Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby Reinhard » 9 years 3 months ago (Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:39 am)

@ pictorex:

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.

No way.

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").
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. »Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.«
Orwell 1984

User avatar
ASMarques
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 624
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:47 pm

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby ASMarques » 9 years 3 months ago (Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:00 am)

ASMarques wrote:The implication to me would be that existing guidelines had been, or were being violated. Hence the menacing tone "I will punish etc.". But what then would have been those guidelines like? If you ask me, in the context of Nov 1941 they would have been something along the lines of "do not interfere too much with the locals going after their own Jewish-Bolshevik collaborators etc., but don't extend that policy to the deported Jews."


To be more precise, in my opinion the difference in treatment by Nov 1941 would have been not so much between the Jews the local anti-communists, militia etc. had already gone after during the initial months of Barbarossa and the incoming deportees, but rather between the local Jewish partisans that had stayed behind and did present a military problem and the said deportees. I can see no reason why Himmler would be establishing distinctions if a racial extermination proper was on.

pictorex
Member
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:54 am

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby pictorex » 9 years 3 months ago (Thu Jul 15, 2010 2:33 pm)

I would like to thank all those who have commented on my thesis on the Himmler jottings, and thus helped "debug" it. I now accept that the Berlin transport of 27th November was a separate one from the Nürenberg transport of 29th November. I also stand corrected as far as Heydrich’s direct concern with the arrest of Dr. Jekelius. However his concern with the propaganda campaign involving the alleged son of Molotov is less clear. The third item, the transport of Jews from Berlin, would again have been of concern to Heydrich in his official capacity, as it was an SS action (here again I stand corrected). However with regards to the fourth item, it seems to me that if Himmler on the afternoon of the 30th wished to prevent the murder of the deportees on the Jewish transport from Berlin, which had arrived in Riga in the morning of the same day, the man to speak to would have been Jeckeln, to whom the coded message of the following day was addressed. As far as the fourth item, David Irving has rejected in a recent private email my conjecture that it refers to Hitler’s countermanding of the German army’s evacuation of Rostov, on the grounds that this matter did not involve the SS and hence would not have been the subject of any orders addressed by Himmler to Heydrich. This is a serious objection, but perhaps not a fatal one. Firstly, there may be an SS aspect to the evacuation of Rostov that is not immediately apparent (just as the SS aspect to the "Molotov’s alleged son" affair is not immediately apparent). Or it may also be that the topic of the conversation was not confined to matters of which Heydrich needed to be informed in his official capacity but included other items discussed at Hitler’s headquarters that day. Furthermore, it occurs to me that (assuming my suggested interpretation of the fourth line is correct) the rather stark word "Liquidierung" instead of the more neutral "Evakuation" which would better describe the military situation on the Don, might have been used by Hitler for emphasis, i.e., in anger at von Rundstedt’s unauthorised withdrawal from Rostov, and was thus conveyed to Heydrich by Himmler. In other words, Hitler was characterising the "Evakuation" as a "Liquidierung" in order to stress how utterly unacceptable it was strategically. I am hoping for a contribution here by someone who is better versed in German idioms than I am.

Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby Reinhard » 9 years 3 months ago (Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:19 pm)

@ pictorex:

Thank you very much for informing us about David Irving's point of view.


pictorex wrote:However his concern with the propaganda campaign involving the alleged son of Molotov is less clear. The third item, the transport of Jews from Berlin, would again have been of concern to Heydrich in his official capacity, as it was an SS action (here again I stand corrected).


Heydrich may be involved, because as head of the RSHA he was also superior to SD-Ausland chief Heinz Jost (i.e. the intelligence service). I think it's quite likely that the SD had to check, if it was possible that the Russian PoW was indeed a son of Molotov or not (Stalin's son had been captured as an officer of a Soviet artillery regiment by the Wehrmacht in August 1941: http://www.bundesarchiv.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/bilder_dokumente/01065/index-1.html.de).

pictorex wrote:However with regards to the fourth item, it seems to me that if Himmler on the afternoon of the 30th wished to prevent the murder of the deportees on the Jewish transport from Berlin, which had arrived in Riga in the morning of the same day, the man to speak to would have been Jeckeln, to whom the coded message of the following day was addressed.


Yes, but may be that was Himmlers order to Heydrich, who was superior to Jeckeln as well. Both, Himmler and Heydrich, obviously weren't aware that Jeckeln was going to execute the Jews in that train immediately.

pictorex wrote:As far as the fourth item, David Irving has rejected in a recent private email my conjecture that it refers to Hitler’s countermanding of the German army’s evacuation of Rostov, on the grounds that this matter did not involve the SS and hence would not have been the subject of any orders addressed by Himmler to Heydrich.


Yes, I think David Irving is right here.

pictorex wrote:This is a serious objection, but perhaps not a fatal one. Firstly, there may be an SS aspect to the evacuation of Rostov that is not immediately apparent (just as the SS aspect to the "Molotov’s alleged son" affair is not immediately apparent).


Well, there is one aspect involving the SS, for the LAH (Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler) was in the frontline at Rostov. But this wouldn't have affected Heydrich, but Jüttner, whom Himmler hat phoned twice on that day: at 11 a.m. and 18:15 (i.e. 6:15 p.m.).

pictorex wrote:Furthermore, it occurs to me that (assuming my suggested interpretation of the fourth line is correct) the rather stark word "Liquidierung" instead of the more neutral "Evakuation" which would better describe the military situation on the Don, might have been used by Hitler for emphasis, i.e., in anger at von Rundstedt’s unauthorised withdrawal from Rostov, and was thus conveyed to Heydrich by Himmler. In other words, Hitler was characterising the "Evakuation" as a "Liquidierung" in order to stress how utterly unacceptable it was strategically. I am hoping for a contribution here by someone who is better versed in German idioms than I am.


I don't think it's possible that "Liquidierung" meant retreat or withdrawal. The appropriate German words for that would have been "Rückzug", "Räumung" or "Preisgabe".

Greetings
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. »Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.«

Orwell 1984

The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby The Warden » 9 years 3 months ago (Fri Jul 16, 2010 11:06 pm)

Just a quick note:

I was reading Wikipedia's version of the Stroop Report and noticed the word "liquidation" right there in the first line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_Report

Image


Quite a popular little phrase, isn't it?
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c

Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby Reinhard » 9 years 3 months ago (Sat Jul 17, 2010 6:53 am)

@ The Warden:

Yes, "liquidation of a ghetto" was used as well as "liquidation of a company" for instance (dissolving the company).

Regarding the Himmler note, I think we'll never know what he meant with "no liquidation", for he didn't mention what or who was not to be liquidated.

So far I thought David Irving's interpretation was the most probable, linking it to the Jewish transport from Berlin.

But ASMarques has made an important proposal by putting our attention at the full stop after the third line dealing with the Jewish deportation train from Berlin and pointing out the fact that for the first, the second and the third line had nothing to do with each other, it may well be possible that the fourth line had nothing to do with the third one either.

I simply have no idea what the meaning of "no liquidation" in Himmler's note was or could have been.
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. »Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.«

Orwell 1984

pictorex
Member
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:54 am

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby pictorex » 9 years 3 months ago (Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:48 pm)

Reinhard wrote on Thu Jul 15, 2010 12:00 pm
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").


and two days later:

But ASMarques has made an important proposal by putting our attention at the full stop after the third line dealing with the Jewish deportation train from Berlin and pointing out the fact that for the first, the second and the third line had nothing to do with each other, it may well be possible that the fourth line had nothing to do with the third one either.


The separateness of the first three items follows from the clarification of the "alleged son of Molotov" affair that I have tried to elucidate, in order to prove that it had absolutely no connection to the arrest of Dr. Jekelius.

Reinhard:
I think it's quite likely that the SD had to check, if it was possible that the Russian PoW was indeed a son of Molotov or not,

The German broadcasts referred to in my previous email occurred on the 28th of November, so it is not likely that two days later the SD would be asked to check the POW's identity. Such verifications would have been done earlier in October or November, before the propaganda campaign was launched. It seems clear that by the time the broadcasts were made the Germans knew that the claim was false, but decided to use it nevertheless in a propaganda campaign aimed at convincing Russian soldiers that they would be well treated were they to surrender.

However, I must say that I disagree with Reinhard's statement of July 15th that
There is no hint whatsoever that Himmler could have meant "no liquidation of war", because he would have written "Keine Liquidierung des Krieges" then.

Himmler"s notes were jotted down for his own purposes, and he well knew and did not need to specify for the sake of others the object of the "Keine Liquidierung". Thus whatever Liquidierung referred to, it is not a valid objection to my interpretation that the words "des Krieges" would have necessarily followed if the words referred to the evacuation of Rostov, as I have suggested. I agree that there are more banal words in German that would better describe the situation on the Don and the decision to abandon Rostov; however Hitler's reaction to this decision was such that he might have been tempted to use extreme language in order to stress that it was a strategic mistake. My suggestion was simply that the use of this stark expression stemmed ultimately from Hitler's characterisation of the move as tantamount to capitulation. I may well be wrong on this, but my thesis cannot be disproved by claiming that Himmler would have added certain words to his jottings, if it were so. Whatever the object of the Liquidierung was, it was clear in his mind, and that was sufficient for his purposes.

I would be grateful to Reinhard if he could clarify for me his statement:

Both, Himmler and Heydrich, obviously weren't aware that Jeckeln was going to execute the Jews in that train immediately.


Did Jeckeln really have the authority to do that? It is surprising to me that a transport of hundreds of Jews would be sent to Riga without clear instructions to Jecklen as to what was to be done with them, or instructions that were so vague that Jecklen felt he could murder everyone on the train without fear of consequences, or that he might even have thought that this is what was expected of him. The existence of specific instructions follows from the decode of 1 December 1941. Could Jecklen have simply misunderstood them? That seems unlikely. Could he have violated them so egregiously without consequences? Even more unlikely. And how does one explain that the transport from Nuremberg, which arrived at approximately the same time, or at most two days later, was treated so differently from the transport from Berlin? Was this the result of the decoded message from Himmler to Jecklen on December 1st? But this message only reiterates that previous guidelines are to be followed. Is this sufficient to explain that the people on the train from Berlin were all murdered, while the people on the train from Nuremberg were put to hard labour?

Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby Reinhard » 9 years 3 months ago (Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:21 am)

pictorex wrote:The separateness of the first three items follows from the clarification of the "alleged son of Molotov" affair that I have tried to elucidate, in order to prove that it had absolutely no connection to the arrest of Dr. Jekelius.


That Jekelius couldn't have thought to be an alleged son on Molotov and that these two items had nothing to do with the transport of Jews from Berlin was obvious from the beginning.

You have indeed made a very interesting and helpful contribution concerning the "alleged son of Molotov"-affair.



pictorex wrote:Reinhard:
I think it's quite likely that the SD had to check, if it was possible that the Russian PoW was indeed a son of Molotov or not,

The German broadcasts referred to in my previous email occurred on the 28th of November, so it is not likely that two days later the SD would be asked to check the POW's identity. Such verifications would have been done earlier in October or November, before the propaganda campaign was launched.


I agree. I wasn't aware of the beginning of the broadcasts already on November 28th, for - when I recall it correctly - your link in your first posting dealing with that propaganda campaign linked to a Russian website which I couldn't read.

pictorex wrote:However, I must say that I disagree with Reinhard's statement of July 15th that
There is no hint whatsoever that Himmler could have meant "no liquidation of war", because he would have written "Keine Liquidierung des Krieges" then.

Himmler"s notes were jotted down for his own purposes, and he well knew and did not need to specify for the sake of others the object of the "Keine Liquidierung". Thus whatever Liquidierung referred to, it is not a valid objection to my interpretation that the words "des Krieges" would have necessarily followed if the words referred to the evacuation of Rostov, as I have suggested. I agree that there are more banal words in German that would better describe the situation on the Don and the decision to abandon Rostov; however Hitler's reaction to this decision was such that he might have been tempted to use extreme language in order to stress that it was a strategic mistake. My suggestion was simply that the use of this stark expression stemmed ultimately from Hitler's characterisation of the move as tantamount to capitulation. I may well be wrong on this, but my thesis cannot be disproved by claiming that Himmler would have added certain words to his jottings, if it were so. Whatever the object of the Liquidierung was, it was clear in his mind, and that was sufficient for his purposes.


I agree as far as the point on Himmler's short notes for his own purposes is concerned (that's why I wrote, we'll probably never know what he was talking about), but I disagree on the possibility of the retreat at Rostov being meant by Himmler's note "keine Liquidierung", for no native German speaker would use these words for describing the military situation there.

pictorex wrote:I would be grateful to Reinhard if he could clarify for me his statement:

Both, Himmler and Heydrich, obviously weren't aware that Jeckeln was going to execute the Jews in that train immediately.


Did Jeckeln really have the authority to do that? It is surprising to me that a transport of hundreds of Jews would be sent to Riga without clear instructions to Jecklen as to what was to be done with them, or instructions that were so vague that Jecklen felt he could murder everyone on the train without fear of consequences, or that he might even have thought that this is what was expected of him. The existence of specific instructions follows from the decode of 1 December 1941. Could Jecklen have simply misunderstood them? That seems unlikely. Could he have violated them so egregiously without consequences? Even more unlikely. And how does one explain that the transport from Nuremberg, which arrived at approximately the same time, or at most two days later, was treated so differently from the transport from Berlin? Was this the result of the decoded message from Himmler to Jecklen on December 1st? But this message only reiterates that previous guidelines are to be followed. Is this sufficient to explain that the people on the train from Berlin were all murdered, while the people on the train from Nuremberg were put to hard labour?


I wrote my above quoted sentence assuming that the orthodox point of view (and also David Irving's) was correct. It also seems strange to me that Jeckeln should have simply killed the passengers of that train, while he was ordered to bring them to the Jewish ghetto. Even if there was no space to accommodate them, no one would have simply killed them without at least asking for further instructions. Moreover Jeckeln seems not to have been punished for his disobedience. Sounds strange and quite familiar regarding allied atrocity propaganda (Germans haven't enough space to accommodate the Berlin Jews, so they shot them).

For the allies seem to have made it impossible to find out what really happened there with their tortured "confessions", executions of all the people involved in that matter (including Himmler and Jeckeln) and manipulations of documents, I simply don't know what was going on there.
And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. »Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.«

Orwell 1984

pictorex
Member
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:54 am

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby pictorex » 7 years 7 months ago (Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:02 am)

It has taken a while, but I think I finally have a compelling solution the the "Keine Liquidierung." enigma.
Recalling the issue under discusion, there is a handwritten note by Himmler of his telephone call to Heydrich, which took place c.13:30 on November 30, 1941, consisting of the following four lines:

Verhaftung Dr Jekelius Angebl.
Sohn Molotow.
Judentransport aus Berlin.
Keine Liquidierung.

In previous postings I think I have sufficiently clarified the background of the first two items, while showing that they are unrelated to one another and unrelated also to the third item. The main controversy relates to the question whether or not the last two items are related to one another, i.e., whether Heydrich was being instructed not to liquidate a transport of Jews from Berlin (as David Irving maintains), or whether the question of the transport of Jews from Berlin and the No liquidation line are completely separate topics. The fact that the first three topics are thematically unrelated strongly implies that the fourth topic is also thematically unrelated to the first three.

My previous solution to the "Keine Liquidierung." enigma (which I tried to link to a military reverse suffered by the Germans in Russia at the time) was admittedly unsatisfactory, and this was amply and sufficiently pointed out on this forum, as well as in a private reply I received from David Irving. Since then I have sought after a more compelling explanation of the fourth line. I believe I have found it at last, and it is indeed unrelated to the third line.

The explanation relates to the political situation in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in the fall of 1941. This situation is well explained in a paper by Alice Teichová, published in the 1998 anthology (ed. Mikuláš Teich), Bohemia in History. I cite from pp. 273ff.

"From the very beginning German rule was headed by the Reichsprotektor, whose authority was strengthened, as he was directly responsible to Hitler…. Unlike in Germany and in the unrestrained post-Anschluss period in Austria, the activiteis of the NSDAP in the Protectorate were strictly separated from the executive authority of the Reichsprotektor.
Nevertheless, claims of the Gauleiters, the heads of NSDAP’s regional party organizations, to have a say in the affairs of the Protectorate led to competition within the National Socialist hierarchy… on attempts to change the territorial organization of the Protectorate…. Leading functionaries of the NSDAP in southern Germany and in the Ostmark (Austria) applied pressure on Berlin to liquidate the autonomy of the Czech government in the Protectorate, together with the office of the Reichsprotektor, and include Bohemia and Moravia in the German Reich’s Gau-system. While the Reichsprotektor, sensing a restriction of his powers, opposed such schemes as they arose, Hitler prevariated and as late as 1943 let it be known that the last word about this had not yet been spoken."

Thus the new hypothesis I hereby propose is that the fourth line has to do with a reassurance to Heydrich that Hitler had no intention of acceding to demands to liquidate the Protectorate and fully integrate it into the Reich -- which would also have entailed the elimination of Heydrich’s position as Reichsprotektor.

This explanation appears to me to be the most plausible of any proposed thus far. Further research should concentrate on the question whether demands for the liquidation of the Protectorate were under active discussion in late November 1941.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby neugierig » 7 years 7 months ago (Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:04 pm)

Well done, pictorex. The word “Liquidation” is defined in my Keysers Fremdwörter Lexikon (foreign words dictionary) as: “Auflösung eines Unternehmens…”, i.e., dissolution of an enterprise. Under “liquidieren”: die Liquidadation eines Geschäfts-, einer Gesellschaft durchführen”, i.e., the dissolution of a company-, a corporation/association. Not one word about killing, Liquidieren referred only to matters relating to enterprises.

Your deduction is therefore sound, pictorex, this note had nothing to do with killing but with the Protectorate to remain as is.

Again, well done.

Regards
Wilf

pictorex
Member
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 2:54 am

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby pictorex » 7 years 7 months ago (Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:01 pm)

Thank you for the vote of confidence, neugierig. At this stage I think it might be useful to present the entire argument in a more formal way. So here goes:

In his 1977 book Hitler’s War, David Irving published a page of handwritten notes by Heinrich Himmler, which he found at Bundesarchiv Koblenz (file NS19 neu/1438). The sheet, numbered 46, is dated 30.XI. 1941 at Wolfsschanze (i.e., Hitler’s headquarters in East Prussia) and includes four lines referring to a telephone conversation with Reinhard Heydrich, the Reichsprotektor of Böhmen-Mähren. The note is in two columns: on the left is noted the time of the conversation (13:30) and the person concerned: “ϟϟ O[ber]Gr[uppen]f[ührer]... Prag” and on the right are four lines that read as follows:

Verhaftung Dr. Jekelius ---------- Imprisonment Dr. Jekelius
Angebl[icher] Sohn Molotow. ---- Alleg[ed] son Molotov.
Judentransport aus Berlin.------- Transport of Jews from Berlin.
Keine Liquidierung.--------------- No liquidation.

As is common for such aide-mémoires, each line refers to an entirely separate topic of concern, which needed no explicit comment. Each line contains a topic to be discussed, but no indication of how it was to be dealt with.

The first line: “Verhaftung Dr. Jekelius”
Refers to the detention Dr. Erwin Jekelius, who was dismissed from his position as head of the Am Spiegelgrund clinic in Vienna in November 1941, following a disciplinary proceeding. He was arrested and briefly imprisoned before being drafted by the Wehrmacht and at the beginning of 1942 sent to the Eastern front. There is speculation that the real cause of his fall from grace was his having become engaged, against Hitler’s wishes, to Hitler’s sister Paula. Dr. Jekelius died in 1952 in a Soviet prison camp.

The second line: “Angebl.[icher] Sohn Molotow.”
Refers to a German propaganda campaign featuring a Soviet prisoner of war who, upon his capture on October 10, 1941 declared himself to be Vyacheslav Molotov’s son, hoping no doubt to receive preferential treatment. The prisoner’s real name was Vasily Georgiyevich Tarasov from the city of Voronezh. Though the Germans saw through the ruse (as is clear from Himmler’s use of the word “Angebl.”), they exploited the opportunity for propaganda broadcasts to Soviet troops in November and December 1941, the purpose of which was to assure them that they would be well treated were they to surrender to the German army. For a detailed account of the incident, as well as a transcript of the interview with Molotov’s alleged son, as broadcast by the Germans to Russian troops in the fall and winter of 1941, see the account given to RFE/RL by Sergei Kudryashov of the German Historical Institute in Moscow on December 5, 2009. http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/transcript/1896844.html.

The third line: “Judentransport aus Berlin.”
Refers to one of three transports of Berlin Jews:
1) A transport of 1009 deportees which had left Berlin three days earlier (November 27th), destined for Lodz
2) A transport of 1053 deportees which had left Berlin also on November 27 th, destined for Riga.
3) A transport of 1079 deportees scheduled to leave Berlin the next day, December 1st, bound for Lodz.
The third transport, which had not yet left Berlin, is the most likely to have been brought up by Himmler in his call to Heydrich, since the other two trains had already reached their respective destinations.

The fourth line: “Keine Liquidierung.”
Refers to the political situation in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in the fall of 1941:
Leading functionaries of the NSDAP in southern Germany and in the Ostmark (Austria) applied pressure on Berlin to liquidate the autonomy of the Czech government in the Protectorate, together with the office of the Reichsprotektor, and include Bohemia and Moravia in the German Reich’s Gau-system. While the Reichsprotektor, sensing a restriction of his powers, opposed such schemes as they arose, Hitler prevaricated and as late as 1943 let it be known that the last word about this had not yet been spoken.
(Alice Teichová in Mikuláš Teich, ed., Bohemia in History (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998), pp. 273ff.)

The push to liquidate to Protectorate came to a head in the fall of 1941, with relentless pressure being applied particularly by K. H. Frank. Though rejected by Hitler, these demands resurfaced with renewed force after Heydrich’s assassination in June 1942. Hitler’s reluctance to accede to these demands can be explained by the fact that some 300 thousand German officials would be needed to administer the new Gaue, replacing the same number of experienced and fully compliant Czech officials. Most of these new German officials would need to come from the ranks of the Sudeten Germans, who had meanwhile been drafted into the German army in large numbers. Hitler could not afford to give up this manpower, and as long as the Protectorate was running smoothly with the help of Czech civil servants, who could not otherwise be used for the war effort, he had no motivation to do so. (Jiří Frajdl, Hitler, čeští Němci a protektorát, Prague, 2002)

Against this background we can conclude with some confidence that the fourth theme brought up by Himmler in his telephone conversation with Heydrich involved a reassurance that Hitler had no intention of acceding to increasingly vociferous demands voiced within the NSDAP in the fall of 1941 to liquidate the Protectorate and fully integrate it into the Reich—which would also have entailed the elimination of Heydrich’s position as Reichsprotektor.

The suggestion that the fourth line refers to the third must therefore be rejected. Thus Himmler was not conveying to Heydrich an order to spare a transport of Jews deported from Berlin. Such an interpretation would imply a general policy of annihilation of such deportees, which could be overridden in particular cases by special instructions. The Himmler notes contain no information as to what Himmler meant to convey to Heydrich about the mentioned transport, or even which particular transport was being referred to.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby Hannover » 7 years 7 months ago (Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:09 pm)

Well done indeed, pictorex. Sound reasoning with supporting references.
I hope you continue to add content to this forum.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby neugierig » 7 years 7 months ago (Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:22 pm)

Yes, well done pictorex, to second the motion by Hannover.

We discussed this at another forum and at that time I also suggested the same, i.e., four lines = four subjects. True Believers, desperate for any kind of “evidence”, of course reject this, but you are now making a good case, as good as it can get.

A question: What is Irving's take on this?

Regards
Wilf

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9892
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby Hannover » 7 years 7 months ago (Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:50 pm)

Frankly, I feel Irving is irrelevant.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

Postby neugierig » 7 years 7 months ago (Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:29 am)

I feel the same way, Irving is a lukewarm revisionist at best, just wondering what his interpretation of this phone call issue was/is.

Going back to what pictorex discovered, I believe it to be important. The phone conversation took place at 13:30 on November 30, 1941, at least that is what the record shows.

We need to go back a little. In a speech of September 26, 1938, concerning the Czech crisis – a crisis Made in Britain – Hitler stated: Wir wollen gar keine Tschechen! (We don’t even want any Czechs), saying quite clearly that he was not interested in an annexation, or even a Protectorate. When he was forced to turn this rump state into a Protectorate, it was fully intended to have the Czechs govern their own country, with Heydrich as a German representative to ensure no further issues arise.

By the end of November 1941, the time of the phone conversation, Heydrich was no doubt in the middle of rebuilding the Czech government; the new government was inaugurated on January 20, 1942. Heydrich, dressed in his gala-uniform, was present at that inauguration, taking place at 20:00 hrs. in the Hradschin, the seat of the Czech government. At that same day he was supposed to have chaired the Wannsee conference in Berlin, another issue.

Czechs were exempt from military service; we can assume that this was not sitting well with some NS officials. Thus, it is very reasonable to expect that the Czech government issue came up during the Heydrich/Himmler conversation. Heydrich perhaps insisting on it to be addressed, for if the Czech state was to be ‘liquidated’, he no longer needed to work on assembling the new government. And it stands to reason that Heydrich would have been involved in forming an efficient government – a good government translates into less work for Heydrich. Looking at the issue from that angle, and keeping in mind that ‘Liquidierung’ refers to dissolution, not to killing, we can dismiss this phone call – peddled by True Believers as ‘evidence’.

Thank you for clearing this up, pictorex.

Regards
Wilf


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 6 guests