The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day023.06

Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day023.06
Last-Modified: 2000/07/24

     Q.   Page 404, footnote 22, of your report where you show the
          kind of problems the Final Solution was causing, mixed
          marriages, you remember the Gotshalt case, the suicide of
          the entire family and so on, and Hitler saying to Goebbels
          try to avoid causing problems?

    A.   Yes.  We already discussed this at length in talking about
         the so-called Schlegelberger memorandum that, while
         I think the Nazi leadership had little problem in deciding
         what to do with the vast majority of Jews in Europe, i.e.
         kill them, they had a lot of difficulties in deciding what
         to do with Jews in mixed marriages, married to non-Jews
         and with half Jews, and mixed, so-called mixed race Jews.
         That is quite clear.  It runs through all
         the documentation connected with the so-called
          Schlegelberger memorandum, and here it is again.

    Q.   You rely in your reply to this Goebbels entry on page 402,
         paragraph 5, you refer to a July 1941 statement by Hitler
         about the Jewish family becoming a breeding ground for
         bacilli, do you remember that?

    A.   Yes, "Bazillenherd fur eine neue Zersetzung".
    Q.   But you agree that at that time, of course, there was no
         plan to liquidate Europe's Jews, it was still a

                                 .          49

          geographical solution, so that is totally irrelevant in
          this context, is it not?

     A.   I do not think it is irrelevant, no.  It is a general
          statement, rather like his statement in a speech of 30th
          January 1939 ----

     Q.   You put it in as a bit of a red herring.

     A.   Well, it is a very conditional statement.

     Q.   Hoping that ----

     A.   It is an "if" statement.

    Q.   --- we would not remember that your argument is that
         Hitler's speech to the Gauleiters in December 1941 was the
         trigger point.  So July 1941, that is totally irrelevant
         to the argument about Hitler's homicidal intent?

    A.   I do not think it is irrelevant to Hitler's general hatred
         of the Jews.  I am using it there because of this popular,
         this favourite phrase or word of "bacilli".

    Q.   The next question is on page 403, two lines from the
         bottom, and I ask this with great trepidation because it
          may unleash another torrent, you say:  "Why did include",
         why did Goebbels include, "so many passages in his diaries
         which showed that he himself favoured the mass
         extermination of Jews?"  Where are these many passages,
         which ones are you referring to?  I cannot think of the
         "mass extermination of Jews" referred to in many passages
         in the Goebbels' diaries.

    MR RAMPTON:  I think Mr Irving should ask questions and not

                                 .          50

          make speeches, my Lord.

     MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well ...

     MR IRVING:  Is this ----

     MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The question you are being asked is where do
          you say Goebbels shows himself to favour the extermination
          of Jews?

     MR IRVING:  "Mass extermination of Jews".  The fact that he
          said, "We cannot have Jews running around Berlin who may
          assassinate me", that kind of thing, is readily proved,
         but it is these throw away lines that are put into the
         report without footnotes or source notes that concern me.
    A.   Well, I will treat that as a question even though in a way
         it was not.  It is on page 400, again talking about 60 per
         cent of the Jews being liquidated.  Now, that seems to me
         on any measure mass extermination.

    MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Because you say he is quite clearly approving
         what he is describing?

    A.   Yes.  It seem to be pretty clear, and he goes on to say
          that Hitler approved of it as well.

    MR IRVING:  I guess the question ----

    A.   Let me have, let me have another ----

    Q.   --- I am really asking is, is there another passage apart
         from that?

    A.   All right, well, let us just go...

    MR RAMPTON:  My Lord, this is very unfair.  This is not a
         memory test.  This gentleman has written a detailed

                                 .          51

          report.  He summarizes what he is talking about on pages
          410 to 416 of his report.  I am sorry that he did not
          remember it, but, I mean, really!.

     A.   I just got to there.  I think I will just direct you to
          the Goebbels diaries entries on page 412, 414, Jews
          experiencing their own annihilation, I mean, I really do
          not want to read all of these out.

     MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do please, if you do not mind, 412, 414?

     A.   14, then the pages 8, 9 of my letter of 10th January, so
         these are some ...

    MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, what is not clear at the moment to
         me, partly because of that question, is whether you are
         contesting the fact that Goebbels knew perfectly well what
         was going on.

    MR IRVING:  What I am contesting is that there are many
         passages in his diary which showed that he applauded the
         mass extermination of Jews which is the wording used by
         this witness in his report, but I will now move on - ---
     MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Now would you answer my question?  Is it your
         case that Goebbels did not know about the mass
         exterminations that were going on at this time?
    MR IRVING:  He had visited the Baltic states.  He had actually
         heard about executions that had gone on there, just
         briefly.  That was November 1941.  He had received this SD
         report.  He had received the Wannsee Conference report
         which was ambiguous.  He had received this SD report on

                                 .          52

          March 27th 1942 which gives him cause to speculate on what
          is obviously happening, if I can put it like that.

     THE WITNESS:  But in Hitler's War 1977, Mr Irving, you write:
           "The ghastly secrets of Auschwitz and Treblinka were
          well-kept.  Goebbels wrote a frank summary of them in his
          diary on March 27th 1942, but evidently held his tongue
          when he met Hitler two days later".

     Q.   Yes.

     A.   And you talk again in that 1991 in a similar way so...

    Q.   Can I draw your attention, therefore, to a passage in
         Picker, Henry Picker, on April 4th 1942 which you are
         probably familiar with.  I will read it to you.  It was
          "characteristic that the upper classes who had never
         shown the slightest sympathy for the suffering and plight
         of the German emigres", and he uses the word "aus
         wanderer", and you will understand why I am emphasising that?

    A.   Yes.

     Q.   "... now claim to show sympathy for the Jews, although the
         Jews had their accomplices around the entire world and
         were the most climate hardened species there were.  The
         Jews prospered everywhere", he said, "in even Lapland and
         Siberia".  Does this not also show that on April 4th 1942
         Hitler is talking purely in terms of his geographical
         solution?  It may have been a pipe dream.

    A.   No, no, it does not.  I mean, there are murderous

                                 .          53

          statements here.  He is attacking the so-called
          bourgeoisie, and even here it says, "If for reasons of
          State, one renders a definite racial pest harmless, for
          example, by beating him to death", very nice, "then the
          entire bourgeoisie cries out that the State is a violent
          State.  If, however, the Jew", and here, well, "the Jew
          with judicial chicanery robs the German person of his
          professional existence, takes his house and home from him,
          destroys his family and finally drives him to emigration,
         and the German person then loses his life on the journey
         to his emigration destination, then the bourgeoisie ...
         (reading to the words) ... entire tragedy has been played
         out within the context of the possibilities offered by the
         law."  And earlier on, of course -- that, of course,
         describes in a kind of upside-down way precisely what the
         Nazis were doing to the Jews themselves.  And on talking
         about -- another bit that you left out, Mr Irving, he is
         talking about Hitler (again absurdly) that "the
          Bourgeoisie did not concern itself with the fact that
         250,000 to 300,000 German people were emigrating from
         Germany a year", that meant, I think, in the late 19th
         century, "and about 75 per cent of the German emigrants to
         Australia already died during the journey".  That is more
         even than Goebbels 60 per cent.  Emigration here, in
         Hitler's mind ----

    Q.   So what conclusions do you draw from these lengthy

                                 .          54

          passages you are reading out?

     A.   Emigration in Hitler's mind here is quite clearly
          connected with mass death.

     Q.   That is the conclusion?  Purely that emigration is
          connected with mass death?

     A.   It seems be in this passage, yes.

     Q.   So you agree that Hitler was considering geographical
          emigration every time he mentions these passages at this time?

    A.   Well, connected with mass death.  I mean, you take Jews
         from France or Serbia or Greece and you take them to
         Poland, that is mass emigration, but that is not all that
         happened, is it?  They were killed when they got there.
         The two things are connected.

    Q.   So you are saying that when Hitler is talking about them
         emigrating to Lapland or Siberia or Central Africa, or all
         these other places he is talking about, or Madagascar,
         what he is saying is he will arrange that they get killed
          when they get there?  What is the point of the emigration then?

    A.   No.  There is also an element of camouflage in simply
         using the term "emigration" or "transportation", so ----
    Q.   So your entire case depends on the fact that when he says
         one thing he means another ----

    A.   Wait a minute, Mr Irving.  I mean, also the notion that in
         the middle of 1942 that Hitler was actually serious

                                 .          55

          about  ----

     Q.   Madagascar?

     A.   --- transporting Jews to Madagascar is absurd because he
          had already personally ordered the stop to the Madagascar
          programme at the beginning of the year and, as for
          Lapland, that is even more ridiculous or Siberia.  I mean,
          this is just camouflage in his case.

     Q.   Why would the Madagascar plan have been absurd then?

     MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think we have been through that many times.

    MR IRVING:  My Lord, we have one more document I wish to show
         him, my Lord.  Would you please go, therefore, to page 23
         of the bundle?  Do you know who Hassow van Evstorf was?
    A.   You tell me.  I cannot see him mentioned.

    Q.   Hassow van Evstorf was the later Ambassador to the United
         Kingdom after the war.  So he was not a neo-Nazi, was he?

    A.   I do not -- where is this?

    Q.   I just say that in advance.

    MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Page 23.

     MR IRVING:  Does your Lordship have it?


    MR IRVING:  It is the transcript of Hassow van Evstorf.

    MR JUSTICE GRAY:  This is van Evstorf's notes?

    MR IRVING:  My Lord, Hassow van Evstorf's notes are actually in
         this blue volume I am holding in my hand.  This is from my
         own archive.  Hassow van Evstorf took handwritten notes as
         the liaison officer between Ribbentrop and the German High

                                 .          56

          Command, so he was informed on an immediate basis of all
          the latest developments and secret happenings.  Two
          paragraphs from the bottom, he had a paragraph -- this is
          the transcript of his handwritten notes, April 4th 1942 --
           "A Japanese enquiry whether they will be permitted to
          occupy Madagascar", completing, no doubt, the triangle
          Singapore, Columbia, Madagascar,"has been answered in a
          positive sense.  We would not take part in the operation.
          We are looking for a joint coalition warfare in the
         Persian Gulf" -----

    MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sorry.  The significance of that totally
         escapes me.

    MR IRVING:  Well, I shall ask some more questions.  Was Japan
         an ally of Nazi Germany?

    A.   Yes.

    Q.   So if Japan had occupied Madagascar, as was envisaged by
         this joint operation by this top level discussion between
         the German High Command and the Japanese High Command,
          then, of course, it would have been perfectly feasible to
         have completed the Madagascar plan?

    A.   I think that is rather a large leap, Mr Irving.

    Q.   So the talk of the fact that ----

    A.   That depends.

    Q.   --- Madagascar in May 1942 was occupied by the British is
         neither here more there?

    A.   The point here is on 10th February 1942 (and we have

                                 .          57

          already been through this some days ago) the Foreign
          official who proposed the plan for deporting the Jews to
          Madagascar wrote that "Gruppenfuhrer Heydrich has been
          charged with the Fuhrer of carrying out the solution to
          the Jewish question in Europe.  The war against the Soviet
          Union has opened up the possibility of placing other
          territories at our disposal for the Final Solution.
          Accordingly, the Fuhrer has decided that the Jews should
          be pushed off, not to Madagascar, but to the East.
         Madagascar, therefore, does not need to be foreseen for
         the Final Solution any more".

    Q.   You are familiar with that document?

    A.   That is absolutely clear and explicit about the ----

    Q.   Can I ask you some questions about who wrote that document?

    A.   -- that is from Rademacher.

    Q.   Who wrote the document?

    A.   Rademacher.

     Q.   Did Rademacher ever once in his life have a meeting with Hitler?

    A.   He says here, "The Fuhrer has decided" ----

    Q.   Will you answer my question?

    A.   Time and again, Mr Irving, if you do not like a document,
         you start saying, "It is a product of his imagination".
         This is quite clearly ----

    Q.   Answer my question.

                                 .          58

     A.   --- this is not a top Foreign Office official.  It is
          quite conceivable that Ribbentrop or somebody else has
          told him that this is Hitler's decision.  It does not need
          to see Hitler to have this decision here.  Hitler has
          decided in February 1942 that the Madagascar plan is out.
          It is quite clearly not practical.

     Q.   It is very difficult to conduct a cross-examination if you
          do not answer my questions.  Did Rademacher ever see Hitler?

    MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think the answer is Professor Evans does
         not know, but the point he has made (and you may not
         accept it, Mr Irving) is that does not need to have seen
         Hitler in order to know and to say that Hitler has time
         and again said "Madagascar is off the menu".  That is what he said.

    MR IRVING:  May I by my questions now elicit the probable
         source of Rademacher's information?  In view of the fact
         that the Rademacher document is in the same file as the
          Wannsee Conference report, right?

    A.   Yes.

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.