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
© 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.