The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day022.16

Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day022.16
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24

MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Hang on, just let us try to -- the documents
are in such a mess, I am not even sure that I know which
clip you are ----
MR IRVING:  Bundle B, my Lord, pages 10 and 11 -- no, bundle
D.  Bundle D.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think I am there.
MR IRVING:  Yes.  These are the end notes for the original
edition of Hitler's War which we are already at page
2,653.  It is the original note 63 which was never
published, but it does contain this quotation of Lammers
speaking at Nuremberg, volume 11, page 61.  I accept it is
a brief excerpt and you are entitled to impugn it on that ground.
Q.Does this not appear to refer to this particular episode?
A.It is not very satisfactory.  One would wish to see the original.
Q.The original document, yes?
A.I mean, we are relying on your notes here, Mr Irving - - it
is always a risky thing to do.
Q.But you accept that this bundle has been before the
instructing solicitors now for some two weeks, and that if

.  P-142

I had got it wrong, no doubt one of their army of
researchers would have by now brandished it and Mr Rampton
would have been on his hind legs.
MR RAMPTON:  Thank you very much for that, Mr Irving.  You may
keep your insults to yourself.  The fact is -- and,
indeed, imply them to yourself if you wish -- this
document, whatever it may be, if Mr Irving has relied upon
it, should have been disclosed by him.
MR IRVING:  By what?
MR RAMPTON:  By you.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It looks as if it was though.
MR RAMPTON:  "What" may be the right description.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It looks as if it was.
MR IRVING:  It has been disclosed.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is 2653, is it not.
MR IRVING:  Oh, 2653 is part of the discovery.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is what I thought.
MR RAMPTON:  No, no, no, the original document.
MR IRVING:  Well, the original ----
MR RAMPTON:  If I am looking at page 10 of what Mr Irving
his ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think the answer is it will be in
will it not?
MR IRVING:  Well, no, my Lord.  The answer is it will be
one of

.  P-143

the 46 blue volumes of the Nuremberg trial
which are no longer in my custody, possession or
power, of
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Because they are in Germany?
MR IRVING:  Well, they are probably in every major library
the world.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Then why can we not -- why do you say the
Defendants have to go and get it?
MR IRVING:  I provided this excerpt, but I can certainly
provide the entire passage and your Lordship is quite
right ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think you have just accepted this
really is
not all that helpful by itself.
MR IRVING:  Yes, you are absolutely right, my Lord, and I
certainly provide the entire excerpt.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Shall we chase that up?
MR IRVING:  Yes.  But my point there is it has been now,
by way of discovery of the original German text and
in this bundle before the Defence now for two weeks,
this excerpted form, and I feel quite sure that had
been any discrepancy we would have heard about it.
  So, witness, if I can ask you the question,
Lammers there is appearing to say that at some time he
took the matter up with Hitler, including evacuation,
whatever is meant by that, and Hitler said, yes, he

.  P-144

given the evacuation order to Himmler, he did not want
hear any more about this whole thing until after the
is over?
A.He did not want any more briefings, yes.
Q.Yes.  So this is very much in the same kind of line as
Schlegelberg memorandum, Schlegelberger memorandum?
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  On your interpretation of it?
MR IRVING:  On any interpretation, my Lord.
A.On your interpretation.
Q.I am just saying it is in line, in the same kind of
I am not talking about being a dilatory Fuhrer --
who was always postponing things until tomorrow.  Now
have more interrogations, if we have finished with
particular one, Professor?
Q.Professor, you yourself have quoted at somewhat
length than I have interrogations of people like
and Boley?
Q.Can I just start off by looking at my excerpts?  If
wish to draw attention to any further excerpts that
have made -- this is page 12?
Q."Cabinet Counselor Hans Ficker of the Reichs
stated in 1947:  from the invitation to the March 6th
meeting 'it was evident that evacuation or

.  P-145

were on the agenda'.  They took minutes.  Lammers took
this minute to the Fuhrer, and returned with a
memorandum, 'The discussion of the whole affair is to
postponed until the after the end of war'"?
Q.That must have been in March 1942, full stop, and he
continues, "'To our horror, we learned that that then
continued behind the scenes'"?
Q.And the original German is on the following pages,
I think.  Now, do you agree that on the basis of that
evidence they did not just discuss sterilization, but
wider matters as well?
A.No, no.  This is rather unreliable evidence,
this, "'To our horror, we learned that that then
behind the scenes'" ----
Q.Yes.  I understand you do not like that, yes.
A.--- which I think is a very obvious piece of
Q.Unless it is true?
A.Ficker, if you look at the Himmler Dienstagebuch,
actually had dinner with Himmler seven times in 1942
to 3
at the height of the extermination of the Jews and it
beggars belief to suppose that it continued.  It also
beggars belief to think that the, I suppose he means
extermination of the Jews here, carried on behind the

.  P-146

scenes without Hitler or anybody in the senior
knowing about it.  Ficker and Boley, Ficker himself
admitted that he and Boley were together in an
camp after the war, and they discussed the meeting of
March 1942 more than a dozen times.  In other words,
cooked up a story, or a kind of version of the events,
between themselves, which would exculpate themselves.
That does not mean to say that everything they said
wrong, but one has to regard what they said with
caution, particularly what Ficker says, because he was
actually at the meeting of 6th March 1942 himself.
  There is also a problem when you look at
what we
are calling the Schlegelberger memorandum, because
simply reports Lammers's view that Hitler, in a kind
ongoing way, had said, repeatedly said, that he wanted
solution to the Jewish question postponed until after
war.  It does not say that there was a specific
about the event.  So I think we have to regard all of
these later documents ----
Q.Unless Lammers had gone to Hitler and Hitler said,
Lammers, how often have I told you I do not want to
about this"?
A.I think he would have said that he had gone to Hitler
because then that would have meant that he had got
Hitler a kind of decision about this, and that is not
happened.  That is not what happened.

.  P-147

Q.We do not know.  We are just tied to the documents in
front of us.
A.In you take the contemporary documents, still
that it is uncertain whether it really was from the
of 1942, and if you regard the contemporary document
superior evidence of these cooked up stories from
the war in allied captivity by people who were trying
save their skins, then I think there is no indication
Herr Lammers did go specifically to Hitler.  I think,
Lammers went specifically to Hitler and got a ruling,
it were, then it would have been in a different form
this rather unsatisfactory scrap of paper we have.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Professor Evans, do you think that that
borne out if you look at the text of the
memorandum?  Because whatever the tense of "habe" and
however you translate that, what it appears to me to
saying is that the Fuhrer has been on and on about
postponing the solution of the Jewish question.
Q.Then he (Lammers) infers that the present discussions,
which you say are about Mischlinge, are only of
theoretical value.
A.Exactly, my Lord.
Q.Which is a very odd way of expressing himself if he
actually gone to Hitler and had, as it were, an
instruction from Hitler.

.  P-148

A.Precisely the point.
MR IRVING:  Is it possible, my Lord, I discussed this
with your Lordship, that Lammers, being an experienced
Civil Servant, did not want to burn his fingers by
it up with Hitler again and just said this to the
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is not your case.
MR IRVING:  No, it is not.  But it is dangerous to
too far, to go too far outside ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Of course.  I agree.
MR IRVING:  -- the parameters of the documents.  We are
trying to establish what the document can have meant,
knew about it and whether in fact these statements are
self serving.  Professor Evans, if there were a number
people who were at this meeting and they were all held
allied internment camps, would there not have been a
strong temptation for one of them to have purchased
release by shopping the others?  Did that not happen
a lot?
A.I thought you said we should not speculate too much.
Q.Can I ask you if you have ever heard the witness
Hottl H-O-T-T-L, who was an SS officer?
A.Where does he appear in relation to the Schlegelberger
Q.This is a typical example of a witness at Nuremberg
purchased favourable treatment by providing statements

.  P-149

that the Allies wanted to hear.
A.What has this to do with the Schlegelberger
Which of these people, I mean Ficker or Boley?  Ficker
not there so we discount him.  Is it Boley then, whom
are saying purchased ----
Q.I am not trying to trick you into an answer.  I am
asking you if it is not likely that, if there were
people in the allied interrogation centres or
camps who had knowledge of this very delicate matter,
one of them had information that is the kind of
information that the Allies wanted to hear, he would
been quite happy to shop his colleagues by turning it
in order to get an early release date?
A.That is totally hypothetical.  Which person are you
talking about here who did that in relation to the
Schlegelberger memorandum, and what is the evidence
Q.Was Gottfried Boley present?
A.Yes, at the 6th March meeting.  Indeed.
Q.Did he on September 14th 1945 -- I am now on the
paragraph of my page 12, my Lord -- describe
uncouth behaviour at this conference and say how
used language about Jews being supplied like cattle or
being shipped around?  One man had objected, "one
proceed against the Jews who behave correctly", and
Eichmann's number 2 said, "that comes under our police

.  P-150

judgment".  Is that a self-serving statement, do you
think, a man describing that the conference was
in these uncouth terms?
A.I think, if he had been really self-serving, he would
have said not "one man", he would have said he
Q.Yes, but why did he have to put in these ugly details
about a conference that he attended?
A.If I had been Boley and wanted to exculpate myself,
I would have that I was the man who objected.  I would
have said, "I said one cannot proceed against Jews
have behaved correctly, and I raise objections to all
this," but he does not do that, does he?
Q.His final statement on June 10th 1947 in the final
paragraph, where he says that Kritzinger sent him to
conference, Eichmann was in the chair, there were 20
or 25
participants, and he then testifies at this conference
there was no talk of "really grim things", but of the
preliminaries, the evacuation and sterilization.
A.Exactly so.

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.