The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day011.10

Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day011.10
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20

   Q.   Very well.
   A.   So I am sorry that I forgot about it.  Maybe it would have
        helped the case of the defence earlier.
   Q.   It may not.
   A.   Or it may not.
   Q.   Professor van Pelt, would you tell the court where you
        first saw this document?
   A.   This document is in the Auschwitz archive.
   Q.   And it appears to be bound into a volume?
   A.   They are normally in -- actually I do not know the
        Hauszufugun it is one of first files.  They are all in
        boxes.  What happens is that the first part of the
        archive, which is where I started working, which was
        actually boxes 1, 2 and 3, only deals with these kind of
        procedural matters.  They do not deal with design at all.
        I think generally they are in folders.
   Q.   But you agree that this particular one appears to have
        been part of a bound volume.  Was it shown to you in this
        form or was it shown to you as a loose document?
   A.   I went through these files.  I do not remember at all.
        I know there are at a certain moment some loose pages in

.          P-82

        these things but in general they are bound.  It does not
        seem to be a Moscow document, if I have to look at it, but
        I am not sure even.  It could be a copy of it in the
        Moscow document because obviously this was a document
        which was produced in many copies.
   Q.   It has been produced in many copies?
   A.   Because it was a general rule, so quite often you find
        many copies of the same document.
   Q.   So you are not certain in your own mind whether this
        document actually comes from Moscow or from the Auschwitz
        state archives.
   A.   This is the first thing I have heard about this document
        now it comes up, is right now I have seen it ten years
        ago.  I made a copy.  It is somewhere in my big files, on
        procedures in the architectural office.
   Q.   Please accept my assurance. I am not trying to catch you
        out on this document.  I am trying to do the enquiry now
        that I would have done over the last few months if I had
        had this document earlier.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  As to its authenticity?
   MR IRVING:  As to its authenticity, my Lord, yes.  This is the
        only means I have to test its integrity.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think that is fair enough.
   MR IRVING:  Professor, you will see that the document to me is
        odd in one respect, that it appears to have no printed
        heading.  All the other documents we have seen, I think I

.          P-83

        am right in saying, have a printed heading saying
        Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung and so on, Auschwitz
        konzentrationsanlage, whatever.  This appears to be just a
        blank sheet of paper.
   A.   But all hauszufugungen, all the internal communication in
        the camp, and that is also stuff that is coming down for
        the kommandantur.  So, when Rudolf Hirst, for example,
        creates a canteen for the camp, all of that stuff also
        comes down to the office.  None of these have a heading.
        They all have exactly the same heading as you see, that it
        says hauszufugungen number, which rule, a house rule or a
        house order, whatever like that, with a number but never
        on letter head.
   Q.   If you had seen the whole file of course, you could have
        satisfied yourself that there was a No. 107 before this
        and another 109 after it and so on.  You could have tested
        it, whether it was orphaned or whether it was part of a
        series, could you not?
   A.   I could have, yes.  I saw the whole file but I did not do
        that test at the time.
   Q.   We are not informed as to that.  Is the signature at the
        bottom of the SS Sturmbanfuhrer?  Does that look like the
        signatures you are familiar with?
   A.   This is Bischoff's signature, yes.
   Q.   There are no other authenticity marks on it in any way,
        are there? There are no rubber stamps or initials or any

.          P-84

        other kind of things that we have seen?
   A.   No.  You would never have a rubber stamp on any of these
        internal hauszufugungen.
   Q.   Would they also lack any address list of people they are
        going to?
   A.   No, they do not have that.  They just appear like this in
        the file.
   Q.   Yes.  My Lord, I could comment on the registration number
        at the top, but I am not going to because I can really say
        nothing about the integrity of this document apart from
        what I have done.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I can see you are confronted with a bit of a
        difficulty because of its late production.
   MR IRVING:  I am prepared to address the document as though it
        was genuine and just look at the content.
   A.   My Lord, this one maybe I can add to the heading on top
        because the secretary.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Authenticating it?
   A.   Yes.  The secretary in the Zentralbauleitung in 1943 was a
        certain Eugenie Schulhof, so it seems to be that indeed
        the S C H U L would be -- that indeed she was a secretary
        at the office at the time.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  Mr Irving will probably say well, if
        anyone was creating this document years afterwards,
        they might have worked that one out.
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, forgers have a desire often to be caught

.          P-85

        out and they do not do the homework.  That is my
        experience.  This is what puzzled us about that cremation
        capacity document that they picked on initials that are
        only on that document and not on any other document in the
        entire record.  But to revert to this document, I draw
        your attention, Professor, to the third full paragraph,
        beginning with the word in English "furthermore"?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Let us read out possibly the first two paragraphs:
                  "You are reminded once more of internal
        instruction No. 35 of 19th June 1942 -- ", which we do not
        have, Professor, do we, before the court, so we do not
        know what that was.   "As is clear from this internal
        instruction, Untersturmfuhrer Dejaco is personally
        responsible for ensuring that all incoming and outgoing
        plans are registered according to the rules in a book that
        is to be especially set aside for this purpose, and that
        loans of such plans (that is an interpolation by the
        translator) are signed for with the personal signature of
        the person who has asked for them".
                  This is indicative, is it not, Professor, of the
        pernickety bookkeeping that the Germans went in for with
        their documents, that things were logged in and logged
        out, is that not true?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   "Furthermore", it continues in the next paragraph, which

.          P-86

        is the important one on which no doubt learned counsel
        relies, "it must be pointed out that we are concerned here
        with works that are connected with the war economy and to
        be kept secret".  The words:  "Connected with the war
        economy and to be kept secret" are underlined in the
        original.  "In particular, plans for the crematoria are to
        be kept under the strictest surveillance.  No plans are to
        be handed out to the individual installation groups, etc.
        In connection with the works to be carried out, the
        responsible construction leader - I suppose that be a
        foreman - has to give instructions to the corresponding
        prisoner unit on the spot.  I take it as read that all the
        original plans are to be kept under lock and key by the
        leader of the Planning Department".  Does Mr Rampton wish
        me to read out any more, or is that sufficient?
   MR RAMPTON:  Could you just finish the paragraph?
   MR IRVING:  "Attention is particularly drawn to DV 91", that is
        "Dienstvorschrifft", is it not?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   In other words, Service Regulation No. 91, confidential
        Matters.  "It is further taken as read that in cases of
        leave or inability to carry out duties, the leader of the
        Planning Department hands over the plan room in accordance
        with regulations to an SS colleague".
                  We can take it from this therefore, can we not
        Professor, that they were anxious that the drawings of the

.          P-87

        kind you have been showing us this morning should not be
        shown to unauthorized persons?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   In fact, it should not be shown to anybody at all who had
        no need to know?
   A.   No.  In fact, even people who had need to know, it seemed
        to be that they were unwilling to -- that normally, of
        course, in a building site, plans and blueprints are
        readily available to the people who are actually making
        it, and in this case, they even had difficulty to do
        that.  They use here that the only person who can really
        instruct these people, they cannot actually leave the plan
        there, but there must be a "Baufuhrer" and from the word
        "Baufuhrer", it is very clear that this is not an inmate,
        or must be a German, civilian or German SS men, because
        the designation Fuhrer was always reserved in this case
        for a non-inmate.  They would have used for inmate always
        something like Alterstorser or some kind of designation
        like that.
   Q.   We are in agreement that this is a security measure
        designed to keep these plans that you have been showing us
        today, that kind of thing, away from prying eyes?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Can you see no harmless reason for such a regulation?
   A.   A harmless reason?
   Q.   Yes.

.          P-88

   A.   I presume there is a general harmless -- if we are talking
        about patents, I could imagine that companies do the same
        thing with patents.  But in this case I do not think we
        deal really with patent information.  So I cannot see what
        the problem would be.  It is remarkable that crematoria
        seem to be designated here for a particular kind of
        security, let us call it internal security classification.
   Q.   They are not being designated as the only ones needing
        security, are they?  They are just to enhance security,
        shall we say?
   A.   Yes.  It says: "In besonders, in der Plane," so in
        particular, yes.
   Q.   Is there any kind of security classification on this
        document itself?
   A.   There are never on any "Hauszufugen"; this is going to be
        available to everyone.
   Q.   Yes, but there is no security classification on this
   A.   No.
   Q.   So it could have been shown to anyone, could it not, then?
   A.   Yes.  I mean anyone who got a copy of this.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Have you seen any other similar house order
        on any other topic in connection with Auschwitz?
   A.   No.  I remember this one.  One of the reasons is that this
        one came up.  I am trying to recall the first time I saw
        it. This was in the Ertl and Dejaco trial, and it came up

.          P-89

        because one of the people who had been in the Bauleitung,
        who was an inmate who was drawing there, actually went
        into some detail about the procedure of actually getting a
        blueprint and saying this was a proof of the criminal
        intentions, and then this document was produced.  I do not
        know what the court in the end did with this document.
        But I remember the testimony of the particular -- I think
        it was an inmate named Plas Kuhrer.
   MR IRVING:  Did anything in particular happen in Auschwitz one
        or two days before this document that you are familiar
        with, or in the neighbourhood?  I will give you a clue,
        air raids?
   A.   No, there were no air raids in 1943.
   Q.   Yes, there were.  Do you agree that there was an air raid
        on the Buhne plant on approximately 5th or 3rd May 1943?
   A.   1944.
   Q.   1943.  Well, if there is a dispute, obviously --?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The Buhne plant at Auschwitz?
   MR IRVING:  That is right, the synthetic plant being erected.
   A.   The first air raid, so far as I know, happened in the
        Spring of 1944.
   Q.   We will check that later on perhaps.  I have only two more
        questions on this document, my Lord, and this is this.  Do
        you agree that the Germans had reasons to be ashamed of
        what was going on in this building, shall we say, whatever it was?

.          P-90

   A.   No.  They certainly had reason to be ashamed of the
        genocidal use of the buildings, but I mean crematoria,
        there is no -- you see, the date is 5th May 1943.  By that
        time, these buildings have all been committed to genocidal
        use.  I presume and I am speculating now, and I do not
        know if you are interested in my speculation, my Lord.

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.