Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day021.09
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, the third line.  What is the evidence
        for saying that Hitler ordered them to be taken to the
        concentration camps as opposed to having them arrested?
   A.   There are two pieces of evidence -- well, three.  One is
        the fact that they were taken to concentration camps; the
        second one is the Muller telegram which ordered the
        arrests; and the third one is the Goebbels diary.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY: Hang on. Goebbels's diary does not say
        anything about having all of them taken to concentration
        camps, does it?
   A.   No, just arrested.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY: So, the evidence for that, saying he ordered
        them to be taken to concentration camps, consists of - ---
   A.   Well, my Lord, I think one has to work it out.  They could
        only really have been taken to state prisons, because you
        needed a regular legal trial to put people in state
        prisons.  So this has to be an action that takes place
        outside the regular legal framework, a penal system.  You
        cannot keep them in police cells.  If you have that number
        of people, the only place you can put them in is

.          P-77

        concentration camps and, of course, that indeed is what
        happened.  The Muller telex is quoted on pages 265 to 266.
   MR IRVING:  Does the final sentence (on page 277) of that
        paragraph, "Hitler made no attempt to halt this
        inhumanity.  He stood by, and thus deserved the odium that
        now fell on all Germany", not refer to the whole episode?
   A.   Let me just read:  "20,000 Jews were already loaded onto
        and transported to the concentration camps at Dachau,
        Buchenwald and Oranienburg.  Hitler had made no attempt to
        halt this inhumanity.  He stood by."  He did not stand by,
        Mr Irving, he ordered the whole thing.  He ordered the
        arrests and he ordered the burning of the synagogues, and
        he ordered the destruction of Jewish shops and dwellings.
   Q.   And?
   A.   He ordered the arrests, and he did not merely stand by.
   Q.   Have I left any doubt in the minds of the readers that, in
        fact, he went further and that he ordered a massive fine
        on the Jewish community and various punitive measures?
   A.   You accept that after the event.
   Q.   I accept this.  Is this another concession by me or have I
        stated this in accordance with what the documents tell us?
   A.   You point me to where you state this, please.  You
        certainly said that, in court, Hitler ordered the economic
        measures against the Jews.
   Q.   Is another source which I rely on, Professor Evans, the

.          P-78

        diary of the SA commander Viktor Lutze?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   I rely on it quite extensively, because his men were
        involved that night, were they not?
   A.   That is right, yes.
   Q.   Were you able to check my references?
   A.   Let me have a look.  No, I am afraid we ----.
   Q.   Do you know where the diary is now?
   A.   It is in the Friedrich Ebe Stiftung, I think.
   Q.   Is it in the archives of the Friedrich Ebe Stiftung which
        is equivalent of the archives of the Labour Party in Germany?
   A.   Yes, the report of the Social Democrat Party archive.
   Q.   Did I have complete access to that diary when I wrote that book?
   A.   I assume so, since you cited that we were denied access.
   Q.   I had access to the source and you were denied access to
        it?
   A.   That is right, yes.
   Q.   Is it possible therefore that there are things in the
        diary of Viktor Lutze of which you were unaware?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Such as?
   A.   Yes, give me some examples.  Show me.
   MR IRVING:  The fact that he was personally opposed to the
        pogrom and ordered that it should not occur, and that the
        SA people should not participate in it.

.          P-79

   A.   Could you show me the passages in the diary where he says
        that, please.
   Q.   I am referring to paragraph 1 on page 246.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  246 of what?
   MR IRVING:  Of his expert report, my Lord.
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Sorry, I have forgotten what the question was now.
   Q.   In broad general terms, is it likely that, having had
        access to the diary of Viktor Lutze, and your not having
        had access to it, therefore I know more about what is in
        the diary than you do?
   A.   Well, that is true but, of course, it has to be regarded
        with extreme suspicion.  What you claim is that Lutze had
        misgivings, that indeed he ordered the SA not to stay out,
        and that only three of the 28 SA groups received orders to
        stage demonstrations.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But the source for that -- I am sorry to
        interrupt again -- is not Lutze but Juttner.
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, if you look at note 34 on page 251, we do
        have indication that I had the diary of Lutze, that I was
        using it and relying on it.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, but we are really looking at footnote
        31.  It is perfectly true you do there refer to the diary
        entry of Lutze, but that does not say what you put in your
        text.  What you put in your text comes from gruppenFuhrer
        Max Juttner.

.          P-80

   MR IRVING:  As well, yes.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Not as well.
   MR IRVING:  Obviously one relies on many different sources when
        one is writing that but, in view of the fact that I had
        the Lutze diary which has not been available like many
        other documents to the Defence, this is the picture I am
        trying to build up.  I have had a lot of documents that
        have not been available to the expert witnesses in this case.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am bound to say I find that a bit bizarre.
        If you have first hand evidence from Lutze as to what he
        said, why would you cite somebody else as support for what
        you say in your text Lutze said?
   MR IRVING:  Well, when you look at note 34, where we have the
        German text of one fragment of what the Lutze diary
        contains, the problem is once again that all my records
        have been donated to the German government archives in
        Bonn in June 1993, after this passage was written, and
        I no longer have the Lutze diary.  I have filing cards,
        but that is all I have left.
   A.   What we had access to of course were your notes, as this
        footnote says, on the Lutze diary.
   MR IRVING:  But in view of the fact that you write on page 251
        quite robustly at the end of paragraph 1, once more
        Irving's account relies on a tissue of inventions,
        manipulations, suppressions and omissions, and I have been

.          P-81

        telling you for the last two hours there are numbers of
        documents to which you paid no attention or to which you
        have had no access, this is probably an over robust
        verdict.  Would you agree?
   A.   Well, this is your account that Hitler did "everything he
        could to prevent things nasty happening" to the Jews in
        the pogrom of 8, 9, particularly 9 and 10 of November
        1938.  That is your account and it does indeed rely on a
        tissue of inventions, manipulations, suppressions and omissions.
   Q.   You describe even now the interview with von Below, the
        Schaub papers, the Bruckner papers, whatever they were,
        as being just this tissue of inventions?
   A.   Yes.  I think you accept their lies as being truth because
        that supports your line.
   Q.   You think that I accept their lies as being true?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Because it supports my line?
   A.   Indeed.
   Q.   You have no evidence for that at all, apart from the fact
        that there are a number of documents which can be
        interpreted in a different way.  Would you consider the
        Eberstein telegram, the one signed by Eberstein during the
        night -- do you remember the one?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   It is a triggering, an igniting telegram, is it not?

.          P-82

   A.   No.  I do not think it is an igniting telegram.  The
        igniting event of course was Goebbels' speech at
        10 o'clock to the senior party people, the SA leaders.
   Q.   Perhaps we should have a look at that telegram.  Can we
        identify the two page telegram, the one with the
        typescript signature of von Eberstein?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is probably in L2, is it not?
   MR RAMPTON:  That is L2, tab 1, page 7.
   A.   I do not think I have this.
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, you will see I am now working backwards
        from Hitler's fury or from round about that time.  It is a
        two-page telegram, is it not, typescript?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   And, if you look at the second page, it has two signatures
        on it.  One is the typescript signature of von Eberstein?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Who was the police chief of Munich and Bavaria?
   A.   Yes, that is right.
   Q.   And it is counter signed in handwriting by a
        Kanzellaiungestelter, which is some kind of Chancellery
        official?
   A.   Clerk, yes.
   Q.   Eberstein has not signed it himself, has he?
   A.   No.  It seems to be a copy.  It is a copy indeed.
        Abschrift.
   Q.   Are you familiar with the German Civil Service method of

.          P-83

        occasionally sending out telegrams over the signature of
        the boss?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Which does not necessarily mean that the boss is actually
        there when it is being sent out?  It is just his authority
        that it is being sent out on?
   A.   Of course, done with his authority.
   Q.   So the fact that this is a telegram signed at 2.10 a.m. in
        typescript by Eberstein does not necessarily mean that
        Eberstein is physically at the police headquarters at that
        moment?  He might be somewhere completely different?
   A.   That is a possibility, yes.
   Q.   Yes.  So that it is entirely within the bounds of
        possibility that at this moment Eberstein, unaware that
        this was going on, was at Hitler's residence, having
        strips torn off him by his boss, by Hitler, while somebody
        else had said, you had better send this message out over
        Eberstein's signature because there has to be this going
        on tonight.  It is an igniting telegram, is it not, of a
        sort?  He is saying about the police standing back and the
        synagogues are going to be burning and this kind of thing,
        is it not?
   A.   It is very similar to previous telegrams, the Muller and
        the Heydrich telegrams.  I do not really think it is very
        likely that Eberstein was unaware of the fact that this
        rather important telegram was being sent out under his

.          P-84

        name.  I find that very difficult to believe.  They had
        have telephones of course in Germany at this time.
   Q.   If at this moment Eberstein was in Hitler's residence, it
        would still be possible for this telegram to be is sent
        out by police headquarters, over his typed name
        authenticated by this staff member, would it not?
   A.   The telephone, you say?
   Q.   This is the way that the German bureaucracy works
        sometimes.  The order would go out over the name of the
        boss, but it would be signed by some responsible official
        on his part, on his behalf?
   A.   Yes.  I think, though, he would have known about it, of
        course.  The boss would have been apprised of it.  He
        simply would not have been in a physical position to sign it.
   Q.   So, if we have 2 or 3 people on Hitler's staff who say
        that Eberstein was here with them at that time, then it is
        not necessarily contradicted by the existence of this
        telegram with Eberstein's typed signature on it?
   A.   It is possible there might have been a telephone
        conversation, as I said.  We do not have any evidence of that.
   Q.   Are you familiar with the message that went out very
        shortly afterwards over the signature of Opdenhof of
        Rudolf Hess's staff?
   A.   That is at 2.56 a.m.?

.          P-85

   Q.   Yes.
   A.   Yes.
   MR RAMPTON:  That is page 9 of tab 1.
   MR IRVING:  One of those messages has an igniting function, if
        I can put it like that, and the other message has an
        extinguishing function?
   A.   I do not accept either of those claims.
   Q.   If the second message timed at 2.56 on the notepaper of
        the Deputy Fuhrer orders that actions are to stop, then
        this has an extinguishing function?
   MR RAMPTON:  I think it might be proper to get Professor Evans
        to translate this short little message as he stands in the
        witness box, rather than receiving what to my mind is a
        completely pie-eyed version.
   MR IRVING:  I think it would be very nice if I was allowed to
        conduct my cross-examination in the manner I wish.
   A.   Could we see this document.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I remember this fairly well but it would be
        helpful if we just read it through together.
   MR IRVING:  It is noticeable that every time I am about to make
        a killer point----

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