Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day024.18 Last-Modified: 2000/07/24 MR IRVING: One further question on the Muller document. The subject of the Muller document is the provision of visual materials, is it not? A. Yes. Well, it says, in particular, visual material, it does not include -- it does not exclude, of course, other material. It says [German - document not provided] so they should be continuously informed and, in particular, he is interested in visual material. Q. Will you read out what the topic line of the telegram is? A. Yes, the topic line is [German - document not provided]. So the topic line is the visual material. But, of course, if you look into this, I mean, if you really look into the text here, [German - document not provided] So you can read it as it is an established fact that Hitler should be on a continuous basis provided with reports, and for this purpose he needs, in particular, with the material, so it could be that this refers to an older, to an older, earlier order, and this is kind of common practice, established practice. Q. What were the tasks of the Einsatzgruppen that are referred to in this? . P-157 A. Well, the tasks were basically the same, I would say, like the [German]. So they were, in particular, I mean, they, of course, had the explicit orders to execute enemies or potential enemies of the Reichs, particularly including the Jews, but also they had other tasks, in general, one could say intelligence work, for instance, to trace documents from the Communist Party, for instance. But also you can see from the reports that they were dealing with all kind of matters; they were dealing with the situation of the churches in the Soviet Union and with the food situation, and so on. Q. So these reports were sometimes, what, nine or 10 paragraphs long of which only one paragraph concerned the killing of Jews? A. One is, I think, in general, they had a kind of scheme and there is one paragraph concerning the fate of Jews and the other paragraphs were concerning other issues. Q. So from the Muller telegram of 1st August 1941, is it plain what Hitler asked to be shown? A. Visual material. Q. Everything, visual -- would there have been visual material about the killings? A. Well, it refers to posters. We know that there were posters, for instance, demanding the Jews had to -- my English is running out. Q. "Concentrate"? . P-158 A. --- concentrate somewhere a place. It refers to other documents; photographs, there were definitely photographs of mass executions. So from this, from this list of things, I would say, yes. Q. Have you seen any photographs of mass executions in German files? A. I have not seen photographs of mass executions in German files like the Ministry or something like that. Q. Can I take you now to page 62 and we will move forwards from there? This is the Goebbels diary entry of December 12th 1941. We keep coming back against it again. The first two and a half lines on page 62: "As concerns the Jewish question, the Fuhrer is determined to make a clean sweep. He had prophesied to the Jews that if they once again brought about a world war they would experience their own extermination". That is Goebbels reporting Adolf Hitler, is it not, what he said in the speech? A. Yes. Q. "This was not just an empty phrase. The World War is there, the extermination of Jewry must be the necessary consequence. This question must be seen without sentimentality. We are not here in order to have sympathy with the Jews", and so on. The rest of that paragraph could be Hitler speaking, but it could equally well be Dr Goebbels' gloss on it, could it not? A. I think it is -- I read this as a summary of Hitler's . P-159 speech. If you compare the words of Goebbels, the way he put it, if you compare it with the speech Frank gave four years, four days later in Krakau, you can see that they actually use the same words. They both refer to the fact that one should not have compassion with them, that they both refer to the prophecy. So I think this is a, I would interpret it as a summary of Hitler's speech which is quite detailed here. Q. As you are a German, Dr Longerich, it is proper to put this question to you. Would not that second part of that paragraph be in the subjunctive if it was referring to Adolf Hitler? A. Yes, if one would assume that Goebbels always used the subjunctive when he refers to Hitler's speeches, but if you look into the Goebbels' diaries, we know that there is a mixture of the subjunctive and the present tense. So he did not use this in a -- it was not... Q. Consistent? A. Consistent, exactly, yes. Q. If it had been subjective, then that would have been a clear clue that he was quoting Hitler, would it not? A. It would be a clue, yes. Q. So we are not sure either way? MR JUSTICE GRAY: When you say subjunctive, you mean reported speech? A. Yes. . P-160 Q. Well, in German, for reported speech they use the subjunctive? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Because we do not and that is why I was a bit confused. MR IRVING: They do in various other languages too, I think the Spanish also do and... MR RAMPTON: Can I intervene? I have not all the references I want, but I suspect this may be sufficient. On day 4 which is, because I think we can put a stop to all this now ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think, unfortunately, we have moved past it . MR RAMPTON: I am so sorry. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is not your fault, but I asked for reference. MR RAMPTON: It is not my fault, no, because, as a matter of fact, I do not have time to read the transcripts in this case at the moment. I will have to do that in due course. 17th January, page 95 -- this reflects and earlier concession which I have not presently found -- line 1, question by me: "The probability that Hitler saw that report", that is report No. 51, "and was, therefore, implicated in the murder of all these 363,000 Eastern Jews is confirmed, is it not, by a subsequent knowledge of this document, by which I mean the Himmler note of the 18th December of that year?" Answer by Mr Irving: "Yes, there . P-161 is no contention between us on that point". Then if one turns to page 106 on the same day, we find your Lordship asking some questions, and at line 19, Mr Irving says: "What authorized, my Lord? The killing of Jews, the partisans?" Question by your Lordship: "Yes, you accepted that, I thought, a few minutes ago". Answer: "The Jews to be liquidated as partisans, 16th December, the conversation, yes. If we can expand that very meagre note, that skimpy note, into that interpretation which I think is a legitimate expansion, certainly Hitler sanctioned the killing of the Jews on the Eastern Front, all the rest of the Jews, the non-German Jews, and that has never been a contention for me." MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, that looks fairly clear. MR RAMPTON: It is fairly clear. The next day it becomes even clearer at page 10, day 5, again it is your Lordship, this is line 12 on page 10: "Let us just keep an eye on the reality. You did accept yesterday, as I understood it, the shooting of Jews and others on the Eastern Front was a programme which was systematic and co-ordinated by Berlin and Hitler was aware and approved of what was going on?" Mr Irving: "The shootings of Russian Jews, my Lord, yes". MR JUSTICE GRAY: Russian Jews? MR RAMPTON: Yes. That means everybody but the people who were coming from Germany. In other words, he is not conceding . P-162 that the shooting of the Berlin Jews in Riga was authorized, but he is conceding that there was systematic mass shooting by the Einsatzgruppen of the Jews in the East which was authorized and approved by Hitler. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, well again that does look to be fairly clear, Mr Irving. This is difficult for you because you are in the middle of your cross-examination, but I think you must pause and reflect about this because it seems to me that Mr Rampton is probably right in saying, although I recollect a lot of cross-examination going the other way ---- MR IRVING: My Lord, I have made a note of the ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- Mr Rampton may be right in saying you ultimately did concede it. MR IRVING: I have made a note of the page number of the transcript and I shall certainly attend to it, but I do not think this is the time or place to do it. Certainly I cannot do it on the hoof like this. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I think that is right. The problem, of course, is that we do not want a lot of cross-examination which strictly really is not really relevant because it is a point you have conceded, but I think you have really moved on beyond the issue of whether Hitler had these reports about the shootings on the Eastern Front, have you not? MR IRVING: It is not a vitally important point. . P-163 MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, leave on one side whether it is important. MR IRVING: But I am certainly entitled to ask this witness who has seen the reports whether he has seen any evidence that they were shown to Hitler in detail, and I would certainly have to look and see what I had said or m alleged to have concede. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR RAMPTON: I just read it out. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But, Mr Rampton, he is in the middle of cross-examining. I think it is difficult for him to - --- MR RAMPTON: I know that, but I am anxious to save time. MR JUSTICE GRAY: So I am but ---- MR RAMPTON: I really am. MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- I think and hope Mr Irving has moved beyond now whether Hitler knew through the reports of the shooting of Jews in the East. MR RAMPTON: I just which I had been able to find this a bit more quickly and then I could have saved some time, but never mind. MR IRVING: Then we would have missed out on some very important information which is that there is no evidence that Hitler saw the Einsatzgruppen report. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, but you have to take the witness's answer that it is inconceivable that he did not know which would mean that if you did concede the point you were . P-164 right to have conceded it. MR IRVING: My Lord, with the utmost respect to both yourself and to the witness, the fact that something seems inconceivable is not evidence or proof. It is interesting and has to be put into the scale pans against which has to be set the fact that all the evidence is there, the documents are now in 55 years later and the evidence is still not there. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I know you have a lot of other things to do, but if you would be good enough to look at those passages overnight and perhaps indicate tomorrow morning what your considered stance is in relation to Hitler's knowledge ---- MR IRVING: I will make a little written statement on it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- of the shootings by the Einsatzgruppen. MR RAMPTON: I am a bit cautious about that, if I may say so, because what it involves, if Mr Irving should back track on what I have just read, or tried to back track, Professor Browning has now gone. I cannot bring him back without enormous expense and inconvenience from America to go through what he would have said if I had known that that position was challenged. It means that I have to rehearse my quite long cross-examination of Mr Irving on this question. I do not believe that in the interests of what one might call justice and proportionality that Mr Irving ought to be, if I am right about where I got him . P-165 to in cross-examination. In the face of the documents and what I might call common sense, I do not believe it is right that he should be allowed to reconsider his position.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor