[Irving's site | Irving-v-Lipstadt site | Rae West's Site Home Page ]
File name was: http://www2.prestel.co.uk/littleton/day024.html (260K). 23rd Feb 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE           1996 I. No. 113

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London
Wednesday, 23rd February 2000


B E T W E E N:

The Claimant appeared in person
MR RICHARD RAMPTON Q.C. (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons
and Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the First and
Second Defendants
MISS HEATHER ROGERS (instructed by Davenport Lyons) appeared on
behalf of the First Defendant Penguin Books Limited

MR ANTHONY JULIUS (of Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of
the Second Defendant Deborah Lipstadt

(Transcribed from the stenographic notes of Harry Counsell
& Company, Clifford's Inn, Fetter Lane, London EC4
Telephone: 020-7242-9346)

(This transcript is not to be reproduced without the written permission of Harry Counsell & Company)



Day 24. (10.30 a.m.)

MR RAMPTON: My Lord, before I call Dr Longerich, there are three things I think I would like to mention.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I want to mention two things to you too.
MR RAMPTON: Then judge before counsel.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: All right. One I think I have actually discovered the answer to, but can you just confirm that the statements which you rely on for saying that Mr Irving is a Holocaust denier, are they now collective in K3 and, if so, are they going to be refined down, as it were, any more or do I take it that K3 is the selection upon which you rely.
MR RAMPTON: My belief is there was an abstract rather like the anti-Semitic abstract. It is on Word disk.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I actually heard that. If, in due course, Mr Irving and I can be supplied with a copy of it, that will help a great deal. The other thing is, looking ahead a little more, and this is for you, Mr Irving, as well is really looking ahead to final speeches, it seems obvious that you must both take matters in whatever order you think is appropriate, but it seemed to me in this particular case it would be quite helpful to have a discussion at some stage about a possibly agreed order of topics to be covered, because it would help me if I knew what you were moving to. If you were to take things in


the same order, you do not have to obviously, but do you follow what I am getting at?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: This is quite a difficult case in the sense of you cannot take it chronologically and it is quite difficult to interrelate some of the issues.
MR IRVING: Your Lordship is aware that I propose not addressing certain issues in my closing speech.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is a matter for you.
MR IRVING: But I certainly agree that there should be an agreed order.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think so. That makes it sound a bit more formal than I was really intending, but if we can set aside maybe half an hour some time early next week.
MR RAMPTON: May I say straightaway my present format is to do what I call historical falsification first, then because it goes with Holocaust denial, Auschwitz, and then what I call racism and then finally political associations. I will try to order the historical distortions as I did in cross-examination, and my witnesses have done more or less in the witness box, to do that chronologically.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: If I can just indicate the problem I have had is that the issue of Hitler's knowledge of what was going on is quite difficult to accommodate within the structure you have just outlined. That is, I think, the area that is quite difficult to slot in.


MR RAMPTON: Except to this extent, it does not find a place, or not a significant place, in my format because I do not believe that it has any relevance except in so far as it is on the back of that topic that most of the historical distortions ride.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Quite, but if you limit -- I am sorry to go on about this point; it is quite important to thrash it out -- what one might call the historiographical criticisms of Mr Irving to the points that are made, effectively, by Professor Evans, you slightly miss the whole gamut of the continuum, to use a word we have been using, of the evidence in relation to that issue. So I will just mention that as being a possible difficulty.
MR RAMPTON: It will have a place in the file which -- your Lordship I hope now has, which we have finished, I am afraid -- that was the other thing I was going to say and apologise -- a bit late yesterday. It contains what we think are the core history documents and that, obviously, bears on the Hitler knowledge question.
    There will be in what I have to say a certain amount relating to Hitler's knowledge, Hitler's authority, Hitler's orders, if you like, but only in so far as the evidence leads to the conclusion reached by Sir John Keegan, for example, that the idea that he did not know defies reason.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: We will spend a bit more time on perhaps


discussing that.
MR RAMPTON: One other thing: as to that Hitler knowledge question, what Miss Rogers has done is to prepare a reference, chronological reference document, for what are the most important -- it is not exhaustive -- Hitler statements, in our submission. Can I pass that up?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Where do you want me to put it? Have you had this, Mr Irving?
MR IRVING: No, I have not.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Is there a copy for Mr Irving?
MR RAMPTON: N1, I think it is. It is the new file anyway and it is ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is called N1, thank you.
MR RAMPTON: There is one other thing I should say. Your Lordship asked for a note on the admissibility of expert evidence in written form. I have done a note on that. It will be ready by 2 o'clock. It is being typed.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Obviously, Mr Irving should have a chance to look at it before we have any submissions there are going to be about it.
MR RAMPTON: I will attach to it, there are some pieces of paper showing what the statutes and the rules say.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much. Mr Irving?
MR IRVING: My Lord, the only thing I would wish to add to that is a request that there should be one clear day before the submission of closing speeches.


MR JUSTICE GRAY: There will be more than that, I think.
MR RAMPTON: I need much more than one day.
MR IRVING: The words "at least" was in square brackets before "one clear".
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I do not think we want to have too long because I am not sure that speeches are necessarily going to need to go through everything, as it were, in detail; it is more a question of references, I think, in a way.
MR RAMPTON: I thought what I would do is a shortish sort of summary to read out in court with a file, which I would not read in court, of where necessary detailed reasoning and references just for your Lordship and, of course, eventually the public too.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: My feeling is it will be three plus days. Does that sound sensible to you?
MR IRVING: That will suit my needs, yes.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is everything you want to say?
MR IRVING: I think so, yes, my Lord.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: So it is Dr Longerich, gentlemen? Mr Rampton, I have just been told there is an interpreter as well which rather surprises me because I thought Dr Longerich was giving expert evidence about the translation of German words into English.
MR RAMPTON: Yes. His English is very good, but there are times when his thought processes on a sophisticated or difficult question are in German, and when he feels


uncertain that he may get quite the right nuance or emphasis in English, and it is only for that. It is not going to be a continuous process.

(Interpreter sworn)
Examined by MR RAMPTON, QC.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Dr Longerich, do sit down if you would rather?
MR RAMPTON: Dr Longerich, are your full names Heinz Peter Longerich?
A: Peter Longerich, yes.
Q: Peter Longerich, sorry. Have you written a report in two parts for the purposes of this case?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you satisfied, so far as can you be, that the statements of fact contained in those reports are true?
A: Yes.
Q: And that, so far as those reports contain expressions of opinion, those opinions are fair and accurate?
A: That is correct.
Q: You speak quite softly. I am a long way away at least. Can you try to speak up?
A: I will do my best.
Q: Thank you very much. Please remain there to be cross-examined.


Cross-examined by MR IRVING.

Q: Good morning, Dr Longerich.
A: Good morning.
Q: Just to clarify one matter. Should I address you as "Professor" or a "Doctor"?
A: Dr Longerich.
Q: Thank you very much. My Lord, just by way of diversion, I provided your Lordship the two documents of which you asked translations. This is nothing to do with Dr Longerich, but you asked this and I should have drawn your attention to this. There is the translation of the Party court in 1939.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I remember, the Bericht.
MR IRVING: It is the final paragraph which is in endless lawyer language. That is the official American translation of it.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I will tell you what, let us come back to this and then we will at the same time work out where to put these documents.
MR IRVING: Precisely, my Lord, and also there is a small bundle of documents which look like this beginning with some Gothic script on the front cover.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: With "ausrotten".
MR IRVING: With "ausrotten", yes.
    My Lord, just so you know where we are going today, I will advise your Lordship that I intend to deal


today largely, and certainly this morning, with this witness's statement on the meaning of words, this late arrival, which I thought would be a useful way to kick off and then we will turn to this formal reports.
    Before we do that, I just want to address one or two matters concerning, through the witness, conduct of the case and his credentials. Professor Longerich ----
A: Dr Longerich.
Q: --- Dr Longerich, I am sorry. You work for a number of years at the Institut fur Zeitgeschichte in Munich, did you not?
A: This is correct, yes.
Q: You have to say yes clearly. A nodding will not do. You have to say yes otherwise ----
A: Yes.
Q: --- the microphone does not hear it. How many years did you work at the Institute of History in Munich?
A: From 1983 to 1989.
Q: 1983 to 1989. That was, what, five years then?
A: About five years -- a little bit more.
Q: About five or six years. Did you have a special subject you were working on there?
A: I worked on a project called condition of the files of the Party Chancellory.
Q: The Martin Bormann files, the files of the Party Chancellory?


A: Yes I edited the second part of this edition.
Q: Yes. The Party Chancellory files no longer existed and they were reconstituted, is that right?
A: It is an attempt to reconstruct the lost files of the Party Chancellory, so I edited about 80,000 pages of these documents.
Q: A spectacular task. So that gives you a very good overview over the whole of the domestic life of Nazi Germany?
A: I think it gave me a good insight into the day to day operation of the bureaucracy in the Nazi State.
Q: And into the kind of language they used?
A: Yes, of course.
Q: And into the hierarchy and the various rivalries and disputes?
A: Exactly.
Q: Was friction between the top Nazis a major element of the Third Reich?
A: Absolutely.
Q: [German] -- in other words ----
A: Yes.
Q: --- jealousies between the different ministries and agencies?
A: In-fighting and these things, yes.
Q: Would you, from your knowledge of other governments, think it was more or less than other governments around that


time, British government or the American government, or was it something extraordinary, the degree of ----
A: I made point in the book I wrote on the Party Chancellery that I think this exceeded the normal of in-fighting you find in all governments. It is a special case here.
Q: Yes. When you worked in the Institute of History, who was the director at that time? Was it still Martin Broszat?
A: At this time it was Martin Broszat until his death in 1989.
Q: He had a very great reputation, did he not, and he is still greatly admired by German historians?
A: Yes, I think so.
Q: Were you familiar with all the collections of documents in the Institute files? Did you work in the archives at all?
A: Not all the files. I mean, the Institute has an enormous collection of files, but I know some of them.
Q: Yes. Was Dr Hoff still there, Anton Hoff, the archivist?
A: No, I think he died in 1883.
Q: 1983?
A: 1983, sorry.
Q: Just before you came?
A: Yes.
Q: It is a very friendly atmosphere there at the archives, at the institute?
A: I think they were friendly to me. I do not know ----
Q: They are very co-operative, are they not? They do not


hold things back very much apart from own private collections?
A: I cannot make such a general statement.
Q: In fact, you probably had quite a lowly position there, did you not? You were a newcomer and you were working in the Institute?
A: I have no difficulties in actually getting access to the collection but I cannot make a general statement on that.
Q: Did you ever take the opportunity to look at what is now ED 100, the collection of my documents which is in the Institute?
A: I think I have seen some of the ED 100 files, but I cannot say that I have a complete overview.
Q: Yes.
A: I have seen some of them yes, but at the moment I cannot recall every document I have seen in the Institute.
Q: I am just going to give you a list of names of collections of diaries. I am sorry, you have a copy of this already. I ought to give a copy to his Lordship, perhaps. (Same handed) just on the back of that there is a blue column called Hitler's People. Do you have that if you turn it over? There is a list of names of diaries that I used when I wrote my book Hitler's War, which are now in the archives. I have added to those since then but I just pick out a few names. Canaris: Would that be a valuable source?


A: At the moment I cannot recall the Canaris diaries. I am not able to comment on every item, but I think some of them are of course important.
Q: Some are more important and some are less important?
A: Yes.
Q: Dr Longerich, I am not trying to trick you. I am just at this stage trying establish -- I will give a little warning if I am going to try and trick you.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, do I get anything more from than that -- is this the new edition that is coming out shortly.
MR IRVING: No, this is the second edition, my Lord, but I just wanted to comment on the fact I wondered whether he had taken the trouble to look at these very important collections of diaries that are in my collection, either for his own work or in the expert report.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can you put it as a single question rather than the whole lot?
MR IRVING: Yes. Did you use the diary of Walter Havel?
A: I looked at the transcripts. I think it is in England, is it not, the original? I looked at the transcripts at one stage but not for the Party Chancellery. I think I looked at the Bormann, it is more a calendar.
Q: The calendar?
A: Yes.
Q: Which I have now provided to the Defendants. The Walter


Havel diary does contain one of these episodes July 1941, does it not, where Hitler describes the Jews as a bacillus?
A: I cannot recall this particular passage, I am afraid.
Q: When you drew up this glossary of meanings of words, which, I must say, I find very useful indeed, and this goes purely to the conduct of the case, when did you start writing that approximately?
A: I think it was in December last year.
Q: In December last year?
A: Yes, I tried to use the Christmas holiday to do it.
Q: When did you complete it?
A: I think it was actually in January think.
Q: You completed it in January?
A: Yes, January I think.
Q: Yes. When were you asked to do it by the instructing solicitors in this case?
A: I think they wrote me an e-mail. I think it was in November, but I could not start immediately to work on it because I had other obligations. So I am sure I started to work on it at the end of the Christmas holidays.
Q: You got a letter of instruction?
A: I think, as far as I recall this, I got an e-mail.
Q: Yes. So you got an e-mail sometime in November, you began writing in December and you completed it in January?
A: Yes, that is right.


Q: Any idea when in January you completed it?
A: I think it was more through the end of January, probably on the first days of February, I cannot recall.
MR RAMPTON: I can help, I think, because now it comes out of Dr Longerich's hands, as it were. It came in its first version in German, which, since I was the person who requested it, I think in November is right, maybe even October, and was useless to me. So it had to be translated. It came back and the translation was, to say the least, unsatisfactory. Then it had it go back again, and what we now have emerged in the course of the last few days.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving I am not unsympathetic to the fact that you are having to deal with this at pretty short notice because it came to you very, very late in the day.
MR IRVING: Of course I accept Mr Rampton's explanation but it was delivered to me on Friday evening and, if it turns out he completed it in January, I would have wanted to know what the reason for the delay was.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: If you want to say you want Dr Longerich to come back at some later stage because you want to ask some further questions, you would be pushing at an open door.
MR IRVING: I fully accept Mr Rampton's explanation about translation difficulties.
    During your professional career, Dr Longerich,


as you say in your curriculum vitae on page 3 of your report, you have received research grants from the German Historical Institute in London, and from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and also from Yad Vashem?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: Are you still in debt to Yad Vashem in any way?
A: I started to work on the project. The project has not yet been completed. The relationship, there is no contract between us and in this sense, it is not a book contract or something like that, but I still have to complete this project we started a couple of years ago.
Q: I do not want to know any figures or quantum. Does this mean to say they paid you in advance for something and you are still working on it?
A: No. They paid me for ten months actually. It enabled me to live in Israel for ten months.
Q: As you say in this ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: What will you be doing for them? What will you be researching?
A: We started to work on a project, a documentation about the deportation of the Jews from Germany to Minsk and Riga and I had a partner there. We started to collect the documents, but unfortunately the work has not been completed yet. It is actually a major project and has not been completed yet.
MR IRVING: The Eastern European archives have turned out to be


particularly fruitful, is that right?
A: Absolutely, yes.
Q: Is it to be regarded as a great tragedy they have only recently in the last ten or 15 years become available to historians? Is that right?
A: I cannot comment whether it is a tragedy. It is a fact that it has become available in the last years.
Q: They were not available at the time I wrote my first edition of the Hitler biography in the 1960s?
A: With some exceptions. It was always possible to get some of the documents out of the archives. For instance, there is a large collection of documents in the German Central Agency for the Prosecution of Nazi Crimes. They actually managed to get a large collection from this material in the 1960s. There is also a large collection in the Bundesarchives archive and individual researchers had the chance to see not the whole archives but some of the documents.
Q: If I can just dwell briefly on the files in the Zentralestelle, which is presumably the ZST source?
A: Absolutely, yes.
Q: You did not identify that in your report, did you?
A: I think there is a list of abbreviations and it should be there.
Q: The documents provided by the Eastern European archives to the German Zentralestelle, which is a prosecuting archive


-- could I put it like that?
A: It is the house archive of this agency. They have their own library and their own archival collection.
Q: At Ludwigsburg?
A: Yes.
Q: Is it specifically collected for the purpose of carrying out prosecutions of German and other citizens for war crimes?
A: That is the main purpose of the whole institution and of course mainly some historical background.
Q: They have very valuable collections of documents there, do they not?
A: They have a very good collection, yes.
Q: That is where Dr Goldhart worked, for example?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, do you think we should move on from the archives?
MR IRVING: I just want to ask one question which makes the point clear, my Lord. Is it apparent to you that, if an archive has been collected for the purposes of prosecution, it is less likely to include defence material, if I can put it like that?
A: Well, you can use this material in different ways. I do not say that they had a complete set of documents from the Russian archives. It is certainly a selection. I did not select it. I do not know who selected it and who made the decision about this, so I should be very careful to make a


comment on that.
Q: You would always bear in mind using such archives that you are only seeing one side of the picture and not necessarily the other side?
A: I think it is difficult to say because they were interested. They did a lot of work in this Zentralestelle during the 1950s and 60s, and they actually had historical expertise there because they actually worked on the historical background. I would not say that they were only interested in this aspect of prosecution. I think they had to collect the historical expertise which was not available at this time and could not be provided by historians. So I would be cautious to make such a statement about this collection.
Q: I see on page 5 of your report that you are an expert, or you have written about the Wannsee conference?
A: Yes, I gave the annual lecture in 1998 at the Haus of the Wannsee conference and this published as a booklet.
Q: I do not want a lengthy answer at this time. I just want a brief overview. Is it right that opinions differ as to the importance of the Wannsee conference in the history of the Final Solution?
A: I do not think, generally speaking, the short answer, I would not say that there is so much difference about the significance of the Wannsee conference. It was basically a conference on the implementation of what is called the


Final Solution. I think a statement like this could be accepted by most of the historians. Of course, if you go into the interpretation of the text, you will find differences.
Q: Opinions differ?
A: Opinions differ among historians.
Q: Yehuda Bauer has said one thing, Eberhard Jaeckel has said another, and so on?
A: I would be very careful to make a general comment. One could look at the writings of Yehuda Bauer and Eberhard Jaeckel and then I am prepared to comment on it.
Q: My Lord, the next question is purely pre-emptive in case another matter comes up. This is still on that page, three paragraphs from the bottom. You edited something called "Was ist des Deutschen Vaterland", a book on German unity?
A: Yes. That is a collection of documents. Actually I issued this in 1990 when this was actually called, as you see here, documents about the question of German unity so that, when the book came out, the question was solved.
Q: Would you tell the court please, during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, or certainly during the 1960s and 1970s, what was the official designation in west German circles of the Soviet zone or the German Democratic Republic?
A: The official name?
Q: The official name, Sprachledlung.


A: I do not think there was a Sprachledlung but I think in the 1950s the generally preferred term was Soviet zone of Occupation. This changed, then in the 1960s, at the end of the 1960s, when it became more common to speak of the German Democratic Republic, but I am certainly not an expert on, you know, on this issue ----
Q: Have you ever heard of the word Middle Deutschland.
A: Yes, of course.
Q: Was that also an official designation?
A: This was also common, yes.
Q: No kind of revanches sentiment was attached to that word?
A: I would be very careful to make such a general statement. It is a complex issue.
Q: Professor Longerich, I think I can say quite evidently that you harbour no personal dislike or animosity towards me at this stage?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I am sure not. Mr Irving, shall we move towards one of the substantive questions that you are going to have to ask about? Let us move on, in other words.
MR IRVING: On page 8, three paragraphs from the bottom, you lecture the German Historical Institute ----
A: Yes.
Q: --- on the policy of destruction, vernichtung?
A: Yes, that is the title you prefer. I cannot recall the exact English title of this lecture.


Q: Politik der Vernichtung. Was I present in the audience on that occasion?
A: I think I remember you, yes.
Q: Did you invite questions at the end of that function?
A: The Director of the Institute invited question, yes.
Q: Did I ask a question?
A: Yes, you asked a question.
Q: What did the Director of the Institute say?
A: The Director said, "Dr Longerich does not want to answer your question".
Q: He said, "Dr Longerich has informed me in advance he will not answer any questions from Mr David Irving"?
A: That is correct, yes.
Q: Thank you very much. Was there any specific reason for your refusal?
A: I think there was a discussion in the Institute whether you should be actually asked to leave the building, and, well, at this stage I actually know, I actually knew that I would be called into the witness stand here, and I thought it was better not to answer this question, not to have a kind rehearsal of this.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Sorry, you did or you did not know you were going to be a witness?
A: I was quite aware, I think, that I would be.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Oh, you were, even back in 1988?
A: Yes.


MR IRVING: Did you state that at the time?
A: Pardon?
Q: Did you state that to the Chairman at the time as the reason why?
A: No. I did not give a reason.
Q: What was the question I asked? Do you remember? What document was I asking about?
A: I think you were asking about the Schlegelberger, what you called the Schlegelberger document.
Q: I read out the Schlegelberger document and invited you to reconcile it with what you had said in your lecture?
A: I think this was the moment when you called me a "coward"? Isn't this this incident?
Q: That is right, yes.
A: Yes. I can recall this, yes.
Q: Just a brief answer this time, do you consider the Schlegelberger document to be a key document in the history of the Final Solution?
A: No, absolutely not.
Q: Totally unimportant?
A: It is unimportant, yes.
Q: Have you mentioned it in any of your books?
A: No, I do not think so.
Q: A book, in other words, a document which says the Fuhrer has asked repeatedly for the solution of the Jewish problem postponed until the war is over, in your view, was


A: Well, that is your interpretation of the document.
Q: I am saying what it says.
A: Yes, it is third-hand evidence. It is an undated document. We do not know who actually wrote the document. It is third-hand evidence. It is about Lammers who said that somewhere in the past Hitler had said something to him about the solution, not the Final Solution, of the Jewish question. I think we will come to the document later in more detail, but I think I could not see this and I cannot see this as a major document, let us say, for the interpretation of the Holocaust.
Q: What would have prevented you saying this to what was obviously a friendly audience at the German Institute on ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: He has given his answer. You may not accept it, but he felt inhibited by the fact he had been asked to give expert evidence.
A: I should mention that I do not want to find myself on Mr Irving's website with my answer. I felt myself ten with the full comment, you know, of my behaviour and I know that Mr Irving was doing these things, and I do not want to get engaged in this kind of argument or debate, so I prefer to be silent.
Q: You prefer there not to be a debate, is that right?
A: Pardon?


Q: You prefer there not to be any debate on things like this?
A: No, I do not prefer to be involved in this kind of debate that you, you know, should be more specific, not to be with my comment. I do not want to find me on your web page which is what I said during this discussion or during this lecture. This was the second reason.
Q: We are now going to go to the meaning of words, Professor Longerich. Again this is perfectly straightforward questioning and answering. There are no concealed tricks involved here. Would you agree that a lot of the words that you have put in your list quite clearly show an intention, a homicidal intent, if I can put it like that? A lot of the euphemisms used by the Nazis?
A: Yes, I think that is true.
Q: A lot of them are ambiguous?
A: They are in the way they were used they are. They are sometimes ambiguous, yes.
Q: It is really a bit of a minefield, is it not?
A: Well, I think, I cannot speak about minefields. I think what an historian has to do, he has to look at each document and has to look at the context and then try to reconstruct from the context what actually the meaning of this, of this passage might be.
Q: But is not the danger there that you then come back using our pre-Ori methods, that you extrapolate backwards from your knowledge and assign a meaning to the word rather


than using the word to help you itself?
A: That is the problem with all interpretations. You have to come back. Of course, you cannot analyse the word completely, you know, outside. You have to look at the meaning of the word, but always in a historical context. I am not a linguist, so I prefer to actually, as I said, to look at the context and to ----
Q: You speak English very well, Dr Longerich, if I may say so, and I think we are all very impressed by that and I am certainly impressed by the arguments you have put forward in your glossary. Would you agree also that the same word can have different meanings when uttered by different people?
A: Yes. That is exactly why I think it is important always to look at the context because, as you rightly said, the same word could have different meanings in different contexts.
Q: The same word can also have a different meaning depending on when it is uttered?
A: Exactly.
Q: Even by the same person?
A: Exactly.
Q: Or in what circumstances it is uttered?
A: That is what I call the context.
Q: The only two words I am really concerned with (but we will certainly look at the other words in your glossary) are


the words "vernichtung" which is destruction or annihilation?
A: I said, I translate it as, I could accept this translation, but I also think in our context, I said probably the translation "extermination" is the better one or the more appropriate one.
Q: Yes, well, "extermination" is a possible one, but you will appreciate it is not always proper to go for the third or fourth meaning of a word?
A: I do not know what you mean by "the third or fourth meaning". If you mean the use of dictionaries, I think that is a rather mechanical way, you know, at looking at dictionaries. Of course, a dictionary offers various meanings and you have to probably go to the third or fourth meaning if the context suggested that, the context in which the document stands. So I do not think a translator or an historian would always in a mechanical way take the first meaning in the dictionary.
Q: Here is a 1935 dictionary that says -- I will just check it -- "vernichtung" has only two meanings and that is "annihilate; destroy"?
A: This looks rather small, your dictionary, if I may say so, and you find other dictionaries -- actually, I do not think that.
Q: I have any number of other dictionaries going back over the years.


A: We can go, if you want, to the dictionaries.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think what the witness is saying is you can swap dictionary definitions until the cows come home and no-one is at the end of it any the wiser.
MR IRVING: The other word I want to look at is "ausrotten" and I am going to ask you very quickly, Dr Longerich, to take this little bundle of documents which is on the left-hand side there which I just gave you.
A: I just see this for the first time, I have to say.
Q: Is that the little bundle there?
A: Yes.
Q: Yes. I have given it to you for the first time because perhaps I can ask an interim question. When you compiled your glossary, Dr Longerich, did you have before you a number of documents from a dossier on the word "ausrotten" that had been provided by the Defence solicitors?
A: Sorry, a glossary of terms of what the word ----
Q: When you wrote your glossary ----
A: Yes.
Q: --- did you before you a number of documents provided to you by the Defence solicitors?
A: No, I cannot actually -- I cannot recall this. I wrote this in Munich but, of course, it was holidays and when I did this, I did not have anything in front of me.
Q: Very well. The first page, page 1 -- I am looking at the big numbers at the bottom -- the ausrottung des Prostesten


A: Your bundle, yes.
Q: It is my little bundle, yes. This is 1900 ----
A: Yes.
Q: -- published by some church body, and it is about the ausrotten des Prostesten tismus in Salzburg?
A: Yes.
Q: Obviously, they are not talking about liquidating all the Protestants, are they?
A: I do not know, I mean, you know, in Germany in the 17th century, for instance, they had what they called religious wars and many people were actually ausgerot for religious reasons. So if you give me a chance to find out whether this is about the 30 year war.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: It appears to be dated 1900. I do not know whether the Gothic script means it is older than that.
A: It is written 1900, but is it not historical subject?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, if I may say so, I do not think we will get very much help out of that.
A: I see. It is about the church history of the 18th century.
Q: I am looking just at the use of the word, my Lord, and suggesting strongly that at this time they were not -- it is in close parallel to the phrase the ausrotten des Judentums?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I follow the point you are making, but


can one not put it this way? Do you accept or not, I do not know, Dr Longerich, that you can use "ausrotten" to mean "rooting out". It depends on the context?
A: I am not sure about "rooting out". I think the meaning here of "ausrotten" is to wipe out, to get completely rid of.
Q: All right, wipe out?
A: This applies not to -- I do not know, I mean, I am not familiar with the -- I mean, if you give me the time I will try to do my best to get familiar with the history of the churches, of a church in Salzburg in the 19th century, I am not sure whether they kill anybody or so.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us forget about ----
A: I think the term "ausrotten" applies to an organization which probably Protestentismus is here. It does not necessarily mean that everybody who belongs to this organization is going to be killed. You can also speak, I mean, today about "ausrotten" of criminality, for instance, if you mean, you know, that you get rid of this problem. But I think what is more important is that, you know, it is more tricky when it comes actually to the ausrotten of human beings, then I think the meaning is quite clear, as far I see it.
MR IRVING: Can we now go to page 2 which is a 1935 Nazi reference to it, one which you have not adduced in your glossary. This is a speech by Rudolf Hess on May 14th. My


Lord, the translation is the final paragraph on that page. "National socialist legislation", the actual phrase which I am going to look at is "National Sozialische Deutschland des Judentums etwa richtiglos ausgerottet wurde".
A: Where is that?
Q: So there is a specific reference here to ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Fourth line?
A: Yes.
MR IRVING: --- the fourth line of the German. Here you have: "National Socialist legislation has now introduced corrective measures against this overalienisation. I say 'corrective' because the proof that the Jews are not being ruthlessly ausgerottet", which I say is rooted out, "in National Socialist Germany, is that in Prussian alone 33,500 Jews were working in the manufacturing industry, 89,800 are engaged...", and so on. So he is talking clearly there about rooting out, is he not, not about liquidating because this is 1935, no one is killing Jews at that time, are they?
A: I take your word that this is the authentical texts. I have not seen this document myself. I do not know the context. He is saying that the Judentum, which is probably the Jewry in this context, is not ausgerottet in 1935, which is perfectly true, I think. It is a preHolocaust document, I cannot see ----
Q: It is a Nuremberg document, is it not, if you look ----


MR JUSTICE GRAY: But the point that is being put, Dr Longerich, is that "ausrotten" is being used there in a context which has nothing to do with extermination. That is the only point that is being put.
MR IRVING: By a Nazi, in connection with the Jews?
A: Yes, so it is not the Jews, it is the Judentum, the term "Judentum" means here, let us say ----
MR IRVING: The Jewish community?
A: --- the Jewish community, the alleged social position of the Jews in Germany, their property, their wealth and so on. So I think that, and so far the term means not only human beings, a collective, but it also means more than that, and in this sense the Judentum was not ausgerottet, so that is....
Q: The next page, Dr Longerich, on page 3 is the English translation, but you can look at the German, if you wish, which is on page 5. This is on item that you yourself have adduced. This is Adolf Hitler's use of the word "ausrottung" in 1936. He is not talking about Jews, but it is the same word. He is talking about the need for an economic four-year plan. On page 3 he puts in this sentence: "A victory of Bolshevism over Germany would not lead to a Versaille Treaty, but to a final destruction, indeed the ausrottung of the German nation", "volk". Is Hitler saying that if the Bolsheviks succeed in war against Germany, they are going to exterminate the German


A: I am sorry. Normally, I have more time to interpret documents than this one or two minutes.
Q: This is one referred that you yourself have referred to though, is it not, in your glossary?
A: So I just have to look at it because I quoted it myself in my own document, he goes then on and says after you stop here, "And if the ausrottung", he tries to explain what "ausrotten" means. In English, it says here that: "After a Bolshevik victory, the European states, including Germany, would experience the most terrible catastrophe for its people since humanity was affected by the extinguishing of the states of classical antiquity". So I think if you say, "Well, this will be worse than the end of the Roman Empire", this statement involves clearly that this will be done in a very, that this ausrottung will be done in very cruel manner, it will cost a lot of lives. I think this is implicit here in Hitler's words.
Q: But "ausrottung" here cannot be equated to the word "extermination", can it? He is not saying, "If the Bolsheviks win in a future war, it will lead to the extermination of the German people", he is saying, "It will lead to the emasculation of the German people or the end of them as an important power in Europe"?
A: I would not agree because when he makes this reference, "It is more terrible than the end of the Roman Empire,


the states", he says.
Q: Yes.
A: Then it is quite something. I mean, this is not just, you the Versaille Treaty, as he said. It is not just the collapse of the German Empire; it is much, much more.
Q: Hunger, starvation and pestilence.
A: In a way, I am trying not to speculate what Hitler thought in 1936 what is actually more terrible than the end of the Roman Empire. I think it is quite reasonable to assume that this kind of "ausrottung" would, as the end of the Roman Empire did, involve the killing of many, many people.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can you just for my benefit translate quickly, if you would not mind, the immediately following words, where he talks about what a catastrophe that would be?
MR IRVING: "The extent of such a catastrophe cannot be really imagined".
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Next sentence?
MR IRVING: "How the densely populated west of Europe, including German, would survive after a Bolshevik collapse, it would experience probably the most awful national catastrophe since the extinction of the antique states -- since the" -- it is a complicated sentence.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is a complicated sentence, but, Dr Longerich, it is all pretty apocalyptic stuff, is it


not, that he is ----
A: Yes. Exactly, and I think I translate it a little bit more, I said, "The most terrible catastrophe", "grauenhaft", I think is the word "terror" in it, and so it is ----
MR IRVING: "Awesome"?
A: I think it is more than that.
Q: Can I just ask you briefly about this document. This is, of course, a document dictated by Adolf Hitler to his private secretary, is it not? It is not a speech. He is choosing his words carefully.
A: Yes. I do not know whether he dictated this to his private secretary. It is a document he provided for Goring. It is an instruction for Goring to carry on with ----
Q: Well, I know because Christa Schroeder told me he dictated it to her.
A: I am trying to explain this to the court. It is the document which actually says that Germany should be able within four years to fight the next war. So it is an instruction for Goring. But I think if we go -- no, I cannot read more than that in this document.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: We have your answer about that document anyway.
MR IRVING: Yes. Page 6, again we are still in 1936, but collection of documents published obviously by anti-Nazis


now about the expropriation, the humiliation and the vernichtung of the Jews in Germany ----
A: Yes.
Q: --- since the government of Adolf Hitler. This time it is the word "vernichtung".
A: Yes.
Q: 1936, of course, the Jews as such had not been vernichtet, had they, and yet this is a history of the destruction of the Jews?
A: I have to make here a general observation. I just have to trust that this is all, you know, this is original.
Q: I have the original documents here.
A: And I always prefer to look at documents in the appropriate context, but, of course, it is possible that somebody in '36, and I think these are the Jews who emigrated from Germany, would use the term "vernichtung" in a sense that, you know, "vernichtung" there, you would use it in the sense that he would not refer to the actual killing of the Jews because the actual killing, as we know, did happen later on. So I do not think how this document can help us to interpret or to put the Nazi terminology into the historical context.
Q: Yes, I agree. It is a low grade document. It is outside Germany but there is the phrase "vernichtung der Juden" in 1936.
A: Yes, and who actually published it, do you know that?


MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us move on. It is a low grade document.
MR IRVING: The next one is high grade. It is page 7, Walter Hewel?
A: Yes.
Q: Walter Hewel was a diplomat on Hitler's staff. He was the liaison officer, von Ribbentrop, was he not?
A: Yes.
Q: H-E-W-E-L?
A: Yes.
Q: And he wrote a memorandum on the conference between Hitler and this Czech State president Hacha -- H-A-C-H-A -- on March 15th 1939, which is in the official published volumes, is it not, ADAP?
A: Well, again I cannot recall the document. I just trust that this is correct what you are saying. I do not have the ADAP with me and I do not have ----
Q: Well, if this is a fig quotation, no doubt, I will be shot down in due course by the Defence. The phrase in German is [German - document not provided] which I will translate as "If in the a autumn of the last year, 1938, Czechoslovakia had not given in, then the Czech volk would have been ausgerottet?
A: Yes.
Q: What is Hitler saying there?
A: Well...
Q: Is it important, do you think, this use of the word here?


MR RAMPTON: Do let him answer. One question at a time.
A: I do not know about Hitler's plan, you know, it is a hypothetical question. It is assuming that the Munich agreement would not have happened, and so I do not know what was going on in Hitler's mind about the future of the Czechoslovak people, you know, in the case that would have been in 1938. So I cannot answer this question outside this.
Q: Is Hitler telling the Czech State President, "Good thing you signed on the dotted line at midnight or 2 a.m. otherwise I would have liquidated your entire people", is that what he was saying?
A: Forgive me, I do not know to which text you are referring now.
Q: That is the context there. If the word "ausgerottet" used in Hitler's mouth talking about ----
A: Well, we have another document from the conversation between Hacha and Hitler where actually Hacha himself says, "Well, actually our people felt that -- our people are quite relieved because they feel now because they were on the assumption that they were going to be vernichtet in the case that, you know, the Munich agreement would not have kept ----
Q: How many Czechs were there? About 10, 15, 20 million?
A: Are we talking about the Czech Republic?
Q: Yes.


A: I think 7, 8 million or something like that, yes.
Q: So Hitler is at this time, is this what you are saying, "I would have exterminated 7 million Czechs if you had not signed"?
A: First of all, I do not know whether actually, but this is verbatim document, whether it implies some kind comment on Hitler, and then I am not sure -- it is a hypothetical question because what happened is that Czechoslovakia and the Western powers gave in and the Czechoslovak people were actually saved from a major catastrophe, may I say it like this, and I do not know what was going on in Hitler's mind in '38 about the future of the Czech people in case that, you know, he had not signed the Munich agreement.
Q: Yes, but ----
A: But ----
Q: --- you do get the drift of my question, that here is that word "ausgerottet" in connection with a volk and Hitler saying, "I would have done it to them if you had not signed"?
A: You know, it is a hypothetical. It is also, you know, Hitler sometimes uses, you know, he made threats and he threatened people and he made completely, you know, remarks which shows that he was out of control. So, you know, I do not know the context whether this is a kind of emotional reaction or anything like this.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: What you are saying, it all depends on the


A: That is absolutely true.
Q: And is it also right that sometimes politicians, or Hitler anyway, would use a term like "ausrottung" meaning "wipe out"?
A: Yes.
Q: Which is not to be taken literally?
A: Yes, that is what I would say.
Q: That is why I am not really ----
MR IRVING: That is precisely the point I was going to ask.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is all context, Mr Irving, is it not, really?
MR IRVING: The final question on that quotation, therefore, is, is it not likely that Adolf Hitler was just saying, "If you had not signed, I would have ended Czechoslovakia as a power"?
A: I think that is much, much stronger than that, "ausrottung", and again from the conversation with Hacha I know that Hacha was under the impression that the Czechoslovakian people would be vernichtet.
Q: What did he mean by "vernichtet"? I know you used this in your glossary.
A: I think that people had ----
Q: Gas chambers for the entire Czechs?
A: No, but I think that people had felt, that people in Czechoslovakia in '38, felt that probably their existence,


probably their life was under danger. I think that is quite fair to say.
Q: The entire Czech nation or just a few left wingers and ----
A: That people felt that their life was in danger.
Q: Move on to the next passage, please? This is one you have quoted, is it not? This we do not have to argue whether he has been correctly reported or not because this is from a transcript of a speech that Hitler made to the Nazi editors on November 10th 1938.
A: Yes. This is actually the day, the day after Kristallnacht, so the day, during the night approximately I think 90 or more people were killed, so this gives you a kind of background. Now, the term here Hitler is hesitating in this speech. He says, "Well" -- may be I should go, I have to go to my ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is quite a complicated sentence. Can you translate it?
A: Sorry, I have to go to my own text and I have to compare the two text. I am sorry about this.
MR IRVING: While you are doing that, can I set it in context? Is Hitler saying ----
A: I am sorry, I cannot do this and listening to you. I have to find my ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Just pause a moment, Mr Irving.
A: I have to find my own text. I know that it is somewhere.


MR RAMPTON: On page 21, in paragraph 6.12.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, thank you very much, Mr Rampton.
A: Yes. Yes, and then the sentence -- you did not give the, you stop in the middle of the sentence and you did not include the last five words, and the last five words in German are "aber man brauch Sie leider", "but we need them, unfortunately". So the context is that he is going to say, "Well, actually, you know, I could when I look at the intellectual classes in Germany, you know, one could, I could come to the conclusion", and then he is hesitating and saying "ausrottung", and then he goes on and says, "Well, unfortunately, we need them". So he is saying this idea to ausrottung, to kill the intellectual classes is completely illusionary, and so he has to come back and says, "I cannot do it".
    You see, I have difficulties with this kind of, you know ----
MR IRVING: My Lord, can I just translate the sentence for you?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, do not interrupt.
A: --- I have difficulties actually to with these kind of documents which come in the last minute and leave out an important passage of the sentence, of the German sentence. Please give me sometime always to find the original if I have not got it in my report, I actually would like to insist that the original is here because I think this is not the way one can do it.


MR JUSTICE GRAY: Dr Longerich, I have some sympathy with that, particularly as you have pointed out that there is quite an important bit of that same sentence omitted in Mr Irving's piece of paper.
MR IRVING: Can I just read out the translation of that sentence to you, my Lord?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, because it has just been read out.
MR IRVING: I do not think he has actually read out the translation.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, I have read it; I thought he did.
THE WITNESS: I can do it if you want to.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do if you want to, but include the last words because they make quite a big difference, it seems to me.
MR IRVING: Not in my submission, but there we are. "I look at the intellectual classes amongst us, then, unfortunately, well, you need them, otherwise, I do not know, you could ausrotten them or something like that, but unfortunately you need them". I do not understand why you say I left out the words "man brauch Sie an"?
A: Because you stop the sentence here with the colon and, in fact, the sentence is not stopping. You give as reference [German - document not provided] and this is not a complete, a complete sentence. You stopped in the middle of the sentence and left out the last five words. You should have used -- I mean ----
MR IRVING: Which are the words that I left out?


A: If your interpretation differs, you should have used, you know, the normal, you know, these little dots one uses if one does not insert the complete sentence.
Q: Dr Longerich, which are the words you say that I left out?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: He has said many times, "aber man brauch Sie leider"?
A: "So you cannot kill them because we need them".
MR IRVING: Are those words not on the fourth line of my quotation on page 7? "Man brauch Sie"?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, they are, but they come in twice and don't let us spend too long on this.
MR IRVING: Precisely, my Lord, but the whole point I am looking at there is this is Adolf Hitler in 1938 when nobody is liquidating anybody ----
A: Except the 90 people who just died the night before, and this is the little exception one has. I mean, you have to realize the context is that this is the most brutal killing which happened in Germany since, I think, the Middle Ages. There are more than 90 people, I would say several hundred people possibly were killed the last night, and in this atmosphere Hitler is giving a press conference and speaks about the ausrottung of intellectuals. I think one cannot, you know, one has to look again at the historical context because this is, you know, an atmosphere which is dominated by brutality and a kind of absence of public order and law. I think, you


know, this has to be included here.
Q: Your answer invites two questions, unfortunately. The first question is was Adolf Hitler, to your knowledge, at the time you made this speech on the afternoon of November 10th aware that 90 people had been killed during the night?
A: I do not know. I do not know that.
Q: The second question is, are you, therefore, suggesting that the verb "ausrotten" is not a mass extermination but a midget extermination, if I can put it like that, of just 90 people? Is that the scale you put "ausrotten"? I thought that "ausrotten" meant extermination on a huge scale.
A: No, I am just saying that when he made this, he made the statement and the statement says, "I can't kill them, I would like to but I can't kill them", but one has to look at the atmosphere of this very day.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: It always comes back to context?
A: That is what I am trying to say.
MR IRVING: Precisely, but a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the word "ausrotten" there would be get rid of them, abolish the intellectual classes, abolish the ----
A: The translation here ----
Q: --- upper classes?
A: Sorry. I think the translation, the proper translation,


is to kill them all, but, unfortunately, I cannot do it. I have said this now three times and I think it is-- I do not want to ----
Q: Adolf Hitler was telling the editors of the leading newspapers in Germany, "I just wish I could kill all the intellectuals" in 1938?
A: Yes, "But I cannot do it, unfortunately". That is what it says in the text here.
Q: Yes. This is the image you now have of that kind of thing 55 years later, but how would the editors have picked up at the time if that was the meaning of the word "ausrotten" in 1938? You appreciate that the meaning of words change over the years and when Adolf Hitler uses the word in 1938, the editors sit there thinking, "Yes, he wants to abolish them, he wants to get rid of the upper classes", just the same as Tony Blair gets rid of the House of Lords?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, not the upper classes. I do not think that is right.
A: The intellectual classes -- well, then he could have said, "Well, actually I want" -- I said this here in my report, I said if he were just referring to a kind of, you know, social, you know, reform or reform of the educational system or some leveling of class, something like that, he could have said so. He could have said, "Actually I want, you know, to be more, Hitler jungen in the universities.


I do not want to get -- I would like to get rid of the sons of academics, well-established people", but he says he used the term "ausrotten". I cannot help this-- it is here and ----
Q: Just one more question on that. Would it not be a parallel if Tony Blair said he wanted to rid of the House of Lords, wipe out the House of Lords, would he not say "ausrotten" there and would that mean that he wanted to stand them against a wall?
A: That is a hypothetical question. How can I answer this question?
Q: But it is that kind of word and that kind of situation, is it not? "This is a body which is bothering me. I wish I could, "Out, out, damn spot"?
A: If you ask me as an historian, I should make a historical comparison, then you have to include in this picture that Tony Blair just killed 91 Conservative Member of Parliament. So this would give you a kind of -- and then if he would use at the same time, at the next day the term "ausrotten", I would look at it and say, "Well, a dangerous man".
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, let us move on because really this is not, I think, a very helpful exercise.
A: It is difficult for me to make such comparisons.
MR IRVING: I did not drag in the 90 deaths and I am going to have to ask a question. Did Hitler order the Jews killed


that night?
A: Did Hitler?
Q: Or did Hitler order the Jews killed in Reichskristallnacht?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not think that bears on the issue we are considering at the moment.
MR IRVING: It bears on the questions of intent behind the word "ausrottung"?
A: Well, I think that Hitler played a centre role in the launching of the Kristallnacht.
Q: We know your views on that.
A: Pardon?
Q: Can you now go to document No. 8, please?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: You did ask the question, Mr Irving.
MR IRVING: He then answered a totally different question whether Hitler played a central role or not.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us move on if we have to do this exercise, let us do it quite quickly.
MR IRVING: Page 8.
A: I could not complete my answer, sorry.
Q: This is a 1941 document, a book again in German [German - document not provided]
A: Yes.
Q: Was Hungary exterminating the ethnic minorities?
A: Well, you see, give me the chance, you know, to read the book. Maybe the book, it might be a pamphlet from


somebody who said, well, actually the Hungarians are killing, literally killing, the minorities. I do not know the order. I do not know whether Paclisanu is a reliable author. I have not seen the book and I do not know whether the book says -- I do not know whether you have read the book -- if the book says that the Hungarians are killing the minorities. There might be somebody ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think that is a fair answer. Without that further information, I do not think that particular cover page really helps.
MR IRVING: Well, if this expert witness can answer the question whether Hungary was killing ethnic minorities, that would clarify what the title meant.
A: No, I do not -- that is in 41. I am a bit hesitating here because, well, they actually were quite rude with the minorities after that, but I cannot comment on that without actually looking at the content of the book.
Q: Dr Longerich, at this stage in our discussion, therefore, we can agree that the word "ausrotten" can mean just about whatever you want it to mean?
A: No, clearly not. You have to look at the context and the context will help you to establish a meaning of the word, I think.
Q: If you turn the page now to page 9, this is my summary of a telegram which I found in the Roosevelt library.
A: Yes, I would suggest that I should comment not on your


summary but on the original, given the experience we have before.
Q: That is one way out of answering the question, is it not?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, Mr Irving, that is not fair. Do you refer to this yourself, Dr Longerich?
MR IRVING: No, he does not.
A: No. Sorry for interrupting you.
MR IRVING: Are you suggesting, therefore, that I have deliberately copied faked quotations from a telegram from my own files?
A: No, but I have the experience and that quite upset me that you left out here half a sentence of a sentence without actually ----
Q: Which repeated the precisely the same four words that were earlier in the sentence, right?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: We have left that document. Let us look at this one.
A: I am just saying, I am not just -- I am not happy, you know, just to comment on your summary of a report I have not seen in the original. I think it would be inappropriate for me, as an historian, to comment on that. I should see the original and I should not draw conclusions from your summary.
MR IRVING: Shall we try, unless his Lordship says that I should not ask the question about this?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: This appears to be -- is it Swiss?


MR IRVING: It is an American diplomatic despatch in the Roosevelt Library.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Commenting on whether a word in a report which we do not have has been correctly translated.
MR IRVING: It appears that this report may be based on mistranslation of the words ausrottung and entjudung. Is it possible therefore to mistranslate the words ausrottung and entjudung?
A: I have to fully digest, just one second.
Q: It is a bit of problem if you always have to produce the whole document or the original report, you do appreciate that.
A: So your question is what, sorry?
Q: The question, if you are prepared to answer a question on this summary, or extracts from an American diplomatic despatch, is it possible to mistranslate the word ausrottung and entjudung in a way which might go one way or might go the other. Even in 1944, in other words, there is no firm and fixed definition or translation?
A: Well, somebody speculates about the issue whether the words ausrottung and entjudung were mistranslated.
Q: Yes.
A: And how shall I comment on that?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I find this frankly an absurd document because the report appears to refer to the extermination of European Jews at camps in Silesia?


A: Yes.
Q: It refers to a cyanide process and to German executions and then Mr Harrison, whoever he may be, thinks that ausrottung has been mistranslated. It is an absolute nonsense.
MR IRVING: I am only relying on the mistranslation, the fact that it is possible to mistranslate the word ausrottung. That is all I can do with that particular document.
A: If you want me to comment on it, I should be able to know more about the facts than Mr Harrison did, shall I put it this way? At the moment I do not know what I should do with this document.
Q: The final sentence, of course, "I spoke yesterday with one of the men who planted the report with the newspaper agencies". Did this kind of thing go on during the war years, that documents were planted with newspaper agencies?
A: During the war documents were planted with newspaper agencies, yes. That happened.
Q: You always want to see original documents. If you turn the page to the next one which is unnumbered, is this the kind of document you are familiar with from Himmler's files? You may actually know it, in fact, because it is addressed to your subject Martin Bormann, is it not?
A: Yes. I became quite familiar with him, that is true.
Q: It is dated 21st February or thereabouts, 1944?


A: Yes. It says that the misstande, what is misstande in English?
Q: Bad conditions?
A: Yes something like that.
Q: Naff, as they say in America.
A: Can I ask the interpreter something?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, of course.
THE INTERPRETER: Things which are not right, things which need putting right.
A: So he is not referring to people. He is referring to things which are not going right. He is saying that these misstande, these things which are not right, will be ausgerotet, so of course the term ausgerotet, you could give me thousands of documents which would show me that misstande ausgerotet were meant, ausgerotet, everything, every possible context.
MR IRVING: It has been dictated by Himmler, has it not?
A: Yes.
Q: Himmler's use of the word ausrottung in a non homicidal sense, that is all I am relying on this document for.
A: You can prove from this document so far that Himmler used the term ausrottung once, not referring to human beings but to misstande in a non-homicidal sense, yes, that is true.
Q: Dr Longerich, all I am trying to establish here in the beginning of the 21st century is that back in the 1940s


the word ausrottung did not have necessarily the meaning that we now give it, with our knowledge of all the atrocities that happened. Do you accept that?
A: I myself in my report made a little reservation here and I said, well, not every time the word ausrotten means killing, but if it refers to people, or to a group of people, in the historical context of the Nazi period, I did not find a single document in which one would not translate the word ausrotten to kill in large numbers or to kill all as far as possible. This is my provisional conclusion.
Q: Wipe out?
A: I think wipe out is a possible translation. Exterminate is another one. Kill off, or extirpate, which is the one I preferred. But I think for the German living at this time the term from a leading Nazi or national socialist, the term ausrotten applying to people means quite clearly, I mean for the average German at this time means quite clearly to kill in large numbers. It is a very cruel expression and of course there is a lot of violence in this word.
Q: Yes. Can you not put yourself back in the mind set of the 1940 when the word possibly had a different meaning?
A: I think particularly at this time, because at this time people lived in the time when people were killed on a massive basis, they were quite aware that the use of this


vocabulary by leading Nazis referred to mass killing. Why should I speculate in a general way? One could look at the individual documents and establish the meaning. It does not help us, I think, to look at documents which are outside the context.
MR IRVING: You have to have some kind of guiding star to look at, do we not?
A: That is fine.
Q: Go to the next page, page 11, which is a 1944 military dictionary. We are getting pretty close to the actual meaning of 1944 if we accept that the dictionary was probably printed a year or two earlier. No, it was actually printed in 1944. That is what page 10 shows us.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Military dictionary?
MR IRVING: Military dictionary, yes.
A: Yes.
Q: Which is a dictionary produced just for the use of the armies. It contains all sorts of things, too. There you have the meaning of the word ausrotten given in the following sequence: Wipe out, crush, annihilate. Wipe out is probably right.
A: I again am not a linguist but, if I look at the other terms on this page, it is obviously that this is a dictionary for military terminology, so it refers I think particularly to the military sphere. But again I am quite convinced that you can present more dictionaries which


actually do not have the meaning of extermination. I could probably show you dictionaries which have the meaning of ----
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am really finding this all pretty unilluminating really, because in the end we have to look at the documents which actually do relate allegedly to extermination, and decide whether ausrotten in that context means extirpate.
MR IRVING: My Lord, it is an uphill task because we are looking backwards, down through the telescope so to speak, to the events of the 1940s and trying to work out what a word meant when in common usage at the time, when we find the common meaning of the word was quite different from the way every German, and every Englishman, now understands what you mean by it, because we know of the atrocities that happened.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: One has to make allowance for that fact, I accept.
MR IRVING: The reason I am going through this, if I can put it like this, is that, if we are looking at what Adolf Hitler means when he says certain things or issued certain orders, we really need to know what the word meant in common usage at that time, and not what it now means at the beginning of the 21st century.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: We really have spent a very long time on ausrotten and I think we have the full rage of


possibilities in mind.
MR IRVING: That is the bad news. The good news is frankly that I am going to accept without demur that most of the meanings he applies to the other words, like Umsiedlung and the rest.
A: I think I have to say here that I last night found three mistakes in the translation. I think I should correct them.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think you probably should.
A: I know that I am responsible in the end -- I am not blaming the translator, I am responsible and for the text. It is in point 5.9 and it is on page 14. I think the term Juda must die should be translated not with Judaism must die, but simply with Juda must die, because it refers I think basically to the tribe of Juda and I think one cannot and should not translate the tribe of Juda with Judaism which has another meaning. The same would apply to 6.14. There is the same mistranslation. I apologise for that. In 6.7 actually the word nicht is not translated, so in 6.7 it says in the indented paragraph in the second sentence what does die and it should say what does not die. So this is unfortunately a mistake. I am sorry about that.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do not worry, that is fine. Shall we move elsewhere?
MR IRVING: We are now dealing with your glossary. I must say


I take exception to the title of your glossary because this assumes a priori that there was such a programme to exterminate or murder. Really what we are looking at is a glossary of terms used by the Nazis in their programme of persecution of the Jews, is it not? It includes murder in some cases but it is all sorts of other things, is it not?
A: In connection with a murder.
Q: Yes. You say in your paragraph 1.1 of your introduction, that the Nazi regime avoided speaking of the murder of European Jews by name, in other words they did not like saying it.
A: Yes.
Q: Do you not yourself say in your report, I think it is round about paragraph 4.3.1 that the Einsatzgruppen reported quite frequently in most glowing terms of the killings they were carrying out and they made no bones about what they were doing?
A: I said here generally