Himmler's note infers Hitler knew of liquidation ?

[pictorex]

About a year and a half ago Irving replied to my previous attempt at a solution (in which I tried to link the fourth line with a military reverse suffered by the German Army on the Eastern Front on 28 November 1941) with a justified critique, pointing out that this was a military matter outside of SS purview, therefore not likely a subject of discussion between Himmler, speaking presumably for Hitler, and Heydrich. Irving has not yet responded to the present solution, which I emailed him about a week ago. His position has been the same since 1977, and that is, that Hitler tried but failed to protect the Berlin Jews on the mentioned transport, which he claims is the one that left Berlin on 27 November 1941 bound for Riga. It seems to me unlikely that instructions concerning a transport that left Berlin on the 27th of November would be issued three days later, after the transport under discussion had already reached its destination. That is why I have suggested that the transport in question was the one scheduled to leave Berlin the day following Himmler’s telephone call to Heydrich, i.e., on 1 December 1941, bound for Lodz.

That there were standing orders regarding deportees to the Ostland region is clear from the deciphered message from Himmler to Jeckeln in Riga, which reads as follows in Irving’s translation:

"SS Obergruppenführer JECKELN, Senior SS and Police Commander, Ostland [Baltic Provinces], RIGA. The Jews being resettled in the Ostland region are to be treated only in accordance with the guidelines laid down by myself or by the Reich Security Main Office. I will punish those who act on their own authority or in contravention [of the guidelines]. (Sgd. H HIMMLER)"

The message also implies some unspecified breach of these guidelines. The general policy, or guidelines, can be deduced from the fact that the deportees on a Jewish transport that left Nuremberg on 27 November 1941 (the same day as the transport from Berlin) were assigned to various work camps on arrival in Riga.

Clothilde Lehmann and her husband Hugo, were on the first transport of 512 Jews that left Nürenberg, Germany, by train, on 27 November 1941, destination Riga, Latvia. Only 15 of that number were eventually to survive.
The torturous journey took 3 days and 3 nights. Upon arrival the deportees were confined to the concentration camp Kaiserwald located near Riga, as well as the KZ camps Spilwe and Jungfernhof, as well as the Riga Ghetto. They performed hard labor in forests, construction and other projects under the Wehrmacht supervision until May 1944. With the approach of the Soviet armies the Germans abandoned these camps, transporting the inmate population by ship to KZ Stutthof (Sztutowo), near the port city of Danzig."

ref. Henry Schwab, The Echoes that Remain, (1992), p. 136. For further details, see http://www.edwardvictor.com/Lehmann.htm

[neugierig]

Thank you for the detailed reply, pictorex. Should Irving respond, could you please post what he wrote? I believe in looking at every angle.

Keep up the good work.

Regards
Wilf

[pictorex]

I realize that my conjecture that "keine Liquidierung" refers to Hitler’s determination to resist pressures at liquidating the Protectorate as a political entity requires further verification, and if all goes well I will have a chance to look for this evidence in the Czech National Archives this summer. In the meantime I have found a partial confirmation of the conjecture in a letter by Heydrich to Bormann (16 November 1941, National Archives, Prague, 114-3-17), a snippet of which is cited in English translation in Robert Gerwath’s recent biography of Heydrich entitled "Hitler’s Hangman" (Yale University Press, 2011), p. 240 and n. 91:

Heydrich’s administrative reforms constituted a radical reorganization of German occupation policy in the Protectorate, a reorganization that explicitly aimed at the ‘disempowerment’ of the Protectorate government while at the same time retaining the façade of Czech autonomy that Hitler had guaranteed in March 1939. Since the Führer had insisted in private conversations with Heydrich that this façade should be upheld, Heydrich opted for a strategy of ‘liquidating the autonomy from within’.

Thus on November 19, 1941, only a few days before the Himmler note under discussion, Heydrich characterised his policy regarding the political autonomy of the Protectorate using a word reminiscent of that used by Himmler in his note . I hope to be able to peruse this correspondence in the original German later this year and will report back to this forum on the original wording as well as on any other relevant documents in the Czech archives.

[neugierig]

Great work, pictoreax, and yes please, post the German original and whatever else you can dig up. As soon as you do I'll post it at the Inconvenient History Blog and hope someone reads it.

Again, great work and thanks.

Regards
Wilf

[pictorex]

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.

[Moderator]

I have moved pictorex's post above from 'Keine Liquidierung' note debunked by Butz to this thread. It's a better fit with pictorex's previous posts in this thread on the topic. I also added the document under discussion to pictorex's above post.
M1

[pictorex]

A few years after David Irving published the document under discussion, the late Lucy S. Dawidowicz tried to refute him by artfully weaving all four lines of Himmler’s note together into a single story, as a result of which, she claimed “the last two lines now make sense”:

Himmler called Heydrich to instruct him that a certain Dr. Jekelius, presumed to be the Soviet Foreign Minister’s son, was to be taken into custody by the security service. Jekelius could be located on the transport of Jews from Berlin arriving in Prague and unlike the rest of the transport, was not to be liquidated. (Perhaps the Germans intended to exchange Jekelius for one of their officers captured by the Russians).1

1. Lucy S. Dawidowicz, The Holocaust and the Historians (Harvard University Press, 1981), p. 38.

Even for someone so disinclined to engage in original research as Lucy Dawidowicz (even Raul Hilberg did not consider her to be a serious historian), the many anomalies of such a scenario should have have raised a number of red flags. It would not have taken much scholarly exertion to discover that Molotov did not have a son. Undeterred by such mundane facts Dawidowicz spun a tale in which the authorities became suspicious that Molotov’s presumed son operated undercover in Germany under the false name of Dr. Jekelius. As they closed in on him and attempted to arrest him, he slipped away and at the last moment jumped onto a train transporting Jews out of Berlin. But the ever-watchful authorities became aware of this desperate move and sent word to Hitler’s headquarters, from where urgent instructions were telephoned to Heydrich that Dr. Jekelius be taken off the train in Prague and thus spared being liquidated along with the rest of the Jews on the said transport, in order that he might be used in a future prisoner exchange. Dawidowicz does not explain why the train would have been routed through Prague in her scenario. Even though Heydrich was residing in Prague in his capacity as the Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia, his authority as the Obergruppenführer of the SS extended over the entire Reich and the territories under its control. He could thus have issued an alert for the removal of Dr. Jekelius from a train anywhere within his jurisdiction, had he been instructed to do. In fact none of the Berlin transports that could have been the subject of Himmler’t note passed through Prague: two were destined for Lodz and one for Riga.

The entire story spun by Lucy Dawidowicz is an idle fantasy, carelessly concocted as part of a polemic against David Irving, the discoverer of the pertinent document. A thrilling tale is invented with complete contempt for historical facts. Such is the level of scholarship of a prominent Jewish “historian” and public lecturer and of her book published under the imprimatur of Harvard University Press.

[pictorex]

This is what David Irving replied to me in January, after I sent him my interpretation Himmler’s notes:

I will go into the questions of those notes more fully in my Himmler biography

David Irving
Croy, Inverness (UK), Friday, 2 January 2015

[Hannover]

Irving:

I will go into the questions of those notes more fully in my Himmler biography

IOW, Irving has been silenced by logic.

- 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]

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.

May I ask whether Teichová advances this theory or whether it is your own?

[neugierig]

This about settles it then, pictorex, great work, thank you.

As an aside, from what I have seen it becomes clear that Heydrich was a straight shooter, believing that a new and better society can be shaped. He had however made powerful enemies, his assassination leaves many questions unanswered. I tried to come up with a summary of all the, shall we say, inconsistencies re. his assassination, sadly, old age is getting in the way.

Keep up the good work, and if you have anything on the assassination, PM me please or start a thread if you are interested..

Regards
Wilf

[pictorex]

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.

May I ask whether Teichová advances this theory or whether it is your own?

No, Teichová does not deal with the Himmler’s notes at all. The conclusion is my own, but Teichová provided the key, particularly in the sentence:

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.

Emphasis added. Though helpful, Teichová is still a secondary source. I am currently going through some archival material that I hope will demonstrate the use of the word "Liquidierung" during this period and in this context from primary sources.

[Thames Darwin]

Though helpful, Teichová is still a secondary source. I am currently going through some archival material that I hope will demonstrate the use of the word "Liquidierung" during this period and in this context from primary sources.

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.

I suspect the "keine Liquidierung" note has to do with these Reich Jews arriving in the east (specifically Riga). As I'm sure you gather, the Protektorat angle seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I'm curious to hear more.

[Bob]

Though helpful, Teichová is still a secondary source. I am currently going through some archival material that I hope will demonstrate the use of the word "Liquidierung" during this period and in this context from primary sources.

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.

I suspect the "keine Liquidierung" note has to do with these Reich Jews arriving in the east (specifically Riga). As I'm sure you gather, the Protektorat angle seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I'm curious to hear more.

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.

I suspect the "keine Liquidierung" note has to do with these Reich Jews arriving in the east (specifically Riga). As I'm sure you gather, the Protektorat angle seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I'm curious to hear more.

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 is 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.

[neugierig]

I’ll go through the Brandes book to see what I can find relating to the subject, if anything. I would like to however re-post what I did on my post # 281 of Nov.27, 2002 (I’m too dumb to link to it):

“Well done, pictorex. The word “Liquidation” is defined in my Keysers Fremdwörter Lexikon (foreign words dictionary, 1955) as: “Auflösung eines Unternehmens…”, i.e., dissolution of an enterprise. Under “liquidieren”: die Liquidadation eines Geschäfts-, einer Gesellschaft durchführen”, i.e., the dissolution of a company-, a corporation/association. Not one word about killing, Liquidieren referred only to matters relating to enterprises.

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

I believe this to be important. The definition of the word starts with p.232): “Liquefaktion”, to liquidize, melting, and ends with “Liquor”, a description of various liquid medicine, nerve treatment, etc. Not one word about killing throughout the various definitions, liquidieren to mean what I translated above.

Regards
Wilf