There are some points I don't agree with:
pictorex wrote:The third line: “Judentransport aus Berlin.”
Refers to a transport of 512 Jewish deportees which left Berlin via Nüremberg on November 27th, 1941, bound for Riga, where it arrived in the morning of November 30th.
I don't think it's possible that the train was directed via Nuremberg, Pilsen, Prague to Riga. That would have been a huge detour. The route to be expected would have been via Küstrin, Schneidemühl. Dirschau, Königsberg.
Moreover it becomes clear from the quoted testimony of Mrs. Lehmann ("Clotilde Lehmann and her husband, Hugo, were part of the first transport of 512 Jews that left Nüremberg, Germany by train, on 27 November 1941, destination Riga, Latvia") that her train departed from Nuremberg.
So I think these are two different trains.
pictorex wrote:The railroad from Nüremberg to Riga passed through Pilsen, Prague and other cities in the Protectorate, which may be one reason why it was mentioned in a conversation with Heydrich.
Generally Himmler’s jottings appear to be a list of topics about which he wished to inform Heydrich, i.e. four current news items. They are in no sense orders being conveyed, since Heydrich as Reichsprotektor had nothing to do with the arrest of Dr. Jekelius, or the propaganda campaign on the Eastern Front to reassure Russian troops that it was safe to surrender, or that a transport of Berlin Jews had arrived in Riga or that Hitler had given "no retreat" orders to his generals on the Eastern Front.
Of course Heydrich had to deal with the mentioned topics (arrest of Jekelius; alleged son of Molotov; deportation of Jews to the Baltic states and possibly their execution) for he was not only vice-Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia, but also continued ot be the head of the RSHA (Reich Security Main Office).
pictorex wrote:The fourth line: “Keine Liquidierung.”
Refers to Hitler’s order to Generalfeldmarschall Gerd von Rundstedt countermanding the retreat of the 1st Panzer Army from Rostov.
pictorex wrote:The Red Army recaptured Rostov on the 28th of November 1941. Von Rundstedt was sacked for refusing to obey the order. In a narrow sense Liquidierung may refer to the clearing out of positions held by the army, with the implication that heavy equipment would be destroyed in order to prevent its falling into enemy hands. But here it evidently refers to the general notion of “giving up the fight”.
On June 1, 1942, speaking in Poltava, Hitler declared: “If I do not get the oil of Maikop and Grozny, then I have to liquidate the war” (“Wenn ich das Öl von Maikop und Grosny nicht bekomme, dann muß ich den Krieg liquidieren”). In German the word “liquidierung” in the context of a war is a stark expression as in “einen verlorenen Krieg liquidieren zu müssen” — it means to give up, to surrender.
Regarding the use of the word "Liquidierung" in a military context, I believe the Hitler citation from June 1942 (“Wenn ich das Öl von Maikop und Grosny nicht bekomme, dann muß ich den Krieg liquidieren”) is a sufficient basis for deducing the true meaning of Himmler's jotting, but let me cite two more examples:
Prof. Karl Barndt in a speech given in Berlin on July 20, 1965, discusses the surrender terms offered to Germany by the Allies at Casablanca in 1943:
Aber am 24. Januar 1943 wurde in Casablanca die bedingungslose Unterwerfung als Kriegsziel deklariert, und als Bonhoeffer erneut, diesmal bis zu Churchill, vorfühlt, unter
welchen Bedingungen eine neue Regierung in Berlin den Krieg liquidieren kann, ist die eiserne Antwort: bedingungslose Unterwerfung.
However on January 24, 1943, unconditional surrender was declared as the war aim in Casablanca, and as Bonhoeffer states, this time even Churchill foresaw that the question as to the conditions under which a new government in Berlin might be able to give up (liquidate) the war, had the iron answer: unconditional surrender.
The other example is from an internet discussion of August 8, 2001 by a German native speaker: (http://www.politik.de/forum/offenes/975 ... all-5.html)
Und Clausewitz schreibt dazu sinngemäß (er ist ein Prophet): was der erste Schwung des Angriffs nicht vermag, vermag der zweite nimmermehr. Das trifft die Situation ganz richtig. Also Moskau mußte 1941 fallen, oder erkonnte den Krieg liquidieren.
And Clausewitz writes perceptively (he is a prophet): what the first sweep of the attack cannot achieve, the second will never accomplish. This is an entirely correct characterisation of the situation. Thus Moscow had to fall in 1941, or one might as well give up (liquidate) the war.
In both of these additional examples, as in the Hitler quote cited in my previous posting, the word liquidieren means "to give up" the war as a lost cause. Thus Kein Liquidierung of Himmler's telephone jottings, written as news reached Berlin that not only had Rostov been retaken by the Red Army, but that the advance toward Moscow had been halted as well, simply means "no giving up" in the face of the recent turn of the tide in Germany’s military fortune. It may well reflect Hitler’s own words, as he used this expression again the following June in a similar context.
This expression means in all cases the terminating of war as a whole, not the retreat at some sector of the front. There is no hint whatsoever that Himmler could have meant "no liquidation of war", because he would have written "Keine Liquidierung des Krieges" then.
I think most probably the fourth line is related to the third, as David Irving has proposed. Or it may have been related to something completely different, as may be supposed from the full stop after the third line, But I think this possibility is less probable than the fourth line being linked to the third line, because if he had referred to the liquidation of someone else (or a group of persons) he would have added the name ("no liquidation of X").