Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day008.20 Last-Modified: 2000/07/20 Q. Exactly, including including the solution of the mischlinge problem. Do you follow? A. Can we stand back from these trivia and look at the overall effect of the document? This is a high level diamond document of unquestioned integrity, stating that Hitler wants the solution of the Jewish problem postponed until after the war is over and that is what the document states. We do not have to read between lines any more unless you want to try and devalue the document. Q. No. I am not trying to devalue the document. I am trying to help you, if I may put it so patronisingly, to see the light because you just will not, will you? Here you have a document which refers to Hitler having said he wants the solution of the Jewish question postponed until after the war. If you extract it from all its historical, rip it off the wall, take it out of its historical context, then yes, of course, it is a sort of diamond or golden sword that you like to brandish. But, if you put it in its . P-180 historical context, your interpretation makes no sense whatsoever, does it? A. Equally less does your interpretation make any sense, if I may say so. Q. Now, consider another possibility. A. You are putting the narrowest possible definition on this extraordinary broad phrase, the solution of the Jewish problem. We have been hearing for days how the Final Solution of the Jewish problem was the Holocaust. Here is a document saying he wants it all postponed until after the war is over and suddenly you say this document is of no value at all, and all your historians have never mentioned it until now they are forced to because I have put it in this court. Q. Did you write to Professor Jekel? A. Yes. Q. Who I think actually found this document? A. When I pointed him where to find it. Q. He wrote an article in a German newspaper first off about this, did he not? A. If you remember, I found the staff evidence analysis sheet which pointed out the document had once existed. Q. The fact is, whenever you have said, as you so frequently have, that all the other historians have ignored this, Abraham Jekel is, I suppose, is a historian? A. When does he claim to have found it? . P-181 Q. I do not know. I thought you just conceded that he did. A. If it is a question of who was first. Q. But he certainly has not ignored it, has he? A. Yes, he cannot ignore it now. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We are fencing a little bit. MR RAMPTON: I am not interested in defending Professor Jekel any more than I am Professor Evans. I am sure they can both fight for themselves. On 28th February 1978 you wrote to Professor Jekel in German from London, saying that you thought that this document could date anywhere between October 1941 and March 1942, did you not? A. Yes. Q. That is actually a recognition of yet another explanation of this curious document, is it not? A. In the meantime, of course, I have checked on the interrogations of everybody who was present at that session in 1942, so we know much more narrowly when the document originates from. Q. So you say, but one reasonable interpretation of this document---- A. You say so I say, that is why I am standing here in the witness box. Q. I know. I am only saying that because I have not read those things myself. I do not actually have to say that I need to rely on what you say in the witness box. A. Mr Rampton, I would not say something in the witness box . P-182 under oath if I was not speaking the truth. Q. I have to say, I am afraid, Mr Irving, on a number of occasions in this court you have said things from the witness box which I do not accept as being the truth and which I will characterise it at the end of the case as being knowingly untrue. A. There is of course a solution for that kind of problem known as the Aitken solution and, if you want to go that road, you can, but I think you will find it very difficult. MR RAMPTON: I do not know what that is. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can I ask two questions, first of all, Mr Irving? Would you or would you not accept that the theory that Mr Rampton is propounding, namely that this Schlegelberger note is really confined to the problem of the mischlinge, is a feasible one? A. It does hold water but it is an alternative theory, my Lord. Q. It is alternative? A. Yes. Q. And a viable theory? A. Except for the fact that the document does not say this Jewish problem, it says the solution of the Jewish problem. Q. Apart from that fact, would I also be right that in Hitler's War you have espoused 100 per cent the theory . P-183 that it is in fact a highly significant statement because it is referring to postponing the Jewish question altogether until after the end of the war? A. My Lord, with respect, I would draw attention to the fact that in that very paragraph you are alluding to, I refer to the fact that it came immediately after the discussion about the half Jews and the mixed Jews. Q. That is true. You think that is enough to tell the reader that this may not really be a very significant statement? A. Well, it tells the intelligent reader the kind of context in which this document was found. It has taken Professor Evans, I think, eight pages to analyse the value of this document. I did not have eight pages. I have one paragraph or less. MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving, I must say I happen to believe his Lordship is right, that is very, what I shall say, weasley reference to the mischlinge question in Hitler's War. A. His Lordship did not say weasley reference. I do not think he used those words. Q. I interpret what I hear or see, Mr Irving. I suggest to you that the reference to the mischlinge question in Hitler's War is not apt to lead the reader to suppose that you are saying, which you are plainly not, that the so-called Schlegelberger note has anything to do with the mischlinge question. Not directly. A. I will not read it out, my Lord, but it is the third . P-184 paragraph on page 464. MR RAMPTON: Yes, I know. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I have it well in mind. I have in mind what you say in the last sentence of that paragraph. A. I rely simply on that paragraph and my own comment on it. MR RAMPTON: I think I have it here. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton, if it helps -- it probably will not -- I think I have got the picture on the Schlegelberger note because I have read Professor Evans and I have heard Mr Irving. You may say there are lots of other points to take, but I thought I would say that to you. MR RAMPTON: But there is one other main point, or two other main points. Whatever one may think of what was written in Hitler's War in 1991, if one were inclined to be generous to Mr Irving and say, well, he has mentioned the two in juxtaposition, therefore, one might think, though it is not explicit, what he has had to say about it since then and before is very much more categorical about, in his mind, the importance, or at any rate in his expression the importance, of this document. My Lord, I give an example from 1984: "Finally, I think the most cardinal piece of proof in this entire 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", and then . P-185 there is a lot of stuff about the files. It says ---- A. Can I enquire what this is that you are reading from? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, can I ask that too? MR RAMPTON: I am sorry. I was trying to save time. It is file D3(i), tab 20, page 101. Has your Lordship got it? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am going to wait to hear you read it out. A. What was the page number again? MR RAMPTON: It is page 101. A. I have it. 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.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor