77 trains on the French rail lines ran to the death camps

[chalutzim]

Last update - 01:35 31/03/2003

Despite compelling evidence, a case seeking damages for the role played by the French railways in the Holocaust will probably be dismissed as beyond the statute of limitations
By Amiram Barkat

Kurt Werner Schaechter's parents, who arrived in France as refugees, were transported to death camps in Poland along with 76,000 other Jews aboard 77 trains that were operated by the Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais (SNCF), the French national railway. The transports took place between March 27, 1942 and July 31, 1944, a few days before the liberation of Paris.

Schaechter's father Emil was on transport no. 50 to Sobibor, his mother Margaret was on transport no. 75 to Auschwitz. Their son, now 82 years old, submitted a lawsuit three years ago to a French court, asking for damages in the amount of one euro, against the national railway.

Schaechter claims that the documents in his possession prove that the SNCF executives acted of their own accord, from purely profit-motivated considerations, when they decided to adopt the transport program. For its side, the SNCF contends that the lawsuit should be thrown out of court due to a statute of limitations.

A hearing on the validity of this counterclaim by the SNCF was held on March 19, and a decision is due to be handed down sometime in the next few weeks.

A similar lawsuit that was brought by 10 Holocaust survivors in the United States was rejected after the American court accepted the SNCF's assertion that it was immune to prosecution as it operated as a branch of a sovereign government. Schaechter originally tried to attack the SNCF by means of a criminal complaint procedure, but failed: In France, the state enjoys immunity from this sort of procedure.

The current legal action may ostensibly be an ordinary civil proceeding, but the financial damages being sought - one euro - indicate that what really interests the petitioner is a verdict that will determine that the national railroad played an active role in the Nazi extermination machinery.

"All of the major organizations and associations in France have already admitted to their collaboration with the Nazis during the Holocaust period," says journalist Michel Zlotowsky. "The lawyers, the doctors, even the police - all of them but two, the universities and the SNCF."

Although Schaechter and his attorney take pains to stress that their lawsuit is directed solely at the three or four senior executives of the SNCF during the war, their lawsuit is viewed as an attempt to slaughter one of the sacred cows of France, since the SNCF has always been known as a symbol of the resistance to Nazi rule.

"In France, they say, `All of the SNCF employees were in the Resistance,'" says Professor Claude Klein, dean of the Ramat Gan College of Law and an expert on modern French history. "The myth of the SNCF is the myth with a capital M," says Zlotowsky. "The railroad employees were the heroes of the most famous French films about the Resistance, films on which everyone was raised. It is true that 8,900 of them were executed by the Nazis, but a total of 500,000 persons worked on the railway. Where were all the rest?"

Schaechter and his parents arrived in France from Austria in 1938. He says they at first tried to get to Canada and were even given a visa, but it became invalid after the Anschluss (Austria's annexation to Germany in 1938): Canada recognized the annexation, and he and his parents became stateless.

When they arrived in France, Schaechter was 18. He enlisted in the Foreign Legion, and fought with his regiment in Norway. But after the fall of France in the summer of 1940, his unit was dispatched to Morocco, where it was dismantled. Schaechter returned to his parents' home near Toulouse, in the south of France. His parents were arrested by the local gendarmerie in 1942, but he avoided arrest, after being warned, he says, by "friends from the police."

Schaechter spent the remainder of the war under an assumed identity, aided by forged documents he received from his police friends. He learned of his parents' fate years after the war was over, from survivors of the camps. After the war, he settled down to earning a living, selling musical instruments. He came back to the Holocaust after his retirement, at which point he decided to devote himself to "exposing the criminals."

Throughout 1991 and 1992, Schaechter made dozens of visits to the branch of the national archive in Toulouse, which housed all of the documents that were handled by government officials in the Haute Garonne province in southwest France. In the course of these visits, Schaechter photographed - without permission - thousands of classified documents, all from the `30s and `40s. "We got into the archive thanks to the connections I had with the secret police, through my first wife," he says with pride, "and I clandestinely photocopied 12,000 highly secret documents. I was at great risk, but I have always been a fighter on the front ranks. I was Maquis." ("Maquis is an epithet for of the French underground during World War II.)

Disclosure of the documents caused a public uproar: most of the documents had been classified as top secret for a period of 100 years.

"Schaechter was portrayed at the time by the media as a hero," says Zlotowsky, "as someone who exposed the conspiracy of silence surrounding the collaboration with the Nazis. You have to understand that he disclosed documents to which access was considered not only difficult but even impossible."

The authenticity of the photocopied documents is not doubted, even by the SNCF. One document is an invoice sent by the SNCF's finance department to the French Ministry of Finance, headed "Transports of the Interior Ministry." The invoice requested payment of 210,385 francs for transports by train to "concentration camps, `supervised vacation centers,' detainees and deportees," that were carried out by SNCF trains during the first four months of 1944, from the Haute Garonne province. The invoice is dated August 12, 1944, nine weeks after the invasion of Normandy and only days before the liberation of Paris. The document also bears a stamp that indicates that the sum was paid; the stamp is that of the temporary government of General Charles de Gaulle.

However, the prosecution's piece de resistance, as described by Schaechter's attorney Joseph Roubache, is the summarized reports of meetings held by senior executives of the SNCF with representatives of the Interior Ministry and the police in the city of Vichy, on July 17, August 4 and August 19 of 1942, three months after the Germans occupied the south of France and annulled the Vichy government. In these sessions, SNCF executives formulated the detailed plans for the transport program. "It is important to realize that all of the transports relate to the area of southern France that was called `the free zone,'" says Roubache. "The cease-fire agreement with Germany, which dictated that all of the means of transportation would be placed at the disposal of the Germans, related only to the northern half of Germany, to the occupation zone. In other words, SNCF executives collaborated with the Germans of their own free will, and were motivated by purely monetary considerations. As the documents prove, they made a sizable amount of money."

The transport plan that was drafted by the heads of the railway did not only relate to Jews, but rather to all "non-French" who had previously fled to France from the east, fearful of the war. "For reasons of secrecy, we decided to call the transports `IAPT transports' [the initials in French of Israelites, Germans, Poles and Czechs - A.B.]," wrote the authors of the reports. The route of the trains passed through Drancy, where all of the Jews of France were routed through on the way to their deaths, and from there continued to the city of Metz, along the Belgian border. At Metz, the trains were boarded by German crews, which brought the trains to the east, before bringing them back to the waiting French crews.

The division of the railways cars on each train was as follows: cattle cars for the men; third-class rail cars without doors for the women, children below age 16, the ill and handicapped; and ordinary passenger cars for the dozens of guards in the escort.

In addition, SNCF executives considered solutions to any potential obstacles that might crop up. For instance, it was decided that the trains would pick up passengers outside the main railway stations. "In one of the first transports, Quakers appeared at the Nice railway station and tried to distribute water to passengers," explains Roubache. "This caused the train to leave behind schedule, which infuriated the heads of the SNCF."

The entire machinery of the Vichy government was enlisted in the effort of persecuting the Jews and transferring them to the east, says Professor Klein. "At first, the Germans only wanted to send Jews from age 16 and above, but then the French argued that they would have nothing to do with the children, and sent them as well. This lawsuit breaks new ground in that it demonstrates another aspect of the collaboration in France. This case is important, as well, because if the lawsuit is accepted, it will pave the way to an entire wave of lawsuits for compensation against the railways."

However, Klein does not believe Schaechter has much chance of winning the suit. "The case is being held at a difficult time, in terms of public opinion in France. Personally, I do not see much of a chance for it in present-day France. The judges will not have an easy time throwing out the lawsuit on the basis of the statute of limitations."

Zlotowsky concurs with Klein's opinion. "There is no doubt that in this case the judges will be greatly influenced by how public opinion might accept their decision. Schaechter's story does not interest the French press right now, and if the war in Iraq continues, it won't get a single word of coverage."

@ http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/objec ... mNo=278628

[michael mills]

The entire machinery of the Vichy government was enlisted in the effort of persecuting the Jews and transferring them to the east, says Professor Klein. "At first, the Germans only wanted to send Jews from age 16 and above, but then the French argued that they would have nothing to do with the children, and sent them as well. This lawsuit breaks new ground in that it demonstrates another aspect of the collaboration in France. This case is important, as well, because if the lawsuit is accepted, it will pave the way to an entire wave of lawsuits for compensation against the railways."

(My emphasis)

If the German intention was to send only Jews aged above 16, that proves that the reason for the deportation of Jews from France was for the purpose of forced labour, not for extermination.

In fact, Klein is right. The guidelines issued by Eichmann in May 1942 stipulated that the Jewish deportees should be males and females capable of work, aged between 16 and 40. The quota to be deported from France was set at 100,000, less than one third of the total number of Jews in that country, again showing that the German aim was not to deport all the Jews for extermination, but the younger, healthier component, for labour utilisation.

As Klein says, the Germans did not want to deport the children, as they were useless for labour. The French Government insisted that they be deported, since it did not want to be left with the burden of supporting them. The same thing happened in Slovakia.

If the Slovak and French governments had not insisted on the deportation of the children and other Jews that the Germans did not really want, those persons may well have remained in their countries of origin until the end of the war.

Of course, the Germans did not want to support the non-working Jews that they had been forced to accept either, so they simply killed them on arrival at the places of forced labour.

The essential issue is that the impetus for the deportation of Jews from Western Europe, primarily to Auschwitz but also to other destinations, was to provide a slave labour force for the concentration camps, not an order for extermination. The deportation took place under an order issued by Himmler at the end of January 1942, which expressly stipulated that Jews were to be sent to the concentration camps for important economic tasks.

[Andrew E. Mathis]

The entire machinery of the Vichy government was enlisted in the effort of persecuting the Jews and transferring them to the east, says Professor Klein. "At first, the Germans only wanted to send Jews from age 16 and above, but then the French argued that they would have nothing to do with the children, and sent them as well. This lawsuit breaks new ground in that it demonstrates another aspect of the collaboration in France. This case is important, as well, because if the lawsuit is accepted, it will pave the way to an entire wave of lawsuits for compensation against the railways."

(My emphasis)

If the German intention was to send only Jews aged above 16, that proves that the reason for the deportation of Jews from France was for the purpose of forced labour, not for extermination.

Er, no. It only proves that, at that particular point in time, the Nazis did not yet have the capacity to exterminate Jews who were not able to work. Look at the dates of construction of the death camps, as well as the installations of gas chambers at Birkenau. It took time, and there was no sense in deporting people east that couldn't be "processed" yet.

In fact, Klein is right. The guidelines issued by Eichmann in May 1942 stipulated that the Jewish deportees should be males and females capable of work, aged between 16 and 40. The quota to be deported from France was set at 100,000, less than one third of the total number of Jews in that country, again showing that the German aim was not to deport all the Jews for extermination, but the younger, healthier component, for labour utilisation.

See above. This is facile thinking at best.

As Klein says, the Germans did not want to deport the children, as they were useless for labour. The French Government insisted that they be deported, since it did not want to be left with the burden of supporting them. The same thing happened in Slovakia.

And, as in Slovakia, French-Jewish children were exterminated.

If the Slovak and French governments had not insisted on the deportation of the children and other Jews that the Germans did not really want, those persons may well have remained in their countries of origin until the end of the war.

And if my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle.

Of course, the Germans did not want to support the non-working Jews that they had been forced to accept either, so they simply killed them on arrival at the places of forced labour.

Yes. Simple as that. Kill children.

The essential issue is that the impetus for the deportation of Jews from Western Europe, primarily to Auschwitz but also to other destinations, was to provide a slave labour force for the concentration camps, not an order for extermination. The deportation took place under an order issued by Himmler at the end of January 1942, which expressly stipulated that Jews were to be sent to the concentration camps for important economic tasks.

The oral order that Eichmann spoke of at trial spoke of a "clean sweep," i.e., the Führer had ordered the extermination of the Jews. What of that?

a.m.

[michael mills]

aemathisphd wrote:

Er, no. It only proves that, at that particular point in time, the Nazis did not yet have the capacity to exterminate Jews who were not able to work. Look at the dates of construction of the death camps, as well as the installations of gas chambers at Birkenau. It took time, and there was no sense in deporting people east that couldn't be "processed" yet.

Can you produce any contemporary documentary evidence showing that "at that particular point in time", ie the spring of 1942, the German officials who were planning the deportation of Jews from France, Belgium and the Netherlands to Auschwitz intended also to deport the non-working Jews, ie those under 16 and over 40, for the purpose of extermination, and were merely delaying their deportation until the extermination machinery was ready?

If you cannot, then your assertions are merely surmises derived from your preconceived notion of what German policy toward the Jews of Western Europe was in the spring of 1942, without any hard evidence.

What Professor Klein, an impeccably Jewish academic at an impeccably Jewish institution (an orthodox one at that), says is quite true. Jewish children were deported to Auschwitz, not in the first transports but in subsequent ones, solely because the French Government insisted that they deported along with the fit adults.

The documentary record shows Eichmann at first refusing the French demand that the children be deported, then seeking advice from higher up the line, and then coming back with advice that children could be included in the deportation transports.

Your explanation about the unpreparedness of the extermination machinery is not valid. The Auschwitz camp staff had developed the methodology of homicidal gassing with the insecticide Zyklon-B some time in late 1941 (either September or December, the exact date is unclear) for the purpose of killing selected Soviet POWs sent to the concentration camps for execution as "dangerous Communists". The morgue of Crematory I had been converted to a gas-chamber for that purpose.

Then the gassing methodology had been applied to sick and exhausted Jewish labourers sent from the Schmelt labour camps in Upper Silesia. A peasant house near Birkenau had been converted to a gas-chamber, at an unknown date (maybe May 1942). The methodology had also been used for the implementation of Aktion 14f13, the "Sonderbehandlung" of sick prisoners, within the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex, as an alternative to sending the selected prisoners all the way to the Euthanasia Institutes in Germany, as had previously been practised (the conversion of the peasant hut may have been related to the localisation of 14f13; certainly the first recorded selection of sick prisoners for "Sonderbehandlung" within the camp took place in May).

Thus, a killing machinery was in place, if the intention had been to deport Jewish children from france for the purpose of extermination. And mass-killing does not depend on the presence of gassing facilities; shooting will do just fine, if no other means are available.

The whole sequence of the documentary evidence shows Himmler issuing an order in January 1942 for the sending 150,000 German Jews to the concentration camps for important economic tasks, followed a few months later by advice from Eichmann to his men at the branch offices in Western Europe stating that German Jews were no longer available and that the deportees for labour purposes were to come from Western and South-Eastern Europe. Eichmann also laid down quotas: 100,000 from France, 20,000 from the Netherlands, and 15,000 from Belgium, making a total of 135,000, within the total of 150,000 forced labourers demanded by Himmler; the balance were to come from Slovakia. Later the quotas for France and the Netherlands were amended to 40,000 each, reduciong the total for Western Europe to 95,000, no doubt as a result of French Government resistance to deporting Jews with French citizenship.

The whole context is one of deportation for forced labour (unless you can come up with contemporary documents that prove otherwise).

The oral order that Eichmann spoke of at trial spoke of a "clean sweep," i.e., the Führer had ordered the extermination of the Jews. What of that?

What hard evidence is there for the existence of such an oral order, apart from what Eichmann is supposed to have said? Can you tell exactly what Eichmann did say? And when is Hitler supposed to have given this oral order?

Are you perhaps referring to Eichmann's claim that at some unspecified time after the start of the German-Soviet war, Heydrich told him that Hitler had ordered the "physical destruction" of the Jews? Somewhat at third hand, I would think. How do we know that Eichmann gave an accurate account of what Heydrich said, or that Heydrich gave an accurate account of what Hitler said? We do not know.

[Andrew E. Mathis]

aemathisphd wrote:

Er, no. It only proves that, at that particular point in time, the Nazis did not yet have the capacity to exterminate Jews who were not able to work. Look at the dates of construction of the death camps, as well as the installations of gas chambers at Birkenau. It took time, and there was no sense in deporting people east that couldn't be "processed" yet.

Can you produce any contemporary documentary evidence showing that "at that particular point in time", ie the spring of 1942, the German officials who were planning the deportation of Jews from France, Belgium and the Netherlands to Auschwitz intended also to deport the non-working Jews, ie those under 16 and over 40, for the purpose of extermination, and were merely delaying their deportation until the extermination machinery was ready?

No, of course not. Documentary evidence that is this direct is rare, and you know it.

What I can tell you is that Jews from France did not just go to Auschwitz; they went also to Sobibor and to Majdanek, neither of which was complete until later in 1942. Further, at Wannsee, Heydrich had put priorty on removing the Jews of the Altreich before dealing with Jews in other area for extermination. This is in the Wannsee Protokol.

If you cannot, then your assertions are merely surmises derived from your preconceived notion of what German policy toward the Jews of Western Europe was in the spring of 1942, without any hard evidence.

See above.

What Professor Klein, an impeccably Jewish academic at an impeccably Jewish institution (an orthodox one at that), says is quite true.

Why do deniers always find it important to point out that an historian is Jewish?

Jewish children were deported to Auschwitz, not in the first transports but in subsequent ones, solely because the French Government insisted that they deported along with the fit adults.

And they were killed.

The documentary record shows Eichmann at first refusing the French demand that the children be deported, then seeking advice from higher up the line, and then coming back with advice that children could be included in the deportation transports.

Heydrich, likely. Hell of a guy.

Your explanation about the unpreparedness of the extermination machinery is not valid.

See above.

The Auschwitz camp staff had developed the methodology of homicidal gassing with the insecticide Zyklon-B some time in late 1941 (either September or December, the exact date is unclear) for the purpose of killing selected Soviet POWs sent to the concentration camps for execution as "dangerous Communists". The morgue of Crematory I had been converted to a gas-chamber for that purpose.

There was not nearly a large enough capacity to handle hundreds of thousands of Jews under 16 and over 40. They added four more Kremas over the next two years. *Then* they were ready.

Then the gassing methodology had been applied to sick and exhausted Jewish labourers sent from the Schmelt labour camps in Upper Silesia. A peasant house near Birkenau had been converted to a gas-chamber, at an unknown date (maybe May 1942). The methodology had also been used for the implementation of Aktion 14f13, the "Sonderbehandlung" of sick prisoners, within the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex, as an alternative to sending the selected prisoners all the way to the Euthanasia Institutes in Germany, as had previously been practised (the conversion of the peasant hut may have been related to the localisation of 14f13; certainly the first recorded selection of sick prisoners for "Sonderbehandlung" within the camp took place in May).

When were Kremas IV and V built, Mills?

Thus, a killing machinery was in place, if the intention had been to deport Jewish children from france for the purpose of extermination. And mass-killing does not depend on the presence of gassing facilities; shooting will do just fine, if no other means are available.

It was not at that point large enough.

And plenty of Jews were shot also, mainly by the "Political Division."

The whole sequence of the documentary evidence shows Himmler issuing an order in January 1942 for the sending 150,000 German Jews to the concentration camps for important economic tasks, followed a few months later by advice from Eichmann to his men at the branch offices in Western Europe stating that German Jews were no longer available and that the deportees for labour purposes were to come from Western and South-Eastern Europe. Eichmann also laid down quotas: 100,000 from France, 20,000 from the Netherlands, and 15,000 from Belgium, making a total of 135,000, within the total of 150,000 forced labourers demanded by Himmler; the balance were to come from Slovakia. Later the quotas for France and the Netherlands were amended to 40,000 each, reduciong the total for Western Europe to 95,000, no doubt as a result of French Government resistance to deporting Jews with French citizenship.

Orders for workers will be written. Orders for extermination will not be. Consider again Heydrich's prioritization at Wannsee.

The whole context is one of deportation for forced labour (unless you can come up with contemporary documents that prove otherwise).

Documents, my ass. Any document that supports you people is valid; any that does not is a forgery.

The oral order that Eichmann spoke of at trial spoke of a "clean sweep," i.e., the Führer had ordered the extermination of the Jews. What of that?

What hard evidence is there for the existence of such an oral order, apart from what Eichmann is supposed to have said? Can you tell exactly what Eichmann did say? And when is Hitler supposed to have given this oral order?

How do you get "hard evidence" of an oral order except by testimony? Eichmann wrote of it in his diary in 1956, however, as well as speaking of it under interrogation and at trial.

Are you perhaps referring to Eichmann's claim that at some unspecified time after the start of the German-Soviet war, Heydrich told him that Hitler had ordered the "physical destruction" of the Jews? Somewhat at third hand, I would think. How do we know that Eichmann gave an accurate account of what Heydrich said, or that Heydrich gave an accurate account of what Hitler said? We do not know.

Yes, I am referring to Eichmann's directive given by Heydrich. Eichmann never met Hitler.

How do we know it was accurate? Because of all the SS and other perpetrators who carried out the order who said they did so.

a.m.

[Roberto]

It seems two issues are addressed in the discussion on this thread.

One is the never-solved question where, when and how Adolf Hitler gave the order for a wholesale killing program directed against the Jews of Europe.

The other is whether deportations to Auschwitz-Birkenau from France in 1942 were primarily aimed at killing the deportees or at using their forced labor.

Regarding the first, it is somewhat disingenuous on the part of Mills to ask for "hard evidence" to Hitler’s order. It such evidence existed, historians wouldn't have been discussing the issue over a period of decades. Whether "hard" evidence will ever surface I don’t know, but circumstantial evidence, as German historian Christian Gerlach has plausibly argued, makes it reasonable to assume that Hitler’s order, which was more of a "go ahead" conferring the Führer's blessing to exterminatory initiatives from many sides, a "you may" rather than a "you shall", was given at a meeting between Hitler and high-ranking officials of the Nazi party on 12 December 1941. Goebbels' diary entry regarding Hitler's statements on 12 December 1941 read as follows:

[…]Bezüglich der Judenfrage ist der Führer entschlossen, reinen Tisch zu machen. Er hat den Juden prophezeit, daß, wenn sie noch einmal einen Weltkrieg herbeiführen würden, sie dabei ihre Vernichtung erleben würden. Das ist keine Phrase gewesen. Der Weltkrieg ist da, die Vernichtung des Judentums muß die notwendige Folge sein.[…]

Translation:

[…]In respect of the Jewish Question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that if they again brought about a world war, they would experience their annihilation in it.[my emphasis] That wasn't just a catch-word. The world war is here, and the annihilation of Jewry must be the necessary consequence.[…]

Source:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/nazis-words/

What this "annihilation of Jewry" meant and how it was to be brought about becomes apparent from the recollections of Hitler's statements by another participant in the meeting, governor of Poland Hans Frank. In a speech to members of his staff on 16 December 1941, he stated the following:

[…]"As far as the Jews are concerned, I want to tell you quite frankly, that they must be done away with in one way or another. The Fuehrer said once: should united Jewry again succeed in provoking a world war, the blood of not only the nations which have been forced into the war by them, will be shed, but the Jew will have found his end in Europe * * *
"Gentlemen, I must ask you to rid yourselves of all feeling of pity. We must annihilate the Jews, wherever we find them and wherever it is possible, in order to maintain here the structure of the Reich as a whole. This will, naturally, be achieved by other methods than those pointed out by Bureau Chief Dr. Hummel. Nor can the judges of the Special Courts be made responsible for it, because of the limitations of the framework of the legal procedure. Such outdated views cannot be applied to such gigantic and unique events. We must find at any rate, a way which leads to the goal, and my thoughts are working in that direction.
"The Jews represent for us also extraordinarily malignant gluttons. We have now approximately 2,500,000 of them in the General Government, perhaps with the Jewish mixtures and everything that goes with it, 3,500,000 Jews. We cannot shoot or poison those 3,500,000 Jews, but we shall nevertheless be able to take measures, which will lead, somehow, to their annihilation, and this in connection with the gigantic measures to be determined in discussions from the Reich. The General Government must become free of Jews, the same as the Reich. Where and how this is to be achieved is a matter for the offices which we must appoint and create here. Their activities will be brought to your attention in due course."[…]

Source:
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/Frank.htm

Emphases are mine. The first is to point out the similarity with Goebbels' diary entry, which suggests that Frank was referring to the same source as Goebbels - the Führer's utterances on 12 December 1941 in which he harked back to his "prophecy" made years before. The second is to point out a passage where it becomes very clear that "annihilation" was meant in a physical, homicidal sense and that it had been decided upon on an overall and not just regional level, hence Frank's reference to "gigantic measures to be determined in discussions from the Reich".

The "discussions from the Reich" that Frank referred to were the so-called Wannsee Conference that took place on 20 January 1942, in which Frank was represented by State Secretary Dr. Bühler and where the intended fate of European Jews was outlined as follows:

[…]Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.

The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.)

In the course of the practical execution of the final solution, Europe will be combed through from west to east. Germany proper, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, will have to be handled first due to the housing problem and additional social and political necessities.[…]

Source of quote:

http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/wanneng.html

While these passages expressly address only the fate of the able-bodied Jews capable of working, the intended fate of non-working Jews is implicit. If the working Jews were to be "eliminated by natural causes" (i.e. worked to death) and the survivors were eventually to be "treated accordingly", there can be no doubt that the non-working and therefore useless Jews were to be "treated accordingly" right away.

The original plan to "comb" Europe from west to east suffered an alteration pursuant to the request formulated by State Secretary Dr. Bühler:

[…]State Secretary Dr. Bühler stated that the General Government would welcome it if the final solution of this problem could be begun in the General Government, since on the one hand transportation does not play such a large role here nor would problems of labor supply hamper this action. Jews must be removed from the territory of the General Government as quickly as possible, since it is especially here that the Jew as an epidemic carrier represents an extreme danger and on the other hand he is causing permanent chaos in the economic structure of the country through continued black market dealings. Moreover, of the approximately 2 1/2 million Jews concerned, the majority is unfit for work.[…]

Source:
http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/wanneng.html

Contrary to the original intention, the "final solution of this problem" thus commenced in the General Government, as noted by Goebbels in his diary entry of 27 March 1942, ten days after the deportations from Lublin to Belzec extermination camp. It is worth while to read the whole of Goebbels' diary entry of that day, for Goebbels' notes make clear that the "barbaric process" of deportation and liquidation of the Jews from the General Government was but the beginning of the execution of the "final solution of this problem" outlined at the Wannsee Conference. It also leaves no room for doubt about the genocidal nature of this "final solution":

Beginning with Lublin, the Jews in the General Government are now being evacuated eastward. The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who is to carry this measure through, is doing it with considerable circumspection and according to a method that does not attract too much attention. A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them. The prophesy which the Fuehrer made about them for having brought on a new world war is beginning to come true in a most terrible manner. One must not be sentimental in these matters. If we did not fight the Jews, they would destroy us. It's a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Here, too, the Fuehrer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this.

The ghettoes that will be emptied in the cities of the General Government now will be refilled with Jews thrown out of the Reich. This process is to be repeated from time to time. There is nothing funny in it for the Jews, and the fact that Jewry's representatives in England and America are today organizing and sponsoring the war against Germany must be paid for dearly by its representatives in Europe - and that's only right.

Source:
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goe ... 942-mar-27

Emphases are mine.

In what concerns the other issue, deportations from France, Belgium and the Netherlands, Mills makes much of a discussion that took place on 11 June 1942 in the Department for Jewish affairs of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, the Reich Main Security Office. The German experts on Jewish affairs stationed in Paris, The Hague and Brussels gathered there to discuss the Western European part of the general European deportation program. Dannecker, the expert for Jewish affairs of the Gestapo in Paris, made a note to himself stating that Himmler had given the order to "provide larger quantities of Jews to the Auschwitz concentration camp, to increase the work-force. This is on the primary condition that the Jews (of both sexes) be between 16 and 40 years old. 10% who are not fit for work can be sent with them. " According to Danneckers note, 15.000 Jews were to be deported from the Netherlands, 10.000 from Belgium and 100.000 from France, starting 13 July.

Mills sees this discussion as evidence that the intended purpose of deportations to Auschwitz-Birkenau from France, Belgium and the Netherlands was forced labor rather than annihilation and, more important, would like to see it as an indication that there was no all-encompassing program for the physical destruction of all European Jews as late as July 1942.

This is hardly a necessary conclusion, however. It is equally possible, and certainly more compatible with the above mentioned evidence to the Nazi decision-making process in late 1941 and early 1942, that wartime labor needs forced the planners and executors of the genocide to make certain temporary concessions to the manpower demands of the war industry, and that what was discussed at the RSHA on 11 June 1942 was one of those concessions. The autobiography written by Auschwitz-Birkenau commandant Rudolf Höß in Polish captivity is full of references to the Nazis' dilemma between exterminatory animus on the one hand and manpower needs on the other. In Appendix One to his autobiography, for instance, Rudolf Höß wrote the following, as translated by Constantine FitzGibbon in the Phoenix Press edition of his memoirs:

[…]Originally all the Jews transported to Auschwitz on the authority of Eichmann’s office were, in accordance with orders of the Reichsführer SS, to be destroyed without exception.[my emphasis] This also applied to the Jews from Upper Silesia, but on arrival of the first transports of German Jews, the order was given that all those who were able-bodied, whether men or women, were to be segregated and employed on war work[my emphasis]. This happened before the construction of the women’s camp, since the need for a women’s camp in Auschwitz only arose as a result of this order.
Owing to the extensive armaments armament industry which had developed in the concentration camps and which was being progressively increased, a serious lack of prisoners suddenly made itself felt[my emphasis], whereas previously the commandants in the old camps in the Reich had often had to seek out possibilities for employment in order to keep all their prisoners occupied.[…]

The above quoted statement of Höß suggests that the extermination decision had been taken prior to the first large-scale deportations of Jews to Auschwitz-Birkenau, and that thereafter it was realized that it was advantageous to temporarily spare the able-bodied ones among the deportees in order to provide forced labor for the huge industrial complexes that had come or were coming into being in the vicinity of the camp. The decision taken at the RSHA on 11 June 1942 regarding deportations of able-bodied Jews from Western European countries fits well into this context. It also seems plausible, within this scenario, that while some transports from France, Belgium and the Netherlands consisted mostly of able-bodied Jews meant for forced labor, other transports carried mainly women, children and elder men, i.e. people unfit for hard physical labor and thus earmarked for immediate killing.

Transports of the latter sort are what becomes apparent from the following list, based on the camp's records and included in the 1960 judgment of the Münster County Court against Dr. Johannes Paul Kremer:

"1. 2.September 1942
RSHA-Transport aus dem Lager Drancy; 957 Juden; 12 Männer und 27 Frauen wurden als arbeitsfähig in das Lager aufgenommen; 918 Personen wurden umgebracht.
2. 5.9.1942
800 kranke Jüdinnen aus dem Frauenkonzentrationslager Birkenau wurden ausnahmslos umgebracht.
3. 5.9.1942
RSHA-Transport aus dem Lager Westerborg [richtig: Westerbork]; 714 Juden; 53 Frauen wurden als Häftlinge in das Lager aufgenommen; 661 Personen wurden umgebracht.
4. 6.9.1942
RSHA-Transport aus dem Lager Drancy; 981 Juden; 16 Männer und 38 Frauen wurden in das Lager aufgenommen; 927 Personen wurden umgebracht.
5. 9.9.1942
RSHA-Transport aus dem Lager Drancy; 893 Juden; 59 Männer und 52 Frauen wurden in das Lager aufgenommen; 782 Personen wurden umgebracht.
6. 10.9.1942
RSHA-Transport aus Malines; die Zahl der Opfer ist nicht feststellbar.
7. 23.9.1942
RSHA-Transport; Juden aus der Slowakei; die Zahl der Opfer ist nicht ermittelt.
8. 23.9.1942
RSHA-Transport aus Drancy; 1015 Juden; 144 Frauen und 65 Männer wurden in das Lager eingeliefert; 806 Personen wurden umgebracht.
9. 28.9.1942
RSHA-Transport aus Malines; die Zahl der Opfer ist nicht feststellbar.
10. 7.10.1942
RSHA-Transport; die Zahl der Opfer ist nicht ermittelt.
11. 12.10.1942
RSHA-Transport aus Malines. Nach der Tagebucheintragung des Angeklagten ca. 1600 Personen; 88 Frauen und 28 Männer wurden in das Lager aufgenommen. Die übrigen ca. 1484 Personen wurden umgebracht.
12. 18.10.1942
RSHA-Transport aus Holland; 1710 Juden aus Holland; 116 Frauen wurden in das Lager aufgenommen; 1594 Personen wurden umgebracht.
13. 8.11.1942
Häftlingstransport aus dem Konzentrationslager Lublin; die Zahl der Opfer ist nicht feststellbar.
14. 8.11.1942
RSHA-Transport aus dem Lager Drancy; 990 Juden; 145 Männer und 82 Frauen wurden in das Lager eingeliefert; 763 Personen wurden umgebracht.
15. 9.11.1942
RSHA-Transport; die Zahl der Opfer ist nicht bekannt."[…]

Source of quote:

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/Excerpts/Kremer005.htm

My translation:

"1. 2 September 1942
RSHA-transport from the camp Drancy; 957 Jews; 12 men and 27 women were taken into the camp as able to work; 918 persons were killed.
2. 5.9.1942
800 sick Jewesses from the women’s concentration camp Birkenau were killed without exception.
3. 5.9.1942
RSHA-transport from the camp Westerborg [read: Westerbork]; 714 Jews; 53 women were taken as inmates into the camp; 661 persons were killed.
4. 6.9.1942
RSHA-transport from the camp Drancy; 981 Jews; 16 men and 38 women were taken into the camp; 927 persons were killed.
5. 9.9.1942
RSHA-transport from the camp Drancy; 893 Jews; 59 men and 52 women were taken into the camp; 782 persons were killed.
6. 10.9.1942
RSHA-transport from Malines; the number of victims cannot be established.
7. 23.9.1942
RSHA-transport; Jews from Slovakia; the number of victims cannot be established.
8. 23.9.1942
RSHA-transport from Drancy; 1,015 Jews; 144 women and 65 men were delivered into the camp; 806 persons were killed.
9. 28.9.1942
RSHA-transport from Malines; the number of victims cannot be established.
10. 7.10.1942
RSHA-transport; the number of victims was not established.
11. 12.10.1942
RSHA-transport from Malines. According to the defendant's diary entry there were about 1,600 persons; 88 women and 28 men were taken into the camp. The other 1,484 persons were killed.
12. 18.10.1942
RSHA-transport from Holland; 1,710 Jews from Holland; 116 women were taken into the camp; 1,594 persons were killed.
13. 8.11.1942
Inmate transport from Lublin concentration camp; the number of victims cannot be established.
14. 8.11.1942
RSHA-transport from the camp Drancy; 990 Jews; 145 men and 82 women were delivered into the camp; 763 persons were killed.
15. 9.11.1942
RSHA-transport; the number of victims is not known."[…]

As can be seen, the overwhelming majority of deportees on transports from France or the Netherlands mentioned above were not taken into the camp as forced labor, but killed upon arrival.

How does this match with the mentioned discussion of 11 June 1942?

Was the original plan to deport mostly able-bodied French, Belgian and Dutch Jews eventually dropped, and were only transports consisting mostly of candidates for immediate killing put together instead?

Or were transports consisting mostly of able-bodied Jews carried out in parallel with transports consisting mainly of Jews to be killed upon arrival?

The records of the decision taken on 11 June 1942 and the quoted statements of Rudolf Höß suggest that the latter was the case.

So does a comparison between the rate of Jews killed on arrival vs. Jewish deportees on each transport in the transports listed above on the one hand and the same rate for all deportations from France, Belgium and the Netherlands on the other.

In the above listed transports where the numbers could be established (nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11, 12 and 14) there were 8,860 deportees, of whom 7,935 were killed upon arrival, a rate of 89.56 %.

According to the study Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, edited by Kogon, Langbein, Rückerl et al (page 238), the overall rates of deportees killed upon arrival vs. total of deportees was as follows for Jews taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau from France, Belgium and the Netherlands:

Country; Total of Deportees; Thereof Killed upon Arrival; Percentage Killed upon Arrival

France; 69.025; 41.805; 60,57%

Belgium; 25.260; 16.525; 65,42%

Netherlands; 56.575; 38.305; 67,71%

Total; 150.860; 96.635; 64,06%

The discrepancy between the overall ratio of arrivals killed right away and the same ratio in the mentioned individual transports suggests that there were also transports from France, Belgium and the Netherlands where a significant part of the deportees were able to work and thus not killed upon arrival, meaning that the forced labor program decided upon at the RSHA on 11 June 1942 was at least partially carried out.

Not the similarity in the rates of deportees killed upon arrival from the three countries of Western Europe, which stands in marked contrast with that for e.g. deportees from Greece. According to the a.m. study, out of 55,655 Jewish deportees to Auschwitz-Birkenau from that country, 42,895 (77.07 %) went straight from the trains into the gas chambers.

[David Thompson]

Roberto -- Thanks for another excellent post!

[Charles Bunch]

It seems two issues are addressed in the discussion on this thread.

One is the never-solved question where, when and how Adolf Hitler gave the order for a wholesale killing program directed against the Jews of Europe.

The other is whether deportations to Auschwitz-Birkenau from France in 1942 were primarily aimed at killing the deportees or at using their forced labor.

[...]

In what concerns the other issue, deportations from France, Belgium and the Netherlands, Mills makes much of a discussion that took place on 11 June 1942 in the Department for Jewish affairs of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, the Reich Main Security Office. The German experts on Jewish affairs stationed in Paris, The Hague and Brussels gathered there to discuss the Western European part of the general European deportation program. Dannecker, the expert for Jewish affairs of the Gestapo in Paris, made a note to himself stating that Himmler had given the order to "provide larger quantities of Jews to the Auschwitz concentration camp, to increase the work-force. This is on the primary condition that the Jews (of both sexes) be between 16 and 40 years old. 10% who are not fit for work can be sent with them. " According to Danneckers note, 15.000 Jews were to be deported from the Netherlands, 10.000 from Belgium and 100.000 from France, starting 13 July.

Mills sees this discussion as evidence that the intended purpose of deportations to Auschwitz-Birkenau from France, Belgium and the Netherlands was forced labor rather than annihilation and, more important, would like to see it as an indication that there was no all-encompassing program for the physical destruction of all European Jews as late as July 1942.

Mr. Mills should know that very shortly after this meeting Himmler changed the criteria and scope of the French deportations. Eichmann discusses this in his trial testimony.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eic ... 82-03.html

Dr. Servatius: I now turn to exhibit T/402, document No. 177. This consists of several documents, including a letter from the Foreign Ministry to Eichmann and other minutes. I would refer to page 3, a telegram from Schleier, a Foreign Ministry official, to the Foreign Ministry, in which he says: "No objections to the evacuation of a further five thousand Jews who have appeared with the State Police."

I shall omit the last documents in this file and come now to the next file. This is the second French file, F 17. Here, too, I shall omit the first seven or eight documents, and start with exhibit T/419, document No. 585.

This is a memorandum from Dannecker, the official in charge in Paris about a meeting with Eichmann held on 11 June 1942. It says that Himmler has given orders for large numbers of Jews to be sent to Auschwitz for labour purposes, as follows: 15,000 from the Netherlands, 10,000 from Belgium, 100,000 from France. He laid down the conditions as follows: those capable of labour between the ages of sixteen and forty, with the option of including ten per cent not capable of labour.

Witness, Dannecker refers here to a discussion with you. Would you tell the Court what was the basis for these orders?

Accused: Based on such orders from the Reichsfuehrer-SS, the Chief of the German Police, Mueller would issue orders for a general consultation to be held, to announce and implement such an order.

Dr. Servatius: I would refer to page 2, item 2. It reads: "By means of direct or indirect negotiations, agreement must be reached with the French Government to issue a law under which, similar to Regulation 11 under the Reich Citizenship Law, all those Jews who live outside the national boundaries of France or subsequently emigrate lose their nationality and right of abode." This is the interesting legal act which means that, as soon as a Jew crosses the border, he is deprived of his nationality and his right of abode and, by the same process, any property is also forfeit. The next documents are...

Judge Halevi: Dr. Servatius, I have another question to the Accused. On the first page it says that Himmler, or, to be more precise, the Reichsfuehrer-SS, has therefore issued orders for large numbers of Jews to be transferred to Auschwitz either from Romania or from the Eastern Occupied Territories, or from the Western Territories. However, the figure of 100,000 Dutch, Belgian and French Jews - that is not ascribed to Himmler, but to some agreement. Where was this agreed on? It looks as if it was agreed on in a meeting between Dannecker and yourself.

Accused: No, Your Honour. The term which appears in the exhibit, "vereinbart" (agreed upon), was an unfortunate choice on the part of Dannecker. The telegram which was discussed for the second time today, in which Mueller lays down the total numbers for various countries - Mueller to Himmler - this shows that Mueller fixed these numbers; Himmler indicated one number only, and Mueller then broke it down for the various countries. If Himmler had issued such a detailed order, then Dannecker should have written "RF-SS has issued orders," but he did not do so...

Judge Halevi: Himmler did not issue such orders?

Accused: No, what I meant was that if he had issued such orders, then Dannecker, in accordance with procedures, should have made a corresponding reference, but he did not do so. In any case, the term "agreement" is a very unfortunate choice in the circumstances, since, as the files have shown, I was not authorized to conduct negotiations of such fundamental and decisive importance.

Judge Halevi: Thank you.

Judge Raveh: Where did Mueller get the figures from ?

Accused: He was aware of them through the reports which first of all his own specialist section had to make once or twice a month, as well as through consultations and discussions with the senior commanders of the Security Police in those countries - so that he knew roughly how many Jews would be involved in individual countries, and thus fixed these figures. As far as I know, in actual fact the total numbers which he fixed off the cuff were never actually kept to. And in connection with this document, I should like to point out that, as far as France is concerned, this was not implemented, because these orders...

Judge Raveh: You were not asked about that.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibits I wish to discuss are T/424, document No. 58, and T/428, document No. 97. The first is a telegram from the Accused to the Paris office, announcing a consultation for which he would arrive, while the second document deals with the subject matter of this consultation.

Witness, what was the purpose of this journey?

Accused: The telegram I sent to Paris indicates that I was going to Paris on orders from the Chief of Department IV, Gruppenfuehrer Mueller. It was my duty to pass on to Paris an order, an order from the Reichsfuehrer. Until then the figure set by Mueller for France was 100,000. In the meanwhile, Himmler had not accepted the number; he gave orders that all Jews should be deported from France as soon as possible. It was this new order which I had to transmit personally in Paris.

In this communication about my visit I made a reference to these orders, and on the first page of exhibit T/428, second paragraph, this is quite clear, where it says, "in view of the order from the Reichsfuehrer-SS, transmitted to Section IVB4 by the Chief of Department IV on 23 June 1942, in accordance with which all Jews resident in France are to be deported as soon as possible." That was my task.

Dr. Servatius: Witness, what was the source of this sudden change to a harder line?

Accused: I remember orders for a harder line after the death of Heydrich, which were issued by Himmler and enforced by him.

Dr. Servatius: The next exhibit is T/439. This is a minute by Roethke in Paris, or from Dannecker in Paris, dated 21 July 1942. It says that on 20 July 1942 Eichmann and Novak from IVB4 had telephoned. It goes on: "The question of deportations of children was discussed with Eichmann, who decided that, as soon as deportation to the Generalgouvernement again becomes possible, transports of children can roll." It also says: "Novak promised that around the end of August, or the beginning of September, he would make it possible to send six transports to the Generalgouvernement which could take all types of Jews, including those incapable of working and elderly Jews." Witness, do you wish to explain your orders and decision, as indicated here?

Accused: Yes. Himmler ordered the deportation of all Jews from France, with no restrictions. The French police seized children as well. Paris asked me what was to be done with these children, and I passed on what it says here. But, if this document is read on its own, out of context, it could create the impression at first sight as if I took a decision at that very moment, and that, therefore, I was able to decide on such matters on my own initiative without any instructions.

I would, therefore, like to refer to Prosecution document No. 64, which is an urgent telegram for immediate submission, dated 10 July 1942, that is, eleven days before the telephone call in question. In that, Paris wires the Head Office for Reich Security, IVB4, notifying them of the fact that the French police have seized the children, and asking for a decision - an urgent decision from the SS - as to whether these children are to be deported.

The fact that it took eleven days to take a decision on this matter proves that I, for my part, had to pass this matter up to my superiors through the proper channels, as I was not empowered to take a decision on it. When I received the decision from my superiors, after eleven days, I called Paris, in accordance with my orders and passed on the decision. Mueller could not take a decision either, as is shown by the long period involved, because otherwise I would have been able to supply information earlier, and despite Himmler's orders that all Jews were to be deported, this matter was submitted by Department IV to the higher authorities for decision. It is the documents from France which prove and show my position as a transmitting agency - as documents in the other countries rarely do, but here they have been preserved in their entirety, and that is what I have to say on this subject.

==================

This change of plan is reflected in the deportations which began a few weeks later. The makeup of these transports was decidedly not restricted to the original parameters outlined in the June 11 meeting.

The total number of Jewish children deported to and murdered in Auschwitz is
impossible to determine. However, one is able to shed light on the scale of
the deportations by analyzing the preserved transport lists that include the
ages of the deportees.

For France, the lists of names of Jews transported from the transit camp at
Drancy and other localities have been preserved almost entirely. Deportation
of French Jews began on March 27, 1942, and ended on August 11, 1944. A total
of 71 transports comprised 69,119 persons, including at least 9,820 children
and juveniles under the age of 17. Of these youngsters, 7,368 were under age
14. The largest number of children arrived in 1942 during July, August, and
September. For example, in the August 19 transport, more than half (582) of
the 1,000 deportees were children. In the August 26 transport, 552 of the
1,057 deportees were children.

Source: Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp
Kubica
p. 414

[germanpolitic]

This is not exactly on topic but very close. My professor wrote The Reichs Greatest Asset. It is about the railroads during the Nazi era.

He found through research that less than 1/10th of 1 percent of all trains that ran during the war carried jews.

I find this interesting since many have always asked why did they not bomb the trains. Well, it would have been like a needle in a haystack.

Thanks guys

[chalutzim]

Mr. Mills should know that very shortly after this meeting Himmler changed the criteria and scope of the French deportations. Eichmann discusses this in his trial testimony.

Welcome back, Mr. Bunch.

[michael mills]

aemathisphd wrote:

Why do deniers always find it important to point out that an historian is Jewish?

I cannot speak for them, but I find it significant that a Jewish academic has confirmed that the push to deport the Jewish children came from the French Government rather than from the German occupation authorities.

It is significant because it cannot then be claimed that it is an invention by "deniers".

Documents, my ass. Any document that supports you people is valid; any that does not is a forgery.

Did I claim that any documents were a forgery? The only documents that I have suggested might be forged were those published by the German Government in 1940, purporting to be captured Polish diplomatic dcuments showing Roosevelt in a very bad light. John2 has introduced material showing that those documents are genuine.

When were Kremas IV and V built, Mills?

At the beginning of 1943. But what has that to do with Himmler's order that 150,000 Jews be sent to the concentration camps for important economic tasks, and the subsequent setting of a quota of 100,000 employable Jews to be sent from France, in pursuance of Himmler's order?

There was not nearly a large enough capacity to handle hundreds of thousands of Jews under 16 and over 40.

There were not hundreds of thousands of Jews under 16 and over 40 in France.

The total number of Jews in France was about 340,000. The Germans wanted to deport 100,000 of them, namely those capable of work.

About half the Jews were French citizens. The French Government refused to let them be deported.

The Germans were therefore reduced to the approximately 170,000 Jews who were resident aliens in France. Furthermore, the French Government insisted that the Germans take all of them, including the children; and it was the French police which actually seized the children.

Furthermore, the total number of Jews deported was less than 100,000, ie it never reached the quota of Jews capable of work originally set. So the Germans had the task of selecting out from the Jews deported, which included a lot of unemployables simply because the French Government insisted they be taken, those they could use for labour. Some tens of thousands were thus not usable, but a huge extermination machinery was not needed to dispose of them, given that they arrived over a long period of time, from mid-1942 to mid-1943.

As I now have to go off to do some dog-minding duties, I will have to leave my further comments until tomorrow or the day after.

[Tarpon27]

If the Germans did not want to accept the French non-citizen Jewish children, why did they not simply tell the French government not to send any but Jews capable of work? The implication seems that the French government and police had control over their German occupiers.

And secondly, who forced the extermination of Jewish children or those not in the 16--40 able to work group? Why not simply return those non-workers with the return of the trains to France?

Regards,

Mark

[Roberto]

When were Kremas IV and V built, Mills?

At the beginning of 1943. But what has that to do with Himmler's order that 150,000 Jews be sent to the concentration camps for important economic tasks, and the subsequent setting of a quota of 100,000 employable Jews to be sent from France, in pursuance of Himmler's order?

Or the subsequent reduction of the quota to 40,000 on 22 June 1942, or the eventual deportation of almost 74,000 Jews from France (see below), the overwhelming majority of whom perished ...

About half the Jews were French citizens. The French Government refused to let them be deported.

Still about one third of the Jewish residents of France killed by the Nazis were French citizens. See below.

Furthermore, the total number of Jews deported was less than 100,000, ie it never reached the quota of Jews capable of work originally set. So the Germans had the task of selecting out from the Jews deported, which included a lot of unemployables simply because the French Government insisted they be taken, those they could use for labour. Some tens of thousands were thus not usable, but a huge extermination machinery was not needed to dispose of them, given that they arrived over a long period of time, from mid-1942 to mid-1943.

Why, it’s not as if the extermination machinery had been in place to handle the French Jews only, is it?

According to Juliane Wetzel’s article Frankreich und Belgien in Benz et al, Dimensionen des Völkermords (pages 105 to 135, here: page 127), a total of 73,743 Jews were deported from France, mostly to Auschwitz-Birkenau but also to Majdanek, Sobibór and Kovno. Out of 78,711 Jewish residents of France caught up in one way or another in the extermination process (including Jews who died in internment camps in France or were executed without a trial on French territory), only 2,577 survived. Out of the 76,134 who perished, about one third where French citizens and two thirds stateless Jews who had come to France from a multitude of countries. Among the 67,488 Jews deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau from Drancy, 22,691 were French citizens.

[michael mills]

Roberto wrote:

It seems two issues are addressed in the discussion on this thread.

One is the never-solved question where, when and how Adolf Hitler gave the order for a wholesale killing program directed against the Jews of Europe.

The other is whether deportations to Auschwitz-Birkenau from France in 1942 were primarily aimed at killing the deportees or at using their forced labor.

Regarding the first, it is somewhat disingenuous on the part of Mills to ask for "hard evidence" to Hitler’s order.

The above is a bit of a diversion on Roberto's part.

Only the second of the above two issues was raised by me. I did not raise the issue of an order supposedly issued by Hitler for the destruction of all Jews under German control. That issue was raised by "aemathisphd"; he claimed the existence of such an order as supposed proof of a prior German intention to deport the Jewish children from France, and other unemployable Jews, in addition to the employable Jews mentioned in the documentray evidence.

I leave aside the issue of a supposed order by Hitler specifically for the destruction of all Jews under German control, and when such an order might have been issued, if ever.

My contention is that the impetus for sending Jews to Auschwitz came from Himmler's order to Gluecks at the end of January 1942, calling for 150,000 German Jews to be sent to the concentration camps for important economic tasks. That is, the impetus was forced labour, not extermination.

As Van Pelt demonstrates in his book "Auschwitz 1270 to the Present" (Roberto, have you read it yet?), until that order was issued there was no thought of sending Jews to Auschwitz. The labour force for the industrial complexes to be built at Auschwitz was to be supplied by 100,000 Soviet POWs (later raised to 200,000). However, as Van Pelt shows, Soviet POWs became unavailable, due to Goering's order reserving them for munitions work. Therefore, Himmler turned to Jews as a source of the labour required.

At the time Himmler issued his order, German Jews were in process of being deported into the occupied Soviet Union, under an order issued by Hitler in mid-September 1941 (as a reprisal for the Soviet deportation of 400,000 Volga Germans). The deportation of the German Jews formed the first instalment of the deportation of all European Jews into the occupied Soviet Union, under the plan outlined by Heydrich at the Wannsee Conference; it had originally been planned for after the end of the war. but Hitler had ordered it brought forward. In fact, this plan was never fully implemented, due to the fact that the Soviet Union was not conquered.

Himmler's order therefore represented a diversion from the movement of Jews into the occupied Soviet Union. However, it was not German Jews who were first sent to Auschwitz. The reason probably is that the Jews remaining in Germany and Austria after the massive pre-war emigration were disproportionately in the higher age-groups, almost half over 60, and therefore unsuitable for labour utilisation.

Accordingly, Himmler turned to Slovakia and Western Europe as sources for the labour required at Auschwitz. That becomes clear from the record of Eichmann's discussions with his staff in June 1942.

It is also clear that the context was one of securing employable Jews for shipping to Auschwitz and perhaps other places of employment, as the age-group prescribed (between 16 and 40) demonstrates conclusively. Obviously at the time of those discussions, neither Himmler nor Eichmann had any thought of sending Jews under 16 or over 40 to Auschwitz.

It is my contention that the only reason Jewish children were sent to Auschwitz from France is because the French Government insisted that the children of adult deportees be sent with their parents, since it did not want to be left with the burden of caring for them.

It is my contention that the only reason why the German Government agreed to take the Jewish children is because the French Government would not otherwise allow the Jewish labourers that the Germans wanted to be taken out of France.

To my mind, the fact that, when the French Government required the German authorities to take the Jewish children in addition to the adults, Eichmann needed to check back with his superiors, indicates that the Germans did not have an intention to deport the children. Since the deportation of the children would require additional trains, and therefore be an additional burden of German transportation resources, a decision at a high level was required.

I asked the person going under the pseudonym "aemathisphd" to demonstrate a German intention to deport Jewish children from France, existing prior to the French Government demand that they be taken. That person failed to do so, resorting instead to rather vague waffle about an "oral order", thereby casting doubt on whether the last three letters of his/her pseudonym are merited.

It also seems plausible, within this scenario, that while some transports from France, Belgium and the Netherlands consisted mostly of able-bodied Jews meant for forced labor, other transports carried mainly women, children and elder men, i.e. people unfit for hard physical labor and thus earmarked for immediate killing.

Agreed. But the essential issue is, WHY were those additional transports carrying Jews unfit for labour sent from France to Auschwitz, with all the additional expense that that entailed? My contention is that it was because of the insistence of the French Government that those persons be taken as well as the able-bodied, and the fact that the Germans could not have taken the Jews they wanted if they had not agreed also to take those they did not want.

It's a bit like a monopoly supplier of apples insisting that the buyer, say the operator of an apple juice plant, take all the apples he has on offer, not just the high-quality ones the buyer wants. Of course, when the apples arrive at the juice plant, all the unusable ones have to be thrown away.

Or were transports consisting mostly of able-bodied Jews carried out in parallel with transports consisting mainly of Jews to be killed upon arrival.

Yes, that is essentially correct. But it would be more accurate to say that, in addition to transports carrying the able-bodied Jews between the ages of 16 and 40, there were tranports carrying Jews who did not meet the age and fitness criteria. Perhaps, the two groups were mixed in the same transport.

But the decision whether or not to kill those who did not meet the age and fitness criteria was made by the camp-staff at Auschwitz, more particularly the camp doctors. It is not as if Eichmann's men at the points of departure made a selection into transports of fit Jews and transports of unfit Jews designated for death; they had a schedule of departing transports, and simply filled them up with whatever Jews had been handed over to them by the French Police.

However, in the late summer of 1942 there were some transports consisting largely of children. These were the children of the fit adults who had already been deported, and who the French Government insisted should also be taken.

[michael mills]

Charles Bunch wrote:

Mr. Mills should know that very shortly after this meeting Himmler changed the criteria and scope of the French deportations. Eichmann discusses this in his trial testimony.

Eichmann has Himmler issuing an order for the deportation of all Jews from France.

However, Himmler could not have ordered such a thing. Under the terms of the armistice between Germany and France, the German occupation authorities could only take out of France persons who had been handed over to them by the French Government. Accordingly, in order to obtain 100,000 Jews fit for labour, the Germans had to request the French Government to seize those persons and hand them over.

The French Government made things difficult for the Germans in two ways.

First it said that it would only hand over Jews who were resident aliens; it would not hand over Jews with French citizenship. That left a pool of approximately 170,000 Jews, from which it would be difficult to find 100,000 fit Jews between the ages of 16 and 40. That is probably why the quota of working Jews from France was subsequently reduced to 40,000, and that from the Netherlands raised to the same number.

The Germans were later able to induce the French Government to annul the citizenship of Jews who had been naturalised after the end of the First World War, thus rendering them stateless and available for deportation. That widened the pool of Jews from which the fit could be selected, and accounts for the proportion of deportees who had at one time been French citizens.

Secondly, the French Government insisted that the children of adult deportees selected for labour also be deported. That meant that additional transports would have to be sent, and they would be cluttered up with Jews that the Germans did not want for their forced-labour program.

When Himmler's order is analysed in the context in which it was given, it must be interpreted as an authorisation to take whatever Jews the French Government was prepared to make available, regardless of the age criteria, leaving the selection of the employables to be made at the destination.

This change of plan is reflected in the deportations which began a few weeks later. The makeup of these transports was decidedly not restricted to the original parameters outlined in the June 11 meeting.

The only change in plan was the necessity to take unemployable Jews as well, at the insistence of the French Government.

The figures quoted by Charles Bunch show that 7,368 children under the age of 14 were deported, and that the majority of them were deported in the months of July, August and September 1942. These were the children of the Jews between 16 and 40 whose transportation had already commenced; they were deported because the French Government insisted on it.

61,751 of the deportees were accordingly above the age of 14. Some of them may have been older than the upper limit of 40, but these figures indicate that the German authorities, with much effort, had been able to achieve their quota of 40,000 fit Jews, with 50% extra to make up for wastage.