Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day021.17 Last-Modified: 2000/07/24 Q. Have you ever compared the Kaiserhof edition, in other words, the published edition with the original handwritten edition as published now recently? A. I have, yes. Q. Have you evidence for saying that they were monkeyed around with? A. Yes, yes, yes. Q. Apart from changing "Hitler" to "Fuhrer" and various obvious cosmetic changes? Can you give one example? A. Large amounts were left out, of course, lots about . P-154 Hitler's -- Goebbels' private life were left out. Q. Is that monkeying around? A. Of course it is, yes. Q. Would you now go, please, to page 284 ---- A. Oh, back again. Q. --- where we come to a more obvious example of what I am getting at? The first line of page 284 of your expert report: "Other evidence supports the diary", you begin this paragraph. "On the afternoon of 10th November, after he had reported to Hitler, Goebbels informed the Nazi Party chief of Munich-Upper Bavaria that the pogrom was to be terminated and added" -- so this is a message, right? A. Yes. Q. Of the Adjutant to the Gauleiter recording this? A. That is right, yes. Q. And he adds: "'The Fuhrer sanctions the measures taken so far and declares that he does not disapprove of them'"? A. Yes. Q. Now what do you infer from the way that has been put in that message? A. Double negative? Q. Apart from the grammatical observation? A. It is pretty clear to me. Q. Do you infer that there is a belief in certain quarters that Goebbels is alibiing in here, that he is saying that he acted on Hitler's behalf? Why would this have been . P-155 recorded, do you think, in this form? A. Because Hitler's views were important in the Third Reich, it seems to me. Q. So Goebbels has informed the Nazi Party chief of Munich, who would normally have no reason to believe otherwise, and said, "Oh, by the way, everything we did last night is OK. It is in line with what the Fuhrer wanted", and this is not an unusual message, in your view? A. Yes, I mean, it seems a reasonable thing to say, "The Fuhrer sanctions the measures taken so far". Q. You do not read into this exactly the same as he is putting in his diaries ---- A. It puts them, it puts the recipients in the clear as to what they had done which they must have been, obviously, very worried about since there was a great deal of talk about involving the State prosecution and so on, as we have seen from the Party tribunal report. There must have been a great deal of concern about it amongst those who carried them out. After all, these were beatings up, murders, massive destruction of property, arson, looting, all these sorts of things. So it seems to me important that the people who had done this were reassured in the eyes of the Nazi leadership that Hitler sanctioned the measures. Q. This is a document that you accept at face value without the slightest textual criticism or content criticism at . P-156 all? You do not ask yourself why that odd sentence is in it? A. I have just given my criticism, as it were. Q. In other words, your criticism is no criticism. You accept it at face value? A. Well, criticism in the sense of critique or source criticism when you ask why a document has been issued. Q. You do not say to yourself: "This is exactly the same kind of thing as Goebbels writes in his diaries, saying 'What we did was entirely with the Fuhrer's consent'" and you say to yourself, "Why does he write that in his diary then?" MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, you have put that question several times. I know the question, I understand your point. A. The answer is because it is true. MR IRVING: Well, page 289, paragraph 3. We are now on the meeting on November 12th 1938 in the Reich Air Ministry building under the chairmanship of Hermann Goring as head of the four year plan. This was the meeting at which the punitive measures were discussed and agreed between the various ministers. Dr Goebbels is present, is he not? A. Yes. Q. Yes. You say that Goebbels in his diary writes, "I am co-operating splendidly with Goring". Does that strike you as being an accurate reflection of the relationship between the two on that day and at that time? . P-157 A. Yes, because the measures which Goring sanctioned were those which Goebbels put forward and which, indeed, had been suggested by Hitler in their meeting at the Osteria restaurant according to Goebbels' earlier diary. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do you mean a whitewash? A. No, these are the -- sorry, my Lord. Q. I am not quite sure what we are talking about. A. What we are talking about here are the economic measures which on 12th November this conference was held to impose all the economic measures, a huge fine preventing the Jews from getting any insurance payments for the damage caused, and then a whole series of further measures about which I quote on page 290 about banning them from being in various public places, trains and all the rest of it. That is what we are talking about. There is a legal wrapping up. This is exactly what Goebbels says, as we see when he says in the kind of closing, the message to "Shut it all down, stop the actions, we are now going to take the legal road", and this is the legal road that he is talking about. MR IRVING: Now we get back to the Goebbels diary where Goebbels describes this meeting in the most glowing terms of cordial relationship between him and Goring, would that be a fair description? A. He says, "I am cooperating splendidly with Goring. He's . P-158 going to crack down on them too. The radical line has won". Q. Is that a fair and accurate reflection of what is contained in the verbatim transcript of that meeting? A. It is a -- it is a very accurate summary of what transpired at the meeting, that is to say, that Goebbels' -- that Goring was persuaded, if he needed persuading, that there should be a crack down in the legal and economic sense on the Jews, as suggested by Hitler in the Osteria restaurant put forward by Goebbels. Q. Are you familiar with the fact that Goring was livid with Goebbels for this pogrom that he had started because of the costs that it had inflicted on the German economy which he was now going to have to make good and the damage to the broken glass that they were going to have spend foreign currency on, and the insurance costs that the German insurance companies were going to have to meet? Are you familiar with those passages in that meeting? A. Of course I am. I quote them in the next paragraph, Mr Irving. Q. Are you familiar with the fact that Goering sneered and said, what we need here is a little bit of public enlightenment? What was that a reference to? A. Mr Irving, I am not saying---- Q. Can you answer the question, please? What was that a reference to? . P-159 A. No, I am not saying ---- Q. Can you answer the question, please? A. I am not saying ---- Q. Can you answer the question, please? What is "public enlightenment" a reference to? A. I am not saying, Mr Irving, that there were no minor disagreements between the two. I refer to these in paragraph 4 on page 289 to 90. I am not claiming that Goring and Goebbels were bosom pals. The relationships between the leading people in that gang of ruffians were, as one would expect, not particularly polite or loving or courteous. Nevertheless, the fact is that his statement, "I am cooperating splendidly with Goring. He is going to crack down on them too. The radical line has won", is absolutely correct. That is what happened. Goring says, as I quote, "I would have preferred it if you had beaten 200 Jews to death and had not destroyed such valuable property". Nice of Hermann to say that. "Once the property was damaged, however", I go on, "Goring ensured that the meeting took maximum financial advantage of the events for the Nazi state". I quote a long example for this disgusting collection of people. Q. If you were going to quote a long example, would it not have been better to quote an example of the outrage that Goring expressed at Goebbels for having inflicted this economic disaster on Germany at this time in their . P-160 fortunes ---- A. You quote them to me. I refer to it. I make it quite clear that Goring says that he had rather that the property had not been destroyed. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If we are really going to spend time on this, Mr Irving, I think you ought to put what outrage it was that Goring expressed. MR IRVING: My Lord, this witness has claimed -- am I right, witness, have you read the whole transcript of this meeting, such as it exists? A. Yes, this is the Nuremberg document. Q. Is it right that the transcript is not complete, that it is like every ten pages missing? A. You will have to show me that, I am afraid. Q. It is a well-known fact about this transcript, is it not? A. I will not accept your---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, did you hear what I said? It was that, if you are suggesting that Goring expressed outrage, it would be -- I do not ask you to go to the document, just say what it was you say he said. MR IRVING: Your Lordship will remember that I three times asked the witness to answer a question, which is what is the reference to public enlightenment? A. Yes. That is a reference to Goebbels. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, are you paying any attention to the question I just asked you? What was it that Goring . P-161 said that you say was an expression of outrage on his part? MR IRVING: I will be a bit more full in that question then. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is not full. It is a question of being specific. If we are going to spend time on this. I think this is a tiny point myself. MR IRVING: It is, except the fact that he says that I have commented that this diary entry was written with less than total honesty. It was a diary entry suggesting glowing relations between these two Nazi gangsters. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I have got the point, Mr Irving. MR IRVING: It is quite obvious from the transcript, which this expert witness has read, that exactly the opposite is true that in fact they were at each other's throats throughout the meeting. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Which is why I asked you, and this is the fourth time I have asked you, to put to the witness in general terms what it was that Goring said which you said amounts to outrage on his part. MR IRVING: Is it right that Goring expressed outrage at the fact that the Reichskristallnacht, for which he held Goebbels responsible, had inflicted colossal economic damage on the German economy by virtue of the insurance damages, the damage to the plate glass windows that had to be purchased now with hard currency from Belgium, the damage to the German international prestige and so on, and . P-162 he made no secret of his dismay and he sneered at Goebbels, what we need here is some public enlightenment, which is a reference to Goebbels' full title as Reichsminister of propaganda and public enlightenment, is that correct? A. It is perfectly correct, Mr Irving. Let me point out who had to pay for all this damage as a result of this meeting. It was the victims themselves who had to pay. Q. That not the point of the question. A. It was the Jews who had to pay. Q. The point of the question is that you said that---- A. That is exactly the proposal that was worked out by Goebbels and Hitler at the Ostrea restaurant, and whatever quibbling and cavilling and nasty remarks, sneers that Goring made against Goebbels, that is the outcome of the meeting. That to me is "splendid co-operation". I cite on page 290 a lengthy extract of the kind of disputes that they had. It is quite clear that they were not particularly fond of each other. Q. It is true, is it not, that you also suppressed the extracts which show anything but cordial relations between the two in that meeting? A. Not at all. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have asked that question very many times. I really think this is such a tiny point. MR IRVING: I have closed my file, my Lord, because we are now . P-163 going to move on to the chain of evidence, which is a useful way of spending the remaining hour of this afternoon, I think. MR JUSTICE GRAY: What are we going to move on to?
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor