Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day022.14 Last-Modified: 2000/07/24 Q.Are opinions divided on that? A.It is very difficult because it does not actually have a formal date on it, so you have to weigh up the possibilities. I think there are two possibilities. One is that it came into existence on 17th July 1941, which is the day after an important meeting at which arrangements were made about the administration of the Eastern territories, at a time when the decision to, as it were, solve the Jewish question in the Nazis' own terminology had not been taken. Or it is possible that it belongs in a series of discussions that took place between the Ministry of Justice and other instances in the spring of 1942, in the wake of the Wannsee conference about the fate of half Jews and Jews in mixed marriages. That second context indeed is the one in which it is placed in this made up set of documents. Q.Would you agree that on the Staff Evidence Analysis sheet, which is page 18 of the bundle, it states that the date covered by the file is March to April 1942? . P-123 A.Yes. That is wrong, of course, because one of the documents dates from 21st November 1941. Q.Yes. Is that document out of numerical sequence? A.The documents are not in chronological order. That is to say, it depends how you look at it, but sheet 153 is what we are calling the Schlegelberger memorandum, and then sheet 154 is a document of 21st November 41, sheet 155 is 12th March 1942, sheet 156 is the 18th March 1942, and 157 is 5th April, and 159 is 20th November. So, if you are going in strict chronological order of the pagination on the top right hand of the page, you would have to say that this document came from 1941, because the next document is 21st November 1941. However ---- Q.Mr Rampton , do you want to say something? A.-- because this is a made up collection, you cannot be sure that it is in chronological order. MR RAMPTON: Miss Rogers -- I will do at some stage -- asks me to point out that the clip that Mr Irving is using is missing a document. MR IRVING: In November 1941? MR RAMPTON: No, no, no -- is missing. If on that list is the minutes of the meeting on 6th March 1942, it is missing from Mr Irving's clip. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am not sure I quite followed that. Does it matter? MR RAMPTON: I am not sure that I do either. . P-124 MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think we might just press on a little bit. MR IRVING: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It could be 41, it could be 42. I think in the end, if I have understood you right, Professor Evans, you were inclined to accept that it might well be 42? A.On balance, but it is a very fine balance, my Lord. Q.I understand that. MR IRVING: It is exactly the position I am trying to steer towards. A.One has to make it very clear to anybody reading this document its peculiar nature, uncertainties about its date, its origination, who made it, and all of these sorts of things. MR IRVING: In that case I will put to the witness the evidence that goes towards supporting the 1942 dating. Is there a letter from Schlegelberger to Lammers after the March 16th 1942 conference? A.Yes. Q.We will come back to the March 6th 1942 conference because I know we want to discuss the contents of the memorandum. At present we are just dealing with the dating. A.Right. Q.Is there a letter from Schlegelberger to Lammers in which he says words to the effect: I have read the report on the meeting. Decisions appear to be brewing here which look pretty murky. They must not get away with this. You are . P-125 going to have to brief the Fuhrer. Can we talk about it? A.Which document is this? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think you must if you can -- I know it is difficult for you, but if you can help me a little as to where one finds that document? MR IRVING: I have only been given a very truncated version of the Schlegelberger bundle, I am afraid. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I see. MR IRVING: It will be in the Schlegelberger bundle, one of the 25 pages, with a complete translation of that letter. It will be dated March 1942. I have provided your Lordship in that bundle with the complete translation of it. It is about a whole page letter. MR RAMPTON: I do not have the translation. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think it is page 13? A.Page 2 is the translation that I have got in J1. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well done. We have found it. MR RAMPTON: It is the document with 155 at the top right corner and 371 at the bottom. A.Yes. MR IRVING: Would you agree with my brief gloss on it, that is Schlegelberger saying that he has read the report on March 6th conference, things appear to be brewing, someone is going to have to discuss this with the Fuhrer, can I meet you first? A.Well, not precisely. It is important to say that it says, . P-126 "My assistant has just briefed me on the result of the meeting of the 6th of the 3rd about the treatment of Jews and mixed race Jews". Then he goes on to say that there are decisions in preparation which he says are completely impossible, as you say. Then he wants to have a talk with Lammers about this because of this. Yes. Q.Before the matter goes up to the Fuhrer, is that right? A."As the outcome of the talks is to form the basis for the decision of the Fuhrer, it would be urgently desirable for me to have a personal talk with you in good time about the affair". Q.Would you agree this helps us to narrow down the period when the meeting, the date of the memorandum? A.It is an indication, yes. Q.Was there a meeting then between Schlegelberger and Lammers in consequence of this? Did Lammers write back a three or four line letter saying, sure, let us meet? A.Yes. Q.What date is that letter, please? A.That is 18th March, and Lammers says he is coming back to Berlin at the end of the month. Q.At the end of March he is going to come back to Berlin? A.Yes. Q.He offers to meet Schlegelberger on this matter, whatever the matter is? A.Yes, that is right. . P-127 Q.To which matter we will certainly come back, I assure you. A.It is pretty obviously a reply to the previous letter, which is about the treatment of Jews and mixed race Jews. Q.So, on the balance of probabilities, the meeting between Lammers and Schlegelberger was some time at the end of March, or possibly running on into early April, as other historians suggest now? A.Yes. Q.Jaeckel suggested it may have been a meeting on April 10th, which he has identified. A.Yes. Q.There is no point really quibbling one way about ten days, is there? We can accept therefore that, on the balance of probabilities, if the 1942 scenario is correct, this was when the meeting took place between Lammers and Schlegelberger? A.It looks like it, yes. There are other possibilities in this very uncertain document. Q.So? A.That is one possible interpretation. We are dealing with matters of interpretation here. Q.So if we can accept this is a minute written by or dictated by Schlegelberger -- and that is an "if" -- then when he begins by saying, "Reichsminister Lammers informed me", he may very well, on the balance of probabilities, be . P-128 talking about something he has heard at the end of March or early April 1942? A.Indeed, yes. Q.About the Hitler desire that the solution of the Jewish problem be postponed until after the war is over? A.Yes. Q.Does your Lordship wish to ask any further questions about the dating of the document? MR JUSTICE GRAY: No. If I may say so, you have put it very clearly. MR IRVING: Thank you very much. MR JUSTICE GRAY: May I just ask one question? MR IRVING: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Professor Evans, is there anything (and I cannot remember) between the date when Lammers says, "Yes, we can meet", and the date, the assumed date, on the 1942 hypothesis of the Schlegelberger memorandum, to indicate what the discussions were? A.No. It follows from the -- it all follows from the meeting of March 6th. So there is -- it is an inference that the so-called Schlegelberger memorandum belongs in that period. Q.What I am really getting at, is there any evidence what the substantive discussion was about, whether it was about Jews generally or whether it was about Mischlinger -- sorry? . P-129 MR IRVING: That is what we are going to be dealing with in this part of the cross-examination, my Lord. A.It would appear that what we are calling a Schlegelberger memorandum is the indication we have that there was a meeting or to suggest that there was a meeting. MR IRVING: Now we will tackle the topic, Professor Evans. We will try to mutually and jointly arrive at some conclusion as to what was discussed in these deliberations. There were two meetings of importance early in 1942, were there not? There was the Wannsee conference on January 20th 1942? A.Yes. Q.And there was this follow up conference on March 6th 1942? A.Yes. Q.Both of them, effectively, chaired by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, by Heydrich? A.Yes. Q.And with representatives of a not very high level from all the Ministries involved in the Jewish problem? A.Yes. Q.The Wannsee Conference, I do not think we need to look at in this context, unless you particularly want to make any comments about it? Your submission is, of course, that the Wannsee conference discussed the killing operations because Eichmann admitted this under interrogation, is that correct? . P-130 A.That is right, yes. It certainly reached -- there was a very elaborate lengthy discussion of what should be treated, how the Jews of Europe should be treated, and the memorandum -- the minutes of the Wannsee Conference speak in terms of evacuation and so on from all countries of Europe, even those which were not yet under the Germans' control. Eichmann said later when he was in the hands of the Israelis that, of course, that is the language used about evacuation disguised the fact that people had been talking about killing. Q.Disguised it from whom, from the general public or from each other? A.From anybody who should be, from anybody who should get the minutes of the Wannsee Conference. Q.I am only going to dwell a minute or two on the Wannsee Conference, Professor. Your basis for saying that it was disguised language and euphemisms is only the Eichmann interrogation in 1961, is that right? None of the other participants backed him up on that? A.Well, one can infer from the fact that large scale killings of Jews were already going on, that that is what is meant by evacuation. Q.Yes, but none of the other participants, probably about a dozen of them, were questioned about this after the war, when questioned under various conditions either by myself or by the American or the British interrogators, confirmed . P-131 what Eichmann had said, the killing was talked about. A.No, I think it is unlikely that they would wish to do so. There was a representative, I think Freisler was there who represented the Ministry of Justice, so the Ministry of Justice knew perfectly well what the conclusions of the Wannsee Conference were, whether they were concerned with extermination or simply with forced evacuation of Europe's Jews from their resident countries to the East. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We do not want to get sidetracked. The point about Wannsee was that there was not any particular discussion about Mischlinger there or was there? A.There was, my Lord, yes, yes -- quite extensive. They spent a great deal of time talking about them because, although they seemed to have found it easy to decide what to do with Jews, they found it extraordinarily difficult to reach some decision about what to do with so-called Mischlinger and Jews married to non-Jews.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor