Irving v. Lipstadt

Transcripts

Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 24: Electronic Edition

Pages 91 - 95 of 192

<< 1-5191-192 >>
    Yes, he did this a lot of times. He always came back to
 1February. He is always giving the same text. On 21st
 2February he is actually replacing the word "vernichtung"
 3by "ausrotten". So he is actually saying, he is
 4indicating that things become actually more violent and
 5more threatening.
 6 Q. [Mr Irving]     You then look at what Hans Frank said on December 16th?
 7 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes. So we are back in the glossary?
 8 Q. [Mr Irving]     Yes, back in the glossary, paragraph 5.8.
 9 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes.
10 Q. [Mr Irving]     Is it plain that the word "vernichtung" as used by Hans
11Frank is unambiguously referring to liquidation there?
12Immediately before the passage you quote, has not Frank
13told subordinates that a great Jewish emigration is about
14to begin, meaning the Jews of the German government are
15going to be deported and adopted by the Soviet Union?
16 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes, again I would prefer to see the text here. I do not
17know who has the full.
18 MR RAMPTON:     I think we probably need the new file. That is
19much the best way of doing it.
20 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I am just wondering where we get with this.
21This is Frank putting a gloss on Hitler had said in 1939.
22We have looked at what Hitler said in 1939.
23 MR RAMPTON:     No, my Lord, I think the case is Frank is putting
24a gloss, if that be the right word, on what Hitler said on
2512th December 1941.
26 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Do we need to trouble with what Frank says?

.   P-91



 1 MR RAMPTON:     The witness makes the point, and indeed Mr Irving
 2accepts, that the understanding which Frank had of what he
 3had been told by Hitler in Berlin was quite unequivocal.
 4It was about physical liquidation.
 5 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes. He came back from Berlin -- it is four days after
 6Hitler's speech -- saying he had discussions in Berlin
 7and he is referring to this discussion. I think it is
 8fair to assume, because Frank was as Reichsleiter present
 9at the Reichs and Gauleiter meeting, so it is fair to
10assume that he is referring to this speech and may be
11other discussions they had.
12 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I thought he was referring back to 1939.
13 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes, but if you look at the ----
14 MR RAMPTON:     I think, my Lord, it would honestly be helpful
15because what we have done in this file is to put in fact a
16long translation provided by Professor Browning against
17the German text. Would you turn to 172, first of all?
18That is the English of Professor Browning. .
19 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Where will I find that?
20 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     It is called N1. It is also in another file
21but this is probably the best place.
22 MR RAMPTON:     Do not worry about the other file. N1 is the one
23you need. I hope this should be a long paragraph in
24English indented. My Lord, may I ask the witness whether
25that is what he has?
26 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes, I have got that.

.   P-92



 1 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Yes.
 2 MR RAMPTON:     If one turns to page 6 in a bold crayon, 178, one
 3finds a third of the way down the page the words "mit den
 4Juden".
 5 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes.
 6 MR RAMPTON:     That I think is the passage we are looking for.
 7 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes.
 8 MR RAMPTON:     I will leave it there.
 9 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Thank you very much, Mr Rampton.
10 MR RAMPTON:     I should add that it goes over the page to the end
11of a paragraph, the next paragraph beginning "Die
12ucheiner".
13 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes.
14 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Yes. Mr Irving, have you got N1? Were you
15able to follow all that?
16 MR IRVING:     I am going with your Lordship's view that what Hans
17Frank's use of the word means is really not of much
18relevance, having gone to all that trouble.
19 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     The way it is put is, and just decide whether
20you want to ask a question, is that Frank had just come
21back from Berlin where he had heard Hitler speaking, so he
22is not harking back in all of what he says to 1939 but to
23four days before.
24 MR IRVING:     Yes.
25 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I think the way it is put is that vernichtung
26is used fairly unambiguously in Frank's speech as a record

.   P-93



 1of what he had been told in Berlin. It is really that one
 2phrase, is it not, Dr Longerich? "In Berlin we were told
 3why all this trouble, we cannot use them in the Ostland or
 4the Reichskommissariat either, liquidate them yourselves"?
 5 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes. That is I think the main paragraph, the main
 6sentence.
 7 Q. [Mr Irving]     It may be that you do not want to cross-examine about
 8that, Mr Irving?
 9 MR IRVING:     Not really, because it is not the word vernichtung
10unfortunately.
11 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     It is the words Juden vernichtung. That is in there, in
12the German text. (German spoken). The term vernichtung
13the term vernichtung is clearly in here. When he is not
14sure about the means how to vernichtung the people, he is
15saying we cannot liquidate, we cannot execute them, we
16cannot poison them, so what shall we do?
17 MR IRVING:     That is the problem we have with that particular
18passage, of course, my Lord, is it not Frank says earlier,
19we cannot poison them, we cannot shoot them.
20 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes. We are looking -- this is on page bold 7, second
21paragraph. So they are looking for a kind of solution,
22how to vernichtung the people.
23 MR IRVING:     Without shooting or poisoning them?
24 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes. Poisoning could be a possible method. They are
25looking for a kind of solution to this problem and then it
26is explained here that we will have a meeting in Berlin,

.   P-94



 1and this is obviously the Wannsee conference. Then it
 2becomes clearer what would happen in the
 3Generalgouvernement.
 4 Q. [Mr Irving]     If you went back to the Klauserwitz example and somebody
 5said to a German general, we have Eisenhower's armies in
 6front of us, we cannot shoot them, we cannot poison them,
 7how are we going to destroy them? The answer is, cut off
 8their water supply, cut off the power, deprive them of the
 9shipping lines, the oil. There are all sorts of ways of
10destroying an enemy.
11 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     That is why I am trying to explain how difficult it is to
12make comparisons because clearly von Klauserwitz is
13referring to an army, and in your example you refer to an
14army, but here it is about the Jews.
15 Q. [Mr Irving]     An enemy?
16 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     An enemy, but the Jews are the Jews. This is the people,
17the human beings, and if I destroy, vernichtung, human
18beings, and I discuss then the methods, whether I should
19liquidate them, execute them or whether I should poison
20them, I think then the context is pretty clear. There is
21not much room for interpretation, I think.
22 Q. [Mr Irving]     Dr Longerich, it is even clearer than that because he
23says, we cannot shoot them and we cannot poison them.
24 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich]     Yes, because they have not been told from Berlin what
25method they should use. Then, if you into the Wannsee
26protocol, actually the suggestion comes from von Below,

.   P-95


<< 1-5191-192 >>