Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day025.06 Last-Modified: 2000/07/25 Q. Which is very much within the guidelines that Hitler had laid down, saying: "Kill the Jewish intelligentsia"? A. Yes, but the fact that also this order relates to other radical elements I think makes it quite clear that you could kill Jews under other headings than Jews in party and state positions. Q. You are relying on that? A. If you look at the Einsatzgruppen reports, they are going to kill in the next weeks, they are going to kill Jews who were not in state and party positions. They were killing, for instance, the Jewish intelligentsia. They were going in the following, they were starting in July 1941 to kill all men of military age. So I try to interpret this instruction in the light of the following events. I think from the following events it becomes quite clear that the intention of instruction is not to limit the executions to Jews in party and state positions. But, let us say, that it is the first group where they would start to kill people, the first group to start with. You see the instructions, I think you have to go back to the context, this is a kind of summary of verbal instructions Heydrich gave to the Einsatzgruppen, and he is just informing the . P-72 highest SS leaders about this verbal instruction. It is a summary. We do not have the verbal instructions. We are trying to reconstruct the verbal instructions, but I think the verbal instructions were different than this here. The verbal instructions tended to include more Jews than this intention. Q. So your paragraph 7 relies on three sources: Verbal instructions for which you have no source; the document itself and what you know to have happened, in other words, presumptions backwards towards the document, so to speak. So your opening sentence there about the order is not to be interpreted as meaning, is based on more than just the document itself? A. Well, give me some time, please. I think I refer here and in the following, we have numerous eyewitnesses actually who stated, go so far to state after the war that actually that these instructions of Heydrich were the order to kill all Jews in the Soviet Union. I am trying to, I spent a lot of time, I am trying to reconstruct the context of these verbal instructions. Q. Can you go to the next page, please, and look at your list of footnotes on the next page? MR RAMPTON: Could I please intervene once again? Mr Irving is quite incorrigible. This kind of cross-examination would never be permitted in a professional advocate. Can we please go back to page 5, paragraph 2, which Mr Irving . P-73 leapt over. MR IRVING: I am leaping forwards because his Lordship wishes to make progress. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You are dotting about. I do not find this very helpful and I have got well in mind what you said in the course of your cross-examination which is why I have not highlighted anything for quite a while now. Anyway, page 5, Mr Rampton. MR RAMPTON: Page 5 which Mr Irving leapt over because it is inconvenient for him, paragraph 2 which is a document dated 19th May 1941. MR IRVING: I think this is a most unhelpful interruption. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It really flows from the way in which you are carrying out your cross-examination. You are dotting about the report and you are cherry picking again. Mr Rampton is perfectly entitled to say, if you are really suggesting, that the instructions to kill the Jews was limited as you have just been suggesting to Dr Longerich, Mr Rampton is certainly perfectly entitled to say, well, you are missing out some of the documents which give the full picture. . MR IRVING: My Lord, we have dealt with these May and March documents exhaustively over the past few days. I am very happy to deal with every single document that is mentioned in this report, but then once again I will fall foul of your Lordships reprimands. . P-74 MR JUSTICE GRAY: I would find it more helpful if you were to deal with it not so much by going to individual references but at any rate to start by a number of broader brush questions. The difficulty in this part of the case is that you are shifting your position. I think there is no doubt about that. MR IRVING: Shifting my position? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR IRVING: I am trying to establish the weaknesses of this expert report as well as I can. MR RAMPTON: It is not permissible to do that, in my submission, by a kind of memory test when the foundation for what the witness has said in a later paragraph is to be found in an earlier paragraph. It is simply cheating. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, Mr Irving, I cannot conduct the cross-examination for you. Dr Longerich, do you regard the guidelines referred to, the 19th May guidelines, as being limited to Jewish intelligentsia, the few holding senior positions in the State or in the Party? A. I mentioned this before. I said this is the order which was read out on company level, so every German soldier was aware of these guidelines. It plainly says Jews. It refers to energetic and drastic measures against the Bolshevik agitators, gorillas, saboteurs, Jews. So Jews are here mentioned among partisans and members of the Bolshevik Party. . P-75 MR IRVING: Very well, my Lord. I will cross-examine on that particular document, if your Lordship wishes. Are you familiar roughly with the contents of the Kommissar order? A. This is not the Kommissar order. The Kommissar order is a different order. Q. I am asking. Are you familiar roughly with the contents of the Kommissar order? A. Yes. Q. Is it perfectly explicit about killing, about liquidating the Kommissars and Jews and the intelligentsia? A. No. The Kommissar order only refers to Soviet Kommissars. Q. The guidelines of March 1941, do they make it quite plain what is going to happen to these enemies of the Nazis when they invade Russia? They are going to be liquidated. It is quite specific, is it not? A. The Kommissar order is quite specific, yes. Q. Why does this document here then just talk about energetic measures, if it is perfectly plain? A. The document does not say every German soldier is entitled or allowed to kill every Jew on Russian soil. It gives them a guideline how to deal with, let us say, suspicious people. They are entitled, encouraged, to take the most drastic measure. The other important document we have to refer to here are the guidelines concerning the military jurisdiction in the Soviet Union, which says that no German soldier is automatically prosecuted for atrocities . P-76 against the Soviet population, so the message is, if you feel there is something suspicious going on, you are entitled, you are in a way free to take the most drastic measures against Bolshevik saboteurs and Jews. So you can shoot Jews. It does not say you have to. Q. It does not say that. A. I think it becomes clear. You have to see this document in its historical context. Q. The context is other documents that quite freely use uncamouflaged words. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, you are going to have to start putting what your case is. I am going to put what I understand you to be suggesting. The suggestion -- Dr Longerich can deal with it -- is that the 19th May guidelines, when they talk of energetic and drastic measures against, amongst others, Jews means some measures other than killing them. Do you accept that? MR IRVING: Not necessarily killing, I would think. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do you accept that? A. I think that the most drastic measures means to kill them. This is the most drastic measures I can think of. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is enough. You do not need to embroider on that answer. Mr Irving, move on. MR IRVING: Does it limit it to killing or does it say any measures, though drastic and ruthless? A. I think the most drastic measures you can take against . P-77 anybody in a war is to kill him or her. I think this is quite clear. Q. Is there any reason why they should not have said killing in that document if that is what they meant? A. I am sorry? Q. Is there any reason why they should not have used some word for killing if that is what they meant? You are entitled to execute or to kill while trying to escape or whatever other things they would say if they did in the other documents? A. We discussed yesterday the use of language and I showed you a document which explicitly said that they were particularly cautious to use words like liquidation, for instance. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, you are suggesting that energetic and drastic measures means something other than killing. Would you like to put to the witness what exactly you are suggesting those measures would be? Precisely. MR IRVING: Were energetic and drastic measures taken against Soviet prisoners of war? MR JUSTICE GRAY: No. That is not what I am asking you to do. You are suggesting that energetic and drastic measures means something other than killing the Jews and the others. What are you suggesting those measures would be? MR IRVING: My Lord, I do not think this witness knows. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am asking you to put to the witness what . P-78 you say energetic and drastic measures means, if it does not mean killing. MR IRVING: Is it not possible that, by using the phrase energetic and drastic measures, the German Army was instructing its lower levels to arrest, imprison under the harshest possible conditions, torture, interrogate, beat up, deprive of their liberty ---- MR RAMPTON: I am sorry, this is perfectly terrible. The German does not just say energetic and drastic measures. It uses the word rucksichtsloses which is translated as ruthless energetic and drastic measures. Now Mr Irving ought to ask the question again, in my view. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is slightly my fault. I left out the ruthless. MR RAMPTON: I know. MR IRVING: Start again. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You do not need to start again. Dr Longerich? A. Yes, I think the answer is quite clear that in English the most ruthless energetic and drastic measures is to kill somebody. MR IRVING: Yes. But there are other measures which are also ruthless and drastic which are not killing, is that right? A. Yes and this is the reason why it said the most drastic. Q. Will you now look at paragraph 9, please, on page 7? You say that the Einsatzgruppen received explicit orders - - . P-79 this is quite important, is it not -- to murder Jewish civilians, and your evidence for that is -- is it a document? Are there any such orders in the archives? A. We went through these orders just five minutes ago, and there is additional evidence for that if you look at the statements of the leaders of the Einsatzgruppen. I am not relying completely on this, but I am trying to put together here documents and eyewitness accounts. Q. Yes. Just very briefly, you have listed the eyewitnesses on page 8, have you not, in the footnotes? A. Yes. Q. These are all testimonies that are over 20 years after the event, are they not? Every single one. In some cases 30 years after the event. Do you attach much reliance on that in German courts? A. Yes. Most of them are from the 1970s, 1960s and beginning of 1970s. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, again I am baffled by this part of the case. Are you now suggesting that thousands of Jewish civilians were not shot by the Einsatzgruppen? MR IRVING: No, my Lord. I am attacking his credibility as a witness. MR JUSTICE GRAY: His credibility? MR IRVING: Yes, his. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You have just put to him that these eyewitnesses who say they saw civilian Jews being killed . P-80 are not to be treated as reliable because they gave their evidence so long after the event. How does that go to this witness's credibility? MR IRVING: If I was to write a history based entirely on testimonies given in court 30 years after the event, I would be derelict. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I repeat, are you suggesting now that thousands and thousands of civilian Jews were not executed by the Einsatzgruppen? MR IRVING: Quite the contrary. We have seen any amount of evidence to show that they were. MR JUSTICE GRAY: So why are you casting doubt on the reliability of these eyewitnesses? MR IRVING: I am casting doubt on the reliability of the report as a whole because it depends on such sources. MR IRVING: It does not depend on those sources. It depends heavily on the contemporaneous---- A. The report as far as the Einsatzgruppen is concerned is based, first of all, on orders. We went through that. Then on accounts of eyewitnesses, and then in the next chapter I am going in fine detail. I am looking at every command and I am showing you, again on the basis of the Eichnesmeldung and other sources, that these orders were carried out and the Einsatzgruppen killed hundreds and thousands of people. I am not relying only on some witness statements made in the 1960s in German courts. . P-81 MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving does not seem to be disputing that so why we are spending so long on it, I do not know. MR IRVING: Let me look at the word orders and ask the specific question which I think probably will help the court. Is there any suggestion that these orders came from Hitler for these particular killings? A. Many of these eyewitnesses referred to explicit Fuhrer order they got. We are not able to trace this back. There is no written evidence for that. Q. My Lord, this is the reason that I asked the earlier question. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not accept that, but you have asked a relevant question now and I am listening to the answer. MR IRVING: It was actually the follow up question in my list. I shall have to ask it again. In other words, the only evidence which you would advance for any connection between this and the Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler, giving such an order is eyewitness testimony of 20 or 30 years after the event. Is that right? A. I think we went through this yesterday. The problem is we do not have a written explicit order signed by Adolf Hitler which says European Jews or the Jews in the Soviet Union ---- Q. The answer is yes? A. -- has to be killed. I do not have this document unfortunately. . P-82 MR JUSTICE GRAY: What we do have -- may I make sure I understand your evidence and then we can move on -- is the Muller document, which you have given evidence, rightly or wrongly, which suggests that Hitler wanted the reports from the Einsatzgruppen to go to him, and we have at any rate some reports going to Berlin. MR IRVING: Munich. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Berlin, which set out in great detail the numbers of Jews killed. A. Yes. Yesterday we went through the documents and we had Himmler's entry in this diary, 18th December. You will recall that. We mentioned briefly the report No. 51 which states that actually more than 360,000 Jews were killed and so on. So we can make this connection but, as I say, there is no explicit order on Hitler's letter head with Hitler's signature which actually would say that he is ordering the killing of all European Jews. MR IRVING: So the answer to my question was yes, in other words it is just eyewitness testimony 30 years after the event? MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is not, for the very reason that he has just given, because we have the Muller document followed by reports going to Berlin. Q. My Lord, the Muller document is not a Hitler order. It shows that Hitler is quoted as saying that he wanted to see visual materials relating to the activities of the . P-83 Einsatzgruppen. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think we went through this. I bear in mind the concession you made in your cross-examination and the cross-examination yesterday, and I really do not think we ought to spend any more time on this. We have a lot of ground to cover. MR IRVING: On page 10, four lines from the bottom, this goes purely to your translation ability, gewalte Ladung, which you translate as a massive load. In fact that is a military phrase for hand grenade, is it not? A. Gewalte Ladung, you put together a dozen or so hand guns, this thing about gewalte Ladung. Q. Page 12, paragraph 2.12, this is the Jager report. This is another document from Soviet archives, is it not? A. Yes, available since the beginning of the 1960s.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor