Bob wrote:No problem, this was a hot topic precisely in the period in question as demonstrated by two reports from Heydrich to Bormann (reports were for Hitler) dated November 6 and November 16, 1941 (National Archives, Prague, 114-3/17) and moreover he informed again in the report of November 16, 1941 that he will inform orally in detail about this topic in his next lecture so no doubt, there was more discussion about it. In short, discussed strategy was to liquidate autonomy from within while keeping the facade, he also stated that Czech should do all bad measures and Germans should do good measures, the goal was to pretend there is a Czech autonomy while in reality the autonomy was planned to be liquidated from within. But Hitler in his decree from March 16, 1939 guaranteed autonomy to Czechs. So yeah, quite hot topic precisely in the period in question. Also feel free to study relevant literature on this subject.
There are a lot of problems with this line of argumentation. First, it requires me to trust that you have been to Prague and have viewed the documents in question. At the very least, it requires that you have some other source for the content of the documents. But you haven't offered that, if you do have it. So did you go to Prague, or do you have another source for the documents? And if the latter, then can you please share it?
Second, you are suggesting as proof for your reading of "keine Liquidierung" (KL) communications from Heydrich to Hitler via Bormann, specifically on November 6 and 16. The KL note dates from a telephone conversation that Himmler had with Heydrich exactly two weeks later, on November 30. What I'm missing, I guess, is why they're discussing this in a conversation that otherwise has nothing to do with the Protekorat. Jekelius wasn't arrested there, nor was the transport discussed with Heydrich coming from there.
Is the imputation that they discussed Jekelius (which Himmler dedicated two lines to), then a Jewish transport from Berlin (one line), and then finally administration policy vis-a-vis the Protektorat? Doesn't that seem a tad unrelated? My explanation, that KL indicates that the transport from Berlin should not be liquidated, keeps everything on the same general topic, i.e., RSHA activity in Berlin. Plus, we know people in the east were upset about Jews from the Altreich being shot, particularly Kube in Minsk and Lohse in Riga.
That´s very nice that you are suspicious, but where is evidence? I see none whereas I see plenty in support of pictorex´s hypothesis which his moreover confirmed by orthodox historiography which cites, translates and interprets available sources, including the two reports, as a factual liquidation of the autonomy and which was discussed precisely in the period in question.
Take a look at this:
It would seem that the usages are either economic or about murder. Not about dissolving autonomy. I suppose the argument could be made that the autonomy of the Protekorat's economy was going to be liquidated, but that would require some kind of proof. Plus, wouldn't such a consideration fall under Göring's bailiwick and not Himmler's? Wouldn't such a communication go via the Reich Chancellery and not the Party Chancellery? In fact, why would Himmler be relaying messages between Göring -- or Bormann, for that matter -- and Heydrich? Again, I suppose you could argue that Bormann was the go-between for Hitler and most other people, but if Himmler is going to be at the Wolf's Lair the next day and Bormann is (presumably) in Berlin at this point, that kind of removes him from the picture, doesn't it? Plus, we know that, when they were together in the same place, Hitler and Himmler frequently spoke alone.
Do you see why I'm having trouble understanding this argument?