Relationship between Auschwitz and Action Reinhard staff?

[michael mills]

Statements made by Eichmann in his 1957 interviews with Sassen suggest that the extermination action begun in the Lublin District under the command of Globocnik in March 1942 were not initially controlled by Heydrich.

Eichmann described to Sassen how, at an unspecified date, he was told by Heydrich that Globocnik was using anti-tank ditches for mass killings of Jews, and given the assignment of going to Lublin to investigate. According to Eichmann, when he got to Lublin he found out that Globocnik had already killed a very large number of Jews, between 150,000 and 200,000, he is not precise about the figure. Apparently, Globocnik had not received any authorisation from Heydrich for those killings, since he asked Eichmann to obtain for him an ex-post facto written order covering them.

Eichmann returned to Berlin, obtained the written order from Heydrich, and took it to Globocnik who locked it in his safe. Eichmann's description suggests that Globocnik was "covering his back" by obtaining an authorisation from the head of the RSHA (who was the sole person with the official power to authorise "Sonderbehandlung") for killings he had already carried out.

Eichmann then describes how he subsequently conveyed orders from Eichmann to Globocnik authorising further "Sonderbehandlungen" of Jews in numbers of 100,000 or more.

Eichmann does not give a precise date for the above course of events, but they can only have taken place in the period between the middle of March 1942 when the deportations to Belzec commenced, and the end of May when Heydrich was assassinated.

From Eichmann's account, it may be surmised that Himmler gave Globocnik the assignment of beginning the extermination of Jews in the Lublin District directly, bypassing Heydrich, who had tried to seize control of all anti-Jewish actions for himself, eg by obtaining the authorisation from Goering in July 1941 and then having it recognised and agreed to by the relevant Reich ministries at the Wannsee Conference. One possible interpretation is that Himmler suspected that Heydrich was becoming too ambitious, perhaps angling to supplant him, and therefore wanted to "cut him down to size" by building up Globocnik.

[Sergey Romanov]

Acc. to August Frank (NO-1576) "Action Reinhart and the Reinhart Fund are identical". And we already know AR was named after Heydrich (see above).

The "latter" possibility explored by Mills is not practically possible since this would imply an existence of a separately originating second AR in addition to the already existing one, and as pointed out this is nonsense from the point of view of bureaucracy and is hugely unparsimonious.

[David Thompson]

A post from Antwony, containing offensive remarks about another poster, was removed by this moderator, along with an understandable, but now unnecessary response from Sergey Romanov -- DT.

[Hans Fischer]

Does anyone know who supplied the German Uniforms...Helmets...etc... for the movie Schindlers List.?.....I have hunted the internet for a couple of hours and have found literally nothing on who did it..???...Hey Guys...does anyone have an idea..?..I appreciate you taking the time to answer....Danke...Hans Fischer

[michael mills]

Document NO-1576 can be read here:

http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/pf ... _setting=C

Sergei Romanov has taken one sentence from that document, but has not taken into account the preceding lengthy description by August Frank of the function of the Reinhardt-Fonds in relation to the valuables received from what he calls the "Reinhart Action" carried in Lublin by Globocnik.

For example, at the beginning of that description, Frank says this (on page 5):

As far as the Reinhardt Fund is concerned, this was a top secret matter and was worked on in several headquarters. It was known to me that a Reinhart-Action was being taken care of by the SS and Police Leader, Lublin, and then there was a Reinhardt action of Amtsgruppe D and I also recall that we gave Reich funds to the economic enterprises under the code name "Reinhart-Action".

Frank seems to be saying that the "Reinhart Action" commanded by Globocnik and the "Reinhardt Action" of Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA were administratively separate entities.

He goes on to say that the moneys derived from the "Reinhart Action" in Poland, ie the exterminatory operation run by Globocnik, were paid into an account of the Reichsbank in Poland, and that the Reichsbank then accredited those moneys to the WVHA under the code word "Reinhart Aktion", for use in construction projects.

On the next page, Frank describes Vogt going to Lublin in 1943 to audit the camps under the command of Globocnik, and states it to be an audit of "Action Reinhart". In that regard he states:

.........Vogt, as well as I, knew after the check that this was an audit of the Reinhart Action for the respective references of auditing reports showed that this concerned the economic liquidation of the Reinhardt Action.

That shows that in Frank's eyes the operation run by Globocnik had been terminated, and the moneys generated by that operation had been handed over to the WVHA. Of course the WVHA continued to run its own "Aktion Reinhardt", which consisted of the exploitation of confiscated Jewish property for the purpose of funding WVHA construction projects; that was the sense in which the term was understood by Hoess. The WVHA "Aktion Reinhardt" appears to have been administratively separate from the "Aktion Reinhardt" previously run by Globocnik, which according to Frank's description had been wound up in 1943.

[Sergey Romanov]

Sergei Romanov has taken one sentence from that document, but has not taken into account the preceding lengthy description by August Frank of the function of the Reinhardt-Fonds in relation to the valuables received from what he calls the "Reinhart Action" carried in Lublin by Globocnik.

This is of course false (if not unexpected from Mills). I have taken everything into account and Mills has not bothered to show otherwise.

Frank seems to be saying that the "Reinhart Action" commanded by Globocnik and the "Reinhardt Action" of Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA were administratively separate entities.

First of all, when Mills quotes a primary source, he should learn to specify that he made alterations to it. Particularly, the affidavit actually says: "and then was a Reinhardt action of Amtsgruppe D". Mills did not bother to specify that he inserted a word there.

Anyway, that Globocnik did not have anything to do with AR in Auschwitz has been always as clear as day. Just as I have written before, the economic part of Aktion Reinhardt seems to have been severable from murder outside of Lublin. What Michael Mills failed to take into account is that was all a part of the same operation (originating in Lublin). Frank says as much: one operation, several HQs. Hence all the harebrained "theories" about two independent Aktionen with different name origins fly out of the window. (Or not: they had never actually been "in" in the first place.)

That the economic part of AR in Auschwitz continued after the special account "Reinhardt 1" was closed on Himmler's order (we may surmise that there was Sonderkonto "Reinhardt 2" as well, specifically for this purpose) is not news to anyone who has read Perz and Sandkühler's article, which Michael Mills should have done a long time ago instead of trying to invent a (crooked) wheel time and time again.

Fazit: the whole Aktion Reinhardt still named after Heydrich.

[Sergey Romanov]

In this case, it is distinctly odd that in the earliest references to the Aktion SS officials used the correct spelling of Heydrich's given name but then switched to an incorrect spelling that was subsequently used exclusively.

Have just found several documents that refute this.

Of course, both Pohl and Himmler knew how to write Fritz Reinhardt's name, so they could not have meant him.