Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

[Hannover]

Concerning this alleged letter from Kube to Lohse under discussion here,

Alleged!? First time you've heard of it?

where can we see the original letter for review?

Jerusalem.

I have only seen claimed English 'translations'.

I note that Yad Vashem also has only English text, not the original letter:
http://www.yadvashem.org/about_HOLocaus ... oc185.html

You note incorrectly then. The YV has the original letter. Yad Yashem Archive, file ref: JM 3455 (according to Christopher Browning).

Here's the first page of it taken from Max Weinreich, Hitler's Professors, from the Google Books' freeview; the 2nd page isn't part of the freeview.

Spoonfeeding - Kube to Lohse 16.12.41 from Max Weinreich's Hitler's Professors.png

What do you make of it Hannover. Is it fake? A laughable fake even?

Nope. not the first time I've heard of it, just never SEEN it before. That was my point, catch up, Rabbit.

Curious that Yad Vashem does not display the original, that was another point. catch up, Rabbit.

Spoonfeeding the unobservant Rabbit:

- What is it's provenance, Rabbit?

- I see no signature, do you, Rabbit?

- Why only the first page, Rabbit?

- I see no official stamps, do you Rabbit?

- Where is the return letter, Rabbit?

Your constant initiation of aggressive behavior towards me is incredibly immature, check the threads, it is you who starts this crap. please stop.

- Hannover

[TheBlackRabbitofInlé]

Spoonfeeding the unobservant Rabbit:

- What is it's provenance, Rabbit?

- I see no signature, do you, Rabbit?

- Why only the first page, Rabbit?

- I see no official stamps, do you Rabbit?

- Where is the return letter, Rabbit?

You're not "spoonfeeding" me information there H., you're actually demanding that I spoonfeed you answers to your, erm...observations. Some of which (nos. 2 & 3) are pretty ridiculous, considering what you've already been informed about the provenance of the image I posted. There's no conspiracy in the Google Books freeview; the book is available for consultation in most main libraries, and you can buy a copy for about [US]$10.
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Professor ... 1258135329

If you're genuinely interested in discovering answers to your less-ridiculous observations, why don't you do some actual research (read books/visits archives) and find them for yourself?

[Hannover]

Spoonfeeding the unobservant Rabbit:

- What is it's provenance, Rabbit?

- I see no signature, do you, Rabbit?

- Why only the first page, Rabbit?

- I see no official stamps, do you Rabbit?

- Where is the return letter, Rabbit?

You're not "spoonfeeding" me information there H., you're actually demanding that I spoonfeed you answers to your, erm...observations. Some of which (nos. 2 & 3) are pretty ridiculous, considering what you've already been informed about the provenance of the image I posted. There's no conspiracy in the Google Books freeview; the book is available for consultation in most main libraries, and you can buy a copy for about [US]$10.
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Professor ... 1258135329

If you're genuinely interested in discovering answers to your less-ridiculous observations, why don't you do some actual research (read books/visits archives) and find them for yourself?

Still trying to be the tough guy, eh? Well, read on, Little Rabbit.

You have essentially admitted the document in question is dodgy by, well, dodging my questions. Try to follow along.

First, you have given me a link to the same book from which you posted the dodgy document in question, kinda dumb, Rabbit. You're just not helping.

Now, a spoon fed lesson on the meaning of provenance just for you, Rabbit:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/provenance

provenance:
- the origin or source of something
- the history of ownership

Your saying an alleged original German document resides in Jerusalem or is reproduced in a book is not it's provenance, they are merely statements, not "the origin or source of something", not "the history of ownership", Rabbit. I hope you now understand.

Since when is lack of provenance, missing pages, lack of signature, lack of official stamps, and no return letter "pretty ridiculous", Rabbit. because you say so? Now that is truly absurd and would be laughed out of a legitimate court of law. I know you're desperate here, but don't continue to make a fool of yourself.

Yes, you are good at scanning the odd book and little newspapers, congratulations Rabbit, as if any of that is even necessary to blow the stupid 'holocaust' storyline out of the water. Unfortunately it's your ability to process what you see that can be called into question. I mean come on: your ridiculous 'phosgene gassings', your inability to understand 'all prisoners were tattooed', your claimed mass shootings where mass graves are claimed but cannot be shown. Laughable is indeed the correct term for you here.

I do suggest you sharpen your cognition, comprehension skills. Until then I will continue to own you.

Regards, 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]

I beg the moderator's indulgence for the length of this. This will be my last post on the topic.

Maybe a helpful way of looking at the current topic of debate is to consider how we might think about the document if it had not yet been found by Irving and discussed ad nauseam since then.

We have a phone log with notes pursuant to a call made by Himmler at the Wolf's Lair to Heydrich in Prague on November 30, 1941. The lines on Jekelius and Molotov can be relatively easily explained (see below). The third and fourth lines are what would interest me personally.

"Jew-transport from Berlin" would want me looking for the transport leaving Berlin for one week before or after. Luckily, we have a list:

http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/about/in ... rettyPhoto

I think it's fair to assume the note refers to one of the transports on Nov. 27 (more on this below). These both went to Riga. Now I'd want to find out if Jekelius or Motolov's son were involved in these two transports in any way.

It doesn't make any sense that Jekelius has anything to do with the Berlin transport. More likely Himmler is asking Heydrich in the latter's capacity as intelligence chief to investigate him because of his relationship with Hitler's sister. With Himmler at Wolf's Lair, Hitler might even have requested such an investigation.
The line on Molotov's son is mysterious but explicable. Western newspapers had reported a week earlier that a man identified as Molotov's son had been taken prisoner on the Eastern front. See, e.g., here:

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1941 ... in-reports

What we know now is that this was Vasily Kokorin, Molotov's nephew -- he would be sent to Sachsenhausen, where he would be housed with several other prominent prisoners, including Yakov Jughashvili, who had been taken at Smolensk in July. Again, this was a specific RSHA job, so it went to Heydrich. Ergo, it's also not related to the "Jew-transport."

This takes us back to the Jew transport on the third line and now "keine Liquidierung" on the fourth line. As I stated before, there is no reason to assume that the fourth line is separate from the third line. It's possible but not necessary. It is possible, by the way, that it applies to Kokorin. The only line it seems not to apply to is the Jekelius line, since Jekelius hadn't even been taken into custody yet, although I suppose it's possible. It's also possible that it applies to all three preceding lines, as in "don't liquidate any of the above."

If we go with the third line being read in total isolation, we'd want to see what actually happened to these transports that went to Riga from Berlin. What we know is that they arrived in Riga and were shot. However, we also know that these transports were not the first or last from Berlin or the Old Reich in general to go to occupied Soviet territory. If you see the YVA list above, the transports began November 11 and continued into 1942. So we have to ask ourselves what this third line is about in isolation, without considering whether "Keine Liquidierung" refers to something else. So let's do that.We know that transports had gone from Berlin to Lodz already, but it had been almost a month since the last transport from Berlin had gone there, so it's unlikely that it's one of those transports. That leaves Minsk, Kaunas, and Riga, because the transports stop from Berlin and don't pick up again until Jan. 13, 1942. Again, the ones in Riga were shot, as was the single transport that went to Kaunas. The ones sent to Minsk were put in the ghetto there. This doesn't provide us with a lot of information about why one of these transports -- again, given the date of Nov. 30 of the conversation, likely to Riga -- was being discussed. Context thus becomes necessary.

We know from the next day's discussion log that a topic was "Exekutionen in Riga." Further, we know that the Berlin transports to Riga were shot along with the Jews in the Riga ghetto on November 30, maybe as Himmler was making this phone call. This still doesn't give us a lot of context about why this transport and its being executed the next day are under discussion. Luckily, another document does tell us that Himmler ordered a temporary halt to executions in Riga (this in the Bletchley intercepts) and, according to Jeckeln's testimony, he was then summoned by Himmler.

Clearly the execution of Berlin Jews in Riga was important. To summarize, we have Berlin Jews deported to the occupied USSR for the first time earlier in November. Everywhere but Minsk, they are shot. We have a call from Himmler to Heydrich on Nov. 30 to discuss one of these transports, which has already been shot. Then we get a policy change -- albeit a temporary one -- in the next few days, and Jews from the Reich aren't shot for a couple of months. Incidentally, what intervenes between is Wannsee, but that's another topic.

It seems fair, on the basis of the available evidence, that the topic of conversation was that the specific subject of the "Jew transport" conversation of Nov. 30 had to do with how they would be treated -- either shot or put in the ghetto. This interpretation draws neither conclusion, by the way, and is based on the reading of the third line in total isolation from the other three lines but in the context of what we know about the transports under discussion.

That brings us to the fourth line -- "Keine Liquidierung." It's either about this transport or not. My case is that it is, and that the reason for the call was to prevent this specific transport from being shot. The context is Kube's and, more importantly, Lohse's problems with shooting Reich transports, which we know about because Prützmann, Jeckeln's predecessor in Riga, had reported that Lohse, as well as Rosenberg, had objected to the treatment of the Jews in their custody in Riga. To push the policy forward, Prützmann was replaced with Jeckeln, who was more on board with the policy of shooting (Himmler could not replace Lohse or Rosenberg, since he had no authority over them); this is that to which I referred in talking about people being replaced.

Or maybe the fourth line is on a totally new topic. Your suggestion is that it has to do with the autonomy of the Protektorat government. I actually did a bit of digging over the last day or so and found that Heydrich himself used the term "Liquidierung" regarding the autonomy of B&M, so I concede that point to you -- well done. However, the timeline of events in the Protektorat doesn't really bear out a discussion going in that direction -- not to mention that it wouldn’t be Himmler's bailiwick to discuss w/Heydrich (as I already mentioned).Heydrich had only been assigned to B&M beginning on Sept. 29. His role in going there was to bring the Protektorat under closer control than von Neurath had kept it. Heydrich's biographer Robert Gerwarth writes (p. 239 ff) that Heydrich decreed in November 1941 to himself the power to dismiss ethnic Czechs from B&M government. On November 9, Hitler instructed Heydrich to reduce the number of ministries to seven, all of which would report directly to Heydrich, but that the façade of autonomy should be upheld. Heydrich wrote to Bormann (notice how the point of contact is Bormann -- not Himmler -- which I mentioned before) on November 16 that he would "liquidate" the Protektorat's autonomy from within. Ergo, the matter had been settled for some two weeks before the phone conversation on November 30. The Prague archives do not record correspondence on the matter between November 16 and January 19 of the following year, at least as Gerwarth records.

Finally, lest we run around a final time on the rocks of four lines/four topics or four lines/three topics, I'd call your attention to the notes from Dec. 1:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Note011241.html

Some explanation from Lipstadt v. Irving on these notes appears here:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/tran ... day004.htm

And perhaps most importantly, a partial transcription of that page from Google Books:

https://books.google.com/books?id=nNbiA ... +Berger%22

Here's how the five lines at the top right read in English, these from a conversation w/Gottlob Berger:

Recruitment numbers
Discussion with Schwarz (presumably party treasurer Franz Schwarz)
Furlough Berger
Meeting of the country services in Munich (presumably of the Hitler Youth)
Berger and Hofmann representatives (presumably Hofmann of RuSHA)

It would seem that, at least of these five lines, there are only four subjects: Volksdeutsche recruitment; money matters; and some time away for Berger -- then a meeting in Munich at which Berger and Hofmann will be representatives, presumably to discuss, respectively, SS recruitment and Race and Settlement. Thus, a conversation where two lines were together but the rest of the lines were separate was completely possible. The next day's notes prove it.

I hope this settles the matter. Thanks for approving this.

[EtienneSC]

I actually did a bit of digging over the last day or so and found that Heydrich himself used the term "Liquidierung" regarding the autonomy of B&M, so I concede that point to you -- well done.

This was a useful factual analysis. I'd like to add some speculation. Basically, there seems to be no foolproof way to interpret the Keine Liquidierung jotting. The term Liquidierung though may have been associated with the Soviet Union in the context of the Liquidierung der Kulaken als Klasse [liquidation of the kulaks as a class] dating from a speech of Stalin at the end of 1929. I'm not clear if this speech was known in Germany at the time. Many kulaks were ethnic Germans. It would not be surprising if the word Liquidierung sprang to mind in the context of a discussion of Stalin's family and Soviet policy. It could simply mean that the German policy was not to be, or was not, like the Soviet one (of confiscation, deportation). If there were independent evidence that the standing German policy was to shoot everyone on the trains, it could of course mean that an exception was being ordered in the case of one or more trains. On a related point, Judentransport is singular, but according to the dictionary it can have the sense of a collective noun, as in transportation.

[Bob]

I beg the moderator's indulgence for the length of this. This will be my last post on the topic.

Maybe a helpful way of looking at the current topic of debate is to consider how we might think about the document if it had not yet been found by Irving and discussed ad nauseam since then.

We have a phone log with notes pursuant to a call made by Himmler at the Wolf's Lair to Heydrich in Prague on November 30, 1941. The lines on Jekelius and Molotov can be relatively easily explained (see below). The third and fourth lines are what would interest me personally.

"Jew-transport from Berlin" would want me looking for the transport leaving Berlin for one week before or after. Luckily, we have a list:

http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/about/in ... rettyPhoto

I think it's fair to assume the note refers to one of the transports on Nov. 27 (more on this below). These both went to Riga. Now I'd want to find out if Jekelius or Motolov's son were involved in these two transports in any way.

It doesn't make any sense that Jekelius has anything to do with the Berlin transport. More likely Himmler is asking Heydrich in the latter's capacity as intelligence chief to investigate him because of his relationship with Hitler's sister. With Himmler at Wolf's Lair, Hitler might even have requested such an investigation.
The line on Molotov's son is mysterious but explicable. Western newspapers had reported a week earlier that a man identified as Molotov's son had been taken prisoner on the Eastern front. See, e.g., here:

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1941 ... in-reports

What we know now is that this was Vasily Kokorin, Molotov's nephew -- he would be sent to Sachsenhausen, where he would be housed with several other prominent prisoners, including Yakov Jughashvili, who had been taken at Smolensk in July. Again, this was a specific RSHA job, so it went to Heydrich. Ergo, it's also not related to the "Jew-transport."

This takes us back to the Jew transport on the third line and now "keine Liquidierung" on the fourth line. As I stated before, there is no reason to assume that the fourth line is separate from the third line. It's possible but not necessary. It is possible, by the way, that it applies to Kokorin. The only line it seems not to apply to is the Jekelius line, since Jekelius hadn't even been taken into custody yet, although I suppose it's possible. It's also possible that it applies to all three preceding lines, as in "don't liquidate any of the above."

If we go with the third line being read in total isolation, we'd want to see what actually happened to these transports that went to Riga from Berlin. What we know is that they arrived in Riga and were shot. However, we also know that these transports were not the first or last from Berlin or the Old Reich in general to go to occupied Soviet territory. If you see the YVA list above, the transports began November 11 and continued into 1942. So we have to ask ourselves what this third line is about in isolation, without considering whether "Keine Liquidierung" refers to something else. So let's do that.We know that transports had gone from Berlin to Lodz already, but it had been almost a month since the last transport from Berlin had gone there, so it's unlikely that it's one of those transports. That leaves Minsk, Kaunas, and Riga, because the transports stop from Berlin and don't pick up again until Jan. 13, 1942. Again, the ones in Riga were shot, as was the single transport that went to Kaunas. The ones sent to Minsk were put in the ghetto there. This doesn't provide us with a lot of information about why one of these transports -- again, given the date of Nov. 30 of the conversation, likely to Riga -- was being discussed. Context thus becomes necessary.

We know from the next day's discussion log that a topic was "Exekutionen in Riga." Further, we know that the Berlin transports to Riga were shot along with the Jews in the Riga ghetto on November 30, maybe as Himmler was making this phone call. This still doesn't give us a lot of context about why this transport and its being executed the next day are under discussion. Luckily, another document does tell us that Himmler ordered a temporary halt to executions in Riga (this in the Bletchley intercepts) and, according to Jeckeln's testimony, he was then summoned by Himmler.

Clearly the execution of Berlin Jews in Riga was important. To summarize, we have Berlin Jews deported to the occupied USSR for the first time earlier in November. Everywhere but Minsk, they are shot. We have a call from Himmler to Heydrich on Nov. 30 to discuss one of these transports, which has already been shot. Then we get a policy change -- albeit a temporary one -- in the next few days, and Jews from the Reich aren't shot for a couple of months. Incidentally, what intervenes between is Wannsee, but that's another topic.

It seems fair, on the basis of the available evidence, that the topic of conversation was that the specific subject of the "Jew transport" conversation of Nov. 30 had to do with how they would be treated -- either shot or put in the ghetto. This interpretation draws neither conclusion, by the way, and is based on the reading of the third line in total isolation from the other three lines but in the context of what we know about the transports under discussion.

So what is relevant from this long post is this: first three lines, three topics, you accept it, fine.

That brings us to the fourth line -- "Keine Liquidierung." It's either about this transport or not. My case is that it is, and that the reason for the call was to prevent this specific transport from being shot. The context is Kube's and, more importantly, Lohse's problems with shooting Reich transports, which we know about because Prützmann, Jeckeln's predecessor in Riga, had reported that Lohse, as well as Rosenberg, had objected to the treatment of the Jews in their custody in Riga. To push the policy forward, Prützmann was replaced with Jeckeln, who was more on board with the policy of shooting (Himmler could not replace Lohse or Rosenberg, since he had no authority over them); this is that to which I referred in talking about people being replaced.

Or maybe the fourth line is on a totally new topic. Your suggestion is that it has to do with the autonomy of the Protektorat government. I actually did a bit of digging over the last day or so and found that Heydrich himself used the term "Liquidierung" regarding the autonomy of B&M, so I concede that point to you -- well done. However, the timeline of events in the Protektorat doesn't really bear out a discussion going in that direction -- not to mention that it wouldn’t be Himmler's bailiwick to discuss w/Heydrich (as I already mentioned).Heydrich had only been assigned to B&M beginning on Sept. 29. His role in going there was to bring the Protektorat under closer control than von Neurath had kept it. Heydrich's biographer Robert Gerwarth writes (p. 239 ff) that Heydrich decreed in November 1941 to himself the power to dismiss ethnic Czechs from B&M government. On November 9, Hitler instructed Heydrich to reduce the number of ministries to seven, all of which would report directly to Heydrich, but that the façade of autonomy should be upheld. Heydrich wrote to Bormann (notice how the point of contact is Bormann -- not Himmler -- which I mentioned before) on November 16 that he would "liquidate" the Protektorat's autonomy from within. Ergo, the matter had been settled for some two weeks before the phone conversation on November 30. The Prague archives do not record correspondence on the matter between November 16 and January 19 of the following year, at least as Gerwarth records.

Fourth line Is not about the transport since is a completely illogical that fourth line is suddenly a part of the topic of the third line when first third lines are three separate topics. It´s just a nonsense to connect them together, there is no reason, no evidence to do it, but there is evidence, there is a reason why to reject such approach - first three lines are three topics, fourth line hence too, logical.

What digging? Afaik Heydrich did not use the term "liquidation" as I informed you, so feel free to quote. But I guess you are still confused and not able to follow the comments, it was Gerwarth who translated the passage as "liquidation" whereas the original text does not contain this word. Not that it changes something, just for the record. At least your belief in actual use of the term proved what I was suspecting, that it does not matter to you if the term was used or not, because even if proven to be used, you are going to substitute this failed strategy with something new and then act as if nothing has happened. Your new strategy: matter had been settled so is not possible that was discussed 14 days later - is wrong, see below.

The contact is Bormann who handed Heydrich´s reports to Hitler, that was his job, this does not mean that Himmler could not report to Heydrich about the protectorate when they discussed another three topics, he simply let him know about the needed matters on the occasion of his phone call and is safe to conclude that without that 4th topic/line, he would have called him anyway to discuss the three line/topics. There is nothing strange in the fact it was Himmler who informed Heydrich about the matter on the occasion of his phone call in which other three topics were already planned to be discussed. There is simply no reason why Bormann or anyone else should be shuffling around behind Himmler waiting for his turn at the phone in order just say to Heydrich something what Himmler can say too on occasion of his phone call. You are making up fictional (and ridiculous) problem in order to just drill some hole in this hypothesis, to just say something, that´s all, you lack serious arguments. Making people believe it was impossible or weird that it was Himmler who informed Heydrich about the matter, don´t you see how ridiculous your "argument" is?

Matter had been settled? No, I informed you many days ago: "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." The point 5 of the report which allegedly settled that matter acc. to you, in fact only informed Hitler about the reorganization which is planned and which started and will take weeks and months of planning and applying because of difficult and confused organization and to avoid impression of overall measure. But the details and planning will be provided in his next oral lecture, because of this Heydrich limited himself to say there will be stronger influence of German leadership acc. to general principle: liquidation of the autonomy from within while retaining the facade, that´s all, details and planning etc. - in his next oral lecture. As is known Hilter guaranteed and promised the autonomy. So not settled, but planned to be discussed later to inform others what is behind that principle and what this means for the autonomy.

What he told in his next lecture? Not known, but here is what likely happened: He informed others or Hitler later in his lecture about the planning, measures, details etc. behind this reorganization, general principle and result. This meant factual liquidation of Czech autonomy which Hitler guaranteed and promised. To this Hitler said his stance "no liquidation" which is a word Heydrich maybe used too in his lecture, who knows. On the occasion of Himmler´s phone call to Heydrich, Himmler informed him about this issue and Hitler´s stance. Even without this topic, Himmler would called him anyway to discuss other three topics, so why not add another? Simple, logical, backed up in documents from the period in question, I see no problems.

Finally, lest we run around a final time on the rocks of four lines/four topics or four lines/three topics, I'd call your attention to the notes from Dec. 1:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Note011241.html

Some explanation from Lipstadt v. Irving on these notes appears here:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/tran ... day004.htm

And perhaps most importantly, a partial transcription of that page from Google Books:

https://books.google.com/books?id=nNbiA ... +Berger%22

Here's how the five lines at the top right read in English, these from a conversation w/Gottlob Berger:

Recruitment numbers
Discussion with Schwarz (presumably party treasurer Franz Schwarz)
Furlough Berger
Meeting of the country services in Munich (presumably of the Hitler Youth)
Berger and Hofmann representatives (presumably Hofmann of RuSHA)

It would seem that, at least of these five lines, there are only four subjects: Volksdeutsche recruitment; money matters; and some time away for Berger -- then a meeting in Munich at which Berger and Hofmann will be representatives, presumably to discuss, respectively, SS recruitment and Race and Settlement. Thus, a conversation where two lines were together but the rest of the lines were separate was completely possible. The next day's notes prove it.

I hope this settles the matter. Thanks for approving this.

I see no four topics in these five lines of which are two lines allegedly connected in one topic. I see you are only trying to do the same in order to back up the same fallacious approach in relation to November 30 notes, in order to say that "it´s possible in the case of Nov 30, because it was possible in these notes".

[Thames Darwin]

Some follow-up questions for Bob, mostly for clarification. I'm sorry but it really is sometimes difficult to understand what you write. That's not an attack; I'm sure your ability to write in English is better than my ability to write in whatever your first language is, unless it's French, in which case it's probably a draw. 

(1) Because I am unable to access the November 16 letter from Heydrich to Bormann, I just want to be sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that this letter does NOT use the term "Liquidierung" at all? And also that Heydrich refers specifically to a future "lecture" on the topic. Does he provide a date? Could you provide me the word he uses in the original that is translated as "lecture"?

(2) Are you aware of any document or testimony or other evidence that indicates contact between Hitler's offices and Heydrich between November 16 and November 30?

(3) Is there any evidence that Bormann was at the Wolf's Lair in the last week of November 1941? I'm not aware of him traveling outside the Reichskanzlei with Hitler on a regular basis until 1943.

(4) Is there any evidence of Himmler discussing with Heydrich during the relevant period matters strictly related to Protekorat matters during this period? I have the relevant pages from October 1941 through January 1942 from the Dienstkalender Heinrich Himmlers, and I don't see anything, but I could be missing it.

(5) Do you have access to the December 30 letter from Heydrich to Bormann?

(6) Is there any evidence of Heydrich seeing Hitler in person between November 16 and November 30?

Again, just to be sure that I understand correctly, you are saying that Heydrich gave a lecture between November 16 and November 30 on the topic of B&M's autonomy, and "Keine Liquidierung" is the response. What I'm wondering is why, if the purpose of the letter of Nov. 16 is, in part, to say that he will "liquidate" the autonomy from within but keep the façade open, it remains an issue between Hitler and Heydrich two weeks later. Yes, Gerwarth writes that "the Führer had insisted in private conversations with Heydrich that this façade should be upheld," but he continues, "Heydrich opted for a strategy of 'liquidating the autonomy from within'.[91]" The note here (91), as you know, is to the November 16th letter to Bormann. This is why I have a hard time understand why further instruction would have come on this matter between Nov. 16 and Nov. 30, particularly when the only evidence you provide is a lecture that is, as far as I can tell, undated.

After we settle this, maybe then we can get back to the phone log entries and I can explain my case here as well?

[Bob]

Some follow-up questions for Bob, mostly for clarification. I'm sorry but it really is sometimes difficult to understand what you write. That's not an attack; I'm sure your ability to write in English is better than my ability to write in whatever your first language is, unless it's French, in which case it's probably a draw. 

(1) Because I am unable to access the November 16 letter from Heydrich to Bormann, I just want to be sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that this letter does NOT use the term "Liquidierung" at all? And also that Heydrich refers specifically to a future "lecture" on the topic. Does he provide a date? Could you provide me the word he uses in the original that is translated as "lecture"?

Does not use the term, yes, already pointed out. Yes, details and planning in his next lecture. No date. "Vortrag" - another translation (lecture sounds a bit academic) is also talk or speech, take your pick. Heydrich gave a lecture or had a talk with Hitler or gave a speech, personally or via phone etc. take your pick. I see you want more and more evidence, but I really doubt there will be some evidence that is finally going to satisfy you, evidence that on some specific day Heydrich had a talk with Hitler precisely about this matter including complete transcript with exact words + at least 100 Jewish eyewitnesses which are the best and the most reliable witnesses one can have. That would have been great, but i see no reason why such evidence should exist.

(2) Are you aware of any document or testimony or other evidence that indicates contact between Hitler's offices and Heydrich between November 16 and November 30?

Do not know, but what I know is that the November 16 report is 16th, and December 30, 1941 report is 17th and in this report is mentioned that the report from Nov 16 is last, so no other reports between Nov 16 and Dec 30. FYI, Nov 6 report is also said to have been the be last in the Nov 16 report, so no other reports between Nov 6 and Nov 16.

(3) Is there any evidence that Bormann was at the Wolf's Lair in the last week of November 1941? I'm not aware of him traveling outside the Reichskanzlei with Hitler on a regular basis until 1943.

Bormann was there when the report of November 16 (and other reports as well) was addressed to him and which was for Hitler. So you should ask yourself if Bormann left the Wolf's Lair and not if he was there.

(4) Is there any evidence of Himmler discussing with Heydrich during the relevant period matters strictly related to Protekorat matters during this period? I have the relevant pages from October 1941 through January 1942 from the Dienstkalender Heinrich Himmlers, and I don't see anything, but I could be missing it.

Do not know anything about it, why are you asking? Read again what was assumed Himmler´s role in this matter, see above.

(5) Do you have access to the December 30 letter from Heydrich to Bormann?

Report of December 30, 1941 is available online here, you can read that the autonomy was still a problem:
http://badatelna.eu/fond/959/reprodukce/?zaznamId=339611&reproId=366313

(6) Is there any evidence of Heydrich seeing Hitler in person between November 16 and November 30?

Do not know such evidence, but I know that Heydrich in his Oct 14 report mentioned another lecture (or talk, speech) which took place. Is there any evidence Heydrich seeing Hitler in person for this? I do not know such evidence...got my point?

Again, just to be sure that I understand correctly, you are saying that Heydrich gave a lecture between November 16 and November 30 on the topic of B&M's autonomy, and "Keine Liquidierung" is the response. What I'm wondering is why, if the purpose of the letter of Nov. 16 is, in part, to say that he will "liquidate" the autonomy from within but keep the façade open, it remains an issue between Hitler and Heydrich two weeks later. Yes, Gerwarth writes that "the Führer had insisted in private conversations with Heydrich that this façade should be upheld," but he continues, "Heydrich opted for a strategy of 'liquidating the autonomy from within'.[91]" The note here (91), as you know, is to the November 16th letter to Bormann. This is why I have a hard time understand why further instruction would have come on this matter between Nov. 16 and Nov. 30, particularly when the only evidence you provide is a lecture that is, as far as I can tell, undated.

After we settle this, maybe then we can get back to the phone log entries and I can explain my case here as well?

Yes, I assume the mentioned lecture (talk, speech) was given in that period, he gave the details and planning and later words "keine liquidierung" is Hitler´s stance on the matter when he was informed about the details etc. Why two weeks later? Because as I said, he told him the details etc., whereas in the report he limited himself to general principle so Hitler could not make a conclusion and wanted to be fully informed. Heydrich informed Hitler about this principle already in his Nov 6 report where he described the strategy as "pretence of autonomy and to liquidate this autonomy at the same time from within" (Jiří Doležal, Jan Křen, Czechoslovakia´s Fight 1938-1945, 1964, p. 21.) So if the issue was still on the table ten days later as we know from the Nov 16 report, why not another 10 or 14 days later when the Nov 16 report was again a bit vague and details were planned for Heydrich´s next lecture? Your objection is thus groundless, the topic could be on the table after another 10 or more days, nothing strange.

Yeah, explain yourself, start with the evidence that fourth line and third line is one topic.

[Thames Darwin]

(1) Because I am unable to access the November 16 letter from Heydrich to Bormann, I just want to be sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that this letter does NOT use the term "Liquidierung" at all? And also that Heydrich refers specifically to a future "lecture" on the topic. Does he provide a date? Could you provide me the word he uses in the original that is translated as "lecture"?

Does not use the term, yes, already pointed out. Yes, details and planning in his next lecture. No date. "Vortrag" - another translation (lecture sounds a bit academic) is also talk or speech, take your pick. Heydrich gave a lecture or had a talk with Hitler or gave a speech, personally or via phone etc. take your pick. I see you want more and more evidence, but I really doubt there will be some evidence that is finally going to satisfy you, evidence that on some specific day Heydrich had a talk with Hitler precisely about this matter including complete transcript with exact words + at least 100 Jewish eyewitnesses which are the best and the most reliable witnesses one can have. That would have been great, but i see no reason why such evidence should exist.

What I'm asking for is any evidence that such a lecture (I'd use "lecture") actually took place between November 16 and November 30 other than a mention by Heydrich in the Nov. 16 letter that he'd give one. Otherwise, I'd conclude that he's referring to the Jan. 19 meeting of the following year, or even the meeting w/Hitler on Jan. 30, since we know that they definitely met on that date, specifically in Berlin.

Believe it or not, I am really trying to determine what the most evidence exists for here.

(2) Snipped since answered already

(3) Is there any evidence that Bormann was at the Wolf's Lair in the last week of November 1941? I'm not aware of him traveling outside the Reichskanzlei with Hitler on a regular basis until 1943.

Bormann was there when the report of November 16 (and other reports as well) was addressed to him and which was for Hitler. So you should ask yourself if Bormann left the Wolf's Lair and not if he was there.

I'm sorry, but this is news to me. The Nov. 16 letter was to Hitler and not to Bormann? Or was it a cover letter to Bormann over a report to Hitler? And again, just to be sure I understand, the Nov. 16 letter is to Bormann at the Wolf's Lair (Ostpreussen) and not to the Reichskanzlei (Berlin)? Sorry to repeat, I'm just trying to be sure here.

(4) Is there any evidence of Himmler discussing with Heydrich during the relevant period matters strictly related to Protekorat matters during this period? I have the relevant pages from October 1941 through January 1942 from the Dienstkalender Heinrich Himmlers, and I don't see anything, but I could be missing it.

Do not know anything about it, why are you asking? Read again what was assumed Himmler´s role in this matter, see above.

Yes, but I'm unconvinced on this point, so we might as well drop it, unless you feel otherwise.

(5) Do you have access to the December 30 letter from Heydrich to Bormann?

Report of December 30, 1941 is available online here, you can read that the autonomy was still a problem:
http://badatelna.eu/fond/959/reprodukce/?zaznamId=339611&reproId=366313

Thanks. It's going to take some time for me to go through this. Like days. I have a deadline coming up I'm going to have to meet and a million other things to do. You're making an interesting case, I might say, and making me work hard.

(6) Is there any evidence of Heydrich seeing Hitler in person between November 16 and November 30?

Do not know such evidence, but I know that Heydrich in his Oct 14 report mentioned another lecture (or talk, speech) which took place. Is there any evidence Heydrich seeing Hitler in person for this? I do not know such evidence...got my point?

Yes, got it, thanks. At this point, I really am legitimately trying to understand your case.

Yes, I assume the mentioned lecture (talk, speech) was given in that period, he gave the details and planning and later words "keine liquidierung" is Hitler´s stance on the matter when he was informed about the details etc. Why two weeks later? Because as I said, he told him the details etc., whereas in the report he limited himself to general principle so Hitler could not make a conclusion and wanted to be fully informed. Heydrich informed Hitler about this principle already in his Nov 6 report where he described the strategy as "pretence of autonomy and to liquidate this autonomy at the same time from within" (Jiří Doležal, Jan Křen, Czechoslovakia´s Fight 1938-1945, 1964, p. 21.) So if the issue was still on the table ten days later as we know from the Nov 16 report, why not another 10 or 14 days later when the Nov 16 report was again a bit vague and details were planned for Heydrich´s next lecture? Your objection is thus groundless, the topic could be on the table after another 10 or more days, nothing strange.

It would just be nice to have some solid piece of evidence, like the reports to Bormann, a telephone call, etc.[/quote]

Yeah, explain yourself, start with the evidence that fourth line and third line is one topic.

I'm still working on that one. Could I ask you what you think the third line is specifically about? I.e., which transport in specific and why it was being mentioned?

[Bob]

What caused your sudden change in rhetoric and attitude? You suddenly sound so friendly and interested In your latest comments.

(1) Because I am unable to access the November 16 letter from Heydrich to Bormann, I just want to be sure I understand you correctly. You are saying that this letter does NOT use the term "Liquidierung" at all? And also that Heydrich refers specifically to a future "lecture" on the topic. Does he provide a date? Could you provide me the word he uses in the original that is translated as "lecture"?

Does not use the term, yes, already pointed out. Yes, details and planning in his next lecture. No date. "Vortrag" - another translation (lecture sounds a bit academic) is also talk or speech, take your pick. Heydrich gave a lecture or had a talk with Hitler or gave a speech, personally or via phone etc. take your pick. I see you want more and more evidence, but I really doubt there will be some evidence that is finally going to satisfy you, evidence that on some specific day Heydrich had a talk with Hitler precisely about this matter including complete transcript with exact words + at least 100 Jewish eyewitnesses which are the best and the most reliable witnesses one can have. That would have been great, but i see no reason why such evidence should exist.

What I'm asking for is any evidence that such a lecture (I'd use "lecture") actually took place between November 16 and November 30 other than a mention by Heydrich in the Nov. 16 letter that he'd give one. Otherwise, I'd conclude that he's referring to the Jan. 19 meeting of the following year, or even the meeting w/Hitler on Jan. 30, since we know that they definitely met on that date, specifically in Berlin.

Believe it or not, I am really trying to determine what the most evidence exists for here.

It does not hold water he refers to Jan 19, i.e. two months later! Is fully possible and reasonable the lecture, talk, speech, took place between Nov 16 and Nov 30 especially when the matter was discussed and relevant in the period in question.

(3) Is there any evidence that Bormann was at the Wolf's Lair in the last week of November 1941? I'm not aware of him traveling outside the Reichskanzlei with Hitler on a regular basis until 1943.

Bormann was there when the report of November 16 (and other reports as well) was addressed to him and which was for Hitler. So you should ask yourself if Bormann left the Wolf's Lair and not if he was there.

I'm sorry, but this is news to me. The Nov. 16 letter was to Hitler and not to Bormann? Or was it a cover letter to Bormann over a report to Hitler? And again, just to be sure I understand, the Nov. 16 letter is to Bormann at the Wolf's Lair (Ostpreussen) and not to the Reichskanzlei (Berlin)? Sorry to repeat, I'm just trying to be sure here.

That is what we are talking about for quite a long time. The reports (not only Nov 16 report) were for Hitler and were sent through Martin Bormann, Reichsleiter who reported directly to Hitler. The reports begins with the request to submit them to/inform the Führer, i.e. Hitler. Reports were addressed to "Führerhauptquartier" which was Wolf´s Lair, from this place Hitler planned the Soviet campaign at this time AFAIK. Also M. Kárný informs explicitly the Nov 16 report was for Hitler.

(4) Is there any evidence of Himmler discussing with Heydrich during the relevant period matters strictly related to Protekorat matters during this period? I have the relevant pages from October 1941 through January 1942 from the Dienstkalender Heinrich Himmlers, and I don't see anything, but I could be missing it.

Do not know anything about it, why are you asking? Read again what was assumed Himmler´s role in this matter, see above.

Yes, but I'm unconvinced on this point, so we might as well drop it, unless you feel otherwise.

You are unconvinced that Himmler could simply inform Heydrich on the fourth matter when he already had another three topics he noted for his phone call to Heydrich? Do you accept this makes sense and this could be easily what happened?

(5) Do you have access to the December 30 letter from Heydrich to Bormann?

Report of December 30, 1941 is available online here, you can read that the autonomy was still a problem:
http://badatelna.eu/fond/959/reprodukce/?zaznamId=339611&reproId=366313

Thanks. It's going to take some time for me to go through this. Like days. I have a deadline coming up I'm going to have to meet and a million other things to do. You're making an interesting case, I might say, and making me work hard.

It was pictorex who came up with this interesting hypothesis, credit goes to him, he only stimulated my interest since this makes sense and we have support from the period in question. There are more documents I want to check since M. Kárný refers to more documents for the autonomy issue, but I do not have much time.

Yes, I assume the mentioned lecture (talk, speech) was given in that period, he gave the details and planning and later words "keine liquidierung" is Hitler´s stance on the matter when he was informed about the details etc. Why two weeks later? Because as I said, he told him the details etc., whereas in the report he limited himself to general principle so Hitler could not make a conclusion and wanted to be fully informed. Heydrich informed Hitler about this principle already in his Nov 6 report where he described the strategy as "pretence of autonomy and to liquidate this autonomy at the same time from within" (Jiří Doležal, Jan Křen, Czechoslovakia´s Fight 1938-1945, 1964, p. 21.) So if the issue was still on the table ten days later as we know from the Nov 16 report, why not another 10 or 14 days later when the Nov 16 report was again a bit vague and details were planned for Heydrich´s next lecture? Your objection is thus groundless, the topic could be on the table after another 10 or more days, nothing strange.

It would just be nice to have some solid piece of evidence, like the reports to Bormann, a telephone call, etc.

That would be nice, but you should understand that not every word they said to each other was recorded or put on the paper, they surely discussed lot of things without putting it on the paper so you shouldn´t be surprised or draw unfounded conclusions if there is no such piece of evidence.

Yeah, explain yourself, start with the evidence that fourth line and third line is one topic.

I'm still working on that one. Could I ask you what you think the third line is specifically about? I.e., which transport in specific and why it was being mentioned?

Um...ok. Do not know, I can only speculate.

[leanhnam220]

This topic is interesting
Tiny Tanks Unblocked

[Thames Darwin]

What caused your sudden change in rhetoric and attitude? You suddenly sound so friendly and interested In your latest comments.

Simple: You brought it down a notch, and so did I. I kept trying to communicate to you that I wasn't trying to be a jerk -- I was legitimately having a hard time understanding you in some instances. It's not personal.

It does not hold water he refers to Jan 19, i.e. two months later! Is fully possible and reasonable the lecture, talk, speech, took place between Nov 16 and Nov 30 especially when the matter was discussed and relevant in the period in question.

But I'm not seeing concrete proof of an ongoing disagreement between Hitler and Heydrich on this point. I'll need to read through the Nov. 16 letter in particular, and that's going to require my getting to a library. This will take a while.

Bormann was there when the report of November 16 (and other reports as well) was addressed to him and which was for Hitler. So you should ask yourself if Bormann left the Wolf's Lair and not if he was there.

Unless I'm mistaken -- and I could be -- Bormann wouldn't have been with Hitler 24/7 until '43, when he took over as personal secretary. Before then, much of his time had to have been spent at the Reichskanzlei to perform his duties in that position. I'm not denying that it's possible that Bormann was at Wolfsschanze for the period in question; I just want to see proof. Are any of the reports from Heydrich to Bormann between Nov. 1 and Nov. 30 addressed specifically to Wolfsschanze, or are they all to Führerhauptquartier? Because if it's the latter, then that could refer to a number of places.

That is what we are talking about for quite a long time. The reports (not only Nov 16 report) were for Hitler and were sent through Martin Bormann, Reichsleiter who reported directly to Hitler. The reports begins with the request to submit them to/inform the Führer, i.e. Hitler. Reports were addressed to "Führerhauptquartier" which was Wolf´s Lair, from this place Hitler planned the Soviet campaign at this time AFAIK. Also M. Kárný informs explicitly the Nov 16 report was for Hitler.

OK, I understand now, as well as from having read the first page or two of the Nov. 30 report that the communications are addressed to Bormann but they include reports for Hitler. But see above: Führerhauptquartier did not always refer to Wolfsschanze. Yes, much of Hitler's time was there, but we also know, e.g., that the meeting on Nov. 9 was in Munich. The high command meeting in July 1941 was at the Berghof. I forget exactly where I saw it, but there were some 200 days between the beginning of Barbarossa and January 1945 that Hitler spent at places other than Wolfsschanze. So I'm not convinced that Bormann was always in the company of Hitler.

You are unconvinced that Himmler could simply inform Heydrich on the fourth matter when he already had another three topics he noted for his phone call to Heydrich? Do you accept this makes sense and this could be easily what happened?

Yes, it could have happened. I just don't see any concrete proof.

That would be nice, but you should understand that not every word they said to each other was recorded or put on the paper, they surely discussed lot of things without putting it on the paper so you shouldn´t be surprised or draw unfounded conclusions if there is no such piece of evidence.

Right, I would reserve drawing any conclusion whatsoever unless I had more information.

Yeah, explain yourself, start with the evidence that fourth line and third line is one topic.

I'm still working on that one. Could I ask you what you think the third line is specifically about? I.e., which transport in specific and why it was being mentioned?

Um...ok. Do not know, I can only speculate.

Would you care to? I mean, I don't think there's much about transports from Berlin of Jews during the relevant period that would warrant being discussed from Wolfsschanze. Do you?

This, by the way, was the point of my trying to read each line in total isolation. Even if you're correct about the "Keine Liquidierung" line, then an explanation of why they're discussing a Jewish transport from Berlin warrants explanation as well. In my opinion.

[Bob]

What caused your sudden change in rhetoric and attitude? You suddenly sound so friendly and interested In your latest comments.

Simple: You brought it down a notch, and so did I. I kept trying to communicate to you that I wasn't trying to be a jerk -- I was legitimately having a hard time understanding you in some instances. It's not personal.

Interesting, I treat you differently because you brought it down after the long comment of mine.

It does not hold water he refers to Jan 19, i.e. two months later! Is fully possible and reasonable the lecture, talk, speech, took place between Nov 16 and Nov 30 especially when the matter was discussed and relevant in the period in question.

But I'm not seeing concrete proof of an ongoing disagreement between Hitler and Heydrich on this point. I'll need to read through the Nov. 16 letter in particular, and that's going to require my getting to a library. This will take a while.

The disagreement can be seen in the fact Hitler guaranteed and promised autonomy whereas the plan would result in factual liquidation of autonomy as accepted by historians. Maybe the disagreement was exposed during/after the lecture, talk or speech between them? Who knows. Report will not help you on this matter.

Bormann was there when the report of November 16 (and other reports as well) was addressed to him and which was for Hitler. So you should ask yourself if Bormann left the Wolf's Lair and not if he was there.

Unless I'm mistaken -- and I could be -- Bormann wouldn't have been with Hitler 24/7 until '43, when he took over as personal secretary. Before then, much of his time had to have been spent at the Reichskanzlei to perform his duties in that position. I'm not denying that it's possible that Bormann was at Wolfsschanze for the period in question; I just want to see proof. Are any of the reports from Heydrich to Bormann between Nov. 1 and Nov. 30 addressed specifically to Wolfsschanze, or are they all to Führerhauptquartier? Because if it's the latter, then that could refer to a number of places.

Afaik the reports we are discussing are always addressed to Führerhauptquartier, so I doubt is a coincidence he was always there when Heydrich wanted to send a report. Number of places? What places? Afaik only Wolfsschanze functioned as FHQ, other places either had not this function, were not ready or they functioned as FHQ only for a certain period which is not included in our issue. Hence FHQ surely meant Wolfsschanze otherwise it does not make even sense to address it to FHQ if FHQ could mean "number of places" acc. to you, it was obviously clear what FHQ means. Unless you have evidence FHQ in the reports was something other than Wolfsschanze, then is clear it was Wolfsschanze. And I still do not know why are you interested in Bormann and where he was, the reports were for Hitler.

That is what we are talking about for quite a long time. The reports (not only Nov 16 report) were for Hitler and were sent through Martin Bormann, Reichsleiter who reported directly to Hitler. The reports begins with the request to submit them to/inform the Führer, i.e. Hitler. Reports were addressed to "Führerhauptquartier" which was Wolf´s Lair, from this place Hitler planned the Soviet campaign at this time AFAIK. Also M. Kárný informs explicitly the Nov 16 report was for Hitler.

OK, I understand now, as well as from having read the first page or two of the Nov. 30 report that the communications are addressed to Bormann but they include reports for Hitler. But see above: Führerhauptquartier did not always refer to Wolfsschanze. Yes, much of Hitler's time was there, but we also know, e.g., that the meeting on Nov. 9 was in Munich. The high command meeting in July 1941 was at the Berghof. I forget exactly where I saw it, but there were some 200 days between the beginning of Barbarossa and January 1945 that Hitler spent at places other than Wolfsschanze. So I'm not convinced that Bormann was always in the company of Hitler.

You mean Dec 30 report. Yes, it does refer, see above. If he was at different location, the reports would have been sent to that location, simple.

You are unconvinced that Himmler could simply inform Heydrich on the fourth matter when he already had another three topics he noted for his phone call to Heydrich? Do you accept this makes sense and this could be easily what happened?

Yes, it could have happened. I just don't see any concrete proof.

I did not see any concrete proof that Hitler ever used a toilet, but I consider it likely.

I understand you want a concrete proof for every tiny bit of this hypothesis because you are reluctant to drop this alleged "criminal trace" without a fight (trace which as usual can be explained in non-sinister way), and you are trying really hard to find "something" what you can use to dismiss this hypothesis, but you expect a concrete proof in the case in which is likely that no concrete proof exist, because there was no reason for existence of such proof unless Heydrich et al, foreseen our debate over 70 years later.

Um...ok. Do not know, I can only speculate.

Would you care to? I mean, I don't think there's much about transports from Berlin of Jews during the relevant period that would warrant being discussed from Wolfsschanze. Do you?

This, by the way, was the point of my trying to read each line in total isolation. Even if you're correct about the "Keine Liquidierung" line, then an explanation of why they're discussing a Jewish transport from Berlin warrants explanation as well. In my opinion.

Wanted to check things related to that transport (like time o departure, etc.)? To know number of deportees? I really do not know, there is no hint and I actually do not care much, see below.

Afaik the only reason why are all debating the document and the line with transport is the fourth line, without that fourth line and its alleged "criminal" meaning, nobody would give a shit about the third line and the document itself.

[Thames Darwin]

The disagreement can be seen in the fact Hitler guaranteed and promised autonomy whereas the plan would result in factual liquidation of autonomy as accepted by historians. Maybe the disagreement was exposed during/after the lecture, talk or speech between them? Who knows. Report will not help you on this matter.

Perhaps not this report specifically on this point, no. Gerwarth seems to indicate that Heydrich was sent into B&M in the first place to do exactly what he ended up doing. Moreover, if Gerwarth's account of the Nov. 9 meeting in Munich is correct, then that's why I believe the matter was settled. Hitler ordered a downsizing of ministries, all of which would report to Heydrich. Reading the Nov. 16 letter and report will allow me to see the extent to which suggestions beyond this were made by Heydrich. If you scanned it, I'd be grateful, but the UPenn library, near where I live, has a copy also.

Frankly, I'm interested in this issue indepedently since I am of partial Czech-Jewish ancestry and am interested in the Protekorat history generally.

Afaik the reports we are discussing are always addressed to Führerhauptquartier, so I doubt is a coincidence he was always there when Heydrich wanted to send a report. Number of places? What places? Afaik only Wolfsschanze functioned as FHQ, other places either had not this function, were not ready or they functioned as FHQ only for a certain period which is not included in our issue.

But the artice you linked to reads, "Besides the well-known Wolfsschanze, there were all together 20 other FHQs in the German Reich and occupied territories, not all of which were finished by the end of the war in 1945." The table shows 13 of these FHQs were operational. That's a problem, in my opinion, for the conclusion that Bormann was at Wolfsschanze, particularly when he had regular work to do at the Reichkanzlei in Berlin and was not yet working as personal secretary to Hitler. Again, some 200 days were spent away from Wolfsschanze by Hitler.

Hence FHQ surely meant Wolfsschanze otherwise it does not make even sense to address it to FHQ if FHQ could mean "number of places" acc. to you, it was obviously clear what FHQ means. Unless you have evidence FHQ in the reports was something other than Wolfsschanze, then is clear it was Wolfsschanze.

See above; the Wiki article you linked to demonstrates this. I would accept your conclusion were that not true. Plus, you can see in the Monologe, e.g., that more than one place is referred to as FHQ. Finally, if a letter is going to Bormann and Bormann works at the Reichskanzlei, and the Reichskanzlei is among the places referred to as FHQ, then a letter to Bormann almost by default would go to the Reichskanzlei. Q.e.d.

Btw, among other sources, the Tischsprache refers to the Reichskanzlei as FHQ (see 25.4.1942, e.g.).

And I still do not know why are you interested in Bormann and where he was, the reports were for Hitler.

I'm interested in the flow of information. That's all.

I did not see any concrete proof that Hitler ever used a toilet, but I consider it likely.

You consider it likely because Hitler was a human being. Entertain a syllogism:

P1: All human beings use a toilet.
P2: Hitler was human.
C: Hitler used a toilet.

I don't think a similar syllogism can be used to make the case that Hitler and Heydrich had something over which they disagreed between Nov. 16 and Nov. 30 vis-à-vis the autonomy of B&M.

I understand you want a concrete proof for every tiny bit of this hypothesis because you are reluctant to drop this alleged "criminal trace" without a fight (trace which as usual can be explained in non-sinister way), and you are trying really hard to find "something" what you can use to dismiss this hypothesis, but you expect a concrete proof in the case in which is likely that no concrete proof exist, because there was no reason for existence of such proof unless Heydrich et al, foreseen our debate over 70 years later.

You misunderstand my intentions.

I am asking for proof because it's important to provide proof to make an historical case -- particularly when the case goes against the case for which the most evidence actually exists. You can sneer at "criminal traces" all you like, particularly if you view them each in isolation, but the fact of the matter is that the sheer volume of criminal traces out there, this telephone note among them, presents a serious problem for non-extermination theories.

Wanted to check things related to that transport (like time o departure, etc.)? To know number of deportees? I really do not know, there is no hint and I actually do not care much, see below.

All of those issues were handled in Berlin or other point of departure, and the point of contact would not have been Heydrich. That a message on this topic from Himmler to Heydrich, presumably relayed for Hitler himself, indicates something rather important was going on. If they wanted to know how many on the transport (and I can't think of a single reason why any of these people would care), they would phone back to the Gestapo HQ in Berlin -- probably to Eichmann. If they wanted to know what time it was arriving, it would be anyone's best guess; the only thing they'd know for sure was when it left, and again Eichmann would probably know best.

Let me try to make this a bit more clear. Hitler did not normally involve himself in the mundane details of Jewish deportations like these. Rather, he set policy at the top level and let the underlings work it out. Himmler had given over this particular job to Heydrich, who oversaw it in general. A message from Hitler to Heydrich relayed by Himmler on this topic means something at least as important to Hitler as the guy screwing his sister (Jekelius), the guy who might be a valuable prisoner trade ("Molotov"), or (if you're correct) the perceived autonomy of B&M.

What is likely is that Lohse complained to Rosenberg about recent events in Kaunas, and Rosenberg, in turn, complained to Hitler. Hitler saw a potentially large political problem arising and intervened. If you have Browning's Origins of the Final Solution, he works through this material on pp. 393-398. If you have an e-mail address you feel comfortable sharing, I can send you these six pages and notes.

My contention continues to be that the evidence is overwhelming that the line about liquidation refers to this transport, and my proof for that relies on Kube and Lohse's unhappiness with the situation, the discussion of the following day between Himmler and Heydrich about "executions in Riga," and the temporary lull in executions until January.

Your argument is interesting, but there are a lot of other important matters that arise between Nov. 16 and Heydrich's conference on Jan. 19, among which are the planning (and postponing) of Wannsee, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the declaration of war by the U.S., etc., all of which had direct effects on Jewish policy.

Finally, if you're still stuck on four lines, four topics, that's why I included the lines from the next day from the conversation with Berger. Five lines, four topics in that one. We know that because Berger and Otto Hofmann were indeed sent as representatives to HJ meetings in Munich on a regular basis. It's possible that Berger and Hofmann are to be "Vertreter" in some other capacity, but the bit about Landdienstes makes it almost certain.

Afaik the only reason why are all debating the document and the line with transport is the fourth line, without that fourth line and its alleged "criminal" meaning, nobody would give a shit about the third line and the document itself.

I disagree with that as well, but it's probably not worth arguing about.

[Thames Darwin]

The disagreement can be seen in the fact Hitler guaranteed and promised autonomy whereas the plan would result in factual liquidation of autonomy as accepted by historians. Maybe the disagreement was exposed during/after the lecture, talk or speech between them? Who knows. Report will not help you on this matter.

Perhaps not this report specifically on this point, no. Gerwarth seems to indicate that Heydrich was sent into B&M in the first place to do exactly what he ended up doing. Moreover, if Gerwarth's account of the Nov. 9 meeting in Munich is correct, then that's why I believe the matter was settled. Hitler ordered a downsizing of ministries, all of which would report to Heydrich. Reading the Nov. 16 letter and report will allow me to see the extent to which suggestions beyond this were made by Heydrich. If you scanned it, I'd be grateful, but the UPenn library, near where I live, has a copy also.

Frankly, I'm interested in this issue indepedently since I am of partial Czech-Jewish ancestry and am interested in the Protekorat history generally.

Afaik the reports we are discussing are always addressed to Führerhauptquartier, so I doubt is a coincidence he was always there when Heydrich wanted to send a report. Number of places? What places? Afaik only Wolfsschanze functioned as FHQ, other places either had not this function, were not ready or they functioned as FHQ only for a certain period which is not included in our issue.

But the artice you linked to reads, "Besides the well-known Wolfsschanze, there were all together 20 other FHQs in the German Reich and occupied territories, not all of which were finished by the end of the war in 1945." The table shows 13 of these FHQs were operational. That's a problem, in my opinion, for the conclusion that Bormann was at Wolfsschanze, particularly when he had regular work to do at the Reichkanzlei in Berlin and was not yet working as personal secretary to Hitler. Again, some 200 days were spent away from Wolfsschanze by Hitler.

Hence FHQ surely meant Wolfsschanze otherwise it does not make even sense to address it to FHQ if FHQ could mean "number of places" acc. to you, it was obviously clear what FHQ means. Unless you have evidence FHQ in the reports was something other than Wolfsschanze, then is clear it was Wolfsschanze.

See above; the Wiki article you linked to demonstrates this. I would accept your conclusion were that not true. Plus, you can see in the Monologe, e.g., that more than one place is referred to as FHQ. Finally, if a letter is going to Bormann and Bormann works at the Reichskanzlei, and the Reichskanzlei is among the places referred to as FHQ, then a letter to Bormann almost by default would go to the Reichskanzlei. Q.e.d.

Btw, among other sources, the Tischsprache refers to the Reichskanzlei as FHQ (see 25.4.1942, e.g.).

And I still do not know why are you interested in Bormann and where he was, the reports were for Hitler.

I'm interested in the flow of information. That's all.

I did not see any concrete proof that Hitler ever used a toilet, but I consider it likely.

You consider it likely because Hitler was a human being. Entertain a syllogism:

P1: All human beings use a toilet.
P2: Hitler was human.
C: Hitler used a toilet.

I don't think a similar syllogism can be used to make the case that Hitler and Heydrich had something over which they disagreed between Nov. 16 and Nov. 30 vis-à-vis the autonomy of B&M.

I understand you want a concrete proof for every tiny bit of this hypothesis because you are reluctant to drop this alleged "criminal trace" without a fight (trace which as usual can be explained in non-sinister way), and you are trying really hard to find "something" what you can use to dismiss this hypothesis, but you expect a concrete proof in the case in which is likely that no concrete proof exist, because there was no reason for existence of such proof unless Heydrich et al, foreseen our debate over 70 years later.

You misunderstand my intentions.

I am asking for proof because it's important to provide proof to make an historical case -- particularly when the case goes against the case for which the most evidence actually exists. You can sneer at "criminal traces" all you like, particularly if you view them each in isolation, but the fact of the matter is that the sheer volume of criminal traces out there, this telephone note among them, presents a serious problem for non-extermination theories.

Wanted to check things related to that transport (like time o departure, etc.)? To know number of deportees? I really do not know, there is no hint and I actually do not care much, see below.

All of those issues were handled in Berlin or other point of departure, and the point of contact would not have been Heydrich. That a message on this topic from Himmler to Heydrich, presumably relayed for Hitler himself, indicates something rather important was going on. If they wanted to know how many on the transport (and I can't think of a single reason why any of these people would care), they would phone back to the Gestapo HQ in Berlin -- probably to Eichmann. If they wanted to know what time it was arriving, it would be anyone's best guess; the only thing they'd know for sure was when it left, and again Eichmann would probably know best.

Let me try to make this a bit more clear. Hitler did not normally involve himself in the mundane details of Jewish deportations like these. Rather, he set policy at the top level and let the underlings work it out. Himmler had given over this particular job to Heydrich, who oversaw it in general. A message from Hitler to Heydrich relayed by Himmler on this topic means something at least as important to Hitler as the guy screwing his sister (Jekelius), the guy who might be a valuable prisoner trade ("Molotov"), or (if you're correct) the perceived autonomy of B&M.

What is likely is that Lohse complained to Rosenberg about recent events in Kaunas, and Rosenberg, in turn, complained to Hitler. Hitler saw a potentially large political problem arising and intervened. If you have Browning's Origins of the Final Solution, he works through this material on pp. 393-398. If you have an e-mail address you feel comfortable sharing, I can send you these six pages and notes.

My contention continues to be that the evidence is overwhelming that the line about liquidation refers to this transport, and my proof for that relies on Kube and Lohse's unhappiness with the situation, the discussion of the following day between Himmler and Heydrich about "executions in Riga," and the temporary lull in executions until January.

Your argument is interesting, but there are a lot of other important matters that arise between Nov. 16 and Heydrich's conference on Jan. 19, among which are the planning (and postponing) of Wannsee, the attack on Pearl Harbor, the declaration of war by the U.S., etc., all of which had direct effects on Jewish policy.

Finally, if you're still stuck on four lines, four topics, that's why I included the lines from the next day from the conversation with Berger. Five lines, four topics in that one. We know that because Berger and Otto Hofmann were indeed sent as representatives to HJ meetings in Munich on a regular basis. It's possible that Berger and Hofmann are to be "Vertreter" in some other capacity, but the bit about Landdienstes makes it almost certain.

Afaik the only reason why are all debating the document and the line with transport is the fourth line, without that fourth line and its alleged "criminal" meaning, nobody would give a shit about the third line and the document itself.

I disagree with that as well, but it's probably not worth arguing about.