, the oil.  There are all sorts of ways of
        destroying an enemy.
   A.   That is why I am trying to explain how difficult it is to
        make comparisons because clearly von Klauserwitz is
        referring to an army, and in your example you refer to an
        army, but here it is about the Jews.
   Q.   An enemy?
   A.   An enemy, but the Jews are the Jews.  This is the people,
        the human beings, and if I destroy, vernichtung, human
        beings, and I discuss then the methods, whether I should
        liquidate them, execute them or whether I should poison
        them, I think then the context is pretty clear.  There is
        not much room for interpretation, I think.
   Q.   Dr Longerich, it is even clearer than that because he
        says, we cannot shoot them and we cannot poison them.
   A.   Yes, because they have not been told from Berlin what
        method they should use.  Then, if you into the Wannsee
        protocol, actually the suggestion comes from von Below,

.          P-95



        they had the Secretary of State, "We could like to deal
        with the Jews on the spot, we do not want to send them to
        the East, we would like to do it here".  Then it goes on
        in the Wannsee protocol.  The various methods were
        discussed how to solve the problem.  Then they were
        discussing what to do, poisoning, gassing, probably
        executions.  This is preWannsee.  He was sure that they
        were going to vernichtung the Juden, because it came back
        from Berlin and heard the speech, but the method was unclear.
   Q.   You are not suggesting, although I am sure you quite
        accidentally gave the opposite impression, that in the
        Wannsee protocol there is any reference to killing at all, is there?
   A.   I do not know whether we will go to the Wannsee conference
        in more detail.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The problem with all of this is that it is
        not Mr Irving's fault at all, because he has been
        confronted with this glossary and I can understand why he
        is going through it, but to me it is unhelpful, this whole
        exercise.  We are coming across odd documents from 39 or 35 or 43.
   MR IRVING:  Rather the same thing happened with the previous
        witness, my Lord.  We came across topics that the witness
        urgently wanted to talk about and which no doubt will get
        raised later on.

.          P-96



   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think it is better to look at these words
        when we come across them in the context of examining the
        substantive issues rather than having a kind of linquistic
        sequence of questions.
   MR IRVING:  That would be the other way of slicing the same cake.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I know it would.  I say again -- it is not
        intended critically of you at all -- that darting from
        one document to another is not I think particularly helpful.
   MR IRVING:  I am very rapidly going through the remaining part
        of the glossary to see if there are any important points
        to take.  The fact that Robert Lie used a word a certain
        way does not mean to say necessarily that that was the
        standard meaning of the word?
   A.   I am only referring to Lie.  He was one of the top Nazis
        and he used the term in a quite open way.  I find our
        discussion quite interesting but ----
   Q.   Very well.  In that case that finishes the with the
        glossary I think.  I may wish to come back to it.  Dealing
        now with your first report, Dr Longerich, page 10, you say
        there in your opening sentence that there can be no doubt
        that Hitler's behaviour during his entire political career
        was characterised radical anti-Semitism.
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Was he always an anti-Semite, in your view, or did it come

.          P-97



        upon him in his youth?
   A.   I think this way of radical anti-Semitism, which means
        that he wants to basically remove the Jews from, let us
        say, German soil, I think this is a product of the First
        World War and appeared immediately after the First World
        War.  Other historians would argue that actually he learnt
        this in Vienna, but I think one has more to emphasise.
   Q.   There have been all sorts of weird theories, have there
        not, about where it came from?
   A.   Yes, there are all kinds of theories.  I think we are on
        safer ground if we look at the period after the First World War.
   Q.   Were all the top Nazi leadership equal in their
        anti-Semitism, or were some more anti-Semitic than
        others?  Were some more motivated than others?
   A.   Quite clearly some more anti-Semitic than others.
   Q.   Some were more homicidally anti-Semitic than others?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Obviously you have worked for 20 years now in the records
        so you must have gained some impression that you can tell
        us about, the kind of league table of anti-Semitism.
        Would Martin Bormann be high up the list of anti-Semitism
        as an active anti-Semite?
   A.   Absolutely, yes.  Definitely.
   Q.   Dr Josef Goebbels, would he be more or less anti- Semitic
        than Bormann?

.          P-98



   A.   I have never thought about a kind of hierarchy, but
        I think, if you look at the top Nazis, I think you can
        fairly say that radical anti-Semites, people who wanted to
        remove by any means the Jews from Germany, I think you
        would count among them Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Bormann,
        I think, and some others.
   Q.   Hermann Goring, for example, was always getting in trouble
        because he had Jewish friends, did he not?
   A.   Yes, but the fact that one has Jewish friends does not
        necessarily exclude that one can be an anti-Semite or even
        a radical anti-Semite.  I think probably Goring looked at
        this more from a kind of political or tactical point of
        view.  I am not sure.  I think the anti-Semitism of Goring
        and his role in the Final Solution has not been fully
        researched.  That is all I can say to that.
   Q.   Goebbels was the real mover and shaker, was he not?  He
        was the propagandist, he was the little poison dwarf, the
        evil genius?
   A.   He was definitely a radical anti-Semite, and he was trying
        to push forward anti-Semitic policy, this is right, but
        I would not make a kind of hierarchy where I would place
        Goebbels at the top.
   Q.   The reason why I am asking this is this. Goebbels, for
        example, would never have dreamed of employing a Jew on
        his staff or a half Jew on his staff, would he?  I do not
        think he did.

.          P-99



   A.   I cannot say anything about his dreams, but I think he did
        not, as far as I know.
   Q.   That is an English expression.  Adolf Hitler of course did
        have some half Jews on his staff, did he not?
   A.   I do not know.  I cannot recall any names.  Hitler?
   Q.   Yes.  His private chauffeur, Emile Morris.  When it turned
        out that Emile Morris was Jewish, did not Hitler protect
        him and keep him on to the end?
   A.   I cannot recall this.
   Q.   Do you know Peter Hofmann, Professor Peter Hofmann?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   He is a well-known Canadian German historian, is he not?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Have you read his book, Hitler's Personal Security?
   A.   I know the book but I cannot recall this detail.  I simply
        do not know.
   Q.   Does it not strike you as odd that an anti-Semite like
        Hitler would not mind having a Jewish chauffeur, Emile Morris?
   A.   I cannot comment on this story.  I do not know whether it
        was an established fact that Morris was a Jew.  I cannot
        comment on that.  Again I would say, if you look into the
        history of anti-Semitism, the greatest anti-Semites had
        sometimes Jewish friends.  They would say, well, this is
        my friend, he is an exception, he is not like others.
        This is a typical stereotype.

.          P-100



   Q.   You are damned if you do and damned if you do not, effectively?
   A.   It is a typical stereotype.  I do not think one can draw
        major conclusions from the fact that somebody protected a
        Jew or had Jewish friends.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Just pause a moment, Dr Longerich.
   MR RAMPTON:  Can I say something?  I am not criticising
        Mr Irving in the very least for having gone through that
        glossary, and he did it really rather quickly, but I am a
        bit concerned now because Mr Irving conceded one question
        and answer to the effect, I think, that Hitler was from
        1919 onwards a profound anti-Semite and that anti-Semitism
        was one of the important planks of Nazi ideology.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So, in the early years you say that this is
        really not an issue?
   MR RAMPTON:  I have made it specific.  From 1919 onwards and
        that anti-Semitism became an important plank of Nazi
        ideology or policy call it what you like.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Adding the rider that, as far as Hitler
        personally was concerned, he had other things on his mind
        from about the invasion of Russia.
   MR RAMPTON:  He may have had other things on his mind.  Being
        an anti-Semite is not exclusive of other things.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, but I think Mr Irving's case, and he will
        correct me if I am wrong, is that anti-Semitism was not
        really something that was concerning Hitler from -- am

.          P-101



        I right about this -- about 1941 onwards, because he was
        fairly preoccupied.
   MR RAMPTON:  No.  He said from the time he came to power.  From 1933.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You tell me, Mr Irving.  Have I misunderstood your case?
   MR RAMPTON:  I have misunderstood Mr Irving's concession, if
        that be right.

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