Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day022.18 Last-Modified: 2000/07/24 Q.I think this is a very important and very useful discussion. A.If it refers to that, then how can he possibly now suddenly in March 1942 turn around and say that he has repeatedly said that this should not happen? It goes against all the other documentation we have of Hitler's orders and Hitler's views on this matter. Q.We do have a problem, do we not? We have, on the one hand, people like Goebbels and Himmler saying, do this, the Fuhrer has placed this order on my shoulder, the Reich is going to be emptied out of the Jews, all these . P-160 documents that you and I are familiar with. Yet here is a document saying precisely the opposite, not just a mixed race problem because that is in sentence two, saying therefore the mixed race problem has purely theoretical value. A.No, it does not say that. It says, "according to the present discussions", and discussions are on particular policy proposals within the mixed race complex, that is to say ---- Q.March 6th? A.Yes, sterilization, or deportation, or laws to enforce divorce of mixed marriages, all these various things. Q.My Lord, I do not think we can extract very much more usefully. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Nor do I . MR IRVING: On this particular matter. Like so many issues, it is going to be left open, which does not harm my case one bit of course. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I follow that. MR IRVING: I will just draw your Lordship's attention to two rather disturbing matters about the report that has been prepared by this witness on this matter at page 383. Professor Evans, will you look at the indented paragraph on page 383? A.Yes. Q.You quoted testimony of Ficker. Just skim down to where . P-161 he says that the Fuhrer suggested postponement, line 5. A.Yes. Q."Postponement for the time being of the whole problem, i.e. what to do with half Jews and mixed marriages"? A.Yes. Q.Can you look at the German original and tell me if that passage is in there? A.No. That is why I provide the German original to make it clear that that is my interpolation, my explanation. Q.Where does the reader find out that that is your interpolation if he is not going to check the German? A.It is there. That is why it is put there. It is to enable you to check the German, and anybody else. Q.Have you put it in round brackets or square brackets? A.It is in round brackets there. Sorry, that is a typographical -- I also have many other interpolations just to help the reader there. The minister being Lammers, the incorrect statement about the address and so on. Q.So you did not wish us to assume that this was part of the original document then? A.No, how could I? It is quite clearly not there in the original that I quote. Otherwise, if I was hell bent on deceiving you, I would have put that in the original document, would I not, in the German? Q.I do not think you would do that, but you in your . P-162 scientific and academic texts insert helpful passages like in square brackets or in round brackets? A.It depends. Q.Do you elsewhere in this report insert square brackets? A.I am not sure I actually -- there is a square bracket there. I mean it is not typographically very clean, I am afraid. Q.Yes. If you look at the following page now, please, the second paragraph, you rather grandly say, "Further testimony by Ficker makes it clear that all that was discussed between Lammers and Hitler was the issue of half Jews and mixed marriages". That is a rather grand statement there to make with no kind of source reference because that is precisely what is at the root of this whole argument this afternoon, is it not, what was discussed between them? A.This is his testimony on 20th December 1946. Q.Where do we know that? You just say "Further testimony by Ficker makes it clear". A.Yes. It follows on. It is covered by the paragraph saying it is his testimony on the 20th December 1946. Q.But you appreciate you have not given us any source reference for what that testimony is? A.The source reference is down there. You can check it out. It is the interrogation on notes 36 and 37. It is quite clear that refers to that. You can check it up. . P-163 Q.On page 386, line 2, you say that Hitler made tasteless remarks about cross breeding between Jews and non- Jews. Is that right? A.In Mein Kampf. Q.Yes. A.I said cross breeding and bastards, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: What is the point about that? MR IRVING: I am wondering whether in fact a portion of the Jewish community also do not argue against cross breeding between Jews and non-Jews. I am wondering whether he was not actually serving their interests in some odd kind of way. They also are against mixed marriages, is that not so, Professor. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am obviously missing the point. Let us go on. MR IRVING: On page 388, paragraph 27, you have a meeting under the heading "Endlosung der Judenfrager", and you say it was entirely devoted to the issue of half Jews and mixed marriages. Was that what the "Entlosung der Judenfrager" actually means, then? Is it just the mixed marriages and mixed races? A.Certainly not, but it is the heading that they have used for this particular meeting. Q.Yes. I am nearly finished with this particular meeting document. On page 389, paragraph 1, there is a little bit of mealy mouthed reporting here by you. You say the . P-164 detailed investigation by David Irving is wrong to claim with certainty that the document was dictated by Franz Schlegelberger in spring 1942. A.Yes. Q.In the very next sentence you say this is the most convincing explanation. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No. I think you have the emphasis wrong. Wrong to claim with absolute certainty. I think that is the point that Professor Evans is making. MR IRVING: He still continues by saying this is the most convincing explanation. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, you are missing the point, I think. The criticism of you is not so much -- tell me if I am wrong about this -- that you have the interpretation of the Schlegelberger memorandum wrong, because I think Professor Evans probably would say it is a possible explanation, but I think the criticism is that a responsible, objective historian would indicate to the reader that it is not quite as crystal clear as your text suggests. MR IRVING: Perhaps I can ask a couple more questions to bring that out, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Does that misrepresent your view? A.It does, my Lord. What I am saying is that Mr Irving has used this document in his work to trumpet what he regards as Hitler's declaration that the Jews should not be . P-165 exterminated or evacuated, and he is in difficulties there because, as I have already explained, if it means exterminated, then Hitler must have known about it. But any responsible historian who did not want to use it for that particular biased purpose would inform the readers that this is an extremely problematical document, that because of its lack of dating, difficulties about its provenance, uncertainties about who wrote it, who it was addressed to, and so on and so forth, all the things that we have been through, should alert the reader to the fact there are a number of possible different interpretations and that, as we have seen in the discussion, almost any one of them actually throws up rather serious problems when you compare them with other documents. I think that would be the way that a responsible, objective historian would proceed. That is what I am saying. MR IRVING: Can I therefore draw your attention to my treatment of this very document in the Goebbels biography on page 388 of the Goebbels biography? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. That is exactly what I was looking for. Actually I was looking at Hitler's War. MR IRVING: I will not said I am sadder, but I am certainly wiser than when I wrote Hitler's War. I think the Goebbels one is the most up to date version of my state of mind. Page 388, paragraph 2. The treatment I give it is as follows: On the following day he took note of an . P-166 extensive report prepared by Heydrich's office, probably on Wannsee conference. Was that accurate, do you think, that Goebbels had received this report and it probably was a summary of the Wannsee conference, in other words the January 20 conference? A.I would have to check. Does this really matter? Q.It does not really matter, no, but, if Goebbels received it on March 5th or March 6th, I think this is the only point there, there were still 11 million Jews in Europe. He dictated, Goebbels, summarizing the document, for the time being they are to be concentrated in the East until later, possibly an island like Madagascar can be assigned to them after the war. Undoubtedly there will be a multitude of personal tragedies, he added airily, but this is unavoidable. The situation now is ripe for a final settlement of the Jewish question. In a covering letter Heydrich invited Goebbels to a second conference on March 6th. Goebbels sent two of his senior staff. Eichmann talked crudely at this meeting of forwarding the Jews to the East like so many head of cattle. A.That is Boley presumably, so you accept that there? Q.Yes. A.But you cast doubt on it a few minutes ago. Q.No. I asked if it was a self-serving statement. A.You do not say it is a self serving statement there do you? . P-167 Q."The Ministry of Justice handled the report on this new discussion like a hot potato". This is a reference to the March 12th letter in which Schlegelberger asks Lammers "it looks like ugly things are brewing, we are going to have to take this up, you and me, before this goes to the Fuhrer". The Reichschancellery referred it all to Hitler? A.That relies on Ficker and I do not think that is an accurate statement. Q."Hitler wearily told Hans Lammers that he wanted the solution of the Jewish problem postponed until after the war was over, a ruling that remarkably few historians now seem disposed to quote"? A.Yes. That is a complete misrepresentation of what we are calling the Schlegelberger memorandum. Q.In what way is it a misrepresentation? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do not let us go through it all over again. A.There is nothing weary about it. He did not tell Lammers. There was not a ruining. The Schlegelberger memorandum was not a ruling transmitted to the Ministry of Justice, otherwise why would the Ministry of Justice have gone ahead quite shortly afterwards and arranged for the Jews in State prisons to be taken out and sent off for extermination? It beggers belief that this is actually a ruling which then does not leave a paper trail, as you describe Hitler rulings doing, throughout the bureaucracy saying, oh, the Fuhrer has ordered that the solution has . P-168 to b e put off, hold it everybody, let us stop. The whole thing goes on. It goes on in the Ministry of Justice which is actually where this document comes from. It is a completely incredible interpretation you are giving there. MR IRVING: You have just referred to a subsequent decision to take the Jewish prisoners out of prisons and send them to be exterminated. Was that your word? A.Yes. Q.And what is your source for that? A.Let me have a look here. It is one of my arguments. Q.Your expert report pages 391 to 392, paragraph 4. A.Yes. Q.September 1942, you say a meeting between Himmler and the new Minister of Justice at which they decided on annihilation through labour. Have you given us the original document or the original German of that? A.I cite it in the footnote there. The German is in footnote 51 about again the October 1942 note. Q.Have you provided the German for the phrase "annihilation through labour"? A.Not there, no. Q.Can you hazard a guess at what the German was? A.Vernichtung deutsche arbeit, yes.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor