Irving v. Lipstadt
Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 25: Electronic Edition
Pages 91 - 95 of 212
|<< 1-5||< 86-90||96-100 >||211-212 >>|
1 MR IRVING: My Lord, I would find it very helpful if Mr
2Rampton, with his unerring eye, does not always interrupt
3just when I am zeroing in for quite an important point.
4 MR JUSTICE GRAY: We have had a huge amount of
5cross-examination on the 18th December document.
6 MR IRVING: We now have new material, my Lord.
7 MR JUSTICE GRAY: It has not been suggested until now I believe
8that the reference to ausrottung the Jews as partisans was
9something that was not even discussed between Himmler and
11 MR IRVING: That is not the point I make. Can I explain the
12point that I am trying to make?
13 MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, do.
14 MR IRVING: If we had just that agenda note in front of us, we
15would be entitled to draw the inference which Mr Rampton
16does that Himmler is writing down an idea expressed and
17initiated by Adolf Hitler. But we here have evidence that
18on two occasions, and this is when I was unfortunately
19interrupted by Mr Rampton, in the summer of 1941 Himmler
20already has that idea embedded firmly in his mind and he
21uses precisely the same turn of phrase when he goes to see
22Hitler, and this may very well have influenced the way he
23recorded the conversation afterwards.
24 MR JUSTICE GRAY: That, I am afraid, is pure equivocation.
25What do you mean it may have influenced the way he wrote
1 MR IRVING: That he wrote down his own stock phrase rather than
2quoting what Adolf Hitler had said.
3 MR JUSTICE GRAY: So you are suggesting that that note does not
4represent something that was discussed between Hitler and
6 MR IRVING: Certainly they discussed the Jewish problem but
7then Himmler recorded the outcome in his own language
8rather than in Hitler's language, if I can put it like
9that. The fact that it was his own language is also borne
10out on page 22.
11 MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us just look at the document. We really
12have to try to see what the case is that is being made.
13Can somebody give me a reference in the new file? Page
14183, I think.
15 MR IRVING: 184, my Lord.
16 MR JUSTICE GRAY: 184, yes, quite right. Now, I had understood
17the case has proceeded so far on the basis that, and there
18is a much better copy of this document somewhere than
19this, on the left-hand side -- Mr Irving, would you
20answer the question I am going to ask you at the end of
21this -- Himmler had written down as being the topic he
22was proposing to raise with Hitler when he saw him
24 MR IRVING: Yes.
25 MR JUSTICE GRAY: And that, and this is what I understood to be
26accepted up until now, the different notation als partisan
1and ausrottung was what Himmler had written ----
2 MR IRVING: Subsequently.
3 MR JUSTICE GRAY: -- Following his discussion about that very
4topic with Hitler.
5 MR IRVING: Very well. Yes, precisely.
6 MR JUSTICE GRAY: You are now suggesting -- tell me if I am
7wrong about this -- that als partisan ausrottung has
8nothing to do with any discussion between Himmler and
9Hitler, it is something that Himmler recalled Hitler
10having said some time before. Is that your case now?
11 MR IRVING: No, my Lord. It is completely wrong, completely
12different from what I am suggesting.
13 MR JUSTICE GRAY: Then I do not understand what you are putting
14to the witness.
15 MR IRVING: What I am suggesting is that Himmler went to see
16Hitler with Judenfrager written down in his appointment
17book. Subsequently he wrote down the words als partisan
18and ausrotten, but this was his own phrase that he wrote
19down, because it was a phrase that he had used very
20similarly already twice that summer to summarize the
21conversation. It is very dangerous trying to extrapolate
22just on the basis of four words anyway precisely what
23happened in a conversation that only lasted 10 or 20
25 MR JUSTICE GRAY: So are you or are you not saying that the
26notion of killing the Jews as partisans was something that
1was discussed and agreed between Hitler and Himmler?
2 MR IRVING: Yes.
3 MR JUSTICE GRAY: You accept it was discussed and agreed
4between Hitler and Himmler?
5 MR IRVING: Yes.
6 MR JUSTICE GRAY: Then I do not understand what you are seeking
7to suggest to this witness. We now have that clear so we
8can move on.
9 MR IRVING: After that successful interruption by Mr Rampton
10I will not take your Lordship to page 22 where he used it
11a second time. Page 17 on line 7 after the words, "about
127,000 Jews were collected and shot by the security police
13in retribution for these inhuman atrocities", you have
14omitted quite a lengthy passage there, have you not, from
16 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich] Yes. This is why I put these three dots in the text after
18 Q. [Mr Irving] Yes. Do you recall offhand what the lengthy passage? Was
19it a description of the atrocities in great detail?
20 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich] I cannot recall at the moment but we probably have the
22 MR IRVING: My Lord, in the interests of making forward
23progress I do not think I am going to press this point.
24It is a four page description of atrocities committed on
25the Ukranians which were discovered by the Germans when
26they arrived. Obviously the Germans ran berserk. It
1probably does not -- why did you omit this very lengthy
3 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich] I do not see the point you are making here. They were
4atrocities from the -- where are we here?
5 Q. [Mr Irving] In July 1941.
6 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich] In Lobov, yes, so there were atrocities committed by the
7Soviet NKVD against Ukranians and, as a result of this,
8the Einsatzgruppen C shot 7,000 Jews. So I do not see the
9point between the actions and the so-called retaliation
11 MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think the suggestion must be this,
12Dr Longerich, that these 7,000 Jews had all been involved
13in some way in the atrocities on the Ukrainians and
14therefore, in a sense, the shooting of them by the
15security police was justified.
16 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich] Yes. This was a massacre among the Jewish population of
17this town. We have details about the way it was carried
18out. There was nothing like a kind of identifying of
19every of the 7,000 as perpetrators, as one of the people
20actually who instigated ----
21 MR IRVING: Was it an active retribution then?
22 A. [Dr Heinz Peter Longerich] Retribution directed against the Jewish population, so it
23was part of the systematic killing, guided out under the
24pretext of a retaliation action. If you read the whole
25thing, there is nothing in this text which indicates that
26there was a kind of extermination done by the
|<< 1-5||< 86-90||96-100 >||211-212 >>|