Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day003.04
Last-Modified: 2000/07/29

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I had better follow it.
   A.   A telephone conversation of exactly the same kind from
        Himmler's telephone log:  On Hitler's birthday, at
midday
        with Heydrich, again that is H-E-Y-D-I-C-H,  a
        conversation with Heydrich in which the last line
reads:
         "Kindly", "Keine vernichtungd. Zigeuner", K-E-I-N-E
        V-E-R-N-I-C-H-T-U-N-G-D.  Z-I-G-E-U-N-E-R.
   Q.   That is "gypsies", is it not?
   A.   That is right, my Lord.
   Q.   How would you translate "vernichtungd"?
   A.   Literally "destruction" and that is how I will leave
it.
        "No destruction of the gypsies"; the significance
being
        that on this day at mid-day, Himmler is with Hitler

.          P-27



        celebrating a birthday party.  It was Hitler's
birthday,
        April 20th.  Once again he has had to telephone his
chief
        executioner, so to speak, Heydrich, and say, "The
gypsies
        are not to be liquidated" and yet they were
liquidated.
   Q.   You say Himmler was with Hitler at 12 o'clock?
   A.   Quite definitely.  It was Hitler's birthday and I
would be
        happy to lead evidence to prove that, but I am sure
        Mr Rampton will not dispute that the head of the SS --
--
   Q.   And this is a phone call to Heydrich from Himmler?
   A.   It is a telephone conversation between them.
   Q.   Yes, I take that point.
   A.   Of significance, it is one more document in that chain
        that I occasionally refer to.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, as to that, Mr Irving, the "no
liquidation of
        the gypsies", again that was before there was any
meeting
        between them, was it not, on that day, which is 20th
April
        1942, Himmler's log said that he met Fuhrer at 12.30?
   A.   This may well be.  It may well be what his log says.
   Q.   Whereas the telephone call is at noon, I think.
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Rather like 30th November?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   1941?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Can we go back to 30th November 1941, please?  Did you
get

.          P-28



        a transcript of your evidence of the proceedings
        yesterday -- have you got a copy that looks like this,
        Mr Irving?
   A.   Yes I have.
   Q.   With a quarter page like that?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Could you turn, please, to the page numbered 289?  It
is
        the top left-hand block on one of the pages.
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   I was asking you if you remember why it was that you
had
        translated "Judentransport", a singular word, as Jews
in
        general?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   You had said, you can see it there, can you not, that
it
        was a silly misreading of the word.  You said at line
19:
         "I admit I made a mistake in the transcription"?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   This was your sworn evidence on oath yesterday?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Now would you please turn to the first page of your
new
        bundle?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   The translation you have made for us kindly ----
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   --- 23rd January 1974, where you have transcribed it
        correctly?

.          P-29



   A.   Yes.
   Q.   The answer you gave yesterday was wrong, was it not?
   A.   That is correct.
   Q.   Why was it wrong, Mr Irving?
   A.   Because we are talking about events almost 30 years
ago.
        I was writing this book 32 years ago.  I received
these
        documents 35 years ago.  I probably transcribed it, as
you
        can see from the letter, round about 1974.  It is very
        difficult to put myself back into my mind set of 25 or
26
        years ago.
                  You asked me what the reason for that was
and
        my first presumption was that I misread the word, but
ably
        challenged by his Lordship, questioned by his
Lordship, on
        this matter, I recalled also that at the time I looked
at
        it, the word "transport", "Judentransport", to me also
        could be translated as "transportation of Jews".
Indeed,
        it can be translated that way and I refined it later
on
        when I was informed by Dr Flemming, as he then was,
who is
        an expert on the Holocaust, that there was one very
clear
        train load of Jews to which reference was being made.
        That is so, I think, an accurate answer which should
        really replace yesterday's answer.
   Q.   I dare say it should, Mr Irving.  Whether I accept it,
of
        course, is quite another question, even in its
remodelled
        form.
   A.   Yes.

.          P-30



   Q.   The answer is, of course, that I do not.  Mr Irving,
        I would like you to think a little bit about what you
have
        just said.  You heard me open this case on Tuesday
        afternoon, did you not?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Yes.  You have to say "yes" just for the recording.
That
        is all.  Nodding or so will not do.  You had a copy of
the
        written document that I read out, did you not?
   A.   Which document are you referring to?
   Q.   My opening statement in this case?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   That was on Tuesday afternoon.
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   You realized then ----
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   --- that this is one of the points that I was going to
        make against you, did you not?
   A.   Yes, that has been repeatedly made, yes.
   Q.   It has been repeatedly made, has it not?  Yet, when
you
        come into the witness box to answer questions on oath,
you
        simply pluck an explanation out of the air, do you
not?
   A.   Mr Rampton, may I explain to you that in the last four
        days I have had six hours sleep?  Is this a
satisfactory
        answer to why one occasionally makes slips of the
memory
        in the witness box?  If not, then I will go into it in
        greater detail.

.          P-31



   Q.   What is the truth, Mr Irving?  You did not misread it,
        that is clear.
   A.   Yes -- not this particular word.
   Q.   No.  So yesterday's answer was a false answer.
   A.   Misinterpreted.
   Q.   You now say, "Well, I may have mistranslated it, but
my
        translation was, on the face of it, legitimate"?
   A.   Well, in this case it is not a translation that is
needed,
        it is an interpretation because it is a cryptic word.
        "Transport" can mean several different things.  There
are
        many words that can mean several different things, and
you
        have to look at the context and you have to take other
        documents and possibly later information into account
in
        arriving at which of those words is the correct
        translation.  None of the words would be a wrong
        translation at the time you first make it.  You then
        refine the translation on the basis of external
evidence.
   Q.   Would not a more natural way of putting it in German
to be
        to put it in the plural "Judentransporte" with an "e"
on
        the end?
   A.   It can also be done that way, yes.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Would part of the context be that there
did
        happen at this time to be a train load of Jews setting
out
        from Berlin to Riga?
   A.   There were many train loads sitting out.  By this
time, by
        November 30th, there had been five trainloads of Jews

.          P-32



        heading for Riga or Minsk.
   Q.   Over what sort of period?
   A.   One week, round about that time -- no, I am sorry, two
        weeks would be a closer approximation.  They were
given
        numbers, "D" for Germany, "O" for East or German,
rather,
        and "O" for East.  That is what the numbers in the
        intercepts are.
   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, another of the things that you and
        I disagreed about yesterday was your unequivocal
        categorical assertion in your various publications
that
        that order from Himmler to Heydrich on that day was
given
        at the instigation of Hitler.  You say it was, or at
least
        that is a reasonable inference; you called it a
"judgment
        call", I think, did you not?
   A.   I called that, the reason I used it, or referred to it
in
        that -- I think we ought to see the actual wording
        I used.  If you say that I said it on a number of
        occasions, it would be helpful to see the actual
wording
        that I used.
   Q.   For example, let us just look at how you put it in
         "Hitler's War 1991".  My Lord, that is bundle D1(v).
It
        is in two halves.  This is the second half.  At page
427,
        Mr Irving, if you are using the published edition?
   A.   I am just looking at the 1977 one to pre-empt you.
   Q.   We will look at that first, if you will.  I think
there it
        is round about 300 and something.

.          P-33



   A.   At 1.30 p.m.
   Q.   Well, his Lordship may not have it.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I have.
   MR RAMPTON:  Have you got 1977, my Lord?  332.
   A.   Yes.  I think, with respect, it makes more sense to
take
        it from the chronology that I wrote the various
editions.
   Q.   I was not actually going to look at all the
references,
        but if you wish me to do so, I do not mind in the
        slightest.
   A.   Well, it is like a building, the way a building
changes
        over the years, that tells us something also.
   Q.   "Himmler's personal role is ambivalent.  On November
30th
        1941, he was summoned to the Wolf's Lair for a secret
        conference with Hitler in which the fate of Berlin's
Jews
        was clearly raised".  Pause there.  What evidence that
        Himmler was summoned to the Wolfsschanze the Wolf's
Lair?
   A.   My very great expertise on this matter.
   Q.   What?
   A.   My very great expertise on this matter.  Do you wish
me to
        elaborate?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I think you had better; I am not
quite
        sure I understand the answer.
   MR RAMPTON:  I asked for evidence, not expertise.
   A.   Well, the evidence is that if you go to the archives
and
        work through the files of Hitler's Chancellory, you
will
        find every year, two or three times, the head of his

.          P-34



        Chancellory, Hans Lammers, issued an edict to all the
        Reich ministers and all the senior Nazi officials
        informing them that nobody was permitted to visit
Hitler,
        just ringing the door bell and saying, "Mein Fuhrer,
can
        I drop in and see you for a moment?"  They had to have
a
        specific summons and invitation because Hitler was
        constantly being beseiged by junior and senior
officials
        who were ringing his doorbell in that way and asking
to
        see him. Eventually, it had to be forbidden, first of
all,
        by Lammers and then by an edit of Martin Bormann.  So
you
        could not visit Hitler unless you were summoned.
   Q.   Mr Irving, I am not going away from that topic,
believe
        me, I am not, but it may be we had better get this
sorted
        out earlier rather than later in this case.  Where do
you
        place Himmler in the Nazi hierarchy?
   A.   Nowhere in the hierarchy that it would just turn up on
        Hitler's doorstep.
   Q.   Please, we will come to that I promise I not leaving
the
        topic, where do you put him?
   A.   He had the rank of a Reichsminister, the rank of
        Reischminister was equivalent to a field marshal, so
it
        would be the equivalent rank of four star general.  He
had
        Hitler's ear, he took orders directly from Hitler,
there
        was no intermediary, is that sufficient?
   Q.   -- yes, I am going to go a little bit further.  This
is
        not hostile interrogation, Mr Irving, this is an
attempt

.          P-35



        to see if we can agree on some broad general facts
which
        may be of use in this case.  Himmler was, was he not,
one
        of the original putschists of 1923?
   A.   He is there to be seen marching in the ranks.
   Q.   Wearing Nazi uniform.
   A.   One of the old guard.
   Q.   Have you read Ian Kershaw's book?
   A.   Whose?
   Q.   Ian Kershaw's book?
   A.   I do not read books.
   Q.   You do not read books.  Of course not.  He is one of
old
        guard, is he not?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   So was Goring?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   And so was Goebbels?
   A.   On and off, if you see what I mean.
   Q.   Yes, I do see what you mean.  Is there anything which
        leads you to suppose --
   A.   In connection with Goebbels, of course, he was not one
of
        the putschists, he came in several years later.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor