The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day025.09

Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day025.09
Last-Modified: 2000/07/25

Q.  So once again they are saying, "Well, the other person who
  knew, he is dead, unfortunately", so it is a very shaky
  kind of testimony, is it not, so far as Adolf's
  responsibility is concerned?
A.  This is, I mean, what I did here, I based this on an
  analysis of the ereignismeldung and on -- and, in
  addition, on the basis of evidence we have from
  testimonies.  I think it is my obligation, my duty, to
  look at this testimony.  I just cannot ignore them.
  Ohlendorf made, and I mention in the report here, he made
  quite remarkable statements.  He never -- I mean, he was
  hanged by the Americans, but he never actually disputed
  the fact that his Einsatzgruppen killed 10,000 of Jews.  I
  mean, this was, because this was confronted with the
  evidence which the ereignismeldung contained ----
Q.  We do not dispute that either here.
A.  --- he did not dispute it.
Q.  But you also rely on the ereignismeldung, but you said
  yesterday that only one of them shows it was sent to the
  Party Chancellory in Munich which is not exactly proof
  that Hitler saw it, is it?
A.  Well, we went through this when I think I made it quite
  clear that not every ereignismeldung has a list of
  distribution, and I do not have a full picture of to whom

. P-110

  it was sent.  Munich and Berlin, I made this quite clear
  that the Munich office had a liaison office in Berlin, so
  I do not think this is a ----
Q.  Hitler was in East Prussia, was he not?
A.  Yes, but, of course, then Bormann was constantly in his --
  it was Bormann policy to be constantly in close with
  Hitler so in order to inform him about everything which he
  thought he has to be informed of.
Q.  Will you go to page 40, please, the third paragraph?  This
  is a general statement which is quite useful.  In the fall
  of 1941, the autumn of 1941, you say: "The Nazi regime
  began to deport Jews from Central Europe into the Eastern
  European ghettos.  From statements by leading
  representatives of the regime it becomes clear that at
  this point in time the intention was to deport these
  people further to the East following upon a victory over
  the Soviet Union".
A.  Yes.
Q.  Is that still your position now?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Have you found it, my Lord?
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, thank you.
MR IRVING:  That is a very useful summary of the position in
  the autumn of 1941.  You are talking about September,
  October 1941?
A.  Yes.

. P-111

Q.  And at that time the Nazi leadership, Hitler, Himmler,
  everybody else was talking, was ----
A.  Well, to deport these people further to the East, and what
  would happen to the people then further in the East?  I do
  not have -- my argument here is that this intention to
  send them further to the East had clearly genocidal
  implication.  They would perish there in the East, but
  they postponed this because originally they thought they
  had this area under control in the autumn of 1941.  Now
  they realised they had not won the war, so they sent these
  people first to ghettos in the East and with the intention
  to send them further to the east, let them perish until
  next spring.
Q.  You quote the Greiser letter, do you not, on the following page?
A.  For instance, the Greiser letter, yes.
Q.  Yes.  Can I just offer a different translation of that
  first paragraph?
A.  Yes, where is that, please?
Q.  The different translation that I offer is in the little
  bundle, page 13.
A.  Yes.
Q.  "The Fuhrer wishes that from the West to the East" -- do
  you want to follow the German one?
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Just a minute.  I have not found this.
MR IRVING:  This is September 18th 1941.

. P-112

MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That I think is not -- yes, it is, 84.
MR IRVING:  "The Fuhrer wishes that from the" -- I would like
  this one actually put in the bundle actually.  It is a
  better translation.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think it is in there.  I think it is 84 or
  am I wrong?
A.  84.
MR IRVING:  Mine is, I think, a slightly preferable translation
  of a rather complicated sentence.  "The Fuhrer wishes that
  from the West to the East, the Altreich" the old Reich,
"and the Protectorate be emptied and freed of Jews as
  soon as possible.  Initially, therefore, and during the
  course of this year, if possible, I am striving as a first
  stage to transport the Jews out of the Altreich and the
  Protectorate into the Eastern territories newly
  accessioned by the Reich two years ago, and then to deport
  them even further to the East early next year.  I intend
  to convey about 60,000 Jews of the Altreich and
  Protectorate into the Litzmannstadt ghetto for the winter
  which has, so I hear, the space to accommodate them".
A.  Yes, I think there are two mistakes in your translation.
Q.  Right.
A.  First of all, you translated, it said in the text here,
"nachsten Fruhjahr", next spring, you said "early next year".
Q.  "Fruhjahr" is not necessarily spring.  "Fruhling" is

. P-113

  spring, is it not?  "Fruhjahr" is ----
A.  No. "Fruhjahr" and "Fruhling" is the same.  It has the
  same meaning.  "Early next year" is quite misleading, but
  "early next year" could be read as January, for instance.
The second mistake you make, if you look at the
  last sentence here, or not the last sentence, the sentence
  before the last sentence, it says in the German text:"Ich
  beabsichtige, in das Litzmannstadter Getto, das, wie ich
  hore, an Raum aufnahmefahig ist, rund 60,000 Juden des
  Altreichs und des Prtektorats fur den Winter zu
So you say here in your translation, "I intend
  to convey about 60,000 Jews of the Altreich and
  Protectorate in the to Litzmannstadter ghetto for the
  winter which has, so I hear, the space to accommodate
  them".  So in the German text it is only -- the German
  text only says which is as I translated it here in my
  translation which has at best -- so it does not say in the
  text, in the German text -- in the German text it only
  says it is "aufnahmefahig".  It does not say that it is
  specifically "aufnahmefahig had space for them".  It only
  says "aufnahmefahig".
Q.  Well, if it says "an Raum aufnahmefahig", surely, the
  inference is that it has adequate space for this task?
A.  Yes, but it also could receive more people.

. P-114

Q.  Yes.  Now, what is the purpose of that letter from Himmler
  to Greisler?  Is it camouflage or can we believe what he
  is writing?
A.  I think one can basically believe what he is writing.
Q.  So at this time, September 18th, there is no homicidal
  intent towards the European Jews?
A.  Well, I said this, I think I made this quite clear in my
  statement:  "From statements by leading representatives of
  the regime it is clear at this point in time the intention
  was to deport these people further to the East following
  up a victory over the Soviet Union".  So I draw the
  conclusion from the sentence it was the intention to send
  them further to the East.
Q.  Yes, but there is no camouflage intended in the document.
  There are none of these camouflage words we have heard so
  much about in that paragraph.  What Himmler wrote to
  Greiser there is meant, the German Jews, the European
  Jews, are going to be shipped out to the East.  No one is
  paying much attention to what is going to happen when they
  get there.  No one cares really what happens to them in
  their new existence?
A.  Yes.
Q.  So any decision must have come after that in September
  1941.  It is an important document, is it not?
A.  Well, the document says that the Jews are sending, are
  sent to the ghetto and then in the next spring they will

. P-115

  be sent further to the East.  So that ----
Q.  If you go to page 42 of your report:  "On 6th October
  Hitler emphasised that all Jews from the Protectorate
  needed to be 'removed' - and not into the
  Generalgouvernement first, but - 'straight on to the
  East'.  That is also part of the same kind of picture, is
  it not, the East?
A.  Yes.
Q.  Now, I think that you and I are agreed that sometimes the
  Germans used the phrase "the East" in a sinister sense, is
  that right?  They say "the East" and, in fact, they mean
  to perdition, to their ----
A.  Yes, but here I think, I am in a way very cautious in
  interpreting the language here, and I say I think it is
  meant here that they are simply sent to the East, to
  ghettos and to camps to the East.  So the East is here,
  obviously, the Generalgouvernement.
Q.  We are going to be looking this afternoon at some
  documents about people who were sent to Auschwitz ready
  for being sent on to the East or, at any rate, and
  obviously I am going to be asking your interpretation of
  those documents ----
A.  Well...
Q.  --- which is quite an important point.
A.  We are here in a phase where actually in three waves
  German Jews are sent to ghettos in occupied Poland and the

. P-116

  occupied Soviet Union.  The first wave goes to Losch, the
  second wave to Riga and Minsk and the third wave in the
  there spring of 1942 goes to ghettos in the district of
  Lublin.  What has happened to the people is they are not,
  in general, killed on the spot.  So they survive for a
  couple of weeks, probably a couple of months, until spring
  1942 and then they killed them on a systematic basis by
  sending them to extermination camps or by gassing them.
So we are in a kind of transitional phase here
  we they are still not prepared to kill then on the spot,
  except the six trains we discussed yesterday.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But can I just ask you this?  It is not just
  German Jews that are being talked of in 6th October
  document, is it?  It is all European Jews.
A.  Well, Germany is here in the sense of a greater Germany,
  so this includes the annexed territories, Austria, the
  Czech Jews as well which is a project of ----
MR IRVING:  Just in a vague sense, a general question, did the
  Nazis in some way regard the European Jews as being more
  valuable material than the Russian Jews, Eastern Jews?
A.  I do not know what you mean with "valuable material".
Q.  Well, preserved -- there is a point in preserving them
  whereas they did not care what happened to the Eastern Jews.
A.  Generally speaking, they made a kind of distinction
  between the Eastern Jews and the Western Jews.

. P-117

Q.  It was never actually spelt out in a document, but this is
  the inference we can draw, is it not, from the document?
A.  Well, it is spelt out in documents but they made, in
  general, in their anti-Semitic -- in the anti-Semitic way
  they looked at this since they make this different
  sometimes, yes.
Q.  I am going to ask one more brief question before the
  adjournment, my Lord.  Page 45, paragraph 15.  You say:
"Rademacher still assumed at the end of October 1941 that
  the Serbian Jews would be 'removed by water transport into
  the transition camps'", the "Auffanglager im Osten", "in
  the East".  So there was this kind of perception among the
  top level Nazis involved in the programme, in the system,
  that there were reception camps in the East to which these
  European Jews were going to be shipped.
A.  I only say that Rademacher in this letter obviously
  assumed that they would be removed by ship in the
  transition camps in the East.  I am not, I cannot, I do
  not want to comment on general perception of this, but
  I think Rademacher was probably convinced that this would happen.
Q.  Yes, over the page, paragraph 16, you raise the matter
  which I have just raised a couple of minutes ago: "Was
  the deportation of Jews 'to the East' at this time already
  a metaphor for the planned murder in the extermination
  camps?"  You say, quite frankly:  "The state of

. P-118

  contemporary research does not give sufficient evidence".
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is what he said.  It is a transitional
  phase.  I think that is his evidence.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  2 o'clock.

(Luncheon adjournment)
(2.00 p.m.)

MR IRVING:  Thank you, my Lord.  My Lord, I can say the
  Defendants' solicitors have very diligently got on to the
  Wolff document and there is one minor snag over the date,
  but I am sure we will have it at the end of the weekend.
  I cannot do better than that.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  When you say they got on to it, is it
  physically in court?
MR RAMPTON:  Munich cannot find any Wolff testimony for the
  date, which is 11th May 1952.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am glad we have----
MR IRVING:  They are responding positively.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  -- tried to find out what the position actually is.
MR IRVING:  I just hope I did not leave anything important out,
  of course, but I am sure I did not.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can we all remember that I would like to know
  what the outcome of it all is.
MR IRVING:  I think it is an important document and, as your

. P-119

  Lordship knows, I relied on it quite heavily at the time.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  From your point of view, it is an important document.
MR RAMPTON:  I do not understand why it is, if I may say so at
  this stage, so terribly important in Mr Irving's mind if
  the testimony of von dem Bach-Zelewski must be dismissed
  out of hand because it is postwar.
MR IRVING: You have pre-empted me.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  There is another point about it which I think
  we ought all to bear in mind, which is that it was not
  actually available to you, Mr Irving, as I understand it,
  when you wrote your book because I think you said it had
  been supplied by a lawyer in Dusseldorf.
MR IRVING:  It very definitely was, my Lord.
MR IRVING: Oh yes. That is part of my original research.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But it was not in your discovery, was it?
MR IRVING:  It was in a big box called documents on the
  Judenfrager which they had copied in its entirety.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I thought you told me this morning it was not
  in your discovery.
MR RAMPTON:  The note was, but not the document.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We will revert to that on Monday.
MR IRVING:  This is one reason of course why I mentioned
  Bach-Zelewski because, if my use of Karl Wolff is impugned
  as a source, who did not have the death of millions or

. P-120

  thousands of people on his conscience ...
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Anyway, back to Dr Longerich.
MR IRVING:  Back to the document, my Lord.  The progress we
  have made is we are now at page 40 or 45 of an 80 page
  document approximately, so we have managed to chew our way
  halfway through the document.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But the bit that needs more chewing is the
  latter part rather than the earlier part but there we
  are.  Let us press on.
MR IRVING:  Have I heard that before in connection with other
MR IRVING:  Dr Longerich, are you familiar with a Canadian
  historian Michael Marrus?
A.  Yes.
Q.  He is a reputable historian, is he not?
A.  Absolutely.
Q.  He has written an article on the history of the Holocaust
  in the Journal of Modern History.  I am just going to read
  one and a half sentences to you.  He cautions that
  Hitler's rhetoric about the Jews should not be seen as
  what he calls a preview of Auschwitz.  He adds "The Nazi
  leader always spoke in the most cataclysmic terms, was
  forever calling for the most drastic action, the most
  ruthless stroke".  Would you like to comment on Marrus's
  view therefore that Hitler sometimes was a loud mouth?

. P-121

MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Have you read Marrus's book?
A.  This was a quotation one and a half sentences from an
  article, I cannot recall-----.
MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is a book, I think.
A.  He has written a book and articles.
MR IRVING:  It is the Journal of Modern History.
A.  I cannot recall the content at the moment so I am really
  hesitating to comment on a very short quote from either a
  book or a lengthy article with about 25 or so pages.
Q.  Suppose I said it now.  Suppose I said it and not Michael
  Marrus, that the Nazi leader Hitler always spoke in the
  most cataclysmic terms and was forever calling for the
  most drastic action, the most ruthless stroke, would you
  say that I was wrong?
A.  It is a very general statement.  I would see more
  evidence.  To which quotations are you referring?  Can you
  give me some help here?
Q.  The famous quotation throughout the war where he said
  September 1st 1939, did he not?  That one.
A.  If you refer, for instance, to speeches about vernichtung
  ausrotten which he repeated, yes, then it is of course
  true.  Of course he was a politician and he made sure that
  he addressed the right audience.  On some occasions he
  would just use drastic language, but on other occasions he
  would be very different.  It always depends on the
  circumstances, on the audience he was addressing.

. P-122

Q.  Like most politicians, they say what the audience wants to
  hear.  One of the basic rules of politics, is that right?
A.  I cannot lecture on the basic rules of politics.  I think
  I should only refer to the Nazi regime.

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.