Heydrich at the Hotel Majestic May 6 1942

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8798
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Heydrich at the Hotel Majestic May 6 1942

Post by michael mills » 20 Apr 2015 03:09

We remain quite far apart on this.
Fine with me.

You have your view, I have mine.

I note that none of the historians of the Judeocide who have widely different interpretations of its causes has changed his position in the light of new evidence, so there is no reason why we should change ours.

Please continue preaching your version. I will continue to preach mine.

User avatar
4thskorpion
Member
Posts: 733
Joined: 10 Nov 2009 15:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Heydrich at the Hotel Majestic May 6 1942

Post by 4thskorpion » 20 Apr 2015 07:35

Judeocide?


"...The historian Arno Mayer has argued that one should refer to the Nazi Genocide of the Jews as the Judeocide -- not as the Holocaust, which has the connotation of a sacrifice and therefore brings the event into a religious orbit -- and that the Judeocide must be interpreted not as a unique event, but in the context of the mass killings of the twentieth century, and as a result of the failure of Hitler's war against Russia."

http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/holocaust/genocide.html

So a word used to denigrate the Holocaust by those that deny the uniqueness of the event.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8798
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Heydrich at the Hotel Majestic May 6 1942

Post by michael mills » 20 Apr 2015 10:51

Arno Mayer has coined a word that describes the event precisely - killing Jews. It is therefore a perfectly good and useful appellation that cannot be confused with the killing of any other group of people.

No need to get paranoid about it.

Statistical Mechanic
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 18 Feb 2015 15:03
Location: Chicago, USA

Re: Heydrich at the Hotel Majestic May 6 1942

Post by Statistical Mechanic » 21 Apr 2015 13:28

michael mills wrote:
We remain quite far apart on this.
Fine with me.

You have your view, I have mine.

I note that none of the historians of the Judeocide who have widely different interpretations of its causes has changed his position in the light of new evidence, so there is no reason why we should change ours.

Please continue preaching your version. I will continue to preach mine.
I am not preaching, I am explaining the problems I see with your view - including by supporting my case with relevant evidence and citations. I see you've neither acknowledged your misdating the first selection of French Jews at Birkeanu, nor provided a precise reference to a supposed Dannecker March order of 100,000 Jews to be deported from France. Such matters may explain why you have your view - a view that doesn't accord with evidence, new or old.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8798
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Heydrich at the Hotel Majestic May 6 1942

Post by michael mills » 21 Apr 2015 15:39

I knew you were looking for a fight. I will not oblige.

Suffice it to say that the available evidence leads to the conclusion that the commencement of the deportation to Auschwitz of Jews from France was a result of Himmler's order of January 1942 to send 150,000 Jews to the concentration camps for important economic tasks.

The quotas set for the deportations from France, the Netherlands and Belgium, together with the 10,420 young Jewish workers sent from Slovakia between 26 March and 20 June 1942, add up to close to the figure set by Himmler in his January order. The criteria set by Dannecker, that the deportees be fit for work and aged between 16 and 40 supports the view that the deportations from Western Europe being planned in the Spring of 1942 were for the purpose of forced labour, pursuant to Himmler's order.

So far as I know, Himmler's order of January 1942 was the only one directing that Jews be sent to concentration camps such as Auschwitz rather than deported into conquered Soviet territory, which was the plan revealed by Heydrich at the Wannsee Conference, held only a few days before Himmler's order. To my mind, that indicates that the despatch of Jews to Auschwitz was a separate development to the plan from the deportation of Jews into Soviet territory, to Minsk and Riga.

It is likely that at some point before July of 1942, a decision was made to begin killing a proportion of the deported Jews, a proportion that increased over time. For example, the killing of German Jews being held in the Minsk Ghetto began at the end of July, and the first selection of a transport arriving at Auschwitz occurred on 4 July.

But we do not know exactly when that decision was made, who made it, or why it was made.

Heydrich seems to have had no connection with the sending of Jews to Auschwitz. As I wrote, his own plan, developed from early 1941 onward, was to deport all the Jews of German-controlled Europe into conquered Soviet territory; even after Himmler had issued his order to send 150,000 Jews to concentration camps, Heydrich was still thinking in terms of deporting Jews to the White Sea area in conquered Soviet territory. For example, at a conference in Prague he suggested to his audience of senior German officials that young Czechs assessed as unsuitable for germanisation could be sent to guard the deported Jews being held in the White Sea region.

Of course, Heydrich's plan never really got off the ground, primarily due to the failure to defeat the Soviet Union and capture the White Sea area. That may have been why it was decided to begin sending Jews unfit for labour to Auschwitz, where they would inevitably be killed.

Hoess, in his pre-trial interrogation by Polish judge Sehn, claimed that he was given an order to destroy the Jews unfit for labour during Himmler's visit to Auschwitz in July 1942. He claimed that he had protested to Himmler about the camp becoming overcrowded due the large number of Jews arriving, and asked that Eichmann's deportation program be halted. According to Hoess, Himmler refused, saying that the deportation program would continue and intensify; he then ordered Hoess to destroy the Gypsies and the Jews unfit for labour, which would give him a "breathing space".

The only problem with that claim by Hoess is that at the time of Himmler's visit, in July 1942, there were no Gypsies in Auschwitz; they did not arrive until early 1943, and they were not sent to the gas-chambers until the middle of 1944.

The conclusion must be that Hoess conflated an order given much later, probably in the spring of 1944, with one given in 1942. However, Hoess's explanation for the beginning of the selection of the arriving Jews for killing, namely to relieve overcrowding, is probably correct.

There is also the fact that the development at Auschwitz of the killing methodology using Zyklon-B was unrelated to any anti-Jewish extermination action, but for the killing of Soviet POWs selected as "dangerous Communists" and sent to Auschwitz for "Sonderbehandlung". Once established as an efficient killing methodology, gassing with Zyklon-B was then used for the "euthanasia" of sick prisoners under the 14f13 program, and as Jews began to flood into the camp, they became the main victims.

Thus, the mass-killings with gas at Auschwitz had a different origin, and were part of a different program, from the mass-killings of Soviet Jews by shooting, and the mass-killings of Warthegau Jews at Chelmno, and of the Jews of the Generalgouvernement at the Globocnik camps.

Statistical Mechanic
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 18 Feb 2015 15:03
Location: Chicago, USA

Re: Heydrich at the Hotel Majestic May 6 1942

Post by Statistical Mechanic » 21 Apr 2015 17:47

Skipping the introductory remarks . . .
michael mills wrote:Suffice it to say that the available evidence leads to the conclusion that the commencement of the deportation to Auschwitz of Jews from France was a result of Himmler's order of January 1942 to send 150,000 Jews to the concentration camps for important economic tasks.
Except for the evidence which I've cited and which you've ignored, which I will go through again, below.
michael mills wrote:The quotas set for the deportations from France, the Netherlands and Belgium, together with the 10,420 young Jewish workers sent from Slovakia between 26 March and 20 June 1942, add up to close to the figure set by Himmler in his January order.
Except, as we've been through, the January order was for German Jews - and by the time of Dannecker's relevant order was out of date, not to mention that the numbers of Jews in the summer deportations from France, finally arrived at in June-July, do not tally with your claims about the January quotas. I asked you whether you believe the Himmler quota was 130,000, as you wrote, making the final number closer to the labor quota, or 150,000 as the document says. You didn't reply.
michael mills wrote:The criteria set by Dannecker, that the deportees be fit for work and aged between 16 and 40 supports the view that the deportations from Western Europe being planned in the Spring of 1942 were for the purpose of forced labour, pursuant to Himmler's order.
When was Dannecker's order made? Do you still insist, without producing a reference to it, that it was made in March 1942? If so, will you produce a specific reference to it so that I can take a look at the order you've made a pillar of what you argued here?

I've brought in documents from the June-July planning that do not refer to labor; that state the intention to deport all Jews from France - not simply 100,000, or 40,000, for labor; that set a start date for the program of 13 July 1942; that tie the summer deportation to the Final Solution; that speak of rendering French Jews stateless to facilitate deportation; that describe the summer deportations as a beginning and a second, comprehensive phase to follow; and that speak of the goal of the deportations at that time to be the freeing of France from Jews. I've referenced a document (RF-1223) in keeping with this scenario that describes the deportations of Jews from France as being pursuant to a Himmler order of June 1942 to free France of all the Jews residing in the country as soon as practicable. In this, I've referenced one document that mentions labor - and I've explained that labor was indeed part of the Final Solution (but not the entirety of it) and that a cover story about labor for the whole of it was one way the Germans tried bringing the French (and the Dutch) along and implementing the deportations.

You've simply ignored all evidence that doesn't reduce to your idée fixe.
michael mills wrote:So far as I know, Himmler's order of January 1942 was the only one directing that Jews be sent to concentration camps such as Auschwitz rather than deported into conquered Soviet territory, which was the plan revealed by Heydrich at the Wannsee Conference, held only a few days before Himmler's order. To my mind, that indicates that the despatch of Jews to Auschwitz was a separate development to the plan from the deportation of Jews into Soviet territory, to Minsk and Riga.
Where do you imagine Himmler's June order, specifically mentioned in RF-1217, intended Jews being deported from France to go? Are you seriously proposing that the plans made at that time were to send French Jews - all of them, a point you keep ignoring - to conquered Soviet territory? Did Dannecker and Röthke simply get confused about where to send the French Jews in summer 1942 - and drop them at Auschwitz instead of resettlement camps further east? Leaving aside your reading of the Wannsee minutes, it has to be stated that the detailed planning by the Germans and Vichy during June and July, "pursuant" to Himmler's June order, as you full well know, took Jews from France to Auschwitz, by design, which was indeed the point of that planning, and not to occupied Soviet territory. And that with the second transport in the program, on 21 July, the arriving Jews were being selected for labor or gassing. (Given the denouement at Minsk, and given Rumbula, and so on, destinations in occupied Soviet territory are also worth discussion. But, as to the issue at hand, the French Jews were deported principally to Auschwitz.)
michael mills wrote:It is likely that at some point before July of 1942, a decision was made to begin killing a proportion of the deported Jews, a proportion that increased over time. For example, the killing of German Jews being held in the Minsk Ghetto began at the end of July, and the first selection of a transport arriving at Auschwitz occurred on 4 July.

But we do not know exactly when that decision was made, who made it, or why it was made.
Which is not the issue at stake: what is at stake is what kinds of thoughts and plans were being mooted, and actions undertaken, in the escalatory conditions of spring 1942 - thoughts, plans, and actions, for example, that might have led to Heydrich's mentioning gas vans and a bigger, technically improved, and numerically more productive solution to the Jewish question at the Majestic in May.

Gerwarth summarizes that gas vans were said to be mentioned by Heydrich - and, without being too literal, German Jews were brought into the gas-van killing program at Chelmno starting early May 1942.
michael mills wrote:Heydrich seems to have had no connection with the sending of Jews to Auschwitz. As I wrote, his own plan, developed from early 1941 onward, was to deport all the Jews of German-controlled Europe into conquered Soviet territory; even after Himmler had issued his order to send 150,000 Jews to concentration camps, Heydrich was still thinking in terms of deporting Jews to the White Sea area in conquered Soviet territory. For example, at a conference in Prague he suggested to his audience of senior German officials that young Czechs assessed as unsuitable for germanisation could be sent to guard the deported Jews being held in the White Sea region.
Many ideas were discussed and shared among the Nazis planning a solution to the Jewish question - and some were acted upon. Unfortunately for your notion, a chimerical White Sea settlement was not among those seriously pursued or carried out. Since nothing came of a White Sea, or other eastern settlement, and since the Nazis abandoned a number of plans for the Jews, your introducing this point is baffling: the issue is what plans were being thought through and taking shape in spring 1942, not what ideas didn't work out, and to what actual plans and actions the references in Heydrich's reported statements at the Majestic might be.
michael mills wrote:Of course, Heydrich's plan never really got off the ground, primarily due to the failure to defeat the Soviet Union and capture the White Sea area. That may have been why it was decided to begin sending Jews unfit for labour to Auschwitz, where they would inevitably be killed.
Of course. Many of the ideas didn't get off the ground. You need to review the documents pertaining to France to get your chronology straight - the evolution of the gassing program at Auschwitz is but one factor in this. The decision to deport 100,000 Jews from France in a first phase - later reduced to 40,000 - was taken in June, not March; the decision was a compromise with Vichy authorities involving in part police forces - not an end plan; the full plan, as stated at the time in documents I've cited, was to follow up the first phase with a second phase involving all French Jews, without any reference to their labor capability or their role in Himmler's by then outdated January order regarding . . . German Jews.
michael mills wrote:Hoess, in his pre-trial interrogation by Polish judge Sehn, claimed that he was given an order to destroy the Jews unfit for labour during Himmler's visit to Auschwitz in July 1942. He claimed that he had protested to Himmler about the camp becoming overcrowded due the large number of Jews arriving, and asked that Eichmann's deportation program be halted. According to Hoess, Himmler refused, saying that the deportation program would continue and intensify; he then ordered Hoess to destroy the Gypsies and the Jews unfit for labour, which would give him a "breathing space".

The only problem with that claim by Hoess is that at the time of Himmler's visit, in July 1942, there were no Gypsies in Auschwitz; they did not arrive until early 1943, and they were not sent to the gas-chambers until the middle of 1944.

The conclusion must be that Hoess conflated an order given much later, probably in the spring of 1944, with one given in 1942. However, Hoess's explanation for the beginning of the selection of the arriving Jews for killing, namely to relieve overcrowding, is probably correct.
Selections of French Jews for the Auschwitz gas chambers began with the second transport in the July program - in late July 1942. Höss could as easily have been mixing up the Roma factor as the timing of the extermination program - and in the light of other documentation it would appear so.
michael mills wrote:There is also the fact that the development at Auschwitz of the killing methodology using Zyklon-B was unrelated to any anti-Jewish extermination action, but for the killing of Soviet POWs selected as "dangerous Communists" and sent to Auschwitz for "Sonderbehandlung". Once established as an efficient killing methodology, gassing with Zyklon-B was then used for the "euthanasia" of sick prisoners under the 14f13 program, and as Jews began to flood into the camp, they became the main victims.
You are clutching at straws indeed. The origins of the use of Zyklon B to kill people, which is well known, does not tell us about the use of the agent by spring 1942; you yourself quoted from Van Pelt about the gassing of Upper Silesian Jews at the camp, with the selection taking place at point of departure rather than in Birkenau ("With the destruction of these Jews, mass murder became a fixture of life in Auschwitz, but it was not yet the camp's primary purpose"). It was in May 1942 that arriving Upper Silesian Jews were gassed on arrival at Birkenau - no? - contributing more "local" experience to killing methodologies in the east.
michael mills wrote:Thus, the mass-killings with gas at Auschwitz had a different origin, and were part of a different program, from the mass-killings of Soviet Jews by shooting, and the mass-killings of Warthegau Jews at Chelmno, and of the Jews of the Generalgouvernement at the Globocnik camps.
By May 1942 - and here is where the two recollections of Heydrich's comment make a great deal of sense - killing programs that originated locally were by then being thought of comprehensively and pulled together. In the process of being.

First, your view here relies on a mis-dating of the operative German order to deport 100,000 French Jews - pushing it back in time to get it closer to Himmler's January order, which was about something different, and to elongate the time in which French Jews were being deported as part of the Final Solution before Birkenau selections of French Jews. Second, your view also relies on your mis-dating of the first selection at Birkenau of French Jews, making it August instead of late July (it involved the 2nd transport under the program ordered in June - not later transports as you tried having it); you can't get the daylight you want between the program's inception (mid-July) and the gassing program. You are simply wrong on both these pillars of your initial argument. You've held to your views, as you promised you would, despite being unable to give any response to your errors. Third, your view requires that you simply ignore documents inconvenient to it - I've mentioned RF-1217 and RF-1234 and summarized the contents in these document that undermine your argument.

You've still not, despite several requests, given a specific reference to the March Dannecker order so important to your case.

Statistical Mechanic
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 18 Feb 2015 15:03
Location: Chicago, USA

Re: Heydrich at the Hotel Majestic May 6 1942

Post by Statistical Mechanic » 21 Apr 2015 23:35

michael mills wrote:Heydrich seems to have had no connection with the sending of Jews to Auschwitz. As I wrote, his own plan, . . .
In his new book, KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps, Nikolaus Wachsmann quotes Himmler's Dienstkalendar regarding a 25 January 1942 call which Himmler had with Heydrich, who was in Prague, following his lunch with the Führer during which meal the RFSS had raised the topic of what would be his telex to Glücks. The entry for Himmler's call with Heydrich reads, "Jews into the KL." pp 295-296. It is true that Auschwitz wasn't mentioned in the notation - neither was it in the telex to Glücks, which mentioned "concentrations camps," but the Auschwitz labor program that foundered during February and March 1942 was a main thrust of this late January plan.

Statistical Mechanic
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 18 Feb 2015 15:03
Location: Chicago, USA

Re: Heydrich at the Hotel Majestic May 6 1942

Post by Statistical Mechanic » 23 Apr 2015 19:00

There is another difficulty with your dismissal of the possibility of Heydrich speaking about the Final Solution in Paris in early May 1942. This difficulty relates to your depiction of Heydrich as a) out of the loop and b) focused on a never-never land for Jewish settlement in Russia.

You wrote that
According to Eichmann's post-war evidence, Heydrich did not have direct knowledge of those activities, and sent him (Eichmann) to Lublin to find out what was going on.
Eichmann said many things in various forums after the war; as with your claim about Dannecker's March order, I’ve been unable to find this particular thing.

We do know, however, whatever you have in mind with this sentence, that Eichmann also said these things about Heydrich:

At trial in Jerusalem, on the Wannsee conference and the GG:
Attorney General: One of the aims of the Wannsee Conference was to place the Final Solution of the Jewish Question here in the Generalgouvernement in the hands of Heydrich. Is that correct?
Accused: Yes, that is correct.
Q. And the representative of the Generalgouvernement stated at Wannsee that he agreed that Heydrich and his Bureau should implement the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in the area of the Generalgouvernement as well. Is that correct?
A. I believe it reads that the Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service in the Generalgouvernement was to implement the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in the Generalgouvernement. I do not remember the exact form of words.
Q. In any case, Goering's general order, which Heydrich announced at the Wannsee Conference, that he had put Heydrich in charge of implementation of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question, applied to the Generalgouvernement as well. Is that correct?
A. I definitely believe that to be the case, although the Wannsee Conference, I believe, primarily means freeing Europe of the Jews, I believe. I do not remember this now. But Buehler, State Secretary Buehler, used a form of wording which says the same thing, that the start was to be made in - or with - the Generalgouvernement. I do not remember. And Luther had dealt with the European countries.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eic ... 99-04.html

To Less, during his interrogation by the police investigator, again on the Wannsee Conference: According to Eichmann, “At this conference Heydrich made known his authorization. I’m wondering: If the killing had already started - and it had started - this probably meant a tighter organization of the program.” (p 89, Eichmann Interrogated) And then this: “I still remember that, after the Wannsee Conference, Heydrich authorized Brigadeführer Globocnik, who had that killing installation in Lublin, to kill Jews, and even made the authorization retroactive. . . . At that time Heydrich ordered me to draft the following letter: ‘I authorize you to subject another 150,000 Jews to the final solution.’ Those Jews were already dead. Actually, I think there were 250,000.” (The impossible timing implied here was unsuccessfully "cleaned up" at trial, FWIW.)

On the same issues, to Sassen, as reported in the Life magazine exposé:
Not long afterward Heydrich had me carry an order to Major General Odilo Globocnik, SS commander of the Lublin district. I cannot remember whether Heydrich gave me the actual message or whether I had to draw it up. It ordered Globocnik to start liquidating a quarter million Polish Jews.
Eichmann also told Sassen, in his confused and confusing manner, about his trips east: Responding to Less’s questions about the evolution of the Final Solution, Eichmann replied that some months after the invasion of the Soviet Union, “Heydrich sent for me. I reported. He said to me: ‘The Führer, well, emigration is . . .’ He began with a little speech. And then: ‘The Führer has ordered physical extermination.’ These were his words. . . . And then he said to me: ‘Eichmann, go and see Globocnik in Lublin.’” Eichmann added that what Heydrich wanted was for him to “Take a look and see how he’s getting on with his program. I believe he’s using Russian anti-tank trenches for exterminating Jews.’ As ordered, I went to Lublin. . . .” and met with Globocnik. (p 75, whatever one makes of this, it is not that Heydrich asked Eichmann to head off “to Lublin to find out what was going on” so that Heydrich would know)

After touring with Höfle - to what I take to be Bełzec under construction - Eichmann reported back to Berlin, in particular to Müller, his immediate superior. (p 76) Eichmann then visited Chelmno, on Müller’s instructions. Again, Eichmann told Less that he’d reported back to Müller, verbally only. Eichmann related that he’d been sent also to Auschwitz, then to Treblinka, and then Minsk and Lwow. (On the stand in Jerusalem, and in the Stassen materials, Eichmann would also recall visiting Majdanek.) (p 79)

Eichmann also described his role in all this and in the Final Solution as “under orders . . . from Heydrich” from the outset. (p 121)

In fact, what Eichmann told Sassen and the Israelis after the war was that he himself was one of Heydrich's connections to Lublin and the GG - the very opposite of your assertion.

Now, taking Eichmann at face value is a bit of a fool’s errand. But you told us that Eichmann said post-war that Heydrich sent him to Lublin "to find out what was going on" there, yet here we have Eichmann going to Lublin for very different reasons – supposedly, in his post-war words, to see how Globocnik was “getting on with his program.”

Leaving Eichmann’s tendentious “readings” aside, for a moment, there are other reasons not to credit your description of Heydrich’s role in the Final Solution during these months:

Siblerklang, whose study is the implementation of the Final Solution in Lublin district, makes the general comment that "Despite the absence of full authority over his subordinates in the GG, Heydrich was well informed of their activities" (Gates of Tears, p 50).

Already we’ve seen that, contrary to your claim, Heydrich was almost certainly briefed on “Jews into the KL” – with Auschwitz at the center – at the moment the plan was conceived.

Also, according to Heydrich’s biographer, Gerwarth (whose inclusion of Bargatsky's recollections led off this thread), on 30 January 1942, just 5 days after Himmler had telephoned Heydrich on the topic of “Jews into the KL,” and Himmler had ordered 150,000 Reich Jews into the KLs for labor, Heydrich met with Himmler. The following day Eichmann was to notify all Gestapo stations by express letter that “’the recent evacuations of Jews from individual areas to the East’ marked ‘the beginning of the final solution to the Jewish question’ in the Reich and the Protectorate.”

Heydrich conferred with Himmler 11-13 March on progress in the final solution; the Lublin Jewish action commenced three days later, with mass shootings in the ghetto and the remaining Jews (30,000) gassed at Bełzec. The Reich Jews were sent into ghettos near Lublin – Izbica, Pisaka, Zamosc and Trawniki – where mortality was extremely high immediately and from where, as I explained to you in an earlier post, the Reich Jews were later cycled to Einsatz Reinhard death camps; in May surviving Reich Jews in Lodz were shipped to Chelmno and gassed (4-15 May).

Heydrich and Himmler are documented to have met seven times between 23 April and 3 May. (Gerwarth bio of Heydrich, pp 260-262)

In addition, in the context of the Wannsee meeting, Gerwarth has Heydrich endorsing Bühler’s proposal at the conference to begin the FS with the solution to Jewish question in GG (p 214), as Eichmann himself said (above).

None of this is in keeping with your argument about Himmler's January labor plan - and much of it suggests Heydrich’s familiarity with goings on in Lublin and the GG.

Nor was Heydrich during that fateful spring mostly dreaming of the far-off vistas of the wild east, the White Sea, and new frontiers; in fact, relevant to the point of the thread, Heydrich was in on the March planning for deportations from France to the Auschwitz camp - the kind of role you explain as follows:
Heydrich seems to have had no connection with the sending of Jews to Auschwitz.
Gerwarth (pp 262, 274) describes how Dannecker at this time recorded Heydrich’s determination to have ‘further Jews deported in the course of 1942,” referencing the additional 5,000 Jews (who would be deported in June, well, 4,000 of them anyway). Gerwarth continues: During March, at Birkenau the little red house was converted to a gas chamber where unfit Jews were gassed; by May, Sobibór was operational, Bełzec was being expanded, construction on Treblinka began, and the second wave of Einsatzgruppen mass killings began. (p 262) In March Dannecker was to write Knochen that the French deportations would be, in Gerwarth’s words, “far more extensive . . . the following year.” (citing Klarsfeld, Endlösung, doc 28 – Dannecker’s note on this summarized an RSHA meeting of 3 March: “Subject: 5000 deportation of Jews from France” – noting the need for the French to do better with Jewish program; looking to deportation of 5,000 Jews to the East (able bodied); arguing that French Jews must lose French nationality before or after deportation; and looking forward to the liquidation of Jewish assets to be part of the program similar to what is to be done in Slovakia including Jewish assets paying for transport; “details shall be determined in the coming months.”

Just because Heydrich didn't have direct authority within the GG over death camps (on account of the HSSPF structure, Himmler's direct line to Globus, etc) and just because his organization was to focus on deportations and transport, it doesn’t follow that Heydrich was out of the loop and kept in the dark. Heydrich didn't have to run affairs in the GG to be connected - through both his senior role and his specific role in deportations (for which Eichmann had operational responsibility within the RSHA) - to what was going on in the GG.

Further, with direct relevance to Heydrich’s May presence in Paris, Heydrich met with Oberg and Bousquet on 6 May on the Germans’ desire for further deportations of Jews and the parameters for them, deferring a decision on inclusion of foreign Jews then held in internment camps in the unoccupied zone, as requested by the French.

A final point on this is that, according to Widmann, post-war, Nebe and Heess discussed gas vans as a killing method with Heydrich already 1941. Further, in the search of better killing methods – the sort of thing Heydrich was said to have touted at the Hotel Majestic – following the Minsk-Mogilev gassing experiments, according to Browning (Origins, p 355) “Heydrich immediately turned to the head of his office for technical affairs within the RSHA (Amt II D), Walter Rauff,” in charge of motor vehicles for the Security Police. In September 1941, Rauff enlisted the chief of the motor pool, Friedrich Pradel, to explore whether, as Rauff put it, exhaust gas in a closed truck might prove a “more humane method of killing” (quoted in Browning, p 355). And Bargatzky noted, of course that Heydrich had referred at the Hotel Majestic to both technical improvements in killing and to gas vans.

What Heydrich came to Paris involved with and in planning discussions for was, in fact, the very sort of matters which Bargatzky and Boetticher later reported his remarking on in early May 1942.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”