Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day003.20
Last-Modified: 2000/07/29

   Q.   So your point on "man" and whether that is significant is
a different point.
   A.   Perhaps I am jumping the gun on that, yes.
   MR RAMPTON:  You are.  You are not seeing, whether
deliberately
        or not I know not, you are not seeing what I am
putting to
        you.  What I am putting to you, and I will put it
        directly, although I would have thought it was pretty
        obvious, is that with this little phrase in Hitler's
War
        both editions and with Hitler in East Prussia, this
can
        only be taken as a reference to Heydrich's agency,
        "continue, they tell us", etc., "to liquidate them
        yourselves".  By doing that what are you actually
telling
        the reader is that Hitler was not in Berlin at the
time
        when Hans Frank was given this instruction?
   A.   I think probably the parenthesis should have been
shifted
        forward two or three words to include "also people
tell
        us", "in Berlin people tell us", so that i makes it
quite
        plain that I am relying on the parenthesis both on the
"in
        Berlin" and the rather depricatory world "people tell
us".
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is not quite an answer to the
question.
   MR RAMPTON:  It is not.
   A.   Very well.  Yes, I will accept the point which you
make,
        yes.
   MR RAMPTON:  Had you sought historical accuracy, that
        parenthesis would have been attached to December 16th

.          P-178



        1941, would it not, at the top of the page:
"Announcing
        to his Lublin cabinet on December 16th 1941 Hitler was
in
        East Prussia at the time", if it was of any interest
to
        anybody.  What you have tried to do, you have
distorted
        the chronology in order to make perfectly certain that
        Hitler cannot have anything to do with this appalling
        instruction to Hans Frank?
   A.   I have not distorted any chronology at all.  The dates
are
        perfectly certain.  On December 16th, at the time of
this
        speech by Governor Frank to his cabinet, Hitler is in
the
        Wolf's lair in East Prussia, as I said.
   Q.   Mr Irving, perhaps you are tired, perhaps I am tired.
   A.   I am not so tired that I do not remember dates that I
have
        written in books.
   Q.   Mr Irving, I am sorry, it is not the problem that you
do
        not remember the dates.  I am afraid I think you
remember
        them only too well.  I will try once again then and I
am
        going to leave it.  Why do you not have the text of
        Hitler's War in front of you?
   A.   I have it open, yes.
   Q.   428, it does not matter which edition:  "Hans Frank
        announcing to his Lublin cabinet on December 16th 1941
        that Heydrich was calling a big conference in January
on
        the expulsion of Europe's Jews to the East, irritably
        exclaimed", blah-blah-blah "! 'In Berlin' and with
Hitler
        in East Prussia, this can only be taken as a reference
to

.          P-179



        Heydrich's agencies", blah-blah-blah, "liquidate them
        yourselves."
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Now that is apt to suggest to any person who is even
        marginally literate that Hitler was not in Berlin at
the
        time when Hans Frank was and was given that
instruction?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You have got a "yes" to that already, Mr
        Rampton.
   MR RAMPTON:  I have, have I?
   A.   I fully understand the point you are trying to make
and
        that is a narrow interpretation of those words which
you
        are trying t slant or guy rope in the direction you
want
        them.  The point I am making is that Hitler's
headquarters
        is historically in East Prussia.  The seat of the
        Reichssicherheitshauptamt under the SS is in Berlin,
and
        Governor Frank making his speech is in Krakow.  When
he
        talks about Berlin he is talking about the SS.  When
he
        wants to talk about Hitler he will say "East Prussia".
        When he says, "in Berlin they tell us this or tell us
        that", he is not talking about a specific meeting or a
        specific event where they have been given these
        instructions.  He is just talking about these block
heads,
        these mutton heads in Berlin who imagine that life can
be
        made so easy that they just put the people on trains
and
        send them to Poland.
   Q.   Yes, Mr Irving.  Then why insert the reference to
Hitler

.          P-180



        at all in relation to what Frank was told in Berlin?
   A.   Because I was trying to put into one terse line of
text
        given the constraints of writing a book that is going
to
        be less than 1,000 pages what I just set out to you in
        probably ten lines of text.
   Q.   Why?  What has Hitler got to do with this?
   A.   This is his Hitler's biography.  This is about Adolf
        Hitler.
   Q.   Unless there is evidence that Hitler said this to
Frank
        himself, you would not bother even to mention Hitler?
   A.   It may be that ignorant people will assume that
because
        Adolf Hitler is the Reichschancellor and his capital
is
        Berlin, therefore, the reference to "people" is Adolf
        Hitler.  I am trying to make sure that ignorant people
do
        not draw the wrong reference.
   Q.   In order that ignorant people should not have to have
it
        explained why it is not likely this order came from
        Hitler, I beg to differ with you about that, but in
order
        that ignorant people, as you call them, should have
that
        explained to them neatly, you actually tell a neat
little
        fib.  You get Hitler out of Berlin when in fact he was
        there?
   A.   But there is nothing that is the least bit wrong about
the
        sentence I put in there.  With Hitler in East Prussia,
his
        headquarters were in East Prussia, the references to
        Berlin can only be taken as references to the SS, the

.          P-181



        Heydrich's agencies, who were in fact wholly
responsible
        for these operations.  As we know from other sources,
        Hitler was intervening constantly to stop these things
        being done.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I have got the point anyway.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I am not going on.
   A.   It is the reference to general geography; not to
specific
        meetings or conferences that you have only recently
heard
        about, no matter how dramatic these discoveries may be
or
        made to seem.
   Q.   Will your Lordship forgive me a moment?  May Mr Irving
        please be given bundle H3 (ii).  I think these are
        Professor Browning's documents.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is one I have not got here I am
afraid.
   A.   This is the actual conference.
   MR RAMPTON:  At tab 11, no sorry.
   A.   10.
   Q.   It is open at the right place but I just want to
identify
        the document.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Tab 9, page 458.
   MR RAMPTON:  It is called "Footnote 88" which is the Hans
Frank
        extract which is printed in Professor Browning's
report at
        paragraph 5.1.13 on pages 31 and 32.  He has quoted
some
        of that diary, but there is another passage here which
        I would like you to look at in the German, please,
        Mr Irving, while I read slowly a translation.

.          P-182



   A.   Presumably the second paragraph?
   Q.   The first complete paragraph on page 458.  This is the
        Hans Frank so-called "diary".  Correct me as soon as I
go
        wrong.  No, I will read it once and then when we go
        through it again you tell me how this translation is
in
        error, if it is.
                  "For us the Jews are also particularly
useless,
        might be damaging, consumers of food, mouths.  We have
        approximately 2.5, perhaps with those related to Jews
and
        all that belongs to that 3.5 million Jews.  We can't
shoot
        these 3.5 million Jews.  We can't poison them.  But we
        will, however, be able to undertake interventions
which in
        some way lead to a successful annihilation, and indeed
in
        connection with the large scale measures to be
undertaken
        from the Reich and to be discussed.  The General
        Government must become just as free of Jews as the
Reich
        is.  Where and how that happens is a matter for the
        institutions which we must put into action and create
here
        and the effectiveness of which I will report on to you
in
        good time."
                  Is that roughly an accurate translation of
that
        paragraph?
   A.   Just two minor beefs, as I would call them.  I would
say
        in connection with, where he says "in connection with
the
        measures to be discussed from the Reich", I would say
"in
        the context of" is probably a more apposite
description.

.          P-183



        When he talks about "the institutions", "is a matter
for
        the institutions", "instansun(?)" would be more
accurately
        translated as "departments" in the sense of government
        departments.
   Q.   Yes.  I am happy to wear that correction for the
moment.
        I do not know whether the translator is.  I will find
that
        out later.  Does that not, Mr Irving, completely
demolish
        the idea that in Berlin it was Frank who was telling
the
        people in Berlin "liquidate the Jews yourselves"?  Is
he
        not here expanding on the instruction from Berlin,
        "liquidate them yourselves"?
   A.   May I first of all make plain that I had not seen this
        passage at the time I wrote the book.  So this is not
        something that lay before me when I wrote my books.
Can
        I make that quite plain on oath?
   Q.   Yes.
   A.   You will find this when I produce the materials that I
had
        that were given to me by the Institute from the Hans
Frank
        diaries.  Secondly, it confirms what I said about them
        already having more Jews in the Government General
than
        they could handle.  They could not feed and house the
ones
        they did have and they were very indignant at any more
        being dumped on them given the problems they had of
        feeding the mouths they already had.
   Q.   He is saying:  "We have got two and a half, maybe
three
        and a half million Jews in this part of the Reich
occupied

.          P-184



        territories, we cannot shoot them all, we cannot
poison
        them."
   A.   He says "we can't shoot them".  He does not say "all".
        There is a subtle difference there.
   Q.   Is it?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Oh.
   A.   Yes, otherwise it implies they can shoot some.  If I
am
        saying I cannot shoot all the people in this room,
that
        implies half the people in this room have a rather
bleak
        lookout.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, but making the place phrase
"Judenfrage"
        is pretty unambiguous.
   A.   No, the actual phrase that has been translated here,
he
        says: "These 3.5 million, we can't shoot them.  We
can't
        poison them", and Mr Rampton just slid in the word
"all".
   MR RAMPTON:  Oh, no.  I am paraphrasing.  Be kind to me,
        Mr Irving.
   A.   You put in the word "all".  We all heard you say it.
   Q.   Of course it does, but that is what it means?
   A.   No.  What it means is quite plain.  "We can't shoot
them".
   Q.   How do you make the General Government "Judenfrage" if
you
        do not get rid of all the Jews, if you do not achieve
a
        vernichtung serfolg?
   A.   I do not want to labour the point.  If you say that we
        cannot shoot them all, that implies we can shoot some
of

.          P-185



        them.  If he says we cannot shoot the Jews that
implies we
        cannot shoot any of them.
   Q.   That will do.  We cannot poison them.  We cannot shoot
3.5
        million.  We cannot poison 3.5 million?
   A.   But we will be able to do something, he goes on to
say,
        which will lead to wiping them out, getting rid of
them,
        vernichtung.
   Q.   Getting rid of?
   A.   Vernichtung.
   Q.   Vernichtung is to get rid of?
   A.   I am just saying the sense of this sentence is, "we
can't
        kill them, we can do something that will get rid of
them."
   Q.   It is not.
   A.   He just said, "We can't poison, we can't shoot them".
        Whatever ways would you suggest?
   Q.   Gas, Mr Irving, gas?
   A.   Vergeltung?  It sounds like poisoning to me, poison gas.
   Q.   "Gift gas" is poison gas. Vergeltung is poison?
   A.   That is right, he says "we can't do it".
   Q.   Yes.  He does not say anything about gassing.  This is an
        evolutionary document.
   A.   No point using gas if it is not poison gas.

Home ·  Funding ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor