Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

[Thames Darwin]

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:

http://www.dwds.de/?qu=liquidieren

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?

[Bob]

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?

Allusions that I am lying, that´s not very nice AM. Reference provided, study them, simple. Report of November 16, 1941 is reproduced in Kárný et al. 1991, pp. 178ff. Report of November 6, 1941 is not reproduced anywhere AFAIK, but the most known passage is quoted in following sources you can study:

Robert Gerwarth, Hitler´s Hangman, The Life of Heydrich, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2011, p. 240.
Jiří Doležal, Jan Křen, Czechoslovakia´s Fight 1938-1945, p. 21.
Václav Král, Otázky Hospodářeského a Sociálního Vývoje v Českých Zemích 1938- 1945, Vol. I, Československá Akademie Věd, 1957, p. 20.

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.

What I have provided is what you have wanted, that the topic was under discussion in the period in question. There is nothing strange when people are discussing more topics.

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.

Wrong, each line = one topic, see above or scroll back.

Take a look at this:

http://www.dwds.de/?qu=liquidieren

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?

Interesting, previously you had no problem with semantics, you wanted to see the topic was the issue in the period in question and wanted to see the context, let me remind you your own words:

"You'll also want to check the two sources that Teichová cites here: John's "Südböhmen, Oberösterreich und das Dritte Reich..." and volume one of Brandes's Die Tschechen. I'd guess that at least one of these two uses the term and that Teichová adopted the same term and translated it directly into English. As you note, primary sources using the term would be useful as well. Obviously, you'll need to establish that the debate over outright annexation of the Protektorat was an urgent issue at the time of the phone call. Teichová establishes that the controversy continued through 1943 at least, but that doesn't mean it was a topic of telephone conversations in November 1941. To establish that it was, you'd need to provide a context of active conflict, e.g., conversations or meetings between Heydrich and the Gauleiters in the areas in question. The context of the phone call is insufficient to establish this point because among the "Reich Jews" arriving in the east at this time were German-speaking Jews from the Protektorat, specifically from Brünn (Brno) in Moravia.

And when I provided documents proving the historical background + confirmation from historiography, then all of sudden, you have a problem with semantics and with the meaning of the word "liquidierung". Actually shifting of the goalposts is precisely what I expected, because your previous argumentation failed. And no, there is no mention of the word "liquidierung" in the above documents since the reports are quite formal and informative focused on the way how to do it/what to do etc., whereas liquidation is just the short word describing the result, leaving aside we do not know what Heydrich said later in his oral lecture. Orthodox sources translate original passages as "liquidation" and so is the interpretation because that was the actual result of what was planned.

Do you see why I'm having trouble understanding this argument?

I see, your trouble is that your previous argumentation was not successful because you obviously believed there will be no documents showing the connection and context and you thought you are safe with your request, so now you are trying to confuse and obfuscate the matter with more chaotic and unsupported speculations. Hitler was informed about the topic via Heydrich´s reports sent to Hitler´s private secretary Bormann and Himmler just reported Hitler´s stance on the topic when he telephoned to Heydrich from Hitler´s HQ, simple as that, do not make up problems where are no problems. You have no evidence for your interpretation, whereas pictorex´s hypothesis is nicely backed up.

[Mulegino1]

What follows is an elucidation that I have sent to David Irving several years ago and again in January of this year.

As is common for such aide-mémoires, each line refers to an entirely separate topic of concern.

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/trans ... 96844.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 (27th of November), destined for Lodz
2) A transport of 1053 deportees which had left Berlin on the same date (27th November), destined for Riga.
3) A transport of 1079 deportees scheduled to leave Berlin on 1st of December 1941, destined for Lodz.
The third transport, which had not yet left Berlin, is the most likely subject of this line.

The fourth line: “Keine Liquidierung.”
Refers 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 activities 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 prevaricated and as late as 1943 let it be known that the last word about this had not yet been spoken.”

Specifically, the fourth line refers to a reassurance given to Heydrich 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. Liquidating the Protectorate would have been a violation of the Munich Agreement. Hitler still clung to the hope of an entente with Britain, and adhering to the Munich Agreement was the cornerstone of that policy. The reassurance given to Heydrich that the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia shall not be liquidated gives us an crucial insight into Hitler’s strategic thinking in the winter of 1941.

Given that the first three incidents are unrelated to one another, it is logical to conclude that the fourth is as well and would most likely refer to the Protectorate.

It's little different than a probate lawyer's agenda book: June 2, 2015: "Coffee with Shirley", "Heather's piano lesson", "P.T.A. meeting", "No Liquidation". Should I interpret this as meaning: A. There will be no liquidation of a benefactor's assets, or B. There is a plan to liquidate the membership the P.T.A.?

Of course, given that the most mundane things are given sinister meaning by the Shoa Business - a doctor taking a blood sample is a diabolical experiment, having a shower means death by gassing, an ordinary delivery truck is a homicidal "Gas Wagon" etc., it is not surprising that they would grasp at this straw.

[Hannover]

Kudos to pictorex & Bob for their work.

However, in attempting to change the subject, Thames Darwin said:

Plus, we know people in the east were upset about Jews from the Altreich being shot, particularly Kube in Minsk and Lohse in Riga.

False arguments that have been debunked here:

Eric Hunt's response to David Cole / Treblinka
and
Legitimate Nazi Atrocities

Thames, please post to those threads if you have an actual German document to back up your claims about Kube & Lohse. Do not attempt subject changes here. Or better yet, start your own thread on Kube and/or Lohse.

Thanks, Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[pictorex]

Thanks, Bob, for the additional information you have provided regarding the discussion on the dissolution of the Protectorate and its incorporation into the Reich. The main force behind these efforts were evidently the Sudeten Germans, who would also be the main beneficiaries: since many could speak the Czech language, they would be the preferred candidates for the many administrative positions that would open up in the newly formed Gau districts, helping them avoid military service on the Eastern Front.

I have been in contact with the National Archives in Prague and it turns out that most relevant material has been scanned and is available online, in particular “Státní tajemník u říšského protektora v Čechách a na Moravě” (Staatssekretär beim Reichsprotektor)
http://www.badatelna.eu/fond/959/

Among the relevant documents is a detailed retrospective report on the status of the Protectorate dated January 7th 1942.
http://www.badatelna.eu/reprodukce/?fon ... Id=1400562

Thames Darwin wrote:

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?

This is incorrect, Himmler did not dedicate two lines to Jekelius. Dr. Jekelius is the subject of the first line only. The[ “Arrest of Dr. Jekelius” topic is entirely separate from and unrelated to the “Alleged son of Molotov” topic. Here are some further details on the latter:

The official announcement of the capture of Molotov’s son was made by German radio on November 21st, as reported by the Associated Press (cf. The Chicago Tribune, November 22, 1941):

New York, Nov. 21 (AP) — The German radio reported today that a Russian soldier, identified by competent quarters as the son of Russian Foreign Commissar Vyacheslav Molotov, had been taken prisoner on the Eastern Front.
The German broadcast said that he was Molotov’s son by his first marriage and was known under the name of R. Skrjabin.
He was identified as being 22 years old and a student of agriculture before he joined the Red army two years ago.
The radio said he was an infantryman and reported he told his captors he was very“not very fond of a soldier’s life.”

A detailed discussion of the German propaganda campaign involving the alleged son of Molotov was provided by Sergei Kudryashov of the German Historical Institute in Moscow to RFE/RL and published on its website on December 5, 2009. The purpose of the campaign was to encourage further defections from the Red Army by assuring its soldiers that they would receive good treatment from their German captors. The entire story is available in Russian here:
http://www.svoboda.org/content/transcript/1896844.html

On November 30th it was reported in the press that

“Moscow Radio broadcast a statement that the son of the Russian Foreign Minister M. Molotov had not been captured by the Germans. The man calling himself Georg Molotov was an impostor and had sold himself to the Gestapo.”

(The Sydney Morning Herald, December 1, 1941)

It was this official denial from Moscow that most likely prompted Himmler to give Heydrich some further instructions on this affair.

I hope the above finally lays to rest the notion that the first and the second lines of Himmler’s notes are somehow related, i.e. that the Viennese doctor Erwin Jekekius, who had a romantic affair with Hitler’s sister Paula, was somehow the same person as a Russian POW pretending to be Molotov’s son.

Regarding the third line “Judentransport aus Berlin.” I need to correct what I stated earlier about these transports; upon further study of the deportation records, I now concur with other researchers that the transport in question is the one that left Berlin on the 27th of November 1941 with 1053 deportees, destined for Riga. Six previous transports of Jews had left Berlin since the deportations to the East began on October 18th. The destination of the first four transports was Lodz/Litzmanstadt, while the next two were sent to Minsk. The train that left Berlin on the 27th of November was the first transport of German Jews destined for Riga and it arrived at its destination on the 30th, i.e., the day of the telephone call under discussion. What was said about this transport remains unknown, as the next line discusses an entirely separate and unrelated topic.

Since it can be rigorously demonstrated that the first three lines are unrelated to one another and refer to entirely separate issues, any assumption that the fourth line somehow relates to the third is clearly unwarranted.

[Thames Darwin]

In response to several points made:

(1) I concede the point on Jekelius and "Molotov's son" being two distinct topics. I would nevertheless suggest that the first three topics are, in fact, related. To wit:

(a) Erwin Jekelius was employed by T4 in Vienna but was perhaps romantically tied to Paula Hitler, as noted before. He went to Berlin to ask Hitler for her hand in marriage, and was arrested and sent to the Eastern Front. See:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/04/research.secondworldwar
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Paula/diary_found.html

(b) The alleged Georgy Skryabin was being held in a camp near Berlin, as alleged in the Slovoda article linked to in this thread.

(c) The Jewish transport is stated as being from Berlin.

I don't think it's much of a stretch that the conversation between Himmler and Heydrich concerned matters spceifically regarding Berlin and matters of the Eastern Front. I continue to maintain that the fourth line would therefore be on the same topic and not suddenly veer off into a discussion of the Protektorat.

(2) That a topic was under discussion is not the same thing as the topic being "hot" or controversial. That said, I am not maintaining that the discussion did not include the Protektorat as a topic. I'm merely stating that I think it more likely that it was about the Berlin transport. On why, see below.

(3) I never said I "had no problem with semantics." I have maintained and continue to maintain that the word "Liquidierung" refers to killing; what I indicated was what proof I thought would be useful in making the case against my own. I still don't see that proof, by the way.

(4) What is being alleged here is that the fourth line of the note refers to the end of autonomy for the Protektorat, and from what I can see, the source from Teichová is the sole source brought to bear on that point thus far. I had posted a link to the entry for "liquidieren" from an historical German dictionary, indicating that such a usage (i.e., non-economic) was unknown at the time. In fact, it's still an unusual usage. I have received no response on that point.

(5) To restate my points made before about the interpretation of the term "Liquidierung," I asked to see use of the term in primary sources and evidence of correspondence between Heydrich and the Gauleiters in bordering areas or, if the sense of "Liquidierung" is economic, correspondence between Heydrich and the Reich Chancellery and/or Göring. So far, I don't see any of this, but I could have missed it, so please point out if I have. I can't read Czech, so consider that in your responses.

(6) On a final point, if I bring up Kube or Lohse, it isn't "changing the subject." Virtually every recent "orthodox" source that links this note to the shootings on the Eastern Front mentions the objections of these two men to the shooting of Reich Jews by Einsatzkommandos in Minsk and Riga, respectively. This is context, not changing the subject.

[Thames Darwin]

A final bit of evidence that perhaps "keine Liquidierung" refers to that transport from Berlin:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Note011241.html

According to the "orthodox history," that transport of Jews had already been shot in Riga by 30 November. A discussion the following day transmitting that information to Himmler seems likely.

[Hannover]

Thames said:

On a final point, if I bring up Kube or Lohse, it isn't "changing the subject." Virtually every recent "orthodox" source that links this note to the shootings on the Eastern Front mentions the objections of these two men to the shooting of Reich Jews by Einsatzkommandos in Minsk and Riga, respectively. This is context, not changing the subject.

There were no "objections" by Kube & Lohse. And these "orthodox" sources also believe in the impossible gas chambers. These "orthodox" sources and yourself cannot produce real German documents to validate the false claims made about Kube & Lohse. Nor can anyone show us the mass graves and their alleged contents that necessarily would be available IF the "orthodox" sources were being truthful. My challenge to you stands, debate this topic in the links given or start a thread on Kube and/or Lohse.

Thanks, Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[Thames Darwin]

Thames said:

On a final point, if I bring up Kube or Lohse, it isn't "changing the subject." Virtually every recent "orthodox" source that links this note to the shootings on the Eastern Front mentions the objections of these two men to the shooting of Reich Jews by Einsatzkommandos in Minsk and Riga, respectively. This is context, not changing the subject.

There were no "objections" by Kube & Lohse. And these "orthodox" sources also believe in the impossible gas chambers. These "orthodox" sources and yourself cannot produce real German documents to validate the false claims made about Kube & Lohse. Nor can anyone show us the mass graves and their alleged contents that necessarily would be available IF the "orthodox" sources were being truthful. My challenge to you stands, debate this topic in the links given or start a thread on Kube and/or Lohse.

Thanks, Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

I stand corrected. There were no objecftions.

[Bob]

(1) I concede the point on Jekelius and "Molotov's son" being two distinct topics. I would nevertheless suggest that the first three topics are, in fact, related. To wit:

(a) Erwin Jekelius was employed by T4 in Vienna but was perhaps romantically tied to Paula Hitler, as noted before. He went to Berlin to ask Hitler for her hand in marriage, and was arrested and sent to the Eastern Front. See:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/04/research.secondworldwar
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Paula/diary_found.html

(b) The alleged Georgy Skryabin was being held in a camp near Berlin, as alleged in the Slovoda article linked to in this thread.

(c) The Jewish transport is stated as being from Berlin.

I don't think it's much of a stretch that the conversation between Himmler and Heydrich concerned matters spceifically regarding Berlin and matters of the Eastern Front. I continue to maintain that the fourth line would therefore be on the same topic and not suddenly veer off into a discussion of the Protektorat.

You are looking for patterns, that´s all, surely you can find many of them if you want, maybe they were all veggies or whatever, look, I can jump into this game too: Berlin was center of the power of Germany, reorganization of the autonomy thus involved larger (or even complete) influence of Berlin in the Protectorate. So a matter concerning Berlin is here, everything is ok.

(2) That a topic was under discussion is not the same thing as the topic being "hot" or controversial. That said, I am not maintaining that the discussion did not include the Protektorat as a topic. I'm merely stating that I think it more likely that it was about the Berlin transport. On why, see below.

By hot I meant that the topic was on the table precisely in this period and was discussed in length and with importance and not that it was controversial. Heydrich made clear in his November 16 report that he will elaborate orally about this issue in his next lecture. So yes, hot.

(3) I never said I "had no problem with semantics." I have maintained and continue to maintain that the word "Liquidierung" refers to killing; what I indicated was what proof I thought would be useful in making the case against my own. I still don't see that proof, by the way.

I had posted a link to the entry for "liquidieren" from an historical German dictionary, indicating that such a usage (i.e., non-economic) was unknown at the time. In fact, it's still an unusual usage. I have received no response on that point.

Your are missing the point, when you asked pictorex about his hypothesis, you said nothing about semantics and how you disagree with the use of the word "liquidation" in this context. This came later when I provided what you wanted and your previous line of argumentation was unsuccessful so I have a problem with this shifting of the goalposts, is clear you invented this objection after you found that your previous line of argumentation was not successful. So far you did not address the fact that the topic was on the table in the period in question and that we have connection, context, etc. and even agreement from orthodox historiography.

I see nothing like this, "liquidieren" can be used to describe various things including elimination, it depends on the context what you are eliminating. In my language, this term means exactly the same, you can put firm into liquidation etc. but also liquidate, i.e. eliminate mess in you room, people and autonomy. I will not further elaborate on semantics since this is a never ending kind of debate and I fail to see how you arrived to your "unknown" argument. Never mind.

(4) What is being alleged here is that the fourth line of the note refers to the end of autonomy for the Protektorat, and from what I can see, the source from Teichová is the sole source brought to bear on that point thus far.

You have been provided with literature on this subject, Teichová is not alone of course.

(5) To restate my points made before about the interpretation of the term "Liquidierung," I asked to see use of the term in primary sources and evidence of correspondence between Heydrich and the Gauleiters in bordering areas or, if the sense of "Liquidierung" is economic, correspondence between Heydrich and the Reich Chancellery and/or Göring. So far, I don't see any of this, but I could have missed it, so please point out if I have. I can't read Czech, so consider that in your responses.

Addressed previously, with the exceptions of Gauleiters or Göring or economy, I said nothing about it, so do not know what do you want. As Heydrich stated already in his November 6 report, his report was for Führer, i.e. Hitler.

(6) On a final point, if I bring up Kube or Lohse, it isn't "changing the subject." Virtually every recent "orthodox" source that links this note to the shootings on the Eastern Front mentions the objections of these two men to the shooting of Reich Jews by Einsatzkommandos in Minsk and Riga, respectively. This is context, not changing the subject.

Since you provided nothing about this subject, I cannot elaborate, too vague.

A final bit of evidence that perhaps "keine Liquidierung" refers to that transport from Berlin:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Note011241.html

According to the "orthodox history," that transport of Jews had already been shot in Riga by 30 November. A discussion the following day transmitting that information to Himmler seems likely.

Leaving aside other things, here you still act as if the two lines were related which is not the case, each line = one subject. And by other things I mean for instance: your argument does not make sense, at the time of allegedly existing extermination policy and alleged order, why just this one single transport of Berlin Jews should be suddenly an exception and not liquidated while all others can be liquidated if there were alleged protests against alleged extermination of Berlin Jews which allegedly caused this one transport to be not liquidated? What was so special about this one transport? Nothing of course, because the fourth line had nothing to do with the third line, the line was obviously not about a transport and that´s why your argument does not make sense like the alleged protests against alleged extermination.

[Hannover]

While previously stating that Kube & Lohse 'objected' to the alleged mass shootings of Jews at Minsk & Riga, Thames Darwin now 'stands corrected, there were no objections'. The contradiction is noted.
Of course there were no "objections" because the mass shootings as alleged by Darwin and the discredited 'holocaust' Industry did not occur. There is no proof that can be presented and Thames Darwin has dodged my challenge while continuing to attempt subject change at his thread.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.

[Thames Darwin]

You are looking for patterns, that´s all, surely you can find many of them if you want, maybe they were all veggies or whatever, look, I can jump into this game too: Berlin was center of the power of Germany, reorganization of the autonomy thus involved larger (or even complete) influence of Berlin in the Protectorate. So a matter concerning Berlin is here, everything is ok.

There are two problems with your line of argument here. First, of course I'm looking for a pattern -- people don't tend to jump all over the place in their conversations, at least if they're not psychotic. Second, there is no reason to assume that the influence of Berlin in the Protektorat is going to increase by virtue of its autonomy being abolished. To allege so would be to ignore that its autonomy was a joke to begin wiith.

Your are missing the point, when you asked pictorex about his hypothesis, you said nothing about semantics and how you disagree with the use of the word "liquidation" in this context. This came later when I provided what you wanted and your previous line of argumentation was unsuccessful so I have a problem with this shifting of the goalposts, is clear you invented this objection after you found that your previous line of argumentation was not successful.

No. That I didn't mention it earlier proves only that I didn't mention it earlier. The rest is your assumption, which you're welcome to, as well as your "problem," which is yours and not mine.

So far you did not address the fact that the topic was on the table in the period in question and that we have connection, context, etc. and even agreement from orthodox historiography.

The topic was ongoing, as noted earlier in this thread, through to 1943 at least. We have agreeement from "orthodox" historiography but not from primary sources. I don't see connection or context, sorry.

You have been provided with literature on this subject, Teichová is not alone of course.

If other historians use the term "liquidate," then say so. If primary sources use the term to refer to the end of autonomy for the Protektorat, then say that too.

Addressed previously, with the exceptions of Gauleiters or Göring or economy, I said nothing about it, so do not know what do you want. As Heydrich stated already in his November 6 report, his report was for Führer, i.e. Hitler.

Göring would only be involved on the matter of economics, which I allowed might be the case earlier in this thread. If not, then we can remove him from the discussion.

Regarding the Gauleiters, they are introduced by Teichová, not me, but as noted by her, they would be involved in the integration of the Protektorat into the party system. Such information, as noted by Teichová, would pass through Bormann, as head of the party chancellery. There is no reason to think that Himmler somehow enters this discussion, unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Remember, the point we're discussing is a phone call btw. Himmler and Heydrich.

Leaving aside other things, here you still act as if the two lines were related which is not the case, each line = one subject.

I have not conceded that point.

And by other things I mean for instance: your argument does not make sense, at the time of allegedly existing extermination policy and alleged order, why just this one single transport of Berlin Jews should be suddenly an exception and not liquidated while all others can be liquidated if there were alleged protests against alleged extermination of Berlin Jews which allegedly caused this one transport to be not liquidated?

I am asking for the moderator's leeway to respond to a direct question.

The statement demonstrates a lack of understanding about the evolution of the policy under discussion. Certainly, by November 30, there was a policy in place for Soviet Jews. It's far less clear whether there was a policy for Reich Jews -- Gerlach says such a discussion didn't come for another two weeks or so. Beyond that, there is the question of where Reich Jews being sent east were supposed to go. This wasn't the best planned program at this point, and local SS and party leaders at the ends of the railways had some say about where the transports ended up. By and large, they went to three places: Lodz, Riga, and Minsk. In Lodz, they went into the ghetto, and most were eventually sent to Chelmno or Auschwitz. In Riga and Minsk, they also went into ghettoes and were eventually shot.

A week or two before this date, however, a transport was re-routed to Kaunas, in Lithuania, and the 5,000 Jews in the transport were shot upon arrival at the Ninth Fort (by Jäger's Einsatzkommado). This upset a lot of people, Lohse among them. Kube, in addition, was already upset about the treatment of Reich Jews in Minsk, and he complained about this point to Lohse in a separate communication (PS-3665 from Nuremberg).

The prevailing explanation for the note is currently (in Browning's 2003 book, for instance) that it was stated not to liquidate the transport in question because they were Reich Jews, tempers were hot on the Eastern Front among some of the SS and party leadership, and a final decision had yet to be made on what to do with Reich Jews once shipped east.

What was so special about this one transport? Nothing of course, because the fourth line had nothing to do with the third line, the line was obviously not about a transport and that´s why your argument does not make sense like the alleged protests against alleged extermination.

You're begging the question. I haven't conceded the point of the fourth line being unrelated.

[neugierig]

I’ll see if I can get to the Brandes book this afternoon. But, I did have another look at the Himmler notes. It is clear that each line refers to a different subject.

To the last line: “Keine Liquidierung”, singular. Now, even considering that killing was meant – the word however does have no such meaning – it is not possible to kill a transport, only the passengers. Thus, if Jews were referred to, Himmler would have noted: “Keine Liquidierungen”, plural. But since he is referring to the situation in the Protektorate, he wrote: “Keine Liquidierung”, singular, meaning the status quo will be preserved. There is also a period dot clearly visible after “Berlin.”, closing that subject and going on to the next.

Good work guys, and another peace of artificial/concocted “evidence” bites the dust.

Regards
Wilf

[Mulegino1]

I’ll see if I can get to the Brandes book this afternoon. But, I did have another look at the Himmler notes. It is clear that each line refers to a different subject.

To the last line: “Keine Liquidierung”, singular. Now, even considering that killing was meant – the word however does have no such meaning – it is not possible to kill a transport, only the passengers. Thus, if Jews were referred to, Himmler would have noted: “Keine Liquidierungen”, plural. But since he is referring to the situation in the Protektorate, he wrote: “Keine Liquidierung”, singular, meaning the status quo will be preserved. There is also a period dot clearly visible after “Berlin.”, closing that subject and going on to the next.

Good work guys, and another peace of artificial/concocted “evidence” bites the dust.

Regards
Wilf

The nail in the coffin!

Great work!

[pictorex]

Thames Darwin wrote:

(a) Erwin Jekelius was employed by T4 in Vienna but was perhaps romantically tied to Paula Hitler, as noted before. He went to Berlin to ask Hitler for her hand in marriage, and was arrested and sent to the Eastern Front. See:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/aug/04/research.secondworldwar
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/Paula/diary_found.html

The Guardian quotes what seems like an authoritative source, Dr. Timothy Ryback, head of Germany's Obersalzberg Institute of Contemporary History, to the effect that:

It was like a scene from Monty Python. Jekelius goes to Berlin to ask Hitler for his sister's hand; he is met by the Gestapo, shipped off to the Eastern front, and snapped up by the Russians.

It makes for a good story, except for the fact that Hitler was at that time a thousand kilometers away at his East Prussian headquarters. Dr. Ryback, if quoted correctly, took some liberties with the facts. By far the best source on Dr. Jekelius is a 2012 dissertation by Karin Anna Ertl, available here:
http://othes.univie.ac.at/18809/1/2012- ... 303855.pdf

The story in the Guardian cited by Thames Darwin is a misleading account of Dr. Jekelius’ interrogation protocol of July 8, 1948. This document, drawn up by the Soviet NKVD, came to light in 2005 and reads in part:

Ungefähr im November 1941 schrieb Paula Hitler einen Brief an Hitler mit der Bitte, ihr die Heirat mit mir zu erlauben. Auf diesen Brief erhielt sie von Hitler keine Antwort, aber ich begann nach geraumer Zeit zu bemerken, dass ich beobachtet wurde. Im Dezember 1941 wurde ich während eines Aufenthaltes in Berlin von der Gestapo verhaftet. Dort musste ich unterschreiben, dass ich die Beziehung zu Paula Hitler abbreche. Der SS-General, der mich verhörte, erklärte, dass Hitler gegen diese Ehe sei.

Approximately in November 1941 Paula Hitler wrote a letter to Hitler with the request to allow her to marry me. She did not receive any answer to this letter from Hitler, but I began to notice after some time that I was being watched. In December 1941, I was arrested by the Gestapo during a stay in Berlin. There I had to sign that I would break the relationship with Paula Hitler. The SS general who interrogated me, explained that Hitler was against this marriage.

Sorry Dr. Rybeck, nothing out of Monty Python here. Dr. Jekelius did not go to Berlin to meet Hitler, who was in any event not there at the time. Furthermore, Dr. Jekelius was not sent to the Eastern Front after his arrest, but allowed to resume his work at the “Am Spiegelgrund” clinic in Vienna until the end of April 1942, when he did indeed join the Wehrmacht. He was not taken prisoner by the Red Army until the very end of the war.

While concocting fake Monty Python-like scenes for the diversion of the gullible, Dr. Rybeck missed an important element in Jekelius’ statement to the NKVD: he was arrested by the Gestapo and interrogated by a high-ranking officer of the SS. On this basis the question of “who called whom” on November 30, 1941 can be decided with a high degree of probability in favour of the “Himmler called Heydrich“ alternative, since it was precisely SS Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich who was able to arrange for an SS general to interrogate Dr. Jekelius in Berlin in early December and order him to break off his relationship with Paula Hitler.